Bush and Al-Jazeera
The Attorney General’s ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act … we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. .. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for
I’ll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera
It must be said that subsequent events have not made life easy for those of us who were so optimistic as to support the war in Iraq. There were those who believed the Government’s rubbish about Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then the WMD made their historic no-show.
Some of us were so innocent as to suppose that the Pentagon had a well-thought-out plan for the removal of the dictator and the introduction of peace. Then we had the insurgency, in which tens of thousands have died.
Some of us thought it was about ensuring that chemical weapons could never again be used on Iraqi soil. Then we heard about the white phosphorus deployed by the Pentagon. Some people believed that the American liberation would mean the end of torture in Iraqi jails. Then we had Abu Ghraib.
Some of us thought it was all about the dissemination of the institutions of a civil society – above all a free press, in which journalists could work without fear of being murdered. Then we heard about the Bush plan to blow up al-Jazeera.
Some of us feel that we have an abusive relationship with this war. Every time we get our hopes up, we get punched by some piece of bad news. We yearn to be told that we’re wrong, that things are going to get better, that the glass is half full. That’s why I would love to think that Dubya was just having one of his little frat-house wisecracks, when he talked of destroying the Qatar-based satellite TV station. Maybe he was only horsing around. Maybe it was a flippant one-liner, of the kind that he delivers before making one of his dramatic exits into the broom-closet. Perhaps it was a kind of Henry II moment: you know, who will rid me of this turbulent TV station? Maybe he had a burst of spacy Reagan-esque surrealism, like the time the old boy forgot that the mikes were switched on, and startled a press conference with the announcement that he was going to start bombing Russia in five minutes. Maybe Bush thought he was Kenny Everett. Perhaps he was playing Basil Brush. Boom boom.
Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?
We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.
What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.
We know that the administration was infuriated with the al-Jazeera coverage of the battle, and the way the station focused on the deaths of hundreds of people, including civilians, rather than the necessity of ridding the town of dangerous terrorists. We remember how Cheney and Rumsfeld both launched vehement attacks on the station, and accused it of aiding the rebels. We are told by the New York Times that there were shouty-crackers arguments within the administration, with some officials yelling that the channel should be shut down, and others saying that it would be better to work with the journalists in the hope of producing better coverage.
We also recall that the Americans have form when it comes to the mass media outlets of regimes they dislike. They blew up the Kabul bureau of al-Jazeera in 2002, and they pulverised the Baghdad bureau in April 2003, killing one of the reporters. In 1999 they managed to blow up the Serb TV station, killing two make-up girls, in circumstances that were never satisfactorily explained.
To be fair to the Americans, we must also accept that they had good grounds for resenting al-Jazeera. The station is hugely respected in the Arab world, has about 35 million viewers, and yet it gives what can only be described as a thoroughly Arab perspective of current affairs. It assists in the glorification of suicide bombers; it publishes the rambling tapes of Bin Laden and others among the world’s leading creeps and whackos; it is overwhelmingly hostile to America and sceptical about the neo-con project of imposing western values and political systems in the Middle East.
And yet however wrong you may think al-Jazeera is in its slant and its views, you must accept that what it is providing is recognisably journalism. It is not always helpful to the American cause in Iraq, but then nor is the BBC; and would anybody in London or Washington suggest sending a Tomahawk into White City? Well, they might, but only as a joke. Exhausted Western leaders, living in the nightmare of a media-dominated democracy, are allowed to make jokes about blowing up journalists. I seem to remember that when I was sent to Belgrade to cover the Nato attacks, Tony Blair told the then proprietor of The Daily Telegraph that he would “tell Nato to step up the bombing!” Ho ho ho.
But if there is an ounce of truth in the notion that George Bush seriously proposed the destruction of al-Jazeera, and was only dissuaded by the Prime Minister, then we need to know, and we need to know urgently. We need to know what we have been fighting for, and there is only one way to find out.
The Attorney General’s ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act, and, as it happens, I would not object to the continued prosecution of those who are alleged to have broken it. But we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.
If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies.
218 Comments
The ‘Bomb Al-Jazeera’ memo
Boris Johnson: If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. BlairWatch: We’re with you Boris. Here’s the deal. If you get…
Rate This:
0 
0
Boris Johnson Returns From The Dark Side
I used to be a great fan of British MP and Spectator editor Boris Johnson. Politics aside, he generally comes across as a lovable buffoon, which I don’t mean to be negative in any way. Have I Got News For…
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack Ramsay
Sorry, but I still object to the word ‘neutralise’. It’s possible in using that word Field meant that we should encourage the Democratic process in a peaceful and non-invasive manner. But the general tone of his post suggests to me that if gentle encouragement fails he’ll happily support military intervention – ‘neutralising’ Iran in much the same way as we neutralised Iraq and Afghanistan.
I may be wrong. I hope Field pops back in here and clarifies his thinking for us.
Meanwhile I’m thinking back over the history of our sceptred isle (and the US come to that), trying to identify an occasion when we invaded another sovereign state without having been attacked first and it all went well in the end.
Nope, can’t think of a single instance.
Rate This:
0 
0
We invaded Serbia without having been attacked, and depending on your opinion it ended well.
I find it interesting that you consider Iraq ‘neutralised’ – given that 81 american soldiers have died this month, among well over 15000 so far.
The most recent being two as yet un-named soldiers who died earlier today north of Baghdad under hostile fire.
That’s along with 13 last week (3 of which were non-hostile: 1 unspecified injury, 1 vehicle accident, and 1 to illness)
In fact over the past month of November, only 4 days have gone by without any american casualties. Oh, and also 159 Iraqi police this month, and 561 civilians.
Total of 801 deaths this november in Iraq, 240 of whom are american soldiers or Iraqi police. Sounds neutralised to me.
Rate This:
0 
0
Afghanistan is much better, with only 7 dead soldiers this month (3 US, 1 German, 1 Canadian, 1 Swede, and 1 Portuguese).
They included a Lieutenant Col. and 2 Sergeants 1st Class mind you. And 126 dead so far this year (only a little over every 3rd day!)
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack T
You may have a point with Serbia, provided you’re referring to the recent Balkans conflict and not the first World War. I seem to remember the Kosovo thing being a last resort after UN peacekeeping had failed. Can anyone remind me how we did get into that?
Re Iraq: nope. Definitely not neutralised. Though I rather think the Pentagon was hoping it would be by now, don’t you? In much the same way as they probably hoped they were neutralising Vietnam and Korea.
Your casualty figures are fascinating. That’s an awful lot of dead people. And exactly what have we gained, in Iraq and Afghanistan alike?
