I’ve been away recently but I’ll make this a priority post. Thanks Sminkeypinkey
for the good reply; although it’s facing a strong
Seeing as how the Labour government from 1997 on has extended democracy in the UK, rolled back the power of the State, Royal prerogative and
devolved power to a unique degree the fact is that this simply is not true.
Extending democracy? Would the devolution of Scotland; where they can elect MP’s to vote on issues that don’t affect them be part of that? The
worst example was when they backed the so called “top fees” (which don’t affect Scotland). If they care about England maybe they should show
their respect by not voting on issues which don’t affect them?
Or could it have more to do with maintaining their position within the Labour
As for rolling back the powers of the state; every government does. The question is whether or not that has been the overall effect? I.D cards, 28 day
imprisonment without charge, political protest bans within 1 kilometre of Westminster, and the same for about ten military sites, the dreaded
parliamentary reform act (still in the pipeline though somewhat watered down) (for now) these things make me think otherwise.
if you can name instances where Labour has rolled back the power of the state (which I'm sure you can) and show them to be of a
bigger influence than the above (which I'm sure you can’t
) then I might change my mind about Labour weakening our democracy.
I reckon Blair has a contempt for democracy because of several areas. He’ll “reform” the House of Lords, whilst resisting an elected second
house. But meanwhile he will preside over a situation where Labour donors are 1657 times more likely to get an honour of some kind than those who
(every 1 million donor gets an honour).
Frankly I think we were better of with the old situation. Why? Because it was an act of birth-chance that governed who got Lordship. Judging from the
honours scandal I have a funny suspicion that most Lords (appointed during this government) will have something morally wrong with them. Of course
this could be true with the old system (but in my opinion
it was less “guaranteed”). I'm no supporter of the old system ether but I do
want an elected second house.
Blair opposes any form of voting reform; however so do the Tories and they have most to gain. So I guess that’s ok (well in itself).
But then you have the war in Iraq; did Blair lie? In my opinion its obvious he did; what worries me even more is how exactly Hutton cleared the
government of “sexing up the war in Iraq”. This led to Greg Dyke been kicked out of the BBC. And at that time they the government got away with it
(they were still telling the public WMD’s will be found). But regarding all things “sexed up” I have this to say to Blair “It’s a good job
we don’t rely on opinion polls-common sense isn’t it?”
On Iraq? Ok…
Iraq may be a mess, in places, but claiming that everything bad out there is new and solely the fault of the US/UK is a rather childish and ignorant
attitude to take.
There has been some progress (the recent widespread voting despite the threats for instance) but it is true that there are many problems, however, the
fault for the sectarian violence in Iraq lies with those committing those sectarian and violent acts, not the US & UK.
Personally I'd rather 'we' were not there, but 'we' are (now under a full and proper UN mandate), whilst many people have been against the war I
don't think the majority are in favour of just leaving right now and leaving the Iraqi people to the sectarian extremists.
Iraq may be a mess in places? Wouldn’t everywhere accept the old area of Kurdistan be a better description?
As far as laying the blame goes I’ll tell you this. A friend of mine (James) visited Baghdad shortly before the invasion. You could go anywhere,
talk to anyone, and they weren’t even that hostile (in contrast to say certain areas of London).
But today I think London is a lot safer. There was no civil war when Saddam is power; he kept a country where 60 percent of the population are Shiite
Muslim fundamentalists under control. Yes he killed people common “estimates” are about 300,000 people over a 30 year period. However with 1,800
people dying in Baghdad (alone) in this July (alone) www.abc.net.au...
