Has Bond become a bit neo-fascist?

SpectreNumberOne

acoppola wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

SpectreNumberOne wrote:

Whenever you are forced to change your lifestyle for personal security the perpetrator has won.

Not completely agreeing here.
As a young teen I was bullied heavily. If I had changed my lifestyle in the way of skulking about to avoid my tormentors, seeing potential bullies where there were none 'just in case', or hiding out at home forever more, then yes, they would have won.
If I had purchased a gun & shot up my tormentors at school in a fit of emotional vengeance, they would have won.
Instead, I studied martial arts. This had the unexpected effect of increasing my self-confidence. Yes, I *did* have to pound down a couple of bullies to prove myself, but I didn't unnecessarily bloody them. "Are we done?" was my question at the end. No answer always meant yes.

My point & analogy here is, extremes are not the way. As M said in TND, moderation. Intelligence over mindless reaction to fear. Strength to back it up. And benevolence in the end.

I see your point but the statement about lifestyle refers to personal freedoms being taken away. Case in point, look at how the TSA runs airport security and we have certain freedoms removed because of terrorism.

We are not as free as we were 11 years ago and in a way there is no denying terrorism has made a huge impact on our lives. Former Governor Jesse Ventura says the terrorists won by our freedoms and way of life being altered. He thinks their aims were achieved.

But it is great that you turned a negative into a positive when you took action against those who made others lives a misery.

@chrisisall, I understand where your coming from & good on you for taking action to change your life, I hate bullies, whoever they are.

What I'm getting at is what @acoppola is saying it's not individuals who are affected but whole nations.

chrisisall

acoppola wrote:

I see your point but the statement about lifestyle refers to personal freedoms being taken away. Case in point, look at how the TSA runs airport security and we have certain freedoms removed because of terrorism.

Before 9-11, I used to think Air Travel security sucked. Sadly I was proved correct. Now it's swung in the other direction. The response to real or imagined threats is like air conditioning in your car- it's always either too hot or too cold.

acoppola wrote:

We are not as free as we were 11 years ago and in a way there is no denying terrorism has made a huge impact on our lives.

THAT is a lack of intelligent moderation and a reliance on knee-jerk reaction.

Bond is my idea of 'intelligent moderation'- go when the go will achieve something; "Stuff my orders" when it's clearly ordered action based on fractured intel.

delfloria

"No man is free who works for a living" ( Illya Kuryakin )

chrisisall

delfloria wrote:

"No man is free who works for a living" ( Illya Kuryakin )

No man who does not work for a living can afford a classic Aston Martin (realistic ME)
;)
"What's life without work?" (Jubal Early)

TheWizardOfIce

Bond has always been somewhat morally ambiguous and I dont really see any great change between DN and SF.

The 'nice' thing to have done would be to keep Professor Dent covered and wait for the police to arrest him but no - 'youve had your six'.

In OHMSS M is very unhappy with Bond as 'licence to kill is useless unless you can set up the target'. Not sure that would be thought of very well by the EU these days if it all came out that the British intended to execute a Swiss citizen (I'm assuming Ernst had a Swiss passport in Piz Gloria).

One of the things I love about SF is the Tennyson scene where you have this naive, lefty MP (not sure its deliberate but she is a ringer for Cherie Blair) who has never set foot outside her middle class Islington bubble lecturing M. M retorts with the immortal line 'how safe do you feel?' and then as the threat becomes very real Bond runs down Whitehall as the symbolic protector of the kingdom.

I for one sincerely hope we have people who are licenced to kill and men and women who, like Bond, are willing to sacrifice their souls and the chance of a normal life by doing distasteful things to protect us.

I am firm believer in law and order but these days it is necessary to go beyond that and into the 'shadows' as M puts it. You only have to see the legal farce with Abu Hamza to know that these people are laughing at us with our human rights etc.

We should be more like Mossad and take the fight to them while they are sleeping in their beds.

chrisisall

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

We should be more like Mossad and take the fight to them while they are sleeping in their beds.