Rate This:
0 
0
Well chaps
I did try to indicate what I thought Field meant by neutralise, though he may wish to say otherwise.
“Mr. Churchill, the Luftwafe are bombing hell out of London – just what have we gained by this intransigence”
No, I am not suggesting that Mr. Blair is Mr. Churchill, rather that there are unforeseen costs and there is never any guarantee of success.
Although Dr. Kelly, whose first name I have forgotten, felt that there were no immediate WMDs, he did support the war on account of the fact that Saddam had tried previously and still wished to develop them. You may think it unfair not to let him (Saddam) develop them in his own time but when it comes to a choice between a “Texas cowboy” or Saddam possessing them, then I’ll sing “Home on the range” any day. (Fortunately this blog is not equipped for sound yet).
Had the coalition not intervened would Iraq just have chugged on as usual, with Saddam’s massacres but no WM development? I don’t think so.
I have been informed, indirectly through URLs, by, I think, several our American cousins in the SWP of A, that Al Quaeda does not exist, Mossad did the Twin Towers, the Americans did the twin towers, no one did the twin towers and, for all I know, Gandalf did the Twin Towers(Two Towers). I’m still pretty convinced it was Islamacists from AQ. I would like to know if the SWP of A is supporting the “insurgents” who, according to the BBC this morning, “executed” Margaret Hassan some months ago.
Jack remarked that the US of A is the only country to deploy nuclear weapons in a war. True. Many thousands of allied troops as well as Japanese troops and civilians were thus saved. Many of my generation remember ex-soldiers of our parents generation being very grateful for it.
As an unintended consequence it probably had the effect of preventing its use in the Cold War.
You may have noticed, since that occasion, that the US of A has not used nuclear bombs. (Oh all right I know there’s all those times they are “not telling us about” when they blew hell out of Much Binding in the Marsh but covered up with the help of HMG (see SWP of A for suitable URLs) – but apart from that).
So it’s unfair the USA having all those nukes. I certainly wish they had fewer. But I am not going to lobby for them to share them out with every country in the world. Would you really like the present North Korean and Iranian administrations to have nukes?
Please be assured that I respect both you chaps and do pay attention to what you say. I happen to think the world is a messier place than perhaps you do, and there are very imperfect, crude and blunt movements for ‘the right thing’.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack R – respect bakatcha, old chum.
Please ignore the mad Americans. As you can see, one of them has crept onto the site in the post immediately preceding this one. Chips will grass unconditionally, indeed.
Re the nuclear weapons thing, I’m all in favour of nobody having the damn things. Least of all us, because we can’t justify the expense. Hwever I seem to remember reading that Iran is actually proposing a nuclear POWER programme. Must as our own PM proposed this very morning.
If we ever want to be friends with the Islamic world again, we’re going to have to be veeeeery careful with our double standards.
You may be right about Iraq not chugging along as usual, had we not invaded. Equally, they might have gone chugging right along, gradually becoming more and more economically infirm (as I’m sure they were) until eventually the whole Saddam pack of cards collapsed in on itself. Rather like the old ‘Evil Empire’ behind the Iron Curtain collapsed.
We’ll never know, I guess.
Meanwhile, I’m still not clear what ‘neutralise’ actually means. Invade? Bomb? Reconstruct? Convert to Christinity?
Field? Can you help?
(it was David Kelly, by the way)
Rate This:
0 
0
But I am not going to lobby for them to share them out with every country in the world. Would you really like the present North Korean and Iranian administrations to have nukes?
——————————————–
What a load of chauvinistic, incoherent drivel?
Pray tell what kind of regime do these countries have? Do they feast on babies arms at dawn and for supper do they gorge on the floppy doplly eyes of the virgins?
If the intent is to make yourself stand taller by running someone else down, then find a crate and stand on it instead mate! On the other hand if this is to be considered some kind of an informed opinion espoused then get your facts right!
As for the DPRK ( after sixty years they have earned the right to be called the name they wish to be called by, don’t you think?) Clinton had struck a deal; two light water reactors built by the US. As well as shipping 500,000 tonnes of fuel every year. DPRK in return forfeited Yongbyon reactor and shut it down . Then along came Dubya and his band of merry neocons, and the deal was off the table. Further they started beefing up the US military presence while discouraging the South Koreans from closer cooperation with DPRK.
Yongbyon 5-MW(e) Reactor
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/yongbyon-5.htm
However, the prize in mind of the neocon cabal was not DPRK, since it was an incidental inconvenience on the road to Beijing. While Russia stood to be threatened too. Hence the involvement of both countries in the six party talks, that was sabotaged by the kick down, and suck up John Bolton to begin with, and did not get anywhere until his departure to UN, which was followed by the resurrection of the old Clinton deal. Although, in the mean time DPRK leaving the NPT, and kicking out the IAEA inspectors went onto extract enough plutonium to build eight war heads.
Absurdly, DPRK admission to owning these Atomic warheads was greeted with the scepticism of neocons. In fact the sceptical Edward Luttwak leading the charge for his enocon brigade, appearing on the BBC maintained that DPRK does not have any nuclear war heads, and if there is such a device in a barn somewhere in DPRK, that does not mean it could be used, since they have no suitable missiles to carry these! The about turn of the neocons now screaming at DPRK ‘oh no you don’t have any bombs’, was in direct contrast to their earlier posture of ‘oh yes you do have the bomb’. Alas these discrepancies were not debated, and or discussed in any of the MSM, but hey who expected anything other?
So far as Iran is concerned, under article IV paragraph A of NPT, any signatory to NPT has an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear technology, including full fuel cycle (after all no need to build an expensive reactor only to burn cow dung in it.)
Further, under NPT mark 1, there was no need to notify IAEA about any activities, so long as there was less than two kilos of uranium involved. However, as ever the washhouse protocols have been over riding the international law, and the same lickspittles who sold you the Iraq war, got busy whining on about the mushroom clouds further down the road. Evidently why spoil a good recipe? Hence the ridiculous claims, and absurd stories about Iran, and her ‘intentions’, with no irony about the Kafkaesque implications of such unlogic! Iran the same country that the last time they initiated any wars of aggression was some 300 years ago!
Meanwhile back at the ranch Dubya has been farming out nuclear war heads to all and sundry in the coalition of the bribed, sort of proliferating nuclear weapons. Which of course is against NPT, but since when international law has impeded US?