Then I would say what we have unleashed is much worse. Especially as many of the people Saddam killed were sort of asking for it. People like to
imagine many died wanting some western concept of a democracy; reality is most people who resisted Saddam did so for religious reasons, most were
illiberal fundamentalists (or as that other test-embarrassment to democracy) Fox News says “Islamofascists”. I have very little time for these
people; and I too believe they belong in mass graves (or under the cloud of a daisy cutter as we do in Afghanistan). Fact is that before U.N sanctions
Iraq had 92% literacy, and 93% access to free health care (often of a first world standard). Saddam got rid of his WMD’s but the sanctions
persisted; not so much at his expense but that of the Iraqi people. Fact is that the oil for food programme (which we in the west talk so much about
as having been a possible let out to all of Iraq’s problems) only became functional in October 1997; fact is of the 65 billion it raised only 46 was
destined to go to Iraqis by the U.N (the other 19 billion went to such things as Kuwaiti compensation) (even though they are a very rich country).
As Iraq has a population of 26,783,383 www.cia.gov...
We can calculate that even if all of the 46 billion had gone to Iraqis then they would only have received 1717 dollars during its 6 years of
operation. This is 286 dollars a year or 5.50 dollars a week!!!
In short our sanctions were wretched; and our generosity was minimal (especially as it cost us nothing anyway).
P.S Iraq’s population has fallen by a few million since our invasion so the oil for food money available would probably have been even less than
5.50 dollars a week.
Of course Blair supported sanctions, and I think he really is a charismatic antichrist if
he knew they had got rid of their WMD’s-that this
war was unnecessary. And if Bush, Blair, or any majority of ruling class care so much about human rights I still can’t figure out why we’ve used
over 1500 of depletive uranium over Iraq (which has a half life of 4.2 billion years). It’s not that radioactive but when a shell hits a tank the
metal vaporises and from there it can be breathed in, or like lead accumulate in the food chain. This means radiation is released at point blank range
inside the body and there is ample evidence that, that is harmful. Then again not condemning Israel in the slightest or withholding weapons exports
also doesn’t say much about Blairs view of human rights-ethics.
You say its childish to blame Britain-U.S for all of Iraq’s problems. I say you have a serious lack of knowledge unless you mean that completely
After all say you don’t like Saddam; well how did he get to power?
The thing about Kuwait? Well it was Britain’s colonial occupation of the 1920’s which made Kuwait.
Before the territory had been part of Iraq for thousands of years
(I enjoyed reading it)
This fact helped “justify” its 1991 invasion
Quote from: www.washington-report.org...
“Iraq was riled when Britain, under its League of Nations mandate for Mesopotamia, carved off the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait, making the emir
permanently beholden to London. In 1991, Saddam Hussain, on the pretext that Kuwait was drawing too much oil from a shared deposit, invaded Kuwait,
with largely popular support.”
The point I'm trying to make Sminkeypinkey
is not only is Britain and America mostly responsible for Iraq’s problems 1991 onwards; but even
in the past we have much to do with problems of today. We created
Kuwait with a view to limiting Iraq’s oil wealth (in fact it was only in
June 1961 it became fully independent) www.kuwait-toplist.com...
this in turn caused the 1991 Gulf War. Ever wondered why so many
different types of people are mixed up in Iraq anyway? Do your colonial history!!! (it was almost exclusively Britain’s doing).
So you see now it’s not juvenile to blame Iraq’s problems (past and present) on Britain? In fact it’s rather uneducated of you to say it is a
As far keeping the troops there now; take a look at this Iraqi MOD opinion poll…
(I’ve given this link many times before as its source (The MOD) is excellent (being printed in the Telegraph and of being of this nature is just a
So yeah those troops obviously don’t have a mandate from the Iraqi people; and if their government is so democratic then we shouldn’t really have
one from them. If it was really democratic Iraq would be just a sister state of Iran.
I support the argument contained in the third last link. I believe Iraq should be divided along ethnic and religious lines in order to bring back
stability and end the fighting. Because you ether do that or you have a dictator to keep the whole country together and given the way Saddam complied
with our demands, and kept stability, and spent so much of his countries money on his own people (both during and before it was impoverished by
sanctions) then I can think of no better dictator than him. Of course our leaders have neither the wisdom, or sense of moral direction to do that.
