Comments on: Archbishop Tutu v. Tony Blair

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:55:00 +0000

If I had to choose which was more effective at getting things done, sanctimonious diatribes or reasoned debate, I would certainly opt for the latter.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:43:00 +0000

Blair seems to be doing all right to me. Better than Jeffrey and Shireen, anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/9366716/I-wish-I-had-been-offered-presidency-of-EU-Tony-Blair-admits.html
I’m quite willing to believe he mumbled and stumbled at the “Leadership Summit” (don’t you just love it), and did not come off as impressive to his opponents. What good luck this was highlighted by the media so everyone knows about it and was talking about it.

Maybe I’m wrong, and a few fringe academics will nail this guy and hold him accountable. When it happens I’ll be delighted to be back on Jeffrey’s page, highlighting the fact that I got it all wrong.

Academic leftists! One on one, or all together, Blair has had you for lunch. You’re gnat’s on the ass of a rhinoceros. Thanks for keeping the “debate” going, anyway.

BTW, when can we all look forward to the arrest of George W. Bush? You need to debate harder guys.

Oh, and if you are wondering —- What would YOU have us do, I would have you trying to establish a political party/organization that would hold powerful people accountable. (OK, I realize it’s pretty hopeless in the USA, but, at least, it’s better than another “debate”) But, if that were the agenda, Obama would be one of the last candidates on earth to support, right.? And nobody seriously would endorse Dems. They’re transparently part of the problem. Also, if you were (even slightly) successful you’d be a threat, so you would be targeted. You might even lose your jobs.

Probably better to stick to the “debate.”

By: Jeffrey Goldfarb

Jeffrey Goldfarb — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:48:00 +0000

And if Tutu were there as Blair “mumbled and stumbled” appearing as “a puny bully” many beyond academic circles and the already convinced would see. This is particularly important close to my home where a clear line of then and now, with a commitment of never again is an unfulfilled necessity.

By: Shireen Hassim

Shireen Hassim — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:31:00 +0000

Marcus, at Blair’s own speech at the Leadership Summit he was asked from the floor about the facts he used to make his decision. He mumbled and stumbled and could not provide an answer. I don’t think he came out looking stronger; if anything, he sounded like a puny bully who has been deprived of his power. I think Blair damned himself. There are many more issues at stake here, by the way, rather than just damning Blair, so to push for more debate is not just an academic exercise. One example close to (my) home: should Mugabe be declared a war criminal?

By: Marcus

Marcus — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 17:50:00 +0000

The only meaningful “debate” you’re ever going to see is the one that would occur if Blair were subjected to the same kind of prosecution that was afforded the defendants at the Nuremberg trials and compelled to defend himself. But that’s never going to happen, for reasons Tutu explains. Any other kind of “debate” gives Blair the opportunity, should he take it, to point out that everything he and Bush did was justified. OK, the majority of people would not side with his position, but, at the end of the day, Blair would just do his usual trick and say that disagreement is healthy and good. Congratulations! You’ve just established that there are different points of view, that your ideal speech society defines how things get done, you’ve allowed Blair once again to establish that those who condemn him merely see things differently (and were not, in any case, privy to all the facts), you’ve helped strengthen the little shit’s position, and you’ve changed nothing.

Only an academic completely divorced from reality would suggest that a “debate” with Blair would achieve anything material. (I’ll concede the point that it would possibly make even more people despise Blair.) Blair and Bush will NEVER be held accountable because that’s power works. That’s what power is. Amazing that you just can’t see it but, perhaps, not surprising, given your social location.

By: Jeffrey Goldfarb

Jeffrey Goldfarb — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:19:00 +0000

Marcus, I don’t see how you have actually addressed the central argument of this post on the question of boycott versus debate. The issue it seems to me is a practical one: how to call to account those responsible for an atrocious policy and persuade those who might support it. I agree with with Hassim: debate is generally a more effective and more democratic way of proceeding.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:20:00 +0000

“I like the politics of outrage as much as the next leftist, but I prefer thoughtful debate, when all is said and done.”

Let’s hope the 100,000+ killed by the Anglo-American assault on Iraq share your admirable sentiments