The ugly facts are Hydrocarbons are running out, as reflected in the petrol prices, and as you will find much to your chagrin the hike in the Gas bills (UK has the most expensive gas in the world now) during the coming winter, further the situation is going to get worst and not better, and if you think that war is the answer, best get ready for China to dominate the whole bally planet, after all we have ensured that there are no laws, so what is good for the goose is good for gander as they say!
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Greg!
These virgins keep cropping up. Do they come in batches of 72?
I hazard a guess that the DPRK stands for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. If that’s what the inhabitants of the DPRK voted to call it then that’s fine by me!
Many thanks for the correction.
Rate This:
0 
0
Good on you. Many, many people feel the same.
All sorts of documents have been leaked before with no threat of prosecution to publishers – what on earth is in *this* document to make it so?!
As each day goes by it is even more obvious that we should never have gone anywhere near this war. Many of us knew that at the beginning, but if even those who supported it initially are shaking, it just shows what a big, big mess everything is.
Rate This:
0 
0
That’s brilliant, Boris. Let’s get that stuff in print.
Rate This:
0 
0
respect. (no allusion to G. Galloway intended)
Rate This:
0 
0
Re the virgins. It’s usually quoted as 72. But it’s not apparently in the Koran. And it also allegedly depends on how you translate the word. Turns out it might not even mean virgins at all – more like ‘willing houris’ or something.
Either way it’s all cobblers.
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Jack Ramsey,
Subtle, very subtle, I concede virgins ought to have been kept out of it, as you rightly put it, they keep popping up everywhere these days, and not for their virtues either!
However, the facts remain, that in the current climate of hegemony of mercenaries, profiteers, oafs, and eunuchs, evidently reason and logic have been jettisoned into space. Hence the emotional, irrational, and empty sloganeering on display, that is passed on as debate, and intellectual discourse.
Main Stream Media, working on the principles of a take-away menu, have condensed their fare into three main sections;
Fear of the day.
2minutes hate of the day,
Irrelevant tidbits of the day (so that they qualify as some kind of news purveyors).
Which in turn further constrains and limits the extent of any discussion or debate, by shifting the focus of any dialogue onto the barren and almost childish world the said MSM have contrived. Ironically then the masses are blamed for dictating the direction of the MSM. Of course the blame the public game, is an old age trick, including blaming the voters, as that clever Willy Whitelaw observed; ‘people going around the country and spreading voter apathy’.
Although, the facts on the ground are telling of a trend of the lower and lower newspaper sales, as well as falling ratings of the TV news programs, and even lesser numbers listening to radio news, etc. therefore the absurdity of the punters leading the vendors is only a conjecture amidst the brouhaha of the ‘independent’ media doing a fine job.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, DPRK has nuclear weapons, however this fact is not in anyway hindering the neocons from adhering to their Protocols of The Washhouse, by challenging this DPRK announcement. Although the same neocons earlier in time before DPRK left the NPT, and kicked out the IAEA inspectors going onto manufacture these weapons, were accusing DPRK of having ‘intentions’ to build nuclear weapons.
The reality remaining if the earlier Clinton deal were to have been honoured, there would have been one less nuclear weapon club member. Such monumental stupidity facilitating such mishap, going unchallenged(who are the challengers?), it is further compounded with the threats of annihilation from God’s Own Sheriff Dubya to all and sundry including the axis of evil (comic book writers are writing his speeches these days, Evil doers, Smoke’m out). In fact GOSD seems to be single policy bomb the crap out of them sort of chap, who spend lots of his time issuing threats of hell fire and brimstone, to any and all whom do not appreciate his brand of democracy.
Noting that his brand of democracy on offer, itself in fact is a highly defective brand, as reflected in the voter turnouts who find the mysterious selection processes (never mind the Diebold miracle), offering up an almost cookie cutter politician product, who are in fact mere functionaries to carry on the bidding of the same masters, and not the electorate. The absurdity going further, upon any voting person challenging the said selected political figures, whose retort is; ‘Mrs. don’t vote for us in the elections’!
The nature of Dubya brand of democracy on offer, in fact is more akin to dictatorship by consent, as it is manifested by the latest ruling of attorney general in UK who is intending to prosecute anyone publishing the hotly debated transcripts. Although anyone reading the Telegraph would have noticed that the editor of the Mirror had ran the story by No. 10, before going to print, and yet upon the delivery of the first part, subsequently promised parts have been deemed secret!
The contempt our government holds we the people at, is manifest in this cynical exercise of poodle turning if not lion at least rottweiller, by displaying that our five billion pounds spent on Iraqi adventure has bought enough influence to stop bombing of a TV channel’s HQ.
We then find Boris jumping to save the day by declaring his intentions to publish these transcripts (commendable as this effort may be) upon its receipt. Somehow the painful and obvious fact is taking a back seat that is not debated, what kind of an open government do we have? As it is evident even this member of parliament does not know what is going on, evidently keeping us in the dark and throwing manure seems to extend to our elected parliamentarians too.
It is certain that many posters to this blog will recollect the dodgy and dodgier dossiers that were lifted up from an e magazine on the internet. These articles that were the writings of a student, and hailed as the de facto smoking gun with a mushroom cloud on the road to Baghdad. As we now know, the essays of the student, had scant relevance to the nuclear, chemical, and biological posture of Iraq then, however this did not spare the fate of that poor man Gilligan who dared to suggest; the dossiers were sexed up. This revelation cost his job, he was harangued out of his job, along with anyone who stood by him.
The consistent thread running throughout the sordid affair of the premeditated murder in Iraq, has been abound with the stories of ‘dog ate my homework’ as this administration has gone onto blame everything and every one, ranging from the foreign fighters to Iranians helping the insurgents.
First off an insurgency would indicate a legitimate government facing armed dissidents among its respective population. Since the current Iraqi government has more similarities to Vichy government of occupied France, fronting for the occupation forces that are pounding the Iraqis after nearly three years, this term itself is telling of an administration that has been caught as a rabbit in the beam of headlights would be, and a media that has sold out, both of which are cause for alarm. Since in the case of the former, did the planners not realise the certain retaliation of the Iraqis, and in the latter case the MSM without offering any challenges have condoned the ineffective and flawed decision making processes which are promoting even greater propensity to violence in Iraq, by the growing desperation to bomb their way out of the current problems faced in Iraq.
The story in the Independent blowing away the myth of the Iranian involvement in supply of the same ‘Infra-red’ (now that is something real technical including the TV remote) triggers that were actually supplied to IRA by the British armed forces in a botched sting operation, and so far as the bombs are concerned being the handy work of one Charles Monroe in 1888, and carrying his name as Monroe effect to this day after more than a century later. Which somehow is not read by the Sky News experts, and or BBC news producers, who go onto promulgate Iranian involvement based on the anonymous sources. Helping to legitimise ‘Dog ate my homework’.
