Guardian: "It's time to judge the pundits."
dormouse
"hummingbird" <YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:uggg70pf5prdpoi86...@4ax.com...
> It's time to judge the pundits.
> The rightwing press were too quick to crow after Baghdad fell...
It certainly wasn't the right wing who were crowing in the UK, if I remember
correctly - and I do, we were dragged into war by a socialist PM who
supported by a socialist commons used the left wing press to whip up support
for a war only he wanted. Again if I remember correctly - and again I do,
the right wing in the UK were vehemently opposed to the war - and remain so
to this day.
Methinks Guardian writer writes with forked pen.
--
regards or otherwise,
dormouse
dormouse
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 20:08:23 +0100, "dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
> >"hummingbird" <YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> >news:uggg70pf5prdpoi86...@4ax.com...
> >> It's time to judge the pundits.
> >> The rightwing press were too quick to crow after Baghdad fell...
> >
> >It certainly wasn't the right wing who were crowing in the UK, if I
remember
> >correctly -
>
>
> >and I do, we were dragged into war by a socialist PM who
>
>
> >supported by a socialist commons used the left wing press to whip up
support
> >for a war only he wanted.
>
> invasion, old Labour and LibDems were largely against it but the
> former got dragged along by lies. The latter remained against it.
Fine, but that's by the by the article was written as a further attempt to
discredit the right wing of British politics, by stating that it was the
right wing that advocated the waging of this unnecessary and morally
unjustifiable war the writer is being dishonest.
> >Again if I remember correctly - and again I do,
> >the right wing in the UK were vehemently opposed to the war - and remain
so
> >to this day.
>
> Odd that. Where would you put the Tory Party then.?
I notice no discernable difference between any of the three major political
parties, all currently follow and promote what are fundamentally socialist
policies.
> And where would you put the Murdoch Press.?
>
> >Methinks Guardian writer writes with forked pen.
>
> Time to go check some recent history dormouse.
No need, my memory works fine, but thank you anyway.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Blair is not a socialist any more than Thatcher.
He's corporatist.
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
dormouse
news:c59n98$2qvkgj$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
> dormouse wrote:
>
> > "hummingbird" <YPREUA...@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> > news:uggg70pf5prdpoi86...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>It's time to judge the pundits.
> >>The rightwing press were too quick to crow after Baghdad fell...
> >
> >
> > It certainly wasn't the right wing who were crowing in the UK, if I
remember
> > correctly - and I do, we were dragged into war by a socialist PM who
> > supported by a socialist commons used the left wing press to whip up
support
> > for a war only he wanted. Again if I remember correctly - and again I
do,
> > the right wing in the UK were vehemently opposed to the war - and remain
so
> > to this day.
> >
> > Methinks Guardian writer writes with forked pen.
>
> Blair is not a socialist any more than Thatcher.
> He's corporatist.
And the significant differences are ... ????
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
A socialist steals from the rich to give to the poor.
The Right steal from the poor to give to the rich.
Blair steals from the both to give to the rich corporations.
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>It's time to judge the pundits.
>The rightwing press were too quick to crow after Baghdad fell...
>
>http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4899173-111303,00.html
>
>Roy Greenslade
>Saturday April 10, 2004
>The Guardian
>
>A year ago today, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in
>Baghdad, the pro-war commentators couldn't stop crowing about the ease
>with which the coalition forces had won a swift and righteous victory.
>In the immediate aftermath, their triumphalist verdict was: the war
>had been won; the dictator was overthrown; resistance was crumbling;
>Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future.
just like you buzzy....a bad week and the groaniad is back singing it's
appeasers whine...
the left never ever learns...
that's why it's the left...
but of course you're not socialist...
it's just so hard to remember that..
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >750,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Carmody
news:c59l42$2qkofd$1...@ID-163332.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> Again if I remember correctly - and again I do,
> the right wing in the UK were vehemently opposed to the war - and remain
so
> to this day.
Actually you are half correct in that the Old Right (Conservative Democratic
Alliance) and Extreme Right (BNP) were/are both opposed. It was the
influence that New Right (Thatcherite) ideas have had on New Labour which
led to their support for the military "adventures".
RPC
m II
>>Blair is not a socialist any more than Thatcher.
>>He's corporatist.
>
>
> And the significant differences are ... ????
