| (no subject) |
[Jan. 31st, 2005|07:20 pm] |
A picture is worth a thousand words. |
|
|
| Bush was misunderestimated. |
[Nov. 3rd, 2004|05:24 pm] |
So, now it is apparently all over, the election has finished and Bush has won. He won the popular vote as well as the majority of electoral college votes so nobody can bitch this time (which, if it happened would be a near miracle). I wonder whether the people who bitched about Bush losing the popular vote last time round would have been bothered if Kerry would have won in the similar circumstances, I fear not.
I am not qualified to comment on the state of American domestic affairs, so I shall only comment on the state of foreign affairs. If Bush has done nothing else in his first term, he has rid the world of two vile and barbaric regimes and has condemned many other regimes of barbarity, this amounts to some good even if everything else he has done has been unsuccessful, which is, and will be, open to debate.
The next step for Bush is to sort out the situation in Iraq, or rather to attempt to. Abu Musab Al-Zaqawi is certainly the most dangerous man in the Middle East at the moment and it is vital that the Coalition deal with him, regardless of the mistakes made in previous situations.
Many have asked the question that if elected, would Kerry pull the troops out of Iraq, as done by Spanish Socialist government. The answer is obviosuly no, due to the Spanish force being small, and the US obviously being the largest milirary actor in Iraq. Kerry would have been a fool to bring the troops out from Iraq any time soon, or even to set a date for removal of the troops. The Coalition should be committed to stability and democracy in Iraq and promising to take the troops out on a certain date would be a selfish act. However, Senator Kerry was also committed to Iraq, although somewhat strangely he did call for money being spent in Iraq should be spent on firehouses at home, which raises the question of Kerry's flip flopping and opportunism. Of course, all of the above is irrelevant now, as Kerry is not going to be the Commander in Chief any time soon.
Now that Bush has seemingly secured a second term, he will have much more of a free-reign in what he wants to do, importantly in foreign policy. Incidentally, the fact that Bush was re-elected as well as John Howard in Australia indicates that support for the War on Terror and War in Iraq has been expressed in the ballot box. However it seems more likely that rather than it being wholly support for the War on Terror, it is just non opposition to the War on Terror, as common sense would suggest. Bush is committed to change and democracy in Iran (among other places), something which Kerry was not, which made Kerry seem as though he was not committed to defeating the enemy, something which he refuted.
Any new ventures in the War on Terror would have to be conducted by proxy I feel, that is supporting elements already existing in the given nations to help with regime change, this looks more and more likely in Iran as time goes by.
Overall, we can expect "more of the same" by the Bush administration in the next four years, but hopefully by this time with any new ventures and with the current ones, planning will be more rigourous and thorough as to avoid the same mistakes twice.
P.S
John Kerry's potential actions in the War On Terror seemed to be not that different overall, however what with his constant changing on positions, it is hard to tell what he really wanted, other than to be elected. As one commentator put it Kerry had "details without vision" whereas Bush had "vision without details".
I also particularly dislike the title "War on Terror" and would prefer like many, that it was given it's true title as a "War on Theocratic Fascism", as put by Christopher Hitchens himself. |
|
|
| Fundamentally Evil |
[Sep. 8th, 2004|11:52 pm] |
The horrific and tragic events in Beslan one week ago once again highlight the ruthless inhumanity of terrorism and terrorists. The terrorists who committed were responsible for the murder of 350 Russians, and the injury of many more, evidently have not an ounce of humanity in their bodies and are only concerned with the elevation and success of their cause, the complete destruction of their enemies and likewise for anybody who gets in their way. The very fact that the victims were completely innocents is the sign of ruthless and fanatical terrorism, and the fact that the murdered were mainly schoolchildren underlines this even more so.
An attack on Russian government buildings could never be justified, but it would certainly be a slightly easier pill to swallow than the murder of hundreds of innocents whose only mistake was that they happened to live in a region geographically adjacent to Chechnya, which is no mistake at all. As mentioned earlier, this kind of attack on completely innocent people has indeed been seen before, on September the 11th 2001 and many times before and since, and it is a form of terrorism that is nigh on impossible to defend, and for this reason the only preventative measures from this kind of terrorism are pre-emptive measures. While a government can increase security around important governmental buildings and other areas of importance, it is nigh on impossible for it to safeguard every area all of the time, which means that the enemies of the terrorists will always be susceptible to attacks at any time.
President Putin was certainly correct when he was quoted as saying “No-one has a moral right to tell us to talk to child killers". Child killers these people certainly are, and this fact is one of the reasons why negotiations with these fundamentalists would be both a pointless and foolish venture, such is the nature of fundamentalism that negotiation is utterly futile.
Putin went on to ask "Why don't you meet Osama Bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?”
