:: Friday, 13 May 2005 ::
George Galloway and why it is that he needs such a pinch
And yet more justification for it.
Harry's Place is leading the complaints about Galloway and they strike me as pretty much on the money.
When challenged by Salam Pax recently - do not ask me for a link, harry's place will have it - George said something like 'It is not for you to demand that we remove Saddam. It is for us to decide whether or not to commit our troops to do that.'
He actually is quite right about that.
It is for us. Us meaning US UK and Oz and Italy and Poland and others, as allies, with a common world view that favours removing the shackles that prevent democracy - also known as tinpot despots and brutal military regimes - from occurring.
Whether to remove Saddam Hussein, whether to remove the Indonesian military from East Timor, whether to remove Milosevic etc etc.
None of those decisions was bad in my view and the view of plenty of other folks.
That is where George and Pat Buchanan and every isolationist Green or other wanker who uses the 'but ooh, there are so ,many despots' argument as if that is a reason not to remove one despot, well, we part company. Chrenk addresses this in a top post.
I have no respect for isolationism.
Isolationism is inherently anti-wog.
At its best it is patronising to wogs and likes them for their funny accents and cool restaurants but not for their fast driving and obsession with paving everything.
At its worst it just plain hates wogs and does not want them around.
Either way, youse isolationists can gi fa.
:: WB 9:56 pm [link+] ::