=======================================
Italians, who invented the term fascism, also called it the estato
corporativo: the corporatist state. Orwell rightly described fascism as
being an extension of capitalism. It is an economy in which the
government serves the interests of oligopolies, a state in which large
corporations have the powers that in a democracy devolve to the citizen.
Today, it is no exaggeration to call our economy corporatist, which has
been described by British academics R.E. Pahl and J. T. Winkler as a
system in which the government guides privately owned businesses towards
order, unity, nationalism and success."
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/fascist.htm
=======================================
When most people hear the word "fascism" they naturally think of its
ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes
of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component
of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism,"
that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as
practiced by Mussolini and Hitler.
http://www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html
========================================
If this seems a bit nuts, that's only because I haven't yet explained
Farrell's logic. Here, in a limpid piece of precis, is Farrell's case:
"Blair began as a leftwing pacifist and became a rightwing warmonger. He
is dictatorial and ignores Parliament if he can and he is a master of
propaganda (spin). He is also a bit of a musician - always a dangerous
sign in a politician - and plays the electric guitar. So was Mussolini.
He played the violin."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,988388,00.html
=========================================
Mussolini organized the economy and all "producers"--from peasants and
factory workers to intellectuals and industrialists--into 22
corporations as a means of improving productivity and avoiding
industrial
disputes.http://condor.stcloudstate.edu/~jaz/altruism/fascism.html
=========================================
Bigot
--
Oh! you are a card and no mistake Governor
"abelard" <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:9aqg70935l5bt15fi...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:53:23 +0100, hummingbird
> <YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>
> typed:
>
> >It's time to judge the pundits.
> >The rightwing press were too quick to crow after Baghdad fell...
> >
> >http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4899173-111303,00.html
> >
> >Roy Greenslade
> >Saturday April 10, 2004
> >The Guardian
> >
> >A year ago today, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in
> >Baghdad, the pro-war commentators couldn't stop crowing about the ease
> >with which the coalition forces had won a swift and righteous victory.
> >In the immediate aftermath, their triumphalist verdict was: the war
> >had been won; the dictator was overthrown; resistance was crumbling;
> >Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future.
>
> just like you buzzy....a bad week and the groaniad is back singing it's
> appeasers whine...
>
> the left never ever learns...
> that's why it's the left...
>
> but of course you're not socialist...
> it's just so hard to remember that..
Pity Lardy!,I do:-))
Stephen Glynn
<snip>
>
> Fine, but that's by the by the article was written as a further attempt to
> discredit the right wing of British politics, by stating that it was the
> right wing that advocated the waging of this unnecessary and morally
> unjustifiable war the writer is being dishonest.
>
[http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4899173-111303,00.html]
No, I don't think it was. Roy Greenslade was more pointing out that
"A year ago today, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in
Baghdad, the pro-war commentators couldn't stop crowing about the ease
with which the coalition forces had won a swift and righteous victory.
In the immediate aftermath, their triumphalist verdict was: the war
had been won; the dictator was overthrown; resistance was crumbling;
Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future."
and that the jubilation of said pro-war commentators seems to have been
rather premature. Apart from Christopher Hitchens all the
commentators quoted were, indeed, on the right.
However, can anyone think of any left-wing commentators who supported
the war whom Greenslade could have quoted but didn't?
I can't, offhand.
Hummingbird commented that this reflected on the right-wing press. He
didn't anything about the views of the right in general about the war.
It does reflect on the right-wing press, does it not? How else would
characterise the views of the Mail, Telegraph, Times, Express, Sun etc?
Left-wing?
And as for your comment earlier in this thread that Blair "used the left
wing press to whip up support for a war only he wanted" --.what papers
do you have in mind, for God's sake?
Steve
abelard
typed:
so, you've been scrabbling around...i s'pose it's an improvement
on buzzy....a considerable improvement....
he boasted/asserted he had formed such corporations...but like
just about everything....it was as much in his imagination as
anything...
he also referred to himself as the most disobeyed person in italy...
or some such...and with reasonable cause...
where he did most interfere...he caused more damage than good...
but it is essential to realise he was highly incompetent.
see end quote...**
the reference to orwell in the 1st cut is entirely without context or
reference or detailed words....
the italians did exterminate jews (and others) look for
"san sabba"....
with such basic sloppy work i can't be bothered to read the item
as item 3 with, 'always a dangerous sign in a politician', again i
don't think i'l bother
the 'banned-books' cut which i have previously referenced is much better
but rather 'academic and a bit too keen on turning approximate
resemblances in sloppy boxes...
read this...
http://www.abelard.org/corporate.htm
it should give you some better way of understanding the problems
then go onto to the related citizen's wage item....