And the great thing about dividing Iraq along religious lines is that regarding the Shiites you ether have a dictatorship which kills people, or you
have a democracy which elects a dictatorship which also kills people. Given that the Shiite way of doing things is basically a fundamentalist
religious state I reckon that a secular dictator like Saddam would be the best man for the job (why have Iran Two when you can have someone you can
negotiate and reason with like him?) (And his unilateral disbarment of WMD’s prove that; since if he had really been full of self interest Saddam
should have let his people starve and kept them) (as does like Kim Jong of North Korea).
Lies About Saddam…
Blair willingly governs a population which has little idea of the lies and misconceptions peddled by both government and mainstream media (most
notably of all his friends Rupert Murdoch media).
1. The greatness of the oil for food programme
2. The high spending by Saddam on Iraqi people and needs
3. The history of Kuwait
4. The disputed use of poison gas by Saddam against the Kurds (given credibility by the CIA director at the time)
(I have to say it looks like an Iranian mistake which turned greatly to their advantage)
5. The effects of weapons like DU (although still disputed by the military) (and more widely known).
Saddam Human shredder story…
3. The 300,000 figure? Yes you have to ask did Saddam kill that many people in mass graves? Perhaps he did (I don’t care because (as said) they’re
mostly fundamentalists) but given that we did make up both the incubator and human paper shredder story then perhaps (just perhaps) we’re
exaggerating his death toll? After all in this war we’ve run short of justification in so many ways.
But that’s not the point of this post. The point is that about everything I’ve said from the kilometre of political protests banned from
Westminster, to the Iraq misconceptions and possible WMD lies (not to mention other legislation like I.D cards and possibly the parliamentary reform
act) they all point to Blair having a contempt for democracy and parliament (or really the people) seeing that.
I doubt it means anything much because at the end of the day as Cameron will be almost certainly be exactly the same, (and sadly that’s
why) he has a chance of winning. Of course the Tories (like any major party) could elect a human being (say Kenneth Clark who most the
public would automatically support) but no (like the Labour) the closest they’ll do is provide a false one.
Personally I don’t think Blair or Cameron will take away the little democracy we have from us. However the lies, deception, and ways of doing things
seem to show a contempt for it nonetheless. But at the end of the day there are only two parties that can come to power in this country and they begin
with the letters ConLab. The Liberal Democrats (seem to me) to make themselves deliberately unelectable for government; perhaps that’s an illusion
created by a stark reality? But ether way I see them as a bit of a false opposition. But make no mistake Blair has no love
of democracy; only a
decision to deal with it. If I'm wrong about that then those points of mine raise many more questions than they answer (especially if that is the
Back to Lebanon
25 million in weapons to Israel is 25 many. There is such a thing called “gesture politics” my gesture to Israel would be that if you don’t stop
hitting terrorist targets like airports, power stations, and apartment blocks (for having as little as an empty political office) then we will cut of
arms sales to you. The apartment block thing is harder to argue (as some people so convinced that Israel is some sort of human country) so instead
we’ll just stick to power stations and Terrorist Airlines (at least that way they’ll vaguely understand).
Also how many times has Israel been hit by Hezbollah before this conflict?
I wasn’t aware of any until the last war. I don’t think Israel
should stay idol in the face of a threat to its people. But I think they should look up the word “proportion”
and then implement it, I think they should recognise that collective punishment is a gift to terrorist but an enemy to
the welfare of their people (although obviously not their military).
I brought up the Lebanon thing firstly because if Blair represented the British people he wouldn’t be supporting it to extent he currently has, and
because both Blair and Murdoch are pro Israel and that this is a cornerstone of their friendship (I also mentioned it because the thread was slowing).
And encase you ask (like the media relationship) everything in this reply is to do with contempt for democracy. It’s the point I'm trying to make:
Blair’s media relationship, plus
track record equals contempt for democracy. It’s my belief and I think I'm saying it in the right place