Rate This:
0 
0
I was about to point out that the government in Iraq is democratically elected, and that the comparisson with Vichy France is a bit weak. But were there actually any candidates who stood for election in Iraq, proposing that the first act of their new government would be to demand the withdrawal of occupying forces?
Just wondering, we can only vote between the choices we’re given, and if nobody was able to vote for the “allies” to leave, then does that count as us being there by democratic consent?
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Greg
Your postings sure make Bleak House, the book, look like Chicken Licken plotwise!
I don’t think the comaprison with Vichy France is useful. JT asks whether there were any candidates demanding the withdrawal of occupation forces. My answer is I don’t know. There were choices between candidates with varying positions as far as I can see and I guess that various were in favour of withdrawal at different times. My ignorance of Vichy is almost perfect (I went there once and couldn’t find a war memorial) so I have no idea how their elections, if any, worked but I suspect that the Jewish Social Democratic Party may have had a hard time.
It seemed to me that the White House were genuinely concerned about the cosntitution vote.
It’s a neat trick to bring in Vichy Greg. USA = Nazis etc. but I don’t think it washes. Guantanamo Bay, Abu Grahib and rumours of Eastern European torture centres do not equal Auschwitz. As I recall, A. H. Itler was inclined to rule the world with a master race and eliminate quite a lot of the others. At its most selfinterestedness, the USA is concerned to stop international terrorism and rogue states threatening it. At its more generous it is genuinely keen to see democracy spread. Perhaps Mac is right and this is naive.
Anyway Greg, much as I enjoyed your postings, I’m still not clear on the election arrangements in DPRK. Also, is it a workers’ state and, if so, what sort?
Rate This:
0 
0
I’m afraid I’d question their motives to a much greater extent than you do Jack. Bush’s election malpractices, and his consistent employment of corporations to run Iraq speaks of more self-interest than merely stopping terrorism. It seems to me that ‘at their most generous’ they are more interested in spreading capitalism than democracy, or rather that Bush is intent on spreading the influence of his friends’ and family’s companies. The democrats are right to complain about the election results, and I believe we are right to question the USA’s motives in Iraq and everywhere else they’re deployed. I also think we’re right to question who conducted 9/11, since we heard really very little from AQ about it. And Osama still hasn’t been found (I guess the if he was even alive during 9/11, he’s probably dead and burned/buried now). Whether or not these guys are right in their conclusions, surely you can’t think it’s a bad think to investigate?
In answer to your question from about 20 posts back. I think I possibly would rather the present NK and Iranian administrations had nukes. Their record is far better than the states in terms of war (though their human rights record is worse I admit, at least a little bit worse). There are virtually no people I would trust with nuclear weapons, but the USA is DEFINITELY not one of them. The UK borders on it maybe, but basically it just comes down to a few countries like Norway and Luxembourg! Oh well, not much we can do about it now…
Rate This:
0 
0
Perhaps we are in fact all barking,( mad?) ( up the wrong Bush?). Democracy is supposed , one more time , for those at the back, to be BY the people , OF the people and FOR the people..
In its most simple application, is not a Theocracy, or even Communism, similar enough to that , until it becomes an enforced , and therefore totalitarian regime?
Whar we are pleased to call Democracy is , according, at least to the Treelet, unbridled self interest. “I’m aboard , so haul up the ladder Jack”.
He wants to burden the Iraqis ; the Iranians ; the North Koreans et al, with HIS way of conducting THEIR, wholly internal, affairs,suited ., at least for the time being, to the peculiar circumstances of time and place, and yet he demands that these ” children ” do not have the same toys to play with as he has .
To paraphrase The merchant of Venice:-
Hath not any other person eyes; hands ; organs; senes ; passions? If so , he will resemble you in other ways too.
The point about the Vichy Government was that it collaborated fully with the Nazis , acting as an agent of Der dritten Reich,( even including the rounding up and transport of Jews) , in order to retain at least the semblance of freedom for the southern areas of France, whilst the rest of France had none. I see no comparisons here.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack
I don’t agree with you on the USA and war. Vietnam turned out badly and the conduct of the USA was often barbaric. On the other hand there was a menace from the communist states, whosesystems were as evil as that of the Nazis. One of the things that the Anti Nazi League used to quote until recently was that Hitler or one of the other Nazi bigwigs stated that ‘had the opposition (nationally and internationally I think JR) taken us seriously at the beginning they could have stopped us’. The ANL used this as a reason for brekaing up meetings they deemed fascist. Anyway the intent, to try and prevent South Vietnam, albeit a corrupt state, from becoming a totalitarian state, was on balance right. We’re still waitng to hear from Greg on the DPRK but I suspect that whatever they call the southern end is a better place to live than the northern end of the Korean peninsula.
The USA has intervened in Latin America, often no doubt illegally and brutally. Democracy has not necessarily been their aim. This is wrong and inexcusable. By leaving it there I am not forgetting it.
I think the motives of the USA leaderhsip and the individuals themselves are very mixed. Certainly expanding capitalism has something to do with it. However I think there is a utilitarian argument for the growth of democracy to which some are committed. Democracies squabble but are less likely to go to war with each other. On the other hand the capitalist nations of SE Asia which avoided communism show a degree of human rights and democratic practise, admittedly lower than that of Western Europe and USA, but vastly higher than in the communist countries. Capitalism doesn’t imply democracy but capitalist free market ideas are more likely to be found where ideas about how to be ruled are opening up.
I have no objections to any enquiries about anything but unless we are going to fall into complete Cartesian doubt, do we have to not favour some hypotheses over others as worthy of investigation? My sources are not good – the newspapers and the Home Service, but unless I’m the star in the Ramsey Show, then it seems pretty sure that bin Laden existed, that the attacks on the WTC were carried out by Islamacists and not the CIA. If the powers that be have trouble suppressing comments about listener George Bush’s criticisms of a radio station, then isn’t it going to be that much more difficult to fabricate everything that is presented to suggest that 9/11 was the work of Islamacists, probably connected to AQ? I mentioned a guy earlier who earnestly told me that 100′s or 1,000′s of New York Jews didn’t show up to work that day. Surely there would be enough non-Zionists, anti-establishment types amongst that particular section to blow the whistle? (I’m not suggesting that Republicans or other gentiles wouldn’t).
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear all
Just a personal thing – could we all try to kill of some of these acronyms? WMD, DPRK, MSM, NPT? We know what they mean, but they don’t half make these posts difficult to read.