####
**musso tended to suggest the italians couldn't be ruled...he tried to
change them...i rather like heller's skit in catch 22....an
essentially foolish pov...but interesting/instructive none-the-less.
"America," he said, "will lose the war. And Italy will win it."
"America is the strongest and most prosperous nation on earth," Nately
informed him with lofty fervor and dignity. "And the American fighting man
is second to none."
"Exactly," agreed the old man pleasantly, with a hint of taunting
amusement. "Italy, on the other hand, is one of the least prosperous
nations on earth. And the Italian fighting man is probably second to all.
And that's exactly why my country is doing so well in this war while your
country is doing so poorly."
"I'm sorry I laughed at you. But Italy was occupied by the Germans and is
now being occupied by us. You don't call that doing very well, do you?"
"But of course I do," exclaimed the old man cheerfully. "The Germans are
being driven out, and we're still here. In a few years, you will be gone,
too, and we will still be here. You see, Italy is really a very poor and
weak country, and that's what makes us so strong. Italian soldiers are not
dying anymore. But American and German soldiers are. I call that doing
extremely well. Yes, I'm quite certain Italy will survive this war and
still be in existence long after your own country has been destroyed."
"America is not going to be destroyed!" he shouted passionately.
"Never?" prodded the old man softly.
"Well..." Nately faltered.
"Rome was destroyed, Greece was destroyed, Persia was destroyed, Spain was
destroyed. All great countries are destroyed. Why not yours? How much
longer do you really think your own country will last? Forever? Keep in
mind that the earth itself is destined to be destroyed by the sun in
twenty-five million years or so."
"I don't believe anything you tell me," Nately replied... "The only thing
I do believe is that America is going to win the war."
"You put so much stock in winning wars. "The real trick lies in losing
wars, in knowing which wars can be lost.
Italy has been losing wars for centuries, and just see how splendidly
we've done nonetheless. France wins wars and is in a continual state of
crisis. Germany loses and prospers. Look at our recent history. Italy won
a war in Ethiopia and promptly stumbled into serious trouble.
Victory gave us such insane delusions of grandeur that we helped start a
world war we hadn't a chance of winning. But now that we are losing again,
everything has taken a turn for the better and we will certainly come out
on top again if we succeed in being defeated.
Nately gaped at him in undisguised befuddlement. "Now I really don't
understand what you're saying. You talk like a madman."
"But I live like a sane one. I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top,
and I am anti-fascist now that he has been deposed. I was fanatically
pro-German when the Germans were here to protect us against the Americans,
and now that the Americans are here to protect us against the Germans I am
fanatically pro-American... .When the Germans marched into the city, I
danced in the streets like a ballerina and shouted `Heil Hitler!'... When
the Germans left the city, I rushed out to welcome the Americans with a
bottle of excellent brandy and a basket of flowers. The brandy was for
myself, of course, and the flowers were to sprinkle upon our liberators...
".
"There is nothing so absurd about risking your life for your country,"
[Nately] declared.
"Isn't there?" asked the old man. "What is a country? A country is a piece
of land surrounded on all sides by boundaries, usually unnatural.
Englishmen are dying for England. Americans are dying for America. Germans
are dying for Germany. Russians are dying for Russia. There are now fifty
or sixty countries fighting in this war. Sure so many countries can't all
be worth dying for."
"Anything worth living for," Nately said, "is worth dying for."
"And anything worth dying for," answered the sacrilegious old man, "is
certainly worth living for."
"Why don't you use some sense and try to be more like me? You might live
to be a hundred and seven too."
"Because it's better to die on one's feet than live on one's knees. I
guess you're heard that saying before."
"Yes I certainly have," mused the treacherous old man, smiling again. "But
I'm afraid you have it backward. It is better to live on one's feet than
die on one's knees. That is the way the saying goes.
"Are you sure?" Nately asked with sober confusion. "It seems to make more
sense my way."
"No, it makes more sense my way..."
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>You're following me around like a decrepit dog with a bone in its
>mouth. Go away and play with your swastikas.
you stop dropping your crap all over the place and i won't
have to keep sticking your nose in it.
you won't learn the easy way...you'll have to suffer the other way.
