lord of the blog

« Science policy and Labour | Main | Spam »

Friday, April 29, 2005

General election

I hope I am not the only person who has noticed that every time the Liberals are asked why Kosovo was not illegal if Iraq was, they duck the question.

The UN often doesn't give backing to regime change as in Kosovo, Bangladesh (by India), Cambodia and Uganda to name but a few powerful cases.

Our problem remains how to create a legal framework that allows regime change when it is necessary as in Iraq and how you manage the post conflict situation.

The whole thrust of this Governments foreign policy is to try address world poverty, political and economic instability and dictators and failing states.

Even without all the social and economic reasons for voting Labour I think this agenda on its own would compel me to support this Government. Not least because as an internationalist I believe it is wrong to turn a blind eye to gross human rights abuses of the type we find in dictatorships.

While I am on this issue let me say why I think the word "lying" has become so devalued. (Thanks largely to the tabloids using it as an easy headline word for all types of stories).

To be a liar you need to set out and deliberately deceive others by saying things that you know without doubt are not true and to do that consistently or over a long period of time.

We all tell lies at times although we often call them "white lies" or "fibs". We all argue our case leaving out counter arguments and we all exaggerate the strength of our case.

I very rarely call people liars because I know it is an easy insult which rarely takes the argument any further. I would also rather give the person concerned the benefit of the doubt until it has been proved to me that the lie is incontrovertible.

hello Clive,
I just wanted to congratulate you on your elevation to the House of Lords.[today's Times] Well deserved. It is good to know that you will truly be a working peer.
Time now to revamp your contact details!
Every good wish from me [and James]

Clive, your stomach-churning loyalty to the New Labour project and defence of the criminal invasion of Iraq has been rewarded with a peerage. What a surprise that betrayal of your class and ideals buys you a seat in the House of Lords.

How about Lord Clive of Fallujah?

What a surprise, Clive,

Now your smugness makes even more sense. When people accused you of putting your career and party loyalty above your duties as a public official, you laughed and told them that, since you were retiring, there was no basis to their accusations. Your friends came to your aid and accused me and others of making baseless accusations, again using your retirement as proof. Now we see the whole picture. You've delivered the goods for your friends in high places and they've thrown you your 30 silver coins in return. Spend them well Clive, you've earned them with the blood of thousands.

Your little discussion of the difference between "fibbing" and lying is pathetic. How dare you. You and your friends are and were dealing with human lives. What room is there for "white lies"? I don't care how safe you feel with your new peerage. You and your friends lied. You lied carefully so that as to maintain deniability, but you lied nonetheless, and tens of thousands have been killed, maimed and dispossessed as a result.

People will not forget who you are and what you've done. Your self-serving behaviour and careful scheming is a perfect example of why people hate and distrust politicians. You haven't escaped your crimes.

S

Hi Clive,

Perhaps 'lies' and 'fibs' are the wrong words to use, although that's how I feel.

Perhaps (and pardon the venacular) 'Bullshit' and 'Bullshitter' are more apt.

What has certainl been shown is that TB manipulated and decieved Parliment because he thought he was right. He had no right to do that, period.

Now, if TB was not to be PM after 5th May, I would almost certainly vote Labour, but as it is, I'm on a knife edge between the LibDems / Labour / Greens.

Come what may, I will take your advice and start to try to change things from within the party (not sure which one yet) structure as I'm getting rather fed up of all the bullshitting and half truths in politics and intend to add my oar in somewhere (even if I only end up paddling around in my own swimming pool).

Congrats on your peerage (if you have it, the Guardian is reporting that you are being put up for one, and I've not read the Times today yet).

Regs, Andy (who still thinks you're better off at the UN, better weather)

'I hope I am not the only person who has noticed that every time the Liberals are asked why Kosovo was not illegal if Iraq was, they duck the question.'

Kosovo was a humanitarian catastrophy in progress and increasing, Iraq was not, at least, not to the extent Kosovo was.

'L'action de l'OTAN trouve sa légitimité dans l'autorité du Conseil de sécurité. Les résolutions du Conseil concernant la situation au Kosovo (résolution 1199 du 23 septembre 1998 et 1203 du 24 octobre1998) ont été prises en vertu du chapitre VII de la Charte des Nations unies, lequel traite des actions coercitives en cas de rupture de la paix.

Ces résolutions ont établi que la détérioration de la situation au Kosovo constituait une menace à la paix et à la sécurité dans la région.