The Bin Laden comparison certainly puts things into perspective for Americans and indeed many non-Russians. Surely no sound-minded person would even contemplate negotiations with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and people of the like. Mo Mowlam may have suggested opening negotiations with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, but taking even one second to look at this one can see the folly of the suggestion; Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda jihadists who were responsible for the murder of thousands of people on September the 11th 2001 and the jihadist forces operating in Iraq have slaughtered many innocents since the removal of Saddam Hussein.
The aim of the jihadists is the complete destruction of western liberal democracy and the implementation of Islamic theocracies worldwide. The very notion that a government could sit down with these people and negotiate is just as silly as it sounds, and would only be plausible if Al Qaeda were just ticked off with the USA and simply just want the Middle East to be left alone by America, and would cease attacks if this did happen. This in itself is even more ridiculous than the initial idea of negotiation.
Al Qaeda have tried the tactic of promising to stop attacks in certain countries if they pull their military forces out of Iraq, most notably Spain, but trusting the terrorists could be the gravest mistake of all. In any case, if Al Qaeda did indeed stop attacks in Spain it would not solve the problem at all, it would merely mean Al Qaeda could focus on attacking somewhere else, and would mean the terrorists have in effect defeated Spain without much or any resistance. If nations follow Spain’s lead then it would have a disastrous effect in the war against the jihadists.
The fact is giving into terrorists and fascists merely gives them more of an incentive to attack and continue their atrocities and activities further, knowing that they will not face hostilities or resistance from a given nation, area, government etc. Perhaps the most striking and definitely the most memorable instance of this is the Hitler-Chamberlain agreement, and the disastrous policy of appeasement. We must learn by our mistakes that you cannot negotiate and bargain with extremists and fundamentalists, and even considering it would be a mistake.
The only stance that should be taken on these terrorists is a tough stance; any other stance would be foolish and useless. The horrific scenes at Beslan School remind us of the horrific, uncompromising nature of fundamentalists that many seem to have forgotten since September the 11th 2001. The fundamentalists in Iraq, Chechnya, and elsewhere do not have reasonable demands and they are not fighting for a noble cause, or fighting for freedom. Michael Moore called the jihadists causing trouble in Iraq “The Revolution” and compared them to the Minutemen of the American Revolution. With the third anniversary of September the 11th on us in just a few days we should remember that the people who want the total destruction of western liberal democracy will give us no concessions and exactly for that reason we nor should we give them any.
The jihadists are a 21st century version of the entire worst fanatical terrorist and fascist elements of the previous century combined with religious fanaticism and fervour that cannot be equalled. We must never underestimate the determination and the utter wickedness of the jihadists who are hell-bent, or perhaps in their deluded view “heaven-bent”, on the destruction of western society, for underestimation would weaken the position of freedom, and strengthen the position of terrorism. |
|
|
| Theocratic Terrorism in Tehran |
[Jul. 26th, 2004|09:14 pm] |
Iran, the country subject to a revolution a quarter of a century ago, in which the Shah was overthrown and an Islamic Republic put in its place, is in desperate need of another revolution, of the democratic kind. Recent events show this more than ever, and it is vital that the British and US Governments, as well as any other governments willing to help, denounce this vile regime and give their support to the democratic and secular forces at work in the country. Help from the UN would also be useful, but it seems unlikely especially as Kofi Annan described the current President Khatami as "The man of his time". Looking at the facts, Khatami is more a man of tyranny and oppression than anything else. Under his Presidency there has been a clampdown on democratic dissidents [or perhaps to give them a better title, freedom fighters; because that is exactly what they are nobly fighting for] and the Islamic Republic has publicly humiliated many of them. One notable example is the case of five young individuals who were opposed to the regime’s militiamen during the questioning of a suspect. The five individuals were put on the back of a donkey and rode into their hometown, to serve as examples to others.
There is a history of violence, interrogation, and frequent surveillance towards foreign journalists [although many of the journalists are Iranian born] who have tried and are still trying to expose the sham of a regime for what it really is. There is also, rather unsurprisingly a history of cover-ups of these incidents and fabricated accounts by regime officials who are desperate to deny any wrongdoing on the part of the regime. The most recent example of this is the story of Zahra Kazemi, an Iranian born Canadian journalist who was hit by a blunt object during interrogation which forced her into a coma and which ultimately resulted in her death. These tactics are not uncommon and the fact is that the case of Zahra Kazemi has been brought to public attention because she was a foreign journalist from a democratic country in Iran, indeed, one can only imagine that the murders and assaults committed on Iranian nationals would be far easier to conceal from the international community, and as a result the scale would undoubtedly be far greater. There have also been reports that Zahra Kazemi may have been raped before her death and that chemicals placed in her body to speed up the process of decomposition . This would come as no surprise if it is true, as appalling treatment of women is a trait of the republic and the Islamic fundamentalism that it promotes and practices, however it doesn’t make it any one bit less horrific.