Andrew Adams
news:c59rcv$2q5d3p$1...@ID-139981.news.uni-berlin.de:
> dormouse wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Fine, but that's by the by the article was written as a further
>> attempt to discredit the right wing of British politics, by stating
>> that it was the right wing that advocated the waging of this
>> unnecessary and morally unjustifiable war the writer is being
>> dishonest.
>>
>
> [http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4899173-111303,00.html]
>
> No, I don't think it was. Roy Greenslade was more pointing out that
>
> "A year ago today, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in
> Baghdad, the pro-war commentators couldn't stop crowing about the ease
> with which the coalition forces had won a swift and righteous victory.
> In the immediate aftermath, their triumphalist verdict was: the war
> had been won; the dictator was overthrown; resistance was crumbling;
> Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future."
>
> and that the jubilation of said pro-war commentators seems to have
> been rather premature. Apart from Christopher Hitchens all the
> commentators quoted were, indeed, on the right.
>
> However, can anyone think of any left-wing commentators who supported
> the war whom Greenslade could have quoted but didn't?
>
> I can't, offhand.
Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch in the Observer, both writers whom I
admire, supported it. Unlike most of the pro-war commentators (and most
ant-war ones to be fair), Aaronovitch has at least done some soul-searching
since then and publicly questioned whether his views were correct, in
articles such as the following -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1149846,00.html
Andrew
billy
> The rightwing press were too quick to crow after Baghdad fell...
>
> http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4899173-111303,00.html
>
> Roy Greenslade
> Saturday April 10, 2004
> The Guardian
>
> Baghdad, the pro-war commentators couldn't stop crowing about the ease
> with which the coalition forces had won a swift and righteous victory.
> In the immediate aftermath, their triumphalist verdict was: the war
> had been won; the dictator was overthrown; resistance was crumbling;
> Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future.
>
> "April 9 2003 was Liberty Day for Iraq, the day on which one of the
> foulest of the 20th-century tyrannies was finally destroyed." It was
> achieved, he wrote, by "the engine of global liberation", the United
> States.
> · Roy Greenslade is author of Press Gang:--
> How Newspapers Make Profits From Propaganda
****************************************
God bless America.
They are the only force in the world that has and can respond to Kipling's
pleading (i.e. to take upon themselves the responsibility for world order
once held by the British).
The British "pacified" Iraq in 12 months, in the 1920.
Now it is the "willing responsibility" of the Americans to control those who
Kipling rightly described as "half devil and half child" (and if you do not
accept Kipling's description, watch the telly).
People who are half devil and half child cannot be left uncontrolled.
God bless America.
***************************************
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:45:30 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>
>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:18:14 +0100, hummingbird
>><YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>You're following me around like a decrepit dog with a bone in its
>>>mouth. Go away and play with your swastikas.
>>
>>you stop dropping your crap all over the place and i won't
>> have to keep sticking your nose in it.
>>you won't learn the easy way...you'll have to suffer the other way.
>
>You're beginning to resemble a Nazi abelard.
discuss it with goebbels buzzy...
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:55:11 +0100, hummingbird
>> <YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:45:30 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:18:14 +0100, hummingbird
>>>><YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>>>
>>>> typed:
>>>>
>>>>>You're following me around like a decrepit dog with a bone in its
>>>>>mouth. Go away and play with your swastikas.
>>>>
>>>>you stop dropping your crap all over the place and i won't
>>>> have to keep sticking your nose in it.
>>>>you won't learn the easy way...you'll have to suffer the other way.
>>>
>>>You're beginning to resemble a Nazi abelard.
>>
>> discuss it with goebbels buzzy...
>>
>He is discussing it with you.
he is trying mister goebbels....
i realise that is his desperate wish....however, he is increasingly
wasting my time..i'd rather he discussed it with you....
you do seem to have a common lack of integrity which should give you
compatibility, one with the other....
or did you perhaps mean you are discussing it with me...
if so...then get discussing goebbels....don't just stand around like
a coy maiden....
Fed Up
> "Dirk Bruere at Neopax" <di...@neopax.com> wrote in message
> news:c59n98$2qvkgj$1...@ID-120108.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > He's corporatist.
He's a political prostitute.