Par la résolution 1199, le Conseil de sécurité exigeait des autorités de Belgrade :

* qu'il soit mis fin aux hostilités et que soit maintenu un cessez-le-feu au Kosovo,

* que soient prises des mesures pour éviter le danger de catastrophes humanitaires,

* qu'elles mettent fin à toutes les actions des forces de sécurité touchant la population civile,

* qu'elles ordonnent le retrait des unités de sécurité utilisées pour la répression des civils,

* qu'elles progressent rapidement dans le cadre du dialogue avec la Communauté albanaise, vers une solution politique aux problèmes du Kossovo.

La résolution 1203 a entériné les accords conclus entre la Yougoslavie d'une part, et l'OSCE et l'OTAN d'autre part, et exige qu'ils soient respectés. Ces accords comportaient des engagements et obligations précises de la part du gouvernement yougoslave.

Aucune de ces obligations n'a été respectée par Belgrade. Tous les efforts ont été mis en oeuvre pour appeler le gouvernement yougoslave à respecter ses obligations sur le te terrain et à accepter les accords de Rambouillet. Ces efforts ont été épuisés.

Dès lors le recours à la force est devenu inévitable. Il répond à la violation par Belgrade de ses obligations internationales, telles qu'elles résultent des résolutions du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies prises sur la base du Chapitre VII de la Charte.'

HTH

Regs, Shaggy

"""We all argue our case leaving out counter arguments and we all exaggerate the strength of our case."""

Indeed so, and while it might not be lying it is certainly dishonest, and why politicians have a bad reputation.

WHAT IS A LIE?

A LIE is something that is NOT the TRUTH - but isn't it the case that CLIVE SOLEY seems to use any other word for a LIE except for the truth?

Dissembling?

Spin?

Misrepresentation?

A shadow of the truth?

and so many more.

Isn't it like saying that ROBBERY is a MUGGING?

Whereas MURDER could be described as just someone who 'fell by an accident'

or 'the actions of some politician with no integrity, trust, honour, good faith or

no conscience who voted for an unlawful war' can be described as a MURDERER?

Lots of bitterness.

Congratulations Clive - very well deserved.

Steve

I think Tony Blair is not given enough credit for attempting to hold the US back and get UN approval for the action in Iraq, the famous second resolution (or was it the EIGHTEENTH?) In that he didn't get it, this was probably a mistake and, with hindsight, was probably predictable (oxymoron intended!) The whole concept of a 'legal' war is pretty much absurd. How are you going to get the WHOLE WORLD with all its multiple interests to agree on a Just War? When are the issues simplistic enough? Kosovo is an excellent example and I understand the motives for that war and it had popular support but their was certainly not international agreement over it. Even our involvement in the 2nd world war was controversial at the time. And what about the League of Nations - it died because it was all bark and no bite. Is this really the desired fate of the UN?

People seem to forget to mention how many UN resolutions -- over how many years -- and how many weapons inspections -- ad nauseum -- went on after Iraq invaded and attacked its neighbour Iran. My understanding is that Iraq lost their war on Iran and as part of the UN post-war agreement, Iraq was not allowed to build long range superguns and stockpile weapons that would pose as such a threat again. It was Iraq who was responsible for starting its next war.

Nobody can say the Iraqi regime was not aware of the war on terrorism after 9/11. The world's superpower was attacked unprovoked without warning. It was an act of war that shook the world. Iraq was was given many years and every opportunity to come clean about its weapons it was harbouring and could have stopped the invasion from happening at any time. Iraq was given a countless number of warnings.

If I recall correctly, Saddam Hussein was given years, months, weeks, days and hours - right up until the final 48-hour warning and unmistakable last 24-hour countdown. Right up until the final hour, he defiantly thumbed his nose at the West and invited war. Did he think the US was bluffing and so thought he could away with anything? What was he hiding all those years? Who knows what was shipped out of the country or even out to sea before the war started. I for one fear nuclear, plutonium, anthrax or any kind of bio warfare and wmd getting into the hands of tyrannical whacko one-man bands such as Saddam Hussein.