Rate This:
0 
0
Surely the simplest solution is to send the memo abroad? I don’t see that, for example, Le Monde’s reporters can be prosecuted for revealing British memos?
Rate This:
0 
0
They are afraiding of you. And becouse of this they want to put you in a jail. It was same in Czech republic in communistic time. But I fought, that it is different in UK. Do what you want. It is the right thing. I think that it is time for them to afraid. They have to serve us.
Rate This:
0 
0
Glad to see Boris Johnson admitting the error of his ways re Al Jazeerah, but for goodness sake, he really should read their website and reports. It really is like an Arab BBC; that is, it is pretty middle of the road and very far from being radical. The fact that it prints truthful reports about items that the BBC fears to touch doesn’t make it dangerous-unless of course your view is that any freedoms and truths which threaten the corrupt and despotic rulers of our world are dangerous. I’ve always assumed that Boris is very much a member and supporter of this class and only attacks its excesses and not its privileges.
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Jack Target,
Comparisons can be based on any number of pattern equations, ranging from highly intricate to general and ubiquitous. However, the choice of patterns ought to facilitate obtaining the solution state sought. Comparisons between Vichy government, and Iraq can also be based on very narrow and unique characteristics, and or based on governance under occupation by the indigenous vassals who front for the occupying forces, while heavily reliant on the military and security assets of the occupiers, with all entailed thereof. Although, in evidence the patterns chosen by differing posters have come to dominate the debate, at the expense of the so called elections in Iraq, that are all but a sham, since under the international law, there can be no legitimate elections held under occupation.
Further, considering the fine job of the Main Stream Media in reportage of the Iraqi affairs, so far. It is with little surprise to find the results of such a fairytale to have become to be considered as legitimate and legal by some. Disregarded too, have been the mechanics of voter registration (never mind the selection processes for the candidates taking part) , for such elections, that were based on the food ration books. That is the Iraqis were given the stark choice of turn up and get your finger inky, and or forget the food pal! The innocent rational of food ration registration is to be found in the lack of any working institutions in Iraq. As well as the only reliable records being the food ration data, that were the way of life for Iraqis during the long years of sanctions imposed on that country. The same sanctions that were daubed by congressman David Bonior as: ‘infanticide masquerading as politics’.
Hi Jack Ramsey,
So far as the rush for the constitution is concerned, the one hundred orders of Bremer, translated and put into law as the constitution of Iraq, in effect is a charter for privatisation of the whole of Iraq. Among the protection measures of the corporate interests, is the prohibition of the farmers from keeping their own seed stocks, while directing them to certain commercial representations of certain corporates in Iraq, for procurement of any such seeds! Less said about the oil industry, that will cost any Iraqi with earnings of $1200 per capita per annum as much as $7800. Hence, the cost of freedom to Iraqis will be carried well into the future for many generations to come. That effectively puts pay to any notions of spreading democracy, and clarifies the commercial imperatives that were at the basis of the premeditated mass murder in Iraq.
However, for some inconceivable reason, the rampant fascism on the march is not somehow considered awful enough, in comparison to the shenanigans of the Industrialists of the early half of the twentieth century. The following article could prove useful.
Replacing cartelization with globalisation, and ‘belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade’ with ‘carry identity cards’, how would this passage read?
‘Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935, cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else.’
Fascism then. Fascism now?
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article11155.htm
‘Arbeit Macht Frei’ don’t you think this was no pun, but what today would be classed as spin?
Finally, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (markgamon accommodated), a country that has been fighting for its very existence for the duration of the last sixty years, and currently in the cross hairs of the democracy purveyors by night and oil executives by day Messrs Bu$h-Cheney et al. regardless of the standards of their institution have a right to manage their own affairs. These affairs albeit different, and strange to us, however, cannot be swept aside, and replaced by conventions and institutions from without. Considering the massive military expenditure imposed on that country, by the hostile world from outside its borders, the unfortunate nationals of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea have forgone many of the creature comforts for the sake of retaining their independence. This wish ought to be respected by the world community, although in the current climate brought on by the hegemony of the mercenaries, profiteers, and eunuchs acting as the functionaries of the corporates promoting their brand of democracy in fact ought not to be thought of as the only alternative for governance, and arbitration within human societies in the far flung lands. Hence, the notions of whether the workers, and or elite are in charge is not a measure of their quality of life, but for certain the wealth gap experienced in the consumer world is not an accepted standard in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Hi Macarnie,
Evidently Iraqis want Saddam to stand in elections, as well as the latest comments of Allawi who stated Iraq is now a far worst place than when Saddam was in power, noting that he is the same man who shot six blindfolded prisoners just to teach his police how to behave! Is the governance in Iraq as portrayed in the Main Stream Media?
Hi Zdenek Masek,
You are in a unique position to recognise state propaganda when you see it, and your comments with rule of fear, are the voice of experience that has been subject to years of living in fear, based on the imperatives of a totalitarian regime. However, the lack of such sophistication in the western block has made possible the current gains made by the corporate functionaries. Although this gain now is somewhat being checked.
Finally, having enjoyed the hospitality of people in Prague, and spent some memorable times there, keep up the good work, mind don’t let your country to be sold to all and sundry for a pittance!
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Greg
The BBC is always brief on these things anyway but maybe I just missed their Election Night Special on the DPRK. Could you remind me who is the party that won and which party is in opposition?
Rate This:
0 
0
Greg : Which freedom seeking group was it that said that the majority of Iraqis want Maddas to stand? If this support is so apparent, as you infer , why have so few heard of it?
Those backing Saddam ,in any significant way, are the minority Sunnis: most certainly not the Kurds and Shi’ia . Hell hath no fury Etc.
Iraq may very well be more dangerous for the indigenous population at present, but not directly because of the forces of ,( as you term them ), occupation: much more so because of the actions of the insurgents, and even imported suicide bombers .
A Belgian brainwashed convert to Islam was one opf the latest to add to the Iraqi carnage: where does that fit into the jigsaw?
Rate This:
0 
0
I read today that David Frost, together with some other well known and established broadcasters, is considering joining A Jazeera, for foreidgn consumption.
Anyime hear the same , or similar ?
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie
On the first point look no further than Yahoo:
‘Iraqis have asked the defence team to study the legal conditions to present Saddam Hussein as a candidate for elections, first as an MP then as president,’ Jordan’s Al-Dustour daily quoted former Qatari justice minister Najib al-Nuaimi as saying.