A complete denunciation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s disastrous and appalling policies is needed from the British government and a denunciation personally from Tony Blair wouldn’t go amiss either. If the Labour government wishes to pursue its policy against states who support Islamic terrorism, and states that also practice terrorism against its own citizens then it must condemn the regime of tyranny in two ways; firstly by condemning it publicly and secondly by showing solidarity with the democratic forces present and working hard inside and outside of the country. President Bush has already publicly condemned the regime many times, most famously in his “Axis of Evil” speech and it seems ever more likely that the Bush administration will try to stir a democratic revolution by supporting dissident groups who oppose the regime and Islamic fundamentalism.
For President Bush to condemn the Iranian regime is one thing, but for the British government to condemn the regime is quite another, and indeed the British government even after the debacle of the 8 “captured” servicemen and Iran’s non cooperation with the nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency still continues to avoid any serious criticism of the regime. The “quiet diplomacy” approach by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Britain is quite clearly not working. While Mr Straw and many others may argue on the contrary, the fact remains that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not becoming any more democratic nor is the regime showing any desire to act in a rational, open, and democratic manner. The regime doesn’t try to keep up the illusion of the above principles in any case; it simply does whatever it can to perpetuate itself and to subject its people to hateful and wicked oppression, the latter being the result of the former. An Islamic state and democracy cannot exist [as is evident with the so called reformist government] the people can either be subject to their own laws or subject to Sharia law. The term “Islamic Republic is itself paradoxical; republic literally means “thing of the people” a term which will hopefully never be employed when describing the current Iranian regime.
The tactics employed by Britain of trying to insure reasonably good relations with Tehran are not helping the millions of oppressed and tortured, nor are they helping the organisations such as the SMCCDI [The Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran] who aim for a secular, democratic Iran with equal opportunities and fair treatment of women. Many of the democratic and secular freedom fighters, many of whom are students, have either been imprisoned without a fair trial, indeed many without any trial at all. Many of the dissidents have also been executed under the pretence that they were “bandits”, a tactic of tarnishing which is used to limit the impact of the freedom movements both nationally and internationally. There has been an increase in protests and hostility to the regime, most notably from the younger generation, which has lead to more executions and as a result more cover-ups and false charges, this, coupled with the corrupt and disastrous elections last year have lead to an ever more volatile political situation which is reaching breaking point.
The Iranian people, disillusioned with seven years of “reformist” government, which promised much but delivered little, are in desperate need of an overhaul of the current regime. The choice between hardliners and the reformists is a choice akin to one between death today and death tomorrow; no choice at all, and in either instance a fatal result is guaranteed. For the British and Americans, now is not the time to shy away from supporting the democratic movements in Iran, now is the time to support these movements and show. For the Iranians, the struggle for democracy continues, and if they continue to fight valiantly for their cause and if they gain support from the international community then the struggle will be made easier and far more likely to succeed. As the great democratic radical Thomas Paine wrote; “The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” This couldn’t be more relevant or true to the current political situation that exists in Iran today. |
|
|
| The Conservatives have a hell of a lot of work to do. |
[Jul. 18th, 2004|12:04 am] |
The two by-election results in the week show us one thing if nothing else; that the Conservatives are making up very little ground on Labour, and may now even have to compete with the Lib Dems. If the Tories were seriously thinking of challenging Labour at the next general election then they will have hoped to have done a little bit better than third place in both by elections, and if the electorate considered them a suitable alternative to Labour, then the results would have shown it. The Tories didn't even come close.
There is talk that the high Liberal Democrat vote was due the War in Iraq.While of course this did contribute to their share of the vote, it is unlikely that their success can be solely put down to this one issue. If the Lib Dems have any sense then they will stop harping on about the rights and wrongs of the War in Iraq, and focus on and develop domestic policies that can challenge both Labour and the Conservatives.[The Lib Dems have some potentially vote winning material with the 50% income tax rate for high earners potentially bringing old socialists in, and the scrapping of tuition fees students]
However, if the Lib Dems attempt their electoral campaign as a one issue party then they could be doomed to a failure, just as the Tories did under William Hague in 2001 with their disastrous Save the Pound centred campaign.
All parties have got an uphill struggle to meet success in the next general election. The Tories need to buck up as do Labour, but the Lib Dems have the least to lose. |
|
|
| We know which side Mr. Moore is on. |
[Jul. 11th, 2004|10:29 pm] |
With all of the hype surrounding the new "documentary" from Michael Moore I feel I must point something out. It is one thing to be critical of the Coalition's policy in Iraq, but it is another thing to side with the Jihadist terrorists who are doing their best to prevent any kind of democracy being forged in Iraq.
Here is an excerpt from one of his articles in which he clearly sides with the Jihadists. It is well quoted but it bears repeating.