If Iraq's leader was Mr nice guy simply full of bluff and bluster minding his own business moving between his many palaces and bolt holes (one for nearly every day of the year because he was in fear of his life) -- how come -- even during the final countdown -- and the last 48 hours of warning -- he was willing to risk the lives of his own people in the face of the world's superpower and its military capability of shock and awe? We watched the tanks roll into Baghdad. There was no resistance. No plan. They didn't fight back. His only plan was to go into hiding. His army deserted him. He never cared about his army and the ordinary folk of Iraq. If he did, he would have stopped the invasion before it had even started simply by co-operating. Iraq was always thwarting UN weapons inspections and stalling for time, why?

Look at the people he surrounded himself with, like his minister for information Comical Ali. If Saddam Hussein knew his forces did not have the capability to fight back why did he invite war? The guy was a psycho who was dangerous and completely untrustworthy. His word meant nothing. He proved it after he'd bragged over and over again to the world's media that he'd shoot himself before being taken captive. It's no surpirse that instead of courageously leading his men he ended up alone hiding like a rat down a dirt hole to save his own skin, cuddling tens of thousands of American dollars and a loaded pistol.

Despite the countless number of cruel orders he meted out to end the lives of his own people he didn't even have the guts to take his own life. Instead he chose to be humiliated in front of his people, army, the world's leaders and media. What about his people? He did not give a fig. He gassed and tortured and killed and oppressed countless numbers of them. Within such an oil rich country, he ruled by fear and cruelty and built palatial mansions for himself so he had somewhere different to hide every few days while his people existed in dire straights.

Now he languishes in jail acquiring a penchant for American muffins (true). Poor chap was visibly shaken when he saw TV pictures of a new leader being elected by the people of Iraq. No doubt all the other psycho dictators, responsible for the misery, suffering and deaths of millions of people, took note.

America is an ally. Nobody can convince me a conservative government would not have done the same thing. Look what Thatcher went to war over - a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere - housing a tiny community of people - that didn't even seem to really belong to us. There are some 50 million people in this country, of which a small percentage will always be protest against and object to war.

As for Clare Short, Iraq's great humanitarian and anti military intervention campaigner: she is on a panel that last month published a parliamentary paper pushing for military intervention in Darfur, Sudan. The report was publicised through an orchestrated barrage of press reports that flashed around the world in the run up to the start of Labour's election campaign.

Over the past 12 months I have followed almost every news report on Darfur but can barely recall a word Clare Short has said in the press to help the people of Darfur. Where was she between the time the death toll was reported as 10,000 in April 2004 until it reached half Rwandan genocide proportions?

Clare Short is an embarrassment to this country. Any military intervention in Darfur over the past year would have brought every jihadist out of the woodwork and set the tinder box of Africa alight. It would have caused a bloodbath and made Iraq look like a picnic. Taking cheapshots at Tony Blair for political gain by using the starving and dead people of Darfur is shameful. Tony Blair has done more for Africa than any other British prime minister. Clare Short knows it too, which makes her and her anti-Blair cronies and their venture into the media's spotlight to pull down Tony Blair over Darfur is a disgrace.

I'm sure I've said it here somewhere before: Labour's best opposition always seems to come from within the party itself. The internal opposition ought to band together and start up their own party to see for themselves how many people would vote for them to lead this country through the complexities of today's age of globalisation and terrorist threats.

As for Bush and his push on promoting democracy. I've recently come come round to thinking, after spending two years looking into the reasons for mans inhumanity to man, that famine and genocide would not occur in a modern day democracy. So, Bush is on the right track. The sooner people clue themselves up as to what happens on the present day UN Security Council, and supports its reform, the better.

Ingid,

I'm not sure if you are purposfully disingenuous, or just like spin - which is it?

Could you re-post without the hype?

Regs, Andy

Apologies for posting my comment above in the wrong box. It was written in response to Clive's April 27 post titled "Responses" and the comments re Iraq, Claire Short and Bush. So I have re-posted it over there.

Hi Clive:

I don't think "lying" has become devalued - I think it's rather that the average person has so little concept of honour or honesty that he tells "small harmless fibs" as a reflex.

Quite smply, if you make a statement that you know to be false, make a statement so narrow in scope so as to be misleading, or assert as truth something which is merely conjecture, you are a liar.

It seems so me that Mr Blair has been at best deliberatly evasive over some of the issues surrounding Iraq, so I have little respect for him. Despite my personal dislike for the PM, I think he made the right decision to support the invasion of Iraq, and to an unbiased eye, it is clear that the sunsequent events have vindicated that decision.

If you really want to see a lying nest of vipers, however, you need to direct your attention away from Westminster and towards the UN.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: