The Spectator

Comment on Sword of honour by Paul Robinson (26/07/2003) National honour is a valid reason to go to war, but in the current case, there is also the principle of self-defence. When someone announces he's going to do you serious or fatal harm, it is not required to give him one free blow before initiating defensive measures. In my state, (Colorado), if someone announces he's going to kill you, and you believe the threat credible, and you have no other immediate recourse, you may use deadly force pre-emptively. In the current world case, we actually gave the enemy several free swings at us before deciding to hit back. In the South, when a person becomes a threat to the general stability, and someone takes an opportunity to remedy the problem, "He needed killing.

It is a sad sign of the times that a man who shot a burglar dead and wounded another should have become a national hero. The frustration that millions of householders feel about the inability or unwillingness of the British state to perform its one indispensable function – namely to protect the person and property of its citizens, despite its consumption of nearly half the country's economic product – has turned Tony Martin, who was released this week, into a symbol of decency, common sense and middle-class revolt. The fact is that many a law-abiding person rejoiced to hear that Mr Martin shot his intruder dead, and wished only that a few more burglars might be shot pour encourager les autres.

Comment on No flies on Bush by Mark Steyn (19/07/2003) I read Mark Steyn's article on the harmlessness of the lies told by the USA and the UK on the world stage and tried to be reassured by his joviality. After all, I thought, what's a few thousand dead people when, as your poll showed, the people 'liberated' by us, know that we are really after their oil. Who else is going to notice a few lies (about Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaida, promises that Iraqi oil money is controlled by Iraqis and the creation of democracy (shouldn't this happen before the country is privatised?) except mad anti-war activists and world public opinion?

Comment on Girls just want to have funds by Rachel Royce (12/07/2003) Rachel Royce gives women a bad name when she accuses men of greed yet expects a return of between 200% and 800% on her “investment”. Simple logic will tell her that it is not men, but elementary maths that make a pyramid scheme unsustainable. A seasoning of gender, class and libertarian polemic should not be allowed to disguise the spuriousness of her argument. Hearts and their ilk are called “gifting” schemes, not “investment” schemes for a reason: money only flows up the pyramid, not down.

We all know what we think. Week in, week out, we hear what the British view of the war in Iraq is, and the polls tell us that we are becoming ever more sceptical. We know what the Americans think. We know what the French think of it all (not a lot). Now, for the first time, we have a scientific attempt to survey the opinion of the people whose country was fought over, and in whose name the battle of Baghdad took place. To look at the polling returns from Iraq is frankly to have a sense of relief; relief not just that they do not all want an instant return to power by Saddam Hussein. It is a relief to hear the voices of those who are really engaged in the matter.

The interests of Englishmen are not threatened with impunity: and the danger of molesting them does not disclose itself till the threat has been uttered, and their enmity has been irrevocably incurred. They have a habit of sleeping up to the very moment of danger, which is equally embarrassing to their champions and their assailants. So wrote Lord Salisbury in 1873. He was echoed a century later by Enoch Powell, who observed that one of the 'peculiar faults' of the English was their 'strange passivity in the face of danger or absurdity or provocation'.

Comment on The defence of liberty (28/06/2003) It was disappointing to find The Spectator toeing the official pro-war line in this editorial, especially when even a periodical as supportive of the war as The Economist has issued withering criticism of the blundering incompetence of the occupation when such criticism was warranted. As someone who has opposed this war, and the general policy of pre-emption, I take no pleasure in the usually foreseeable setbacks and problems that are besetting American and British soldiers in Iraq.

Comment on Crippling burden by Rod Liddle (21/06/2003) Your tawdry article on those of us who are disabled adequately shows us that you are indeed genuinely disabled - by blindness to the facts, arrogance, facetiousness and selective deafness amongst others. You chastise us for almost daring to claim what is the birthright of every citizen: to be judged on what can do, rather than what we cannot. Do you want us to remain objects of pity when we could be taking a full part in society? Is it only for the non-disabled "elite" to claim life's rich pickings? It isn't as if we want anything special - just the means to be able to compete on equal terms. Is our money disabled, too? Is it not of sufficient value that premises shouldn't install ramps etc - all with Government money, I might add?

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime remains a triumph of British and American arms. Casualties have been much lower than might have been expected in such extensive operations: a fact which the death on Tuesday of six British soldiers and the wounding of eight others should not be allowed to obscure. Such losses are regrettable, and one is bound to feel the deepest sympathy with the families and friends of the dead and injured, but the overall picture remains unchanged. Throughout the campaign there has been a tendency by those who were against the war anyhow, and by a great part of the press, to over-interpret minor setbacks, and to draw strategic conclusions from tiny skirmishes.