« Prison, power and protest | Main | Chartists would say 'Yes' »

April 01, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ad

So was Obama taking all his supporters for a ride as I and others told Paul when he was celebrating the second coming?

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/obama-year-zero.html#comments

Or is Obama simply a helpless puppet of the establishment? Either way it proves the point that Obama is an establishment fig leaf.

A proper recognition of imperialism for what it is and the forces behind it will help one to stop being so easily deceived. Perhaps it would also have prevented Paul from rushing to join the chorus of violent schemers calling for bombs against Libya and the support of armed rebels who lack popular support and are led by Gaddaffi defectors and Al-Qaeda members.

Ad

-- BARACK OBAMA on Afghanistan (October 27, 2007): "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take that to the bank," and by implication not begin new ones.

Ad

'Our host is clearly the most outspoken anti Iraq and Afghan war MP in parliament.'

Why IS Paul practically a lone voice in parliament against the Afghan war when the majority of the public agree with him? This is why I talk about the establishment. Few MPs are prepared to take up a position which is contrary to the interests of the establishment because they will find it a lonely one. Perhaps Paul could give us a better explanation.

Ad

'What brings you to this conclusion?'

Why are parliament and successive governments pro-war and usually the majority of the public against?

'Our host is clearly the most outspoken anti Iraq and Afghan war MP in parliament.Clearly a British MP is going to be behind the Britsh armed forces whether they agree with the war or not.'

Fair enough. I'm generally in agreement with Paul on Afghanistan but I felt it was important to say that Afghans ought not to be grateful for their 'sacrifice in blood' for an imperialist adventure.

Neither should they be grateful for aid money which has achieved next to nothing apart from making some western companies and Afghan politicians rich. Its tragic what happened to the UN workers, but the UN apparently supports and authorises this occupation. One which sees small children run over for sport and peoples homes broken into in the middle of the night by foreign soldiers.

'Is animal meant to be an insult? Don't you realise that you , me and every human being is an animal?'

Thats true in one sense but man is higher than an animal (mostly anyway). Hence words such as brutish and beastly to describe crude and inhumane behaviour.

patrick

Ad
"Our govervnment are children of evil by tradition and establishment"

What brings you to this conclusion?

"Its time to stop denying and excusing this and pick a side."

Our host is clearly the most outspoken anti Iraq and Afghan war MP in parliament.Clearly a British MP is going to be behind the Britsh armed forces whether they agree with the war or not.

"All that happens in politics is that one whelp is replaced by another. They're all animals."

Is animal meant to be an insult? Don't you realise that you , me and every human being is an animal?

Ad

'This attack was not on any of the armies there but on the United Nations. Afghanistan has had more than £25billion of humanitarian aid, much of it through the UN. Why attack them?'

Ok, but look at what you said:

'Ten years of vast sacrifices in blood and treasure have achieved nothing. A mob is so anti-Western that peacemakers have been lynched. The Afghan Police were impotent spectators.'

You talk about the sacrifice in 'blood'. Its not sacrifice Paul. Its imperialism. You yourself admit this war is not about the 'war on terror'.

Our govervnment are children of evil by tradition and establishment. It is a force which eats men. Its time to stop denying and excusing this and pick a side.

All that happens in politics is that one whelp is replaced by another. They're all animals.


HuwOS

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05340.pdf

Although the initial invasion of Afghanistan was not mandated by a specific UN Security
Council Resolution, relying on the justification of self-defence, the Security Council moved
quickly to authorise a military operation to stabilise the country.
Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1386 of December 2001 laid down the initial mandate
for a 5,000-strong International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to deploy to the region in
and immediately around Kabul, in order to provide security and to assist in the reconstruction
of the country under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
9
*************************

Nothing justifies killing in general, least of all killing people making effort and often sacrifice to help those who most need help.
But the reason why it has become easier for people in occupied countries to see the UN workers as representative of the enemy is due to the position the US with British support have placed the UN agencies in.

Paul Flynn

This attack was not on any of the armies there but on the United Nations. Afghanistan has had more than £25billion of humanitarian aid, much of it through the UN. Why attack them?

