I fully supported the 2003 decision to send coalition forces into Iraq, and the objectives I supported were..

• To remove "President" Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed to the stability of the region

• To destroy the Iraqi safe haven for terrorists and terror money (since the invasion we have had it confirmed that Saddam hosted various wanted terrorists with connections to Al-Qaeda)

• To assist the Iraqi people in liberating their country, to establish democracy and the rule of law, and to produce - eventually - a modern, progressive, liberal society

• To uphold and enforce international law, and to attempt to demonstrate to other tyrannies that the will of the 'international community' actually matters

Now, almost 4 years on, the situation in Iraq looks rather bleak. There is the possibility of civil war, and the break-up of the country. The horrific casualty rates are far higher than anyone could have expected. Various nations have already abandoned Iraq, with the UK soon to follow - and crucially, the USA seems also to be decided on the need for a setting deadline.

So, I am sat here at my desk, reading the news from my BBC News Ticker, and thinking to myself "Boy, I really f****d up in my judgement! What was I thinking? Surely now I must admit the Iraq war was a mistake"

But... to have hindsight! I look back at those reasons I gave at the start of the war, and I remain persuaded. So the question is: does the justification of a war change according to how well the war is going? I cannot think of an example where this was the case - would I have decided that Nevile Chamberlain's decision to declare war on Germany in 1939 was unjustified if we really were, in Churchill's immortal words, reduced to fighting on the beaches, the landing grounds, the fields and in the streets? Would the raising of the swastika on the Houses of Parliament have made the fight against fascism any less moral?

The facts remain. There is more terrorism in Iraq today than there was when we 'went in'. That does not change the fact that, now as then, the west must battle against terrorism and the Islamic fascists that perpetrate it. The new democratic government stumbles and jolts along, barely capable of exerting its will across Baghdad, let alone the whole country. That does not change the fact that, now as then, freedom is and will always - always - be worth the spilling of blood. Dictators and tyrants from Iran to North Korea continue to develop or plan to develop nuclear technology in flagrant violation of countless UN resolutions and international law. Does that somehow affect the morality of halting Saddam Hussein in his plans to develop WMD? Or the need to enforce UN Resolution 1441?

I don't know of numbers, but there are certain people who have "changed their minds" about Iraq because currently it is not going well. Are they saying they have changed their minds about the original jus in bello for the start of war, or that just causes somehow become unjust when they face difficulty and those "in the right" are on the back foot? (Or is it simply that the poll numbers are no longer in their favour?)

I reaffirm my support. I will support liberal democracy, tolerance and secular government even should they loose - in Iraq, in another country, or even at home.

I implore others to do the 'hindsight test'. Are you guilty of changing your mind in this way?

This online clip is mandatory viewing

I just had the most infuriating seminar in a good long while. The whole thing was dominated by one or two people, ranting incoherently about how knowledge is implied by power, about deconstructing dominant discourses, and how much of an inspired genius Jacques Derrida is. I said one thing and one thing alone during the whole hour:

"How does this relate to international relations? How does it stop wars, ensure reasoned progress and improve the lives of all?"

I am told this is 'not the point'

My main concern is the flippant way in which PoMos treat reason. One of the authors of my main book on this subject criticises the idea that knowledge depends on the:

sovereignty of the heroic figure of reasoning man who knows that the order of the world is not God-given, that man is the origin of all knowledge, that responsibility for supplying meaning to history resides with man himself, and that, through reason, man may achieve total knowledge, total autonomy, and total power

Excuse me? I don't suggest we can reach a perfect world - of course we can't - but to declare an end of the modernity project? To say that attempting to establish the Enlightenment values of logic, rational inference and evidence based conclusions, is the problem, rather than the solution? Its genuinely scary.

The ridiculous nature of this pseudo-intellectual leaning was exposed by Professor Alan Sokal, who in 1997 submitted a satirical article to the journal Social Test. The essay maintained that scientific procedures of testability and experiment were themselves culturally produced or constructed, and possessed no independent validity. On seeing his preposterous submission accepted and published by the editors, Professor Sokal revealed the hoax.

(As a proud disciple of George Orwell's insistence on clear writing, I don't know whether to laugh or cry over the largely terrible english exhibited by post-modernists. It is as if these people take pride in forgetting their full stops, writing in hyper-technical language, and revel in the use of tautology)

This kind of crap is serious, though. Its anti-modern rhetoric directly challenges liberty. Michael Foucault, prized postmodernist heroine, went to Iran in 1978 to praise the Ayatollah - calling him an "old saint". He attacked the secular, democratic and feminist wings of the Iranian revolution, saying Iranians don't have the same "regime of truth" as we do. He then implored Khomeini to avoid any move toward proper democracy, because "we all know what that leads to"

The final straw for me is the obscene way postmodern artists go around simply trying to shock people. Jake and Dinos Chapman, prized wankers, recently bought and defaced a copy of Goya's Disasters of War (which pictures harrowed victims of the Napoleonic wars) by scribbling pictures of babies and puppies on the character's faces. Why did they do this? I haven't the slightest idea. But Jake Chapman has said previously in an interview that "the Enlightenment project. ... virulently infects the earth"

If someone can explain to me - coherently- the value of postmodernism, I'm happy to listen. Yet I can't find anything. All I can see are pre-modernists - Islamic fundamentalists, dictators, fascists - and post-modernists - pompous continental pseudo-intellectuals, bricked up in their cushy university departments - coming together in alliance against those values that we all need to adhere to now more than ever. Freedom, democracy, liberty. Progress. Reason.