Bond's mentality sits better with my Shaolin beliefs than this last sentence. :))

Seve

Getafix wrote:

I remember reading this when it appeared a couple of years ago and dismissed it as a bit of sour grapes from Le Carre.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/7948363/James-Bond-was-a-neo-fascist-gangster-says-John-Le-Carre.html

But aspects of the Craig era had been bugging me for a while and then when SF came out I just found myself wondering whether MI6 hadn't become a little bit too much of a sinister surveillance operation. One of the most obvious changes recently has been the imagery and aura that surrounds MI6 - sinister corporate offices, the all-knowing surveillance equipment, underground dungeons, glass holding cells, institutional arrogance and resentment of democratic accounatbility. It's all become a bit Treadstone/Guantanomo Bay/extraordinary rendition for my liking.

It certainly feels a long way from the cosy old naval officers' club that Bernard Lee oversaw. I guess the irony is that the end of SF suggests we're about to return to the good old days. What I still can't fathom is how intentional it was that MI6 should come across the way it did in SF - a little bit sinister and repressive.

MI6 may be depicted as a less trustworthy, infallible institution, in line with current public distrust of the establishment, which reflects the mentality of the depressed post credit crisis world we live in, and Bond himself remains on board, despite being shot by his own side, he returns to the fold, rather than rebelling against it like Jason Bourne

But I'm not sure how you define neo fascist espionage as opposed to communist espionage, or capitalist espionage, or Zionist espionage… Perhaps espionage is inherently "neo fascist"?

Strelik

The accusation that James Bond is a neo-fascist is actually quite common and dates back to the 1950s. When "Doctor No" was first published, literary critic Paul Johnson of The New Statesmen publicly attacked the Bond phenomenon as a crypto-fascist glorification of Imperialism, sadism, torture, racism, etc. He viewed 1950s British society's fascination with Bond as a slippery Orwellian slope that promoted a perverse view of human nature intrinsic to fascism's rise. Although I greatly admire Fleming's writing, I think Johnson's observations regarding the darker undertones of the Bond franchise are interesting...

Here is a public-domain copy of Johnson's famous newspaper article from 1958:

Paul Johnson wrote:

“Sex, Snobbery, and Sadism” by Paul Johnson (The New Statesman, 5 April 1958)

Editor's Note For 2007 Republication: "Ian Fleming invented his hero James Bond just over 50 years ago. Agent 007 rapidly became one of the icons of his age – a suave, handsome, amoral, patriotic intelligence officer. Today’s commercial success of the new Bond film, Casino Royale, suggests he retains enormous popularity. But as journalist Paul Johnson argued in 1958, Bond was always little more than a crypto-fascist."

- - -

I have just finished what is without a doubt the nastiest book I have ever read. It is a new novel entitled Dr. No and the author is Ian Fleming. By the time I was a third of the way through the novel, I had to suppress a strong impulse to throw the thing away, and only continued reading because I realised that here was a social phenomenon of some importance.

There are three basic ingredients in Dr. No, all unhealthy, all thoroughly English: the sadism of a school-yard bully, the mechanical two-dimensional sex-longings of a frustrated adolescent, and the crude, snob-cravings of a suburban adult. Fleming has no literary skill; the construction of the book is chaotic. But these three ingredients are manufactured and blended with deliberate, professional precision. Fleming dishes up his recipe with all the calculated accountancy of a Lyons Corner House.

The plot can be briefly described: James Bond, an upper-class Secret Service Agent, is sent by his sadistic superior, M, to investigate strange incidents on Jamaica. By page 53, Bond's bodyguard, a faithful and brutal Negro called Quarrel, is already at work, twisting the arms of Chinese girl to breaking point. She gouges his face with a broken flash bulb, and in return, he smilingly squeezes the fleshy part of her thumb (described by Fleming as the “Mount of Venus,” because if it is well-developed then the girl is “good in bed”) until she screams. (“She's Love Moun' be sore long after ma face done get healed,” chortles Quarrel.) Next, Bond's enemies attempt to poison him with cyanide-laced fruit, and then insert a six-inch long venomous centipede in his bed (“Bond could feel it nuzzling at his skin. It was drinking! Drinking the beads of salt sweat!”).

Bond visits the island, falls asleep, and on waking sees a beautiful girl, wearing only a leather belt round her waist (“The belt made her nakedness extraordinarily erotic”). Her behind, Bond notices, “was almost as firm as a rounded boy's.” The girl tells Bond she was raped at the age of 15 by a savage overseer, who then broke her nose. She revenged herself by dropping a Black Widow spider on his naked stomach while he slept (“He took a week to die”). Bond rejects her urgent invitation to share her sleeping bag. Then the enemy arrives – huge, inhuman Negro-Chinese half-castes, known as “Chigroes,” under the diabolical direction of Dr. No. Quarrel is scorched to death by a flame-thrower, and Bond and the girl are captured.