Paul Flynn

Junican, you have a problem. It would be tedious for my other readers to repeat what I have said many times but even the Afghan war most reliable cheerleaders the Foreign Affairs Select Committee no longer believe that the deaths of our troops is stopping terrorism. The fact you believe the Taliban is the same as Al Quead proves you don't begin to understand the true situation.

Read and learn from Patrick's letter.

patrick

Why are we even in Afghan?

'1) None of the hijackers were from Afghanistan
2) 17 out of 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia
3) There are no Boeing flight training centers in Afghanistan
4) The funding for the attacks was traced to Saudi Arabia
5) The stated reason for the attacks was due to American military presence in Saudi Arabia
6) Some of the hijackers had never been to Afghanistan
7) The US chosen leader for Afghanistan also happened to be a UNOCAL pipeline executive (a company that told the US government they need to get rid of the Taliban by force if they want to get that pipeline completed, 2 years prior to invasion).
8) The first official edict of President Karzai was to hand over the pipeline construction rights to America.
9) To this day, Osama Bin Laden is not wanted by any American law enforcement agencies in connection with 9/11.
10) A few months after Karzai gave America the pipeline project Bush stated ''The CPC (pipeline) project advances my administration's National Energy Policy."
11) The people who orchestrated the attacks were not from Afghanistan.
12) No one in the government or media ever asks why Saudi Arabia was not scrutinized.
13) Clearly no one is looking for Bin Laden.
14) Khalid Sheik Mohammed is now being billed as "The Mastermind of 9/11". What does that say about Bin Laden?
15) The US government has been trying to get a pipeline through Afghanistan since the early 90's and spent billions on it in conjunction with companies like UNOCAL, Haliburton and even Enron.'

We are motivated by money and only invade mineral rich or otherwise financially important countries.

We claim to defend human rights in oil rich countries while we go into sleep mode when a real genocide continues in many others.

For one example ,why has the West ignored Darfur?

It's because human life only matters to us (collectively) if it affects our stocks and shares.

Junican

It is hard to believe that a Member of Parliament can offer up such vacuous, ill-thought through, rubbish. Is this stuff an April Fool's joke?

OK. Let us imagine that Al Queda and The Taliban gain control. At what point will we have to engage in an all out war to protect ourselves against the Islamic Caliphate? At what point do we have to put up with the absence of oil and rely upon windmills? At what point do we accept suicide bombers blowing themselves up here and there, willy-nilly? How do you stop Al Queda acquiring nuclear devices? Or is it that you do not really care, since you will probably have ceased to be an MP by then? What would you have done about Afghanistan? What would you have done about Iraq? You do not say anything.

I personally believe that it is the duty of the developed nations to help raise the standard of living of the undeveloped nations, without reducing our own standard of living. In the short term (say, fifty years) global warming is irrelevant.

As regards the nuclear problem in Japan, it would be foolish indeed to to draw a conclusion that all nuclear is therefore a potential disaster. Such thoughts are hysterical - after all, the atomic bombs exploded in Japan in WW2, despite the fact that they were extremely 'dirty', did not render Japan uninhabitable.

Politicians have to stop themselves from being so childish. I know that it is hard to do, but 'it is the right thing to do'.

Our political system stinks. Our political system panders to the lowest common denominator. Politicians are manipulated by the real powers. Mr Flynn, you must know that this is true. The Health Dept, in particular, is riddled with zealotry. The Defence Dept is 'not suitable for purpose'. No one has the foggiest idea what is going on. It is your duty to sort this out.

Ad

The lack of 'gratitude' is a pathetic stance to take if that is why you oppose this war. Gratitude for what?

Ad

Noone gives a shit. Its not not news.

Ad

'Ten years of vast sacrifices in blood and treasure have achieved nothing. A mob is so anti-Western that peacemakers have been lynched. The Afghan Police were impotent spectators.'

Tragic incident. I think this is even more disturbing. The so called 'kill team' of US soldiers throwing sweets to little children and then running them over.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/photos/the-kill-team-photos-20110327/0749723

The comments to this entry are closed.