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win"
Here is the article in full, I suggest you read it.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-04-14 |
|
|
| Reflections on religious hatred |
[Jul. 9th, 2004|05:30 pm] |
The new proposed laws for the banning of the incitement of religious hatred may seem a step in the right direction towards safeguarding freedom of religion, but they are in fact a step away from safeguarding freedom of speech.
I am personally an guilty of religious hatred, in the sense that I hate all religions, just as many othere people who do not find the need for comfort in religion.
The Full details of the proposed legislation aren't clear at the moment, but if it means that many people like myself will be stopped from criticising, sometimes viciously, established religion and their pre-enlightenment and dark-aged beliefs then we can kiss goodbye to freedom of speech.
The fact of the matter is that while radical Muslim clerics such as Abu Hamza and Yusuf al-Qaradawi preach hatred against their so called "infidels" very few people are going to listen to them, and even fewer will believe their religious bile due to the fact that what they are preaching is so offensive to common sense and democratic and humanitarian values that you would have to share their ideas already, or have a soft spot for jihadists and relgious terrorists to believe them or take them seriously.
People do not believe everything they hear automatically, and it would be foolish to suggest otherwise. Inevitably as people such as Thomas Paine and J.S Mill suggested, good ideas will be kept, and the bad ones will shrink and fade away, and to quote Thomas Paine directly;"But such is the irresistable nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing."
I hope that freedom of speech is not stolen just so that the government can seen to be combating Islamofasicts and Islamophobes at the same time,in that people will be unable criticise Islam and the Islamofascists will not be able to spew hatred. To say something is one thing, but to put it into practice is quite another, just as if I say to somebody "I am going to murder you" I cannot be arrested and charged for murder, but if I actually put my threat into practice then it is obvious what would happen. However, more often than not, the Islamic crackpots such as Hamza are shown not to be able to keep their hands, or hooks in this case, clean. Such is the nature of fanaticism and fundamentalism that its exponents will not stop at merely preaching. |
|
|
| Trial of a Tyrant |
[Jul. 9th, 2004|01:01 pm] |
“I am Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq” were the words spoken by former Iraqi President in a defiant appearance in front of the tribunal in which he is faced with charges such as the invasion of Kuwait, and the notorious and horrid gassing of the Kurdish people of Halabja, in 1988. Saddam was looking thinner and certainly much older than before the removal of the Ba’athist regime and more importantly the removal of Saddam himself, however he was surprisingly well dressed in a grey pinstripe jacket with an open collared shirt. He appeared sans shackles in court for the half-hour proceedings that followed, which gave him an opportunity to gesture frantically and defiantly at the judge who read the seven preliminary charges against him.
The trial of Saddam Hussein will undoubtedly be the trial of the century, and many Iraqis and Iraqi Kurds would like to see him hang for his crimes. They may even get their wish: under the Coalition Provisional Authority the death penalty was suspended, but now with sovereignty back in the hands of the interim Iraqi government then there is every possibility that the death penalty could be reinstated.
Will Saddam get what he deserves? The answer will certainly be a resounding no. There is no sentence that could possibly be sufficient punishment for the crimes that he committed and ordered during his reign of terror. The crushing of the Shia and Kurdish rebellions of 1991 and the massacring of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in the 1980s are just two of the preliminary list of seven charges laid against Saddam. Iran is now asking for additional charges from the eight-year Iran-Iraq conflict such as the use of chemical weapons and the attack of Iran itself to be included in the list.
There are calls that the trial should be “fair”, and it of course should be fair, but the charges facing Saddam aren’t charges as trivial as breaking and entering or causing criminal damage and so calls for the trial to be fair may be futile. Saddam should of course be allowed defence lawyers of his choice and to say whatever he wishes, but for anyone to doubt the fact that Saddam could have had no involvement whatsoever in any of these crimes when he was for so long the “supreme leader” of Iraq would be verging on the ridiculous. There is no doubt that Saddam is guilty, as are many of the 11 accomplices who are also on trial, but the question is just how guilty are they?
As I wrote earlier, there is a chance that the death penalty will be brought back for the trial of Saddam and the new Iraqi government even agreed at it’s first meeting that this should be the case, and I personally cannot see any of his victims, or the victims’ families protesting in the streets of Iraqi cities that Saddam should be spared, or that Saddam should get a fair trial. However, a lengthy sentence would arguably be worse for Saddam and death would give him the easy way out, and indeed if Iraq is to become a democracy, then it is vital that as fair and balanced trial as possible should be given.
Saddam may very well cry to the judges that the trial is illegitimate and that the judges do not have any authority to try him, nor does the Iraqi Interim Government, but Saddam’s calls are not the calls of a man who has respect for what is legally legitimate, they are the calls of a man who showed blatant disregard for law of any kind. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
joediddly's journal