There follows a series of incidents in a sort of luxury hotel, built into the mountain, where Dr. No entertains his captives before torturing them. This gives Fleming an opportunity to insert his snob ingredient. A lubricious bathroom scene, in which the girl again attempts to seduce Bond, involves Floris Lime bath-essence, and Guerlain bathcubes. Bond, offered a drink, demands “a medium vodka dry Martini” (“I would prefer Russian or Polish vodka”). A third attempt by the girl is frustrated only by Bond's succumbing to the drugs inserted in his breakfast. At last Dr. No appears, six feet tall, and looking like “a giant venomous worm wrapped in grey tin-foil.” Some years before, his hands had been cut off, but he is equipped with “articulated steel pincers,” which he has a habit of tapping against his contact lenses, making a metallic noise. He has a polished skull, no eyelashes, and his heart is on the wrong side of his body; he is, needless to say, Chinese (with a German mother). His chief amusement is to subject his captives to prolonged, scientific tortures. (“I am interested in pain. I am interested in finding out how much the human body can endure.”)

Bond contemplates stabbing No's jugular vein with the jagged stem of a broken wine-glass, but reluctantly abandons the idea. The girl is taken off, to be strapped, naked, to the ground and nibbled to death by giant crabs. Bond is put through a fantastically complicated obstacle course of tortures. First come electric shocks. Then an agonising climb up a steel chimney. Then a crawl along a red-hot zinc tube, to face 20 giant Tarantula spiders “three or four inches long.” Finally Bond is hurled into the sea, where he is met by a 50-foot giant squid (everything is giant in Dr. No – insects, breasts, and gin-and-tonics). Having survived all these, Bond buries Dr. No alive under a mountain of bird-dung, rescues the girl and at last has a shot at a jugular vein, this time with a table-knife. He also shoots three Chigroes, one in the head, one in the stomach and one in the neck. The girl's feet get cut up, but they tramp to safety, “leaving bloody footsteps on the ground.” The story ends with Bond biting the girl in an erotic embrace, which takes place in a giant, cocoon-like sleeping bag.

I have summarised the plot at wearisome length because a bare recital of its details describes, better than I can, how Fleming deliberately and systematically excites, and then satisfies the very worst instincts of his readers. This seems to me far more dangerous than straight pornography. In 1944, George Orwell took issue with a book which resembles Fleming's novels: No Orchids for Miss Blandish. Orwell saw the success of No Orchids, published in 1940, as part of a discernible psychological climate, whose other products were fascism, the Gestapo, mass-bombing and war. But in condemning No Orchids, Orwell made two reservations. First, he conceded that it was brilliantly written, and that the acts of cruelty it described sprang from a subtle and integrated, though perverse, view of human nature. Secondly, he pointed out that No Orchids was evil precisely because it lacked the restraint of conventional upper-class values; and this led him to the astonishing but intelligible conclusion that perhaps, after all, snobbery, like hypocrisy, was occasionally useful to society.

What would Orwell have said of Dr. No? For this novel is badly written to the point of incoherence. Moreover, both its hero and its author are unquestionably members of the Establishment. Bond is an ex-Royal Navy Commander and belongs to Blades, a sort-of super-White's. Fleming was educated at Eton and Sandhurst, and is married to a prominent society hostess, the ex-wife of Lord Rothermere. Fleming belongs to the Turf and Boodle's and lists among his hobbies the collection of first editions. He is also the owner of Goldeneye, a house made famous by Prime Minister Anthony Eden's visit there. Eden's uneasy slumbers, it will be remembered, were disturbed by (characteristically) giant rats which, after they had been disposed of by his bodyguards, turned out to be specially tamed ones kept by Fleming.