This is a graphic from ConservativeHome summarising poll findings published in last week's Mail On Sunday:



and here are other, separate poll results from The Sunday Times. They suggest a similar feeling: By 63% to 21% people thought green taxation was about raising taxes rather than climate change, and "69% object to more congestion charging and road-pricing; and 60% are against Cameron’s proposal for an increase in taxes on cheap flights"

So why then does David Cameron insist on pushing the environmental agenda? Has he identified some undercurrent mindset, held subconsciously by the British - in which they will vote for politicians with unpopular policies, just so long as in casting their ballot they can feel smug in making the responsible and moral choice?

92% of football fans want terracing back in top flight football. The enjoyment at grounds around the country has been drained, and thousands pushed out of pocket as a result of misunderstandings surrounding the reason behind the Hilsborough disaster. With report after report illustrating the passion for a return to terracing it is time that we do not just talk about it but make it happen. I have welcomed the announcement that David Cameron will review safe standing if elected Prime Minister. I for one will be awaiting with interest if he follows through with this promise.

Do we really need to renew our nuclear deterrent?

I mean.. really?

Yesterday I attended the Commonwealth Remembrance Day organsied by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the event was fantastic and there is a lot CF can do to promote the work of the CPA. It was great to meet so many fantastic people from across the Commonwealth, but I was honoured to meet her Majesty the Queen during the evening drinks reception.

A photo of the Commonwealth representatives at the CPA event can be found at www.paul-rogers.blogspot.com

Ever wondered what it means when politicians, celebrities etc claim to have offset carbon emitions? Well I have just come across this very balanced and interesting article in the Guardian. Some key quotes:

"There are now at least 15 companies in this country catering to people who volunteer to off set the carbon emissions of flights; the rest of the world manages just 29. A year ago, 20 people per week were offsetting flights through the website of one British firm, the CarbonNeutral Company. Today, it’s 200 per week."

"local people were being thrown off the land to make way for new forests, which were sometimes non-native trees in monoculture plantations and hence disastrous for local ecology. "

"As if to underline the point, this year journalists discovered that the Coldplay forest in India was not exactly blooming: 40 per cent of the trees had died, with villagers saying they had been given no funds for irrigation or fertiliser (although other forestry projects paid for by Coldplay elsewhere may have done better)."

"The CarbonNeutral Company, the firm responsible for that campaign and for most of the celebrity planting schemes, now accepts that trees aren’t the best way of tackling climate change, but argues they were a useful way to get customers interested in the early days"

The article can be found at :
http://travel.guardian.co.uk/article/2006/dec/10/ethicalholidays.escape#more-article

Those who know me may well have come across my less than accommodating views of David Cameron's environmental agenda. Last Thursday channel 4 aired a provocative and thought provoking programme labelled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Citing acclaimed scientists and even the co-founder of Greenpeace it is a chilling documentary as to how twisted theories are being presented as the undeniable truth and anyone who questions them is portrayed in the same category as Nazi holocaust deniers. If you have not done so already I urge everyone to view the link to the programme and at the very least question the way that this agenda is being carried out.

Iain Dale has cited a very interesting article by Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph who alleges that Liberal Democrat failed leadership contender Chris Huhne, who, without having seen the programme, wrote to Channel 4 executives advising them in the gravest terms to reconsider their decision to broadcast it. Considering that billions of pounds will be pumped into this new religion isn’t it right that we should be able to hear the growing voice in opposition to it?

I believe strongly that a green lifestyle is a better one. However this is a choice for individuals and not for Government. With Government involved, we are going to be hit by more and more taxes on something that is nowhere near as assured as we are being told. David Cameron’s announcement on taxation is his biggest error yet, even managing to eclipse his decision to move us out of the EPP/ED. But my biggest concern is that this green agenda seems to have spat in the faces of the millions of people in Africa and elsewhere who are riddled with poverty. Only a year or so ago everyone was walking the streets with their make poverty history bands. The greatest challenge of our century shouted the politicians. No more, Geldoff announced yesterday that money was dropping and pledges that had been made were being broken. The saddest thing is that not only are these people being constrained by the Green Agenda but will also be the worst hit if indeed I am wrong in my criticism. If we as a Party are trying to show we have changed then I would suggest that helping to alleviate people in Africa from unbearable poverty should be our calling and not that of the out of control Green lobby.

Link to documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&hl=en-GB

A good report on the Welsh Conservative conference in Cardiff. A good time was had by all and a full report will be posted as soon as I find a break in my studies!

Quick Highlights

William Hague's Speech - Good
Lisa Francis's Speech - Excellent!
David Cameron's Speech - Very good.

The quantity of alochol - Also Very Good!

Some may recall that last week I went to London to take part in the 'mass loan demonstrations' outside Parliament against the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

Well, I went, and very much enjoyed my trip. For those interested I've written a report and got some pictures online in an album.

Cheers

This is just before The Bay, where everything went steadily downhill...