And if you want to see some more about 18DS’s links to the hard right American Conservatives, have a look at the website of the Young Britons Foundation (registered address: 18 Doughty Street, London WC2), http://www.ybf.org.uk and http://www.britainandamerica.com (registered address: 18 Doughty Street, London WC2).

Nothing personal, but I think that the video, and the other attacks against the US present a considerably less accurate picture of my country than an episode of South Park does. It’s mildly amusing to note that you have as many or more silly ideas about us as we have about you.

The thing is though, the video wasn’t an “attack against the US”. It was precisely the opposite. It was created as a pro-American statement by a British political group that is itself extremely pro-American. Did you watch it? If you did, and still thought it was an attack on America then I’m just plain confused. I honestly can’t even begin to imagine how it can be interpreted that way. It’s crass, ridiculous and badly-written but it’s still very clearly pro-America.

Not only that, but I happen to think, unlike that video, Southpark regularly makes very perceptive statements about America (and I say that having lived in your country for some time). I’m not suggesting that Americans are a bunch of crudely-animated pieces of cardboard (though one could easily get that impression if you were only looking at the Bush administration), merely that the programme is above-average satire. Extreme at times… but perceptive all the same.

As somebody who had to hold his nose and vote for Bush II twice because the other candidate was even more of a collectivist than he is, I can sympathise with your criticisms about the war.

Right there was when I realised that you and I are clearly so far apart on the political spectrum that any attempt to find a middle ground would leave us both uncomfortably far from home. You see, I actually am what you might call a collectivist. I tend to use the phrase “anarcho-syndicalist” or sometimes “anarcho-socialist” as I’m not just a collectivist (think ‘broad economic collectivism coupled with social liberalism’).

I do understand that mainstream U.S. politics in general exists a good deal further to The Right than the typical European model. All the same, I find it mind-boggling that rightwing corporatists like Al Gore and John Kerry can be thought as being “too collectivist” anywhere on the planet.

I’m going to give you a bit of a headache here. I’m former Army. I also protested against Gulf War I and strongly opposed Gulf War II. I do support the war in Afghanistan, and I’d have much rather we’d made it our business to have done a good job finishing it, instead of pursuing the Bush family’s personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein.

Not a headache at all… I actually know quite a few ex-military folk. And your position on the Gulf War(s) means we do agree on something after all. Which pleases me. Contrary to the impression I may give, I quite like consensus.

That said, your comment about our weapons sales is a little silly. People do have a right of self defense, and so do nations. And as we’ve seen in Rwanda, the absence of firearms doesn’t mean much when people want to kill each other. Those pangas, (machetes) were lethal enough all by themselves. And the UN, the focal point for most of the rather collectivist planet did a fat lot of nothing.

And it’s interesting to note that one of the big reasons that the US opposes and will continue to oppose the UN’s attempts to ban small arms isn’t merely because of our Constitution here — it’s also because, as Mr. Bolton stated, that people who are faced with oppression should have the right and the means to shoot back. The only people who would be disarmed if your aesethetic agenda were ever put into play would be the victims in the world. Criminals, the insane, and government thugs of all types would still be armed and still indulging in the carnage that they do. Given that reality, I’d rather that there continued to be a black market in the world where the weak and oppressed can acquire the means to if not overthrow, at least deter, those who think that it’s okay to abuse people who don’t share their office. I find that all of the politically correct in the world, aren’t okay with this. Too bad, when it comes down to a conflict with the powers of government and the rights of the individual, I’ll side with the individual.

Firstly, you’ll get no argument from me regarding how shameful the global response to Rwanda was. Blaming it on the United Nations is a bit rich though. I’m not the biggest fan of the UN. As an institution it has huge problems. But as Kofi Annan observed on the subject of the Rwandan genocide: “Neither the United Nations Secretariat, nor the Security Council, nor Member States in general, nor the international media, paid enough attention to the gathering signs of disaster. Still less did we take timely action.” And that’s simply a statement of fact.