Iraqis want Saddam to run for election
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051130/wl_mideast_afp/iraqsaddamvotelawyer_051130112213
Iraqis were not killing each other before the excellent invasion (cakewalk was the term coined by Messrs Perle, Krystol, et al) of Iraq, the invaders were to be greeted with flower throwing Iraqis, expressing their appreciation for Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, since lies, or is that gross inexactitudes are being exposed as rapidly as they are thought of. Those of good faith who invaded Iraq, have all but ran out of any other excuse under the sun, and now they find the only hook left in blaming sectarianisms as the basis of the mayhem in Iraq! That is despite the available public domain data as in the Channel 5 broadcast of the day after Hitler’s invasion of Britain.
The current wave of killings attributed to Insurgents (a misleading term in an attempt to discount any resistance), and the contrived sectarian strife are in fact follow-up to appointment of John Negroponte as the US ambassador to Iraq. As his well documented, record (conservative estimate of 200,000 deaths in Central America as a result of US intervention) in directing torture, and death squads in Honduras, El Salvador, were the grounds for his deployment to Iraq. The current situation in Iraq should be an indication of the degrees of success in discharge of his duties. Although some would not be surprised at the extent of his success, since the same John Negroponte whom along with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, in United Nations were the duo whom promised no ‘automacity’ in resolution 1444 for war before getting it passed in United Nation Security Council, yet as history stands the Iraq attack went ahead regardless.
Finally, the sectarian tone of the last point ought to be found repugnant by any norms. Alas in the current climate, such remarks somehow go without any challenge, and or penalty, hence the crass sentiments echoed by the sentence, that can only be attributed to the personal position of the author!
Blaming a religion with a vast number of followers, reeks of a particularly virulent chauvinism, belying a desperation in stemming from intellectual failure, and impotence. In fact reflecting an inability to understand that resistance in Iraq is not based on any religious grounds, but a natural reaction of those Iraqis who are acting as any other nationals of any country in repelling the invaders from their land, whom may find active sympathisers, as well non-sympathisers to their cause from around the globe.
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Jack Ramsey,
Apparently there should be a cause for worry for fear of obsessive compulsive disorder, concerning the obsession with elections held in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Curmudgeon would retort; there can be no valid elections in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea until that country has been the subject of Operation Korean Freedom and Reunification. Since only in the event of such an invasion could there be a free and fair election held, under the watchful eyes of the soldiers of the coalition of the bribed mark II screaming at the indigenous population; come out with your votes up!
However, that is not in keeping with our style of debate, hence, it falls upon enquiring, why are elections of such importance in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?
What could be achieved by holding elections in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?
What difference would it make to security, and integrity of Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea?
Finally, why so much insistence on this point?
Rate This:
0 
0
Greg: What you write is, in all probability ,based on fact, but fact seen from a biased point of view.
I would urge you to read precisely what is said in the source which you provided. The People backing Saddam are his people: Sunni, a minority in Iraq, and the mainstay of the Ba
Rate This:
0 
0
Greg, some of us do agree with you by the way. I’m not being very vocal, simply leaving it to you! Just didn’t want you to feel like you were on your own
You’re maybe slightly more hard-line than I am, but you’re right on most counts in my opinion.
Rate This:
0 
0
Why should Bush complain about a station his buddy owns? Is this a little ploy to give credence to Al Jazeera.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6894936/site/newsweek/
Feb. 1 – Under intense pressure from the Bush administration to sell its controversial Al-Jazeera network, the nation of Qatar stunned the television industry today by agreeing to sell the broadcast company to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel.
Rate This:
0 
0
Well done JT! 600 is a comfy number
Hi Greg
Well if that’s how they like it. I guess it has its points. No chads, no politicians (just rulers), no Conservative Party leadership competitions, no dodgey postal votes, no need for John Humphreys.
If we really are going for 1001 or just 666 maybe some comments on the advantages of not having elections could be our next project. Let’s get to the next milestone before the raison d’etre of this thread expires!
Rate This:
0 
0
Ooops! Wrong thread!
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack R: A slightly tongue in cheek reacrtion to your request for more on elections:-
In China, for example , he advantages of not having many free elections ,is the positive deceleration of their still escalating birthrate.
It might appear to some observers, here in the UK, that a similar phenomenon has slowly , but inevitably, becoming evident, with , however negative results.
The lack of regular elections, in itself, is not apparently significant, but then , if the results therefrom are not acted upon and properly applied ,the present state of affairs, if extrapolated , will show an even greater decline in the birthrate , and thus , indirectly impinge on the Government’s present pensions policy.
It is 30 years since the first so called “test tube” baby’s conception: if there are not more profitably used elections, will we , as a nation , come to rely on the test tube for our future pensions?
Rate This:
0 
0
Mac
I think research coming though from Neasden University College shows that the fall in efficacy of recent elections is pretty much in line with the rise in binge drinking. Brewers’ profits rise although this is compensated for by other aspects of brewers.
Rate This:
0 
0
Jack : although I have not read the learned paper as yet, I can only defer to their superior overall knowledge of the subject.
If in bars one doth loiter,
One shall get Brewers’ goitre
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Jack Ramsey
Reliant on a hitherto unknown quantum leap of unknown dimensions, evidently the modalities of current arrangements of dictatorship by consent, in our corner of the globe, have been swept aside and replaced by a system imported from Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Notwithstanding the proposition; flapping wings of a butterfly in the Korean peninsula may contribute to instantiation of gale force storms at the North Sea, however, solitary butterfly flapping its wings can hardly be a credible cause for the storm under way in the North Sea.
Which gives rise to anxiety that our system of governance being in danger of catching some kind of electoral virus from those far eastern lands, akin to the bird flu too!
It is difficult to see how can the modalities of governance and or arbitration in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, affect our system of governance and arbitration?
However, the tragedy lies in our diverted attentions, that are directed at other corners of the globe, while our own systems of governance, and arbitration are under the constant assaults of the revisionist neocons, and their cohorts, in fact the author of a book titled ‘why do we need the neocons?’ was given centre stage on Newsnight, along with yet another acolyte of neocons, namely Mr. Gaffney, whom went onto discussing the merits of why do we need a hole in the head, without much irony!
Finally, Democracy begins at home, and it ought to be vigilantly looked after.
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie
Your post, lays out the composition of the Iraqi society, representing certain facets of the situation that we are faced with in Iraq. However, considering the sectarian differences within the contest of the conflict, it is without a doubt a tertiary issue. Since as you would agree, the different sects of Islam regardless of their flavours, all remain faithful to Quran. Which negates the fight for religious ascendancy within the context you have forwarded.
