People who looked at the situation and decided that, for whatever reason,military action against Saddam Hussein was not a priority, that it was unlikely to be successful, that the costs were likely to be too high, that the US government would make a pigs ear of it and Iraqis would have to live with the consequences etc are not Stoppers, they’re just anti-war, there is a difference.

Labels count for squat here and Ben G is spot on. I don’t care if he’s a liberal or a national socialist. He doesn’t actually say anything useful apart from keep parroting the line that this website doesn’t follow what he thinks it should do. Its beyond inane its downright idiotic. He could simply be a bot who keeps repeating it endlessly. Hell, I have more respect for people like Matthew Sinclair and Bishop Hill who, though on the right, at least come here with substantive points to make!

cjcjcjcjcjc is like Morgoth, the man who’s answer to everything on Harry’s Place was to brand them an Islamofascist.

It’s one of those phrases like “Islamofascist” or “fat cat” or “Zionist conspiracy”, which marks a commentator out as having nothing worthwhile to say…

Doh!

You are clearly of the conservative Right

No. Definitely liberal I’m afraid.
Far more liberal than the likes of “lenin” I think you’ll find.

cjcjc means well and wants to offer a valid critique, but I agree a tight leash is necessary to stop anybody veering off into overly digressive pedantry and alienating meaninglessness.

In the meantime, I would respectfully suggest that unless cjcjcjcjcjcjcjcj makes a point even vaguely worth replying to, of which there has been no evidence as yet, that all posters should simply ignore him in future. I will never respond to the goading and neither should you. Have the debate without the gnat. Deal?

I will purchase your book when it comes out - hopefully it’s as good as your blog when you’re on top form. Or better still, I should send you the money and you can send me a signed copy. When I’ve read it, I’ll take the subject up again with you. Perhaps with regard to Hizb-ut-Tahrir that is flawed editorial on my part, but too many of the Broad Left in the NUS - that is, of the SWP part of said left, are willing to stand pretty close to some nutty Muslims. I’m not Islamophobic - I dislike all religious nutters equally. Which is why I can also point out how close the SWP was to George “No Abortions” Gallows-Humour.

Everyone else:

I don’t hate Iranians, I dislike the Iranian government intensely for, among other things, its lack of democracy.

I would on several occasions have called myself a Communist, provided one makes the distinction between Communist and Stalinist. I would call myself that still if pressed, but I find labels to be inconvenient and inaccurate as they more often than not rely upon the perceptions of the person doing the labelling than the views of the person being labelled.

There’s something about political organisations that begin in obscure pubs…

I can’t believe that I signed that pious little document.

It’s too your credit that you now realise that. But late than never eh? ;)

wow, and you still haven’t got bored of repeating yourself every other comment on here cjcjc. Have to admire your cut and pasting skills.

Should that therefore now say simply “left”, or “hard left” or (cliche alert) “loony left”?

That’s why it’s a conspiracy. It’s not actually liberal!

I’m sure your book is excellent, Richard, but the real trick is to get Slavoj Zizek to review it in the London Review of Books - well, he won’t review it, he’ll talk about his own ideas, but you know what I mean.

(Apologies if the attempt at italics failed.)

And the site is now attracting someone who, apparently without irony, chooses to call himself “lenin”.

http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/seymour_r_the_liberal_defense_of_murder.shtml

You might find it useful for rebutting these nasty decents.

Instead of pandering to HP Sauce propaganda, you ought to aim for accuracy. The SWP is not in any ‘dalliance’ with the Hizb, and never has been. If you are referring to Respect, as you appear to be, the Hizb was one of the most hostile voices against that coalition. We have worked with members of the Muslim Association of Britain who were willing to participate in a left-wing platform, and with Islamic Forum Europe, a mixed bunch who support New Labour, the Lib Dems, whoever. None of the people we have worked with turned out to be insane, although they were to the right of us on some issues. Respect has sadly been split for some time between left- and right-wing factions. But while it was never in the position of being able to offer a full-blooded socialist programme, it was in its way the closest thing to a successful left-of-Labour coalition to exist in British politics. Unseating Labour in a heartland East London seat, and coming close to doing the same in Birmingham, is no small feat. And in all, I am proud to have been part of such a coalition, which was never the caricature depicted on HP Sauce and its periphery.

I would also wonder why Harry’s Place, with their abhorrence of those who ‘opposed…democratic self-determination’, carry a picture of a suspicious looking gentleman who called King Fahd ‘a man of great vision and leadership’ who ’served his country with the utmost dedication and dignity’. Galloway would blanche.

You hated Iranians? Why, what had they ever done to you?