If you believe, as human beings, that we have an obligation to prevent genocide where ever it is occurring (or at least make a genuine attempt at it) then we cannot point the finger at one nation or one institution in cases where the entire world failed to act. The United States, Russia, China, Britain, Israel… pretty much every heavily armed state on the planet is willing to ignore the United Nations when it comes to acting in self-interest. The idea that UN failure to take leadership over Rwanda somehow prevented America or Europe or anyone else getting involved is palpable nonsense.

It’s also nonsense to claim that because in Rwanda a certain amount of the violence was carried out using blades, the role played by firearms and other munitions around the world is somehow irrelevant (“the absence of firearms doesn’t mean much when people want to kill each other”). It’s also inaccurate to suggest that the Rwandan genocide was carried out by a bunch of Hutus with machetes. French arms shipments were still arriving in Kigali two weeks before the start of the genocide (Source). And not planeloads of big knives. Also the RDF (one of the main instigators of the bloodbath) was arming itself to the teeth across the border in DRC with weapons “derive[d] from former President Mobutu’s Cold War arsenal, mostly supplied by the United States.”

Which brings me on to your next — and probably most bizarre — assertion, that the global arms industry is somehow a noble cause in which “people who are faced with oppression [acquire] the right and the means to shoot back”. Or “where the weak and oppressed can acquire the means to if not overthrow, at least deter, those who think that it’s okay to abuse people who don’t share their office”.

If the arms trade was genuinely an underground industry dedicated to arming the oppressed against their oppressors then — while I’d still view it with extreme suspicion — I’d at least understand those who sought to defend it. But that’s a patently and demonstrably ridiculous idea.

From The World Policy Institute:
“In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts [...] more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report [...] When countries designated by the State Department’s Human Rights Report to have poor human rights records or serious patterns of abuse are factored in, 20 of the top 25 U.S. arms clients in the developing world in 2003 — a full 80% — were either undemocratic regimes or governments with records of major human rights abuses.”

Do tell me; how exactly does that square with Mr. Bolton’s high-minded ideas about helping the oppressed?

The arms industry exists for one reason alone… not to help the oppressed, but to make money for arms dealers and manufacturers. And they do this by selling to anyone with money. If you arm both the oppressed and the oppressors then you’re not striking a blow for freedom, you’re just inciting violence.

The US and European fighter jets used by the Indonesian government to massacre many thousands of East Timorese civilians… the US and European jets currently being used to wipe out villages in Darfur… the cluster bombs dropped on Lebanon… the landmines dotting the scarred landscape of East Africa. That’s the face of the arms industry. It’s not an underground blackmarket helping plucky freedom fighters; it’s a multi-billion dollar industry that holds massive trade exhibitions in major cities in order to attract the business of every dictator and tyrant with a handful of conflict diamonds or an oil well.

And here’s something for you to consider. Even though there’s a war on, every Iraqi family is legally permitted a Kalashnikov rifle for self defense. And while incidents of this don’t get a lot of press, cases of individual and group defense with these can and do happen, which I think is a good thing. And it’s worth the risk to the troops to continue with this. For people to have any real dignity and value, they have to be able to defend their own lives, and whatever you think about us, do remember that we’re willing to trust even potential enemies with the means of their own defense — something that your governments won’t permit you to have. I guess that means that in the general scheme of things, an Iraqi is worth more than an Englishman, because his life is worthy of being defended, and he’s considered worthy of possessing the means to defend it. You might want to give that some thought. Collectivism always in the end treats the individual as a fungible asset. Surely you must be worth more than that!

I’m not even going to touch this one. We don’t share a frame of reference on it. I would point out, though, that I’m an Irishman not an Englishman. The Irish constitution does not endow a right to own a gun. If you’re saying that makes our constitution somehow “less” than yours, or that it means my life is “worth less” than anyone elses, then I suggest you take your head out of your arse before you suffocate.

And finally…

… I think that your myth about the US being one of the biggest sellers of weapons is going to be demolished.