Also, it should be noted that with in the context of any democracy, the majority rule does not somehow constitute disregarding the minorities rights and aspirations. Any system of democratic governance, without taking account of the rights of the minorities, in effect is a system of mob rule.
So far as Saddam is concerned, as found in the available public domain data, he was a vassal put in place by CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), therefore all considerations about his heinous behaviour, ought to also include the high tolerance of such behaviour by those proclaiming high moral grounds, while getting down to some serious money making, as ever in the killing industries. Finally, upon Saddam living out his usefulness then there came the Operation Iraqi Freedom designed for stopping smoking guns, mushroom clouds, etc. eventually settling for his removal and liberation of the oppressed masses in Iraq. This is in the face of curiously available data, telling Saddam was ready to quit, and go into exile, on the conditions that he was immune from prosecution, and Iraqis were to hold any elections within six months of his departure. This offer of Saddam for some anomalous reason, was not entertained, evidently due to the window of opportunity for killing opening, and no matter what bombs had to be away. Less said about the other Saddam offer which has been sent down the memory hole; Saddam inviting Dubya and his vice president for torture (as coined by admiral Stansfield Turner) to a duel, which evidently was laughed at by all concerned.
As Winston Smith (1984, Orwell) found out, those who control the present, control the past, and those who control the past, control the future. Hence, upon setting the high bar of villainous conduct (no glorification of criminality intended) with the respective foci on the little Austrian painter with a funny moustache, and or other repugnant characters (seed stock of the current troop of hairless apes) from the years, and aeons passed. The danger arises that other hairless apes of the same persuasion slide under the bar unnoticed.
As we debate there are some 500,000 yes that is one half of a million souls, whom are incarcerated around the globe (as reflected in Washington Post), under the suspicion of terrorism, and or that other trumped up charge of enemy combatant. The modality of these souls� incarceration, as well as the extreme interrogation techniques (now that is spinning torture to be sort of a little bit torture, with itsy-bitsy drilling of the joints, and or eyes gouged out of sockets, and or slivers of flesh torn off) they are subject to.
Hence, Iraq war not only is brutalising Iraqis, but along with them it is also brutalising the rest of the world too. Therefore, any bias introduced ought to be on the side of humanity, and promotion of human values, while opposing torture, needless killings, and destruction of vast number of lives, in aid of corporates making a quick buck out of single bid contracts awarded.
Rate This:
0 
0
2,127 U.S. and 98 casualties in Iraq as of 12.04.05 and untold thousands of injured.
Enough — the original intent of this action was to topple Saddam. That “goal” was achieved 2 years ago.
The scheme never included nation building or building sewers or building roads or fighting unnamed bogeymen.
Call it what you will; cut and run, abandonment, failure — take your pick, but the American people no longer are willing to follow batshit crazy Bush and his lap dog, Poodle Blair, into the flames of hell any longer.
.
Rate This:
0 
0
If , as Greg seems to advocate ,tribal or sectarian differences are but a tertiary consideration, what are the two preceding consideration?
The Sunnites’ orthodoxy is marked by an emphasis on the views and customs of the majority of the community, as distinguished from the views of peripheral groups. The institution of consensus evolved by the Sunnites allowed them to incorporate various customs and usages that arose through ordinary historical development but that, nevertheless, had no roots in the Qur
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Greg!
I’m having a day off for good behaviour.
Take care.
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie,
To clarify the evident confusion that has arisen (Tertiary), let us recap on the earlier forwarded propositions. Iraqi nationals, in line with any of their counter parts from around the globe, aspire to rid their lands from any uninvited guest i.e. the invaders. Further, regardless of the current arrangements for governance, and arbitration in Iraq, set up by the occupiers through the use of their local vassals/puppets/sepoy/etc. Majority of Iraqis (more than 80%) wish to see the back of the foreign soldiers, including the imported civilian contractors (spin for mercenaries, who are not bound by any rules or conventions, as evident in the emergent trophy videos aired on the ITV, and elsewhere).
The ludicrous notion of handing back sovereignty to Iraqis, is not washed away, either by the international laws, or by the Iraqis. Sovereignty is not transferable, it was not taken away by the occupiers, only to be handed back. In clarification of this point, recourse to analogy is called for; any burglar stealing another’s goods, cannot steal the title of the stolen goods, too. Since the title of the goods stolen shall remain by the one, whose property has been stolen. Therefore secretary of state for US cannot hand back sovereignty to Iraqis, regardless of the great sounding bite for the benefit of the TV. Iraqi sovereignty was not taken away from Iraqis to begin with, only to be handed back, by such magnanimity on display!
Therefore, regardless of sugar coated facts, including those from encyclopaedias, Iraqis’ imperatives are to end the occupation of their land, then start rebuilding their institution and put in place some sort of arbitration, and governance. Hence, the current torrent of sectarian wars, and religious ascendancy do not change the facts on the ground. This is reflected even in Telegraph articles putting pay to the foreign fighters myth.
Further Sunnite, and or other foreign expressions involved, evidently have lead to the manifest confusion in the semantics they carry, reflected in the bracketed conclusions, which perhaps ought to be clarified:
Sunnite: a member of the branch of Islam that accepts the first four caliphs as rightful successors to Muhammad
http://wordnet.princeton.edu
Note it is the same religion!
Hopefully, these confusions allayed, the debate, can move away from the sermons in the last part, along with the notions of advantageous facts etc.
Since this debate ought not to be considered a game play, and or pastime for those with little to do, and bored with playing dungeons and dragons, and seeking an alternative. The purpose of this debate ought to be investigation with a view to gleaning a better understanding, in the face of woeful inadequacy of the Main Stream Media discharging their duty. Also highlighting the plight of those disposed from what little they had, in Iraq including, suffering further through the unnecessary deaths of their families, friends, neighbours, as well as the needless deaths of youth of the coalition of the bribed, whom could have contributed to their respective societies, and were cut in their prime for the reasons of course chosen by greedy little old hairless apes, who may have difficulties holding onto their water (prostate is all but a rigid addendum), yet surprisingly find it easy to unleash death and destruction on a biblical scale for the sake of their own twisted imperatives.
Ideal world, real world, are both in the minds of those whom are divorced from the actualities, and living alongside with Barbie Doll, and her entourage. World is what we make of it, and as this debate is going on, it is being made, hence the repugnant misanthropy on display ought to be directed at its rightful origin, the hairless apes, bent on spreading their influence through recourse to the only tools they know how to use; a big stick, in fact the bigger the stick the better the stick.