--
© 2003. All rights reserved. No part of my post may be used or reproduced in
any form or by any means, or stored in a commercial database or retrieval
system (except bona fide Internet Service Providers for the purpose of
providing access to its non-commercial subscribers, which provider’s main
business is providing that service, Microsoft being expressly barred from
storing any part of my posts), without prior written permission from myself.
Making copies of any part of my posts for any purpose whatsoever is a
violation of my rights under copyright laws.
abelard
typed:
>abelard wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 14:33:31 +0000 (UTC), amadis <ama...@people.it>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>abelard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 13:55:11 +0100, hummingbird
>>>> <YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>>>
>>>> typed:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:45:30 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>>>> mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:18:14 +0100, hummingbird
>>>>>><YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're following me around like a decrepit dog with a bone in its
>>>>>>>mouth. Go away and play with your swastikas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>you stop dropping your crap all over the place and i won't
>>>>>> have to keep sticking your nose in it.
>>>>>>you won't learn the easy way...you'll have to suffer the other way.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're beginning to resemble a Nazi abelard.
>>>>
>>>> discuss it with goebbels buzzy...
>>>>
>>>He is discussing it with you.
>>
>> he is trying mister goebbels....
>
>Why are you describing yourself as Mr. Goebbels?
i am not thus describing myself, mister goebbels...
i am of the view that your constant lies and the gross nature
of those lies it a most suitable name for you.....
> I can see that he's trying
>you.
that was part of my meaning...
>> i realise that is his desperate wish....however, he is increasingly
>> wasting my time..i'd rather he discussed it with you....
>
>Why should he do that, it's you that's struggling to answer him.
yes, mister goebbels...
you want to post sense...do so..if you wish to protect your poor little
fly because you also cannot cope with debate.....
then discuss it with the fly...i'm supremely uninterested in your
dishonesty past any need to demonstrate it in public...
in both your cases, i doubt there is anyone with more than the
intelligence of a backward mollusc, who does not already realise you
are both of you, incapable and dishonest...
at that point i tend to lose interest in a poster with a loose screw or
more....
both of you seem now to have reached that point....
i have been interested in your narrow, but not shallow knowledge of
teaching practises, allied with your extremely mindless and dogmatic
attachment to your religion..
but then i s'pose there are fundamentalist creationists who can teach
reading to infants with some facility....
Marie
billy wrote:
>
> God bless America.
> They are the only force in the world that has and can respond to Kipling's
> pleading (i.e. to take upon themselves the responsibility for world order
> once held by the British).
> The British "pacified" Iraq in 12 months, in the 1920.
> Now it is the "willing responsibility" of the Americans to control those who
> Kipling rightly described as "half devil and half child" (and if you do not
> accept Kipling's description, watch the telly).
> People who are half devil and half child cannot be left uncontrolled.
> God bless America.
> ***************************************
I thoough I should put that Kipling quote in context:
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go, make them with your living
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought ye us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.
Alex
Tony Blair is in no way a socialist. He has infiltrated a party that
believed in some egalitarian principles and turned into a mirror image of
the Tory party.
Since there has only been two British daily national newspapers that have
historically supported the labour movement, it is a bit rich suggesting that
it was the socialist press who supported the war. Of the those 2
newspapers - The Mirror and The Guardian - only The Mirror opposed the war.
The Guardian wholy and completely supported it.
Other than the Independent who attempted to be neutral, though tending to
give an anti-war line, all the others who have a rightwing agenda, supported
the war on Iraq.
They were the ones who not only held the line of Tony Blair's lies, they
helped to exagerate the effects of them. Even today, the word "insurgent"
the new buzz word for the pro-war propaganda machine, is used to imply
foreign terrorists. For the record, an "insurgent" is a rebel: somebody who
rebels against authority or leadership, especially somebody belonging to a
group involved in an uprising against the government or ruler of a country.
It does not mean a foreigner or terrorist who is attempting to destabilise
someone elses government.
So the next time you hear the word insurgent and Iraq used, beware of
falling into the trap of believing it refers to terrorists who originate
from outside of Iraq. The insurgents in Iraq are Iraqi.
Alex
Lies, damned lies and The Sun
Alex
"Stephen Glynn" <stephe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c59rcv$2q5d3p$1...@ID-139981.news.uni-berlin.de...