Orwell was wrong. Snobbery is no protection: on the contrary, the social appeal of the Bond personality has added an additional flavour to Fleming’s brew of sex and sadism. Fleming's novels are not only successful, they are also smart. Our curious post-war society, with its obsessive interest in debutantes, its working-class graduates educated into snobbery by the welfare state, is a soft market for Fleming's poison. Bond's last adventure, From Russia With Love, won approval from the sternest critics in the world of letters. The Times found it “most brilliant,” the Observer “stupendous.” The New Statesman, most susceptible of all, described it as “irresistible.”

It has become easier than it was in Orwell's day to make cruelty attractive. We have gone just that much farther down the slope. Recently I read Henri Alleg's horrifying account of his tortures in an Algiers prison, and I have on my desk a documented study of how we treat our prisoners in Cyprus. I am no longer astonished that these things can happen. Indeed, after reflecting on the Fleming phenomenon, they seem to me almost inevitable.

Strelik

On a side note...

When you analyze Fleming's novels, his character of James Bond exhibits all the psychological traits of an ardent neo-fascist. With each passing decade, the Bond producers has attempted to strip these traits from the character, but they still exist...

According to Professor Ross Stagner's Fascist Attitudes study, political scientists have identified seven characteristics that collectively manifest in individuals predisposed towards fascism or authoritarian-supporting behavior. Consider these seven characteristics in terms of James Bond if he were an actual, real individual:

1.) "nationalism" [ex. Bond's fanatically excessive nationalism is readily apparent]
2.) "imperialism" [ex. Bond often longs for a return to British Empire's glory days]
3.) "militarism" [ex. Commander Bond's over-glorification of the British military]
4.) "racial antagonism" [ex. Bond's dislike of "Chigroes," "half-castes," "strange races," etc.]
5.) "anti-radicalism" [ex. Fleming was anti-left. He said Martin Luther King was a Communist agent]
6.) "class consciousness" [ex. Fleming's/Bond's upper-class snobbery is indisputable]
7.) "a strong-man philosophy of government" [ex. Bond's political opinions in Thunderball]

Furthermore, Prof. Henry Dicks asserted in Personality Traits and National Socialist Ideology that an individual predisposed to national socialist ideology also exhibits sadism, class-based condescension, and a deferential attitude towards authoritarian superiors [i.e. "M"]...

Sound like any famous character we know?

JWESTBROOK

Fantastic, I'm writing a multi-page essay on looking too far into films and I've found the crown jewel of a thread to go on about.

Thanks, chaps.

DB5

"We should be more like Mossad and take the fight to them while they are sleeping in their beds."

As a Jew, I like the way the Israelis have redefined being a Jew. With all due respect to the memories of the six million who were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including my own relatives, prior to the Six Day War the image of the Jew was of the lamb being led to the slaughter. The Israelis changed that image. Amazing that Mossad was able to penetrate Iranian security and assassinate several of their nuclear scientists.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

DB5 wrote:

"We should be more like Mossad and take the fight to them while they are sleeping in their beds."

As a Jew, I like the way the Israelis have redefined being a Jew. With all due respect to the memories of the six million who were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including my own relatives, prior to the Six Day War the image of the Jew was of the lamb being led to the slaughter. The Israelis changed that image. Amazing that Mossad was able to penetrate Iranian security and assassinate several of their nuclear scientists.

Gotta give respect to Mossad. Bloody brutal people, surpassing even the KGB/FSB.

Getafix

Tobester95 wrote:

It'd be interesting to see them make a Bond movie where MI6 is depicted as being flat-out corrupt and Bond goes somewhat rogue (but not in a LTK or QOS way). Although I don't want to hate Ralph Fiennes as M :(

Interesting. I actually think this approach would really have suited Brosnan - sleazy corrupt Bond.

oorogers

i would say No to the titled argument i do not think that Bond is a neo fascist at all hes employed to do a job and that job is take out terrorists. The terrorists that threaten the very life we live here in the uk if anything he is a hero

and i disagree with the point that the series as gone too sinister. If they wanted to keep things looking as real as they can then i do not think the films are sinister enough who knows how the real MI6 operate but i bet in war time all sorts of in human methods are used despite what the media tells us about Mi6 not using torture to get information i do not believe that for start if its true no idea but that's not my point my point his how people think MI6 would operate is how its put on screen and is far from how they really do. But i believe that the bond films are tame compared to how it's really done well i hope that is the case when it comes to keeping the country safe i hope the MI6 go a lot further then questioning someone in a glass case.