Rate This:
0 
0
Greg: The term modalities of governance: what does that imply?
Firstly : it is generally agreed that the Iraqis in general would prefer the Allied forces to leave.
The problem which rears its head in this context is, the lawful majority which voted for a specific set of rules for the country, is being forcefully and brutally resisted by the minority, which cannot accept their minority status.
You repeatedly make use of the term
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie,
Pushing the Chewbacca Defence envelope a bit too far are you not?
First pedantry, then rhetorical pedantry, finally incoherent drivel, concluding majority of Iraqis want foreign soldiers on Iraqi soil! While hanging on to the fairytale of ‘free elections in Iraq’, discounting that under international laws of occupation there cannot be any imposition of so called elections, by the occupiers in the lands that are occupied!
Pray tell what new insight have you so far contributed, other than regurgitating the orthodoxies that are peddled by the disinformation merchants deployed by the troop of the hairless apes wielding their sticks?
Address the points forwarded, or desist from trolling the Sun, encyclopaedia, etc. in aid of (by now all too apparent to all and sundry) Chewbacca Defence!
A more up to date encyclopaedia for you:
Chewbacca Defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense
Rate This:
0 
0
Greg: Now now!
People who live in glass houses Etc.
The powers that be must deal with what IS , and not with what might have been. The illegal interference in the internal affairs of Iraq remains a fact , and the insurgency problem remains a fact.
You have a certain mind set regarding the situation , no-one denies tou your right to your opinions. Please have the courtesy of allowing others that luxury.
If you are not open to criticism , perhaps this is the wrong forum. A debate is merely an exchange if ideas, is it not?
Your no doubt well meaning , oft repeated,apparently unending argument as to how you see the problem , is not altering the status quo in Iraq,( as indeed , neither are the counter arguments).
You might contribute to the old adage ,” There are none so blind who will not see, nor none so deaf who will not hear”. I do!
Rate This:
0 
0
Macarnie
Terms of reference:
Governance:
The right to participate in and make decisions with regard to a nation’s affairs, which is critical in democratising the state and society. Characteristics of good governance include: political accountability, freedom of association and participation, a sound judicial system, bureaucratic accountability, freedom of information and expression as well as capacity building. All these aspects are essential to sustainable development.
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/white_papers/social97gloss.html
The management of a system, usually political or organisational, involving mutual adjustment, negotiation and accommodation between the parties involved rather than direct control.
http://www.booksites.net/download/chadwickbeech/Glossary.htm
The exercise of political, economic, and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs at all levels. It is a neutral concept comprising the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences. (UNDP definition)
http://www.emro.who.int/mei/mep/Healthsystemsglossary.htm
N.B. Governance deals with the processes and systems by which an organization or society operate. Frequently a government is established to administer these processes and systems.
Modality:
Semiotics referring to the status of reality ascribed to, and or claimed by a sign (i.e. by Governance)
Debate:
A process of inquiry and advocacy seeking reasoned judgement on a proposition. Debate allows for two or more sides advocating their positions on given issues under some set of rules.
http://www.tmsdebate.org/main/forensics/glossary.htm
Now, clarification of terms over with.
Manifestly Chewbacca Defence, ought not to be passed on, as debate. Further, evident acceptance of the unlawful invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq on mere ‘as is’ basis, somehow cannot by any flight of fancy, make ‘as is’ lawful.
Therefore, in dealing with ‘as is’ one obvious course of action is to legislate, passing onto statute, measures that legalise; unprovoked wars, indefinite occupation, mass murder, smash and grab, profiteering, torture, extra judicial detentions, and random shooting of civilians. This course of action solving all of the problems facing ‘as is’, however gives rise to a tinsywinsy trouble of dealing with other powerful nation entities, who may decide to follow suit, and proceed to liberate any and all resource they fancy from anywhere around the globe.
On the other hand, if the illegality of ‘as is’ is taken account of. Then there can be no extenuating circumstances that can make legal the unlawful ‘as is’. That is to say the only sane course of conduct is to roll back the invading forces, and cease and desist from the occupation of Iraq at once. However, there arises problems of recompensing Iraqis, and the nationals of the coalition of the bribed, that is, compensating those directly or indirectly affected by the misapplication of force in Iraq.
Hence, the limbo that we find ourselves in, and enter the spin masters (disinformation merchants) with their natural propensity to unconscious drivel, that have brought about the current state of blaming anyone standing, or for that matter dropping dead, except the culprits.
Nevertheless, upon entertaining this latter course of action, we have absolved those culprits from any and all responsibility, leaving open the probability of the repetition of the Iraq scenario, elsewhere, resulting in mounting cost of wars at home, and those countries falling victim to the aggression arising from ill thought of and ill intentioned policies of these so called war leaders.
Therefore, the only available alternative would remain in immediate withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, and then start of legal proceedings to establish the extent of the responsibility of those whom have patently failed in their duty of care, and discharge of their duties that they have been so handsomely remunerated for.
Now as per post: your ears are open, and your eyes operate within the anticipated parameters of their design, then perhaps you could address the points forwarded without attributing blame onto the villainous homeworkvore (eats homework only) dog!
Rate This:
0 
0
Greg : I will decline your kind invitation to continue this ” debate”, since I find life is too short to plough through the masses of extraneous verbiage with which you express your views.
Suffice to say , I disagree with your standpoint, however expressed , but willl defend your right to hold them.( Not very original ,I agree, but well meant , nevertheless).
Rate This:
0 
0
I broke this down in a poem called ‘Control the room’.A play on the title ‘Control Room’.If anyone would like a copy I will e-mail it to them.I’m England’s first documented rapper (Black Echoes magazine 1980) and a slam poetry champion in LA and all my raps are political now.I’m on the Axis of Justice album ripping the President.Axisofjustice.org)
Control the Room
-Bush said that the alleged plot to bomb al Jazeera’s international headquarters was an “outlandish” accusation/
We’ll never know the truth until the Official Secrets Act is defied by a British official or a news organization/
We will know/
when someone has the guts to publish the 5 page memo/
To cover their own actions which were reprehensible/
Rumsfeld said that what al Jazeera was doing was vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable/
Rumsfeld never made a reference to what the U.S. had done/
Bombing al Jazeera’s offices in Afghanistan in 2001/
‘Vicious’ and ‘inexcusable’ was our government/
when U.S. forces killed Tareq Agoub, al Jazeera’s Baghdad correspondent/
So that’s a snippet.It’s about 3 minutes long and I’ll gladly type and send the whole thing to anyone that tells me they dug it.Peace
Rate This:
0 
0