> dormouse wrote:
<snipped>
> "A year ago today, with the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue in
> Baghdad, the pro-war commentators couldn't stop crowing about the ease
> with which the coalition forces had won a swift and righteous victory.
> In the immediate aftermath, their triumphalist verdict was: the war
> had been won; the dictator was overthrown; resistance was crumbling;
> Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future."
>
> and that the jubilation of said pro-war commentators seems to have been
> rather premature. Apart from Christopher Hitchens all the
> commentators quoted were, indeed, on the right.
>
> However, can anyone think of any left-wing commentators who supported
> the war whom Greenslade could have quoted but didn't?
>
> I can't, offhand.
David Aaronovich, the Observer journailist. He is a case where a leftwing
journalist supported the war as ardently as any. Read his articles on the
Iraq war and you will see many inconsistences with fact. He uses ommisions
to obscure and words to imply the opposite of what they actually infer.
Alex
"Andrew Adams" <andrew....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94C87F1543F...@62.253.162.204...
bout Iraq?" He uses the Hutton inquiry to absolve himself, suggesting that
because it implies Tony Blair did not lie, that makes his pro-war case ok.
This, even after he wrote last year;
"If nothing [no WMD] is eventually found, I - as a supporter of the war -
will never believe another thing I am told by our government or that of the
US, ever again. And more to the point, neither will anyone else. Those
weapons had better be there somewhere."
This is typical of the pro-war supporters, they refuse to accept what their
own eyes and ears tell them, it is a form of self-delusion. Even after
10,000 civilian deaths and climbing, hundreds of our troops dead, thousands
upon thousands civilians maimed for life and an untold number of our troops
who have had life shattering injuries due to the war, they still say it was
the right way about going about removing Saddam Hussein from power.
The issue for me was never WMD, even though it easy for me to use it for my
anti-war stance. The issue for me was whether the war would make the world
safer and result in less loss of life. We are now at far greater risk from
terrorism, and as for loss of life in Iraq, the only good thing to result
from the war so far (apart from the removal of a particularly nasty
individual) is that our sanctions can no longer result in a staggering loss
of infant life.
abelard
<YPREUA...@spammotel.com>
typed:
>It's getting difficult even to understand what you're writing
i have little doubt goebbels can follow and little surprise
that you cannot
billy
"Marie" <be...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40798DE6...@globalnet.co.uk...
>
>
> billy wrote:
>
> > The British "pacified" Iraq in 12 months, in the 1920.
> > Now it is the "willing responsibility" of the Americans to control those
who
> > Kipling rightly described as "half devil and half child" (and if you do
not
> > accept Kipling's description, watch the telly).
> > People who are half devil and half child cannot be left uncontrolled.
> > God bless America.
> >
>
Thank you for offering Kipling's offerings and putting it in the context of
the present day events.
Kipling saw the weakening of the British Empire and "requested" the
Americans (through his poem) to take up the burden of keeping the peace of
the world - which Britain could no longer sustain.
His poem expressed the "obligation" admirably and pointed out that the
Americans - like the British - would have to deal with people who were:
"Half devil and half child."
"The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--"
That is the exact picture in Iraq, now.
And it looks as if:
"And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought."
Personally: I would not risk the possibility of "all hopes to nought" and do
the job properly.
For instance:
Those half devil and half child maniacs in Fallujah would experience this:
The town would be completely surrounded. Women and children would
be let out; and the men in the town would have been given this ultimatum:
------------------------------
If you wish to see your wives and children again, hand over the terrorist.
You have three days to do this and if you do not meet the demand, the
town - and you - will be destroyed.
------------------------------
In 1920, the British "pacified" the Iraqis in less than a year by bombing
centres of resistance and burning down the villages. The Iraqis (the lesser
breeds without the law) only appreciate violence. That is why they
constantly use it and why Mad Saddam used it. It is the only thing they
understand.
So they respond to what they understand.
"To veil the threat of terror" as Kipling suggested is not applicable in
Iraq.
The Americans are being too soft.
People with a modicum of rationality would respond to the ultimatum to avoid
the destruction of the town.
However, and as far as the Iraqis are concerned, it will need at least one
town and possibly two or three for them to "understand".
Then:
"The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you."
may not understand it and will have to learn it (which means the Iraqis).
*************************
Fed Up
news:c5hotu$6rc$6...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> In 1920, the British "pacified" the Iraqis in less than a year by bombing
> centres of resistance and burning down the villages.