But anyway without me going too far of topic i feel that trying to keep it real is the right direction to go in and not too sinister at all

acoppola

chrisisall wrote:

acoppola wrote:

I see your point but the statement about lifestyle refers to personal freedoms being taken away. Case in point, look at how the TSA runs airport security and we have certain freedoms removed because of terrorism.

Before 9-11, I used to think Air Travel security sucked. Sadly I was proved correct. Now it's swung in the other direction. The response to real or imagined threats is like air conditioning in your car- it's always either too hot or too cold.

acoppola wrote:

We are not as free as we were 11 years ago and in a way there is no denying terrorism has made a huge impact on our lives.

THAT is a lack of intelligent moderation and a reliance on knee-jerk reaction.

Bond is my idea of 'intelligent moderation'- go when the go will achieve something; "Stuff my orders" when it's clearly ordered action based on fractured intel.

No matter what you say, you are less free and more restricted than you were 11 years ago. One of your founding fathers said when you should not trade freedom for security. Well that is exactly what is happening now.

You are treated like a potential terrorist when you go to the airport. The TSA has great powers over you even if you are innocent. You cannot refuse a strip search for instance if they demand it. Even if you are child.

It has nothing to do with intelligent moderation. Have you not heard about some of the TSA horror stories? Post 9/11, government has had the ability to gain greater powers over it's citizens. What is the Patriot Act about?

And what is your definition of Intelligent moderation?

chrisisall

acoppola wrote:

And what is your definition of Intelligent moderation?

Reacting to a problem/situation with a workable solution rather than being ineffectual on one end or causing 'blowback' on the other.
It's a fine line, and one that most seem unable to walk in Human history.

acoppola wrote:

What is the Patriot Act about?

Dissolving personal American freedoms in favour of corporate-style military control of the populace. Plus the Nazi-like freedom to do what is deemed necessary to protect the 'homeland'.
History clearly teaches us nothing, and logic is relegated to academia and fans of Star Trek.

acoppola

chrisisall wrote:

acoppola wrote:

And what is your definition of Intelligent moderation?

Reacting to a problem/situation with a workable solution rather than being ineffectual on one end or causing 'blowback' on the other.
It's a fine line, and one that most seem unable to walk in Human history.

acoppola wrote:

What is the Patriot Act about?

Dissolving personal American freedoms in favour of corporate-style military control of the populace. Plus the Nazi-like freedom to do what is deemed necessary to protect the 'homeland'.
History clearly teaches us nothing, and logic is relegated to academia and fans of Star Trek.

Nice one. Indeed being British, I can see already my government is hard at work creating more blowback for future generations in the Middle East. Sometimes I question decisions made by politicians that are blatantly asking for trouble.

The empire is still clawing for survival. For every solution we create way more problems.

We want to arm rebels in Syria having already helped them in Libya whilst at the same time being told that the home security measures are taken to protect us from these people. Huh? Politicians obviously assume that too many of the population are not very clued up and are more aware of what happens in movies or soap opera than the world around them.

Getafix

I think the situations in Libya and Syria are very difficult. Assad might seem the lesser of two evils from our perspective in the West, but the long-term consequences of autocracy in the Middle East has been economic stagnation, widespread dissatisfaction amongst ordinary people and fertile ground for hardline Islamists. I think the current calculation is that the West can no longer tacitly support these despots and that even if in the short term the consequences are turmoil and some governments that are unsympathetic or actively antagonistic towards us, in the longer term we have to allow the people of the Middle East to decide who governs them.

Only time will tell whether Western policy in the middle east is massively naive or part of a first vital step towards democratising and normalising politics in that region. At the moment it could go either way although on-going crisis seems the most likely outcome.

I think the problem is that the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If we stand by and do nothing, we provide amunition to those in the Middle East who say that we have no interest in real democracy because we fear widespread democratically elected Islamist governments. If we support the various rebel groupings and try and steer them towards constitutional and democratic objectives we risk being seen as old-school colonial meddlers.

I don't personally think there's a simple answer.

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

I think the situations in Libya and Syria are very difficult. Assad might seem the lesser of two evils from our perspective in the West, but the long-term consequences of autocracy in the Middle East has been economic stagnation, widespread dissatisfaction amongst ordinary people and fertile ground for hardline Islamists. I think the current calculation is that the West can no longer tacitly support these despots and that even if in the short term the consequences are turmoil and some governments that are unsympathetic or actively antagonistic towards us, in the longer term we have to allow the people of the Middle East to decide who governs them.