It’s not “my myth”, it’s merely quoting what your congress publishes…
“In 2005, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making agreements valued at nearly $12.8 billion (28.9% of all such agreements), down from $13.2 billion in 2004. France ranked second with $7.9 billion in agreements (16.8% of these agreements globally), up substantially from $2.2 billion in 2004. Russia ranked third, its arms transfer agreements worldwide standing at $7.4 billion in 2005, up significantly from $5.6 billion in 2004. The United States, France, and Russia collectively made agreements in 2005 valued at nearly $28.1 billion, 63.5% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers.”

Nothing personal, but I think that the video, and the other attacks against the US present a considerably less accurate picture of my country than an episode of South Park does. It’s mildly amusing to note that you have as many or more silly ideas about us as we have about you.

As somebody who had to hold his nose and vote for Bush II twice because the other candidate was even more of a collectivist than he is, I can sympathise with your criticisms about the war. I’m going to give you a bit of a headache here. I’m former Army. I also protested against Gulf War I and strongly opposed Gulf War II. I do support the war in Afghanistan, and I’d have much rather we’d made it our business to have done a good job finishing it, instead of pursuing the Bush family’s personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein.

That said, your comment about our weapons sales is a little silly. People do have a right of self defense, and so do nations. And as we’ve seen in Rewanda, the absence of firearms doesn’t mean much when people want to kill each other. Those pangas, (machetes) were lethal enough all by themselves. And the UN, the focal point for most of the rather collectivist planet did a fat lot of nothing.

And it’s interesting to note that one of the big reasons that the US opposes and will continue to oppose the UN’s attempts to ban small arms isn’t merely because of our Constitution here– it’s also because, as Mr. Bolton stated, that people who are faced with oppression should have the right and the means to shoot back. The only people who would be disarmed if your aesethetic agenda were ever put into play would be the victims in the world. Criminals, the insane, and government thugs of all types would still be armed and still indulging in the carnage that they do. Given that reality, I’d rather that there continued to be a black market in the world where the weak and oppressed can acquire the means to if not overthrow, at least deter, those who think that it’s okay to abuse people who don’t share their office. I find that all of the politically correct in the world, aren’t okay with this. Too bad, when it comes down to a conflict with the powers of government and the rights of the individual, I’ll side with the individual.

And here’s something for you to consider. Even though there’s a war on, every Iraqi family is legally permitted a Kalashnikov rifle for self defense. And while incidents of this don’t get a lot of press, cases of individual and group defense with these can and do happen, which I think is a good thing. And it’s worth the risk to the troops to continue with this. For people to have any real dignity and value, they have to be able to defend their own lives, and whatever you think about us, do remember that we’re willing to trust even potential enemies with the means of their own defense– something that your governments won’t permit you to have. I guess that means that in the general scheme of things, an Iraqi is worth more than an Englishman, because his life is worthy of being defended, and he’s considered worthy of possessing the means to defend it. You might want to give that some thought. Collectivism always in the end treats the individual as a fungible asset. Surely you must be worth more than that!

BTW, the AK is made here as well as almost everyplace else. You can buy it as a completed weapon or as a kit if you want to build one. And there are plenty of imports that are also, quite legitimately held by individuals here, as they have a right to do. And the reason for that is simple. It’s not just that we have a right to own these weapons, but also because they’re desirable because whether anybody likes it or not, Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the 20th Century equivalent of what the Winchester 1888 or 1894 was in the 19th Century. And that’s a good thing. I don’t know what will be the Rifle of Choice in the 21st Century, but my grandchildren will get to make that determination for themselves, although they show a fair interest in mine.

One last thing. About 30 countries manufacture copies of the Kalashnikov’s rifle, whether it’s an AK-47, AKM, AK-74, ect. If you’ll have your library order a book on interlibrary loan called Small Arms of the World, you’ll see a nation by nation breakdown. And when you do, I think that your myth about the US being one of the biggest sellers of weapons is going to be demolished. Unless Ezell or whomever is currently editing it has changed the format, each section includes a breakdown of manufactueing facilities in the country in question.

