tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5989083715376710493.post1247098536151614720..comments2013-09-30T16:30:11.501+01:00Comments on The PolEcon Brief: Tony Blair and shades of GreyPaul Goldsmithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05930296820835196694noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5989083715376710493.post-72764647216398700862011-02-17T20:43:42.741+00:002011-02-17T20:43:42.741+00:00i think tony blair is quite sexy.i think tony blair is quite sexy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5989083715376710493.post-46212312434263312012011-02-02T21:28:20.570+00:002011-02-02T21:28:20.570+00:00Do you think he should go to the Hague to be tried...Do you think he should go to the Hague to be tried as a War Criminal for the invasion of Kosovo? Sierra Leone? They were just as illegal under international law (such as international law actually exists) as Iraq was.<br /><br />If not, then what should he be tried for?Paul Goldsmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5989083715376710493.post-45757346308955801322011-02-02T21:21:33.930+00:002011-02-02T21:21:33.930+00:00I don't have an opinion on Blair book, i do ha...I don't have an opinion on Blair book, i do have an opinion on Blair. What did i see? Anti union laws, war and more privatisation with some nice bank deregulation. I got far to much of his point of view when he was in power from much of the mainstream press so i don't think i need to read his book to find out his side of the story. I can see parts of his book in fictionalised films which is nice (he plaguerised some from the film "the Queen") and hear him make "inconsistent" testimonies to the Chilcot enquiry by watching it on TV.<br /><br />I haven't read the memoirs of a large number of war criminals but it doesn't stop me in my judgeing them. Given the amount of the mainstream media who were in favour of the war at the time and the amount of pro British empire style propoganda that i have been lucky enough to experience since i was born i see no reason to promote the sale of his book as opposed to put it into the crime section of waterstones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5989083715376710493.post-53342935206955983132011-01-30T19:40:00.166+00:002011-01-30T19:40:00.166+00:00You're right Dominic, and the examples you giv...You're right Dominic, and the examples you give are the extremes you might go for a sense of balance. I do think however, that those who "perpetually exploit" this argument are few and far between. I was, of course, referring to the majority of debates one could have - a great example being the book you are helping with!Paul Goldsmithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5989083715376710493.post-49775991936156430192011-01-30T15:16:08.702+00:002011-01-30T15:16:08.702+00:00The only problem with your 'shades of grey'...The only problem with your 'shades of grey' argument, which is - of course - essentially right, is that it is perpetually exploited by those whose arguments are too weak to survive without an appeal to 'balance'.<br /><br />Coming to a position without considering any alternatives is intellectually cowardly, but so is deliberately weakening your position out of a misplaced desire to avoid seeming 'strident'. Example: it's not "well, I don't really believe in ghosts, but my uncle once heard a creaking door in the middle of the night so maybe..." it's "no, ghosts don't exist, end of". Although naturally, all positions taken - however clear-cut - and then open to later revision on the basis of new evidence.<br /><br />Obviously, this rings less true for politics than for other areas of life. But even so, I can think of some examples. Was 9/11 orchestrated by the American government? Any reasonable person, on the basis of the evidence, would simply say no. You can consider the opposite point of view all you like, but legitimate consideration can (sometimes) still end with a clear-cut answer.Dominic Selfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08849737312001520022noreply@blogger.com