Only time will tell whether Western policy in the middle east is massively naive or part of a first vital step towards democratising and normalising politics in that region. At the moment it could go either way although on-going crisis seems the most likely outcome.

I think the problem is that the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If we stand by and do nothing, we provide amunition to those in the Middle East who say that we have no interest in real democracy because we fear widespread democratically elected Islamist governments. If we support the various rebel groupings and try and steer them towards constitutional and democratic objectives we risk being seen as old-school colonial meddlers.

I don't personally think there's a simple answer.

There is no simple answer like you say but the west is playing with fire. When we backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan the side effect is it cost the USA trillions in dealing with the fallout. We may have ended The Soviet Union but at a terrible cost to our way of life.

These rebel groups are not about democracy. They are so fundamentalist that they will ethnically cleanse any groups that they see as non-believers. Our media is hiding this fact but watch Russia Today and they show a different side of the conflict. It is shocking and human rights are abused beyond belief.

Ghadaffi was visited by Tony Blair in 2004 and he helped the west with it's efforts against Al-Qaeda. It is not secret that some of the rebels in Libya and Syria fought against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can check it for yourself.

Fundamentalists do not want democracy any more than a dictator does. We are being sold a big lie and our interventions are causing huge misery for innocent civilians.

Sadly the west is causing a blowback that they may not be in a position to deal with years down the line. The UK has cut back it's military and Afghanistan is a can of worms we have not been able to put the lid back on.

Also by helping these rebels who hate Israel with a vengeance, I question how our actions will cause stability in the region. It takes the smallest event for all hell to break loose. Look what happened to the Israeli Embassy in Egypt last year.

I sound cynical and am, but I have read up about the history and our aims in that region are at best short term advantage for a long term bill that so far we have no idea how bad it will get.

Getafix

I agree with all your points. I just don't know what the alternative is. Despotic regimes that don't represent the views of the people are never sustainable in the long term. Eventually they will collapse and in the meantime civil society festers and rots from the inside. What we see now in the Middle East in terms of Islamist militancy is a direct result of decades of often western-backed dictatorship in the rgeion. In the 50s and 60s Middle Eastern countries were full of secularists and moderate Muslims who wanted greater freedom and democracy. Rather than supporting them we backed the despots who oppressed them in order to 'protect' our own interests. As a result many ordinary people gave up on democracy and understandably came to see the west as a force for oppression - hence people turn to other ideologies and that's where the extremists step in to fill the void.

At some point the cycle has to be broken. It might take decades but eventually these societies will grope their way to some kind of normality. Hopefully.

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

I agree with all your points. I just don't know what the alternative is. Despotic regimes that don't represent the views of the people are never sustainable in the long term. Eventually they will collapse and in the meantime civil society festers and rots from the inside. What we see now in the Middle East in terms of Islamist militancy is a direct result of decades of often western-backed dictatorship in the rgeion. In the 50s and 60s Middle Eastern countries were full of secularists and moderate Muslims who wanted greater freedom and democracy. Rather than supporting them we backed the despots who oppressed them in order to 'protect' our own interests. As a result many ordinary people gave up on democracy and understandably came to see the west as a force for oppression - hence people turn to other ideologies and that's where the extremists step in to fill the void.

At some point the cycle has to be broken. It might take decades but eventually these societies will grope their way to some kind of normality. Hopefully.

Thanks @Getafix I would love nothing more than true democracies in that region. But here is the contradiction to the so called western aims.

It is no secret that the Saudis as well as Bahraini's are the USA's and the UK's allies. They are as undemocratic as they come and it is plain to see that we have no intention of changing the status quo. The Saudis oppress but it is kept out of our media and blatant evidence our interventions are not about installing democracy.

We deposed many secularists in that region. Saddam who was our buddy for years had a secular regime. Christians said Iraq was great for all religious denominations. Not any more. Saddam was not a good man but then again with the nutters out there, who is?

Egypt under Mubarack a man who we kept in power, had a great relationship with Israel. Well, since his removal the hostility to Israel has shot up.

I would prefer a secularist approach in that region but once you implant religious nuts, then the Taliban will look reasonable in comparisson.