I think “L” makes the point I was trying to make: Cameron has moved to Tories to a position where they appear to be rather similar to where Labour currently is. However, the Tories still have attached to them some pretty right-wing people; hence L’s question about whether 18 Doughty Street really are a Tory affiliated group, and not a bunch of Washington neo-cons. This almost certainly shouldn’t surprise me, given where Cameron is coming from himself, and where he’s dragging his party from, but still, I thought it was worth commenting on.

Doormat, you say ‘have you seen what the competition is?’ and ‘which electable party doesn’t have those views?’. If the discussion were about which is the least awful party you’d have a point there. As Jim points out, not much of one, but a point nonetheless.

However, as the issue is why you like the guy, electability doesn’t come into it. There’s no rule that says you have to personally like someone who is electable. And even if there were, a guy who cites Thatcher as his all-time hero for ‘dealing with the trade unions’ really should be low on the list, even if one of the other people has got a name like Ming.

by the way, are you sure it was produced by a group linked with British conservatives? It sounds suspiciously like some of the completely idiotic propaganda spouted by the large numbers of ignorant conservatives where I live (Florida, which is extremely Republican)

Question 4: But I never claimed that the United States was a major arms supplier to the Hussein regime. I said that it helped “prop it up”. I suggest you read this article here if you doubt it. For instance…

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the United States. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

Question 5: Why must people insist upon building straw men!? Please point out one instance where I suggested that sales of AK-47s by Russia, China (or whoever the hell else!) was a good, acceptable or moral thing. Please tell me where I said that the only arms dealing that should be criticised is U.S. arms dealing.

The fact is (well, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service anyway, but maybe they’re inflating the figures to look manly), the United States is responsible for 36% of the global arms trade. Russia is second with 16%. That’s less than half the US figure. I’m not saying that 16% is good. It’s fucking disgraceful. But so is that 36%, which was the only point I was making.

I didn’t bring up the AK-47 or the arms dealing record of Russia or China simply because I was critiquing a video entitled “A World Without America”. See… the title kind of gives it away.

soviet union: 68.9%
france: 12.7%
china: 11.8%
usa: 0.5%

question 5: the AK 47 isnt made in America , and it is by far the biggest killer of people worldwide.

And I don’t think I’m particularly “fortunate” in that regard. As I say, I’ve met plenty of Americans from all over the country and from many walks of life. I don’t know what proportion of the US population regularly use racist epithets. Perhaps more than other places. Perhaps not. But I do know that it does Americans a disservice to suggest that it’s normal for them to use racist language (which is how I interpreted your first comment). If my interpretation was wrong, then I apologise. But if I were to say — for example — “I met this Asian guy yesterday (or ‘Paki’ to our British brethren)”, it would be an implication that British people, in general used the word (which; having lived there on and off for the best part of 15 years; I can assure you they don’t).

Anyways, seems like we’re violently agreeing on this one. So enough said.

Doormat, while Cameron may give the impression of “thinking about environmental issues” he still leads a party which proudly proclaims itself “The Party of The Motorist”. I’ve not been following all of his press to be fair, but thus far he seems to have succeeded in appearing ‘Green’ without actually making any firm commitments or policy announcements on the environment. Did you know BP claimed they were “Beyond Petroleum” a few years ago?

It is indeed possible that Cameron would do away with ID cards, but I suspect they won’t happen anyway (my opinion is that the project will be a technological and logistical disaster and will have to be abandoned, but that’s just opinion I grant you).

Brown is a pro-capitalist poodle of British business interests. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near power (though sadly he will indeed be the next PM). And the LibDems aren’t much better. But I’d personally put Cameron at the bottom of that sordid little pile, with Menzies just ahead of Gordon (all three are so close, though, that it was a photo-finish).

With Menzies you think… “well at least we’ll have some social liberalism with our extreme capitalism”. With Gordon you think… “well, he had a socialist past… maybe his conscience hasn’t entirely disappeared and he’ll have a Jacob Marley moment”. With Cameron though, the best you can do is “well at least he can’t be quite as smug a tosser as he seems. Nobody could.”

I think you know what I mean, however ineptly I’ve put it.

Cheers