What you have going on there now is a war between Sunni's and Shia Muslims. The Saudis being Sunni as well as the Qatari's and Turks are more than happy to see the Shia influence in the region removed. Bashar Al Assad the Syrian President is from a Shia faction and being Iran's biggest ally is the reason why the west wants his removal.

But this will start a sectarian conflict which could last centuries. Once it explodes is there enough political water to put the raging fire out.

Me personally, would prefer the UK to concentrate on building it's economy and minding it's own business. If you remember the riots last year that were horrible, it seems clear to me that we should sort the scum bags out in our society first.

Getafix

Fortunately I live in the Caribbean these days...

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

Fortunately I live in the Caribbean these days...

Wow! How do you get Coronation Street out there as I remember it is one of your guilty pleasures? :)

SpectreNumberOne

acoppola wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think the situations in Libya and Syria are very difficult. Assad might seem the lesser of two evils from our perspective in the West, but the long-term consequences of autocracy in the Middle East has been economic stagnation, widespread dissatisfaction amongst ordinary people and fertile ground for hardline Islamists. I think the current calculation is that the West can no longer tacitly support these despots and that even if in the short term the consequences are turmoil and some governments that are unsympathetic or actively antagonistic towards us, in the longer term we have to allow the people of the Middle East to decide who governs them.

Only time will tell whether Western policy in the middle east is massively naive or part of a first vital step towards democratising and normalising politics in that region. At the moment it could go either way although on-going crisis seems the most likely outcome.

I think the problem is that the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If we stand by and do nothing, we provide amunition to those in the Middle East who say that we have no interest in real democracy because we fear widespread democratically elected Islamist governments. If we support the various rebel groupings and try and steer them towards constitutional and democratic objectives we risk being seen as old-school colonial meddlers.

I don't personally think there's a simple answer.

There is no simple answer like you say but the west is playing with fire. When we backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan the side effect is it cost the USA trillions in dealing with the fallout. We may have ended The Soviet Union but at a terrible cost to our way of life.

These rebel groups are not about democracy. They are so fundamentalist that they will ethnically cleanse any groups that they see as non-believers. Our media is hiding this fact but watch Russia Today and they show a different side of the conflict. It is shocking and human rights are abused beyond belief.

Ghadaffi was visited by Tony Blair in 2004 and he helped the west with it's efforts against Al-Qaeda. It is not secret that some of the rebels in Libya and Syria fought against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can check it for yourself.

Fundamentalists do not want democracy any more than a dictator does. We are being sold a big lie and our interventions are causing huge misery for innocent civilians.

Sadly the west is causing a blowback that they may not be in a position to deal with years down the line. The UK has cut back it's military and Afghanistan is a can of worms we have not been able to put the lid back on.

Also by helping these rebels who hate Israel with a vengeance, I question how our actions will cause stability in the region. It takes the smallest event for all hell to break loose. Look what happened to the Israeli Embassy in Egypt last year.

I sound cynical and am, but I have read up about the history and our aims in that region are at best short term advantage for a long term bill that so far we have no idea how bad it will get.

There is a very simple answer, stop meddling in other nations politics, stop playing world police, how many times do we in the western democracies have to have our hands bitten by those we try to help to realise this policy is not working.

emilymcplugger

SPOILERS BE HERE!

I think that SKYFALL made the entire British establishment seem like a bunch of scum gabs. MI6 was all-knowing and sinister, the MP's were all "Save the world but do it cheaper" and Bond seemed, to me anyway, a bit naff as he failed in his mission, AGAIN!

For me Bond isn't neo-facist but he can be establishment and overtly bureaucratic, most notably in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, in him stating that he kills who his government want him to and when he offers Stromberg money not to launch the missiles.

echo

Dink would say Bond has always been a little bit neo-fascist.

acoppola

SpectreNumberOne wrote:

acoppola wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I think the situations in Libya and Syria are very difficult. Assad might seem the lesser of two evils from our perspective in the West, but the long-term consequences of autocracy in the Middle East has been economic stagnation, widespread dissatisfaction amongst ordinary people and fertile ground for hardline Islamists. I think the current calculation is that the West can no longer tacitly support these despots and that even if in the short term the consequences are turmoil and some governments that are unsympathetic or actively antagonistic towards us, in the longer term we have to allow the people of the Middle East to decide who governs them.

Only time will tell whether Western policy in the middle east is massively naive or part of a first vital step towards democratising and normalising politics in that region. At the moment it could go either way although on-going crisis seems the most likely outcome.

I think the problem is that the West is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. If we stand by and do nothing, we provide amunition to those in the Middle East who say that we have no interest in real democracy because we fear widespread democratically elected Islamist governments. If we support the various rebel groupings and try and steer them towards constitutional and democratic objectives we risk being seen as old-school colonial meddlers.

I don't personally think there's a simple answer.

There is no simple answer like you say but the west is playing with fire. When we backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan the side effect is it cost the USA trillions in dealing with the fallout. We may have ended The Soviet Union but at a terrible cost to our way of life.

These rebel groups are not about democracy. They are so fundamentalist that they will ethnically cleanse any groups that they see as non-believers. Our media is hiding this fact but watch Russia Today and they show a different side of the conflict. It is shocking and human rights are abused beyond belief.

Ghadaffi was visited by Tony Blair in 2004 and he helped the west with it's efforts against Al-Qaeda. It is not secret that some of the rebels in Libya and Syria fought against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can check it for yourself.

Fundamentalists do not want democracy any more than a dictator does. We are being sold a big lie and our interventions are causing huge misery for innocent civilians.

Sadly the west is causing a blowback that they may not be in a position to deal with years down the line. The UK has cut back it's military and Afghanistan is a can of worms we have not been able to put the lid back on.

Also by helping these rebels who hate Israel with a vengeance, I question how our actions will cause stability in the region. It takes the smallest event for all hell to break loose. Look what happened to the Israeli Embassy in Egypt last year.

I sound cynical and am, but I have read up about the history and our aims in that region are at best short term advantage for a long term bill that so far we have no idea how bad it will get.

There is a very simple answer, stop meddling in other nations politics, stop playing world police, how many times do we in the western democracies have to have our hands bitten by those we try to help to realise this policy is not working.

We always seem to help those that bite the hand that feeds. I guess Daniel Craig was right when he said politicians are "sh*theads!". Unfortunately the biggest price is paid by the men and women in the military. Show me one modern politician who has done military service? They always seem to think they are above it.

Getafix

There are a few ex-military guys in the Commons. Eric Joyce was one. He got kicked out recently for getting pissed and beating up Tories (and some of his own Labour colleagues) in one of the Westminster bars. Others include Labour MP Dan Jarvis and Tory cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith. Paddy Ashdown was also a famous ex-military MP. I think you do have to bear in mind that the military is much much smaller than it used it be and of course, until recently, we hadn't been fighting as many wars as we used to.

I take your point on board though. A lot of decisions made by people like Tony Blair seem to be made with little or no concern for the lives of our armed forces, and less still for the lives of the people in the countries where we're meddling!

acoppola

Getafix wrote:

There are a few ex-military guys in the Commons. Eric Joyce was one. He got kicked out recently for getting pissed and beating up Tories (and some of his own Labour colleagues) in one of the Westminster bars. Others include Labour MP Dan Jarvis and Tory cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith. Paddy Ashdown was also a famous ex-military MP. I think you do have to bear in mind that the military is much much smaller than it used it be and of course, until recently, we hadn't been fighting as many wars as we used to.

I take your point on board though. A lot of decisions made by people like Tony Blair seem to be made with little or no concern for the lives of our armed forces, and less still for the lives of the people in the countries where we're meddling!

Anyone in high office like a Tony Blair or David Cameron has never put themselves in the line of fire. Or any recent USA president. I spoke to an ex-Afghanistan veteran who had less than kind words about politicians and who said he was disillusioned with our aims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said it was not clearly thought out and will create us more enemies in future the longer we stayed. Unfortunately our military always take the brunt of hostility unlike the politicians who get to retire and make a financial fortune on their inside knowledge as in working for large corporations.

SpectreNumberOne

Politicians today with very few exceptions are clueless, hence the mess the world finds itself. With regards Afghanistan does anyone here not think that as soon as the British & US Forces leave that within months the Taliban will be back in control & even more determined to help al-Qaeda seek revenge on the West. All those brave men & women from our armed forces who made the ultimate sacrifice will have done so for nothing.