Gordon Brown, Iraq And The Ominous 'World Order'

PM Gordon Brown’s appearance, today, in front of the Iraq Inquiry into the war was, as expected, forceful and confident. He told the panel the war had been “right”

He said he had been convinced by his own intelligence briefings that Iraq “had to be dealt with” as it had become a threat.

He thought Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions and had become one of the “rogue states” that should not be allowed to flout international law.

However, what I found to be the most ominous statement by the PM was that he feared the “new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk”.

What world order would that be and who is the “we”?

I am unaware of us agreeing to be part of any “world order” and would like to know: who are the other member states? Who is deciding the 'agenda' within this “world order?

We have already discovered what happens when a financial “world order” goes into meltdown and will be paying the price for a long time.

To me, the phrase plants the seed of questioning over whether there might be a bigger game being played in which none of us are aware we are even taking part.

Communism always pushed for “world order” and the Muslim extremists seek the same thing.

I am not sure we should be part of a ‘one vision’ approach that sees “world order” as being justification for invading countries that do not share the same stated values as ourselves.

That would be no better than communism, or Islamism, by the back door!

Richard Madeley On Saddam And Blair!

If I was Tony Blair I would be seriously worried tonight.

TV presenter, Richard Madeley, who is the 'Dick' of the legendary TV partnership of Richard and Judy has felt the need to make a short film for BBC's Daily Politics show in defence of our previous prime minister.

I am not sure which shocks me the most: TB needing to be defended by RM or RM becoming an authority on the legalities of war.

It has to be said, that as a political analyst, Richard makes a very good television presenter.

Watch for yourself here and weep!

Could it soon be "Arise Sir Dick"?

Blair And Iraq - All In One Picture!

Having spent today following the reports of Tony Blair's historic grilling, yesterday, at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War, I was really not sure what impression I was left with.

Then, I saw the above picture in The London Daily News and it seemed to sum it all up perfectly!!

'Obscenity' And The Ministry of Defence

Defence Secretary, Bob Ainsworth, has been forced to reveal, in reply to a parliamentary question, that a senior official at the Ministry of Defence trousered a bonus payment of £84,500 last year.

The average payment for senior fixed term appointees was said to be £31,890 over the same period.

What the heck is a 'senior fixed term appointee'? Well, the Cabinet Office describe the positions as either consultants brought in from outside the civil service, or seconded from other departments. Hmmm... I am still none the wiser.

Given the way we follow everything the US does, I am tempted to question whether these 'senior fixed term appointees' are really private security personnel (aka mercenaries) contracted to perform dirty deeds - while allowing plausible denial for the government - in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

A spokesman for the Taxpayers' Alliance branded the payments 'obscene' but what is really 'obscene' is the sight of the coffins in which our dead military personnel return, after losing their lives while earning a fraction of the pay being awarded to the recipients of the bonuses.

What is 'obscene' is the fact that the Ministry of Defence could not afford to supply our troops with the equipment needed to protect their lives during a war we should, arguably, not be fighting but can, instead, afford to pay consultants large bonuses.

What is 'obscene' is the cost of the security circus that will be protecting the man who led us into the present military actions, Tony Blair, as he is grilled by the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, at the end of this week.

But the biggest obscenity of all is that it has taken a parliamentary question to even discover that our tax payments are being frittered away in such an unsavoury fashion.

Coincidence Of Child Deformities In Iraqi Town Of Falluja?

A baby born with two heads, many with multiple tumours and others with extensive damage to the central nervous system.

It sounds like the kind of horror to be found in the plot of a science fiction film but is, in reality, what is happening in the Iraqi town of Falluja.

The level of chronic deformities in infants is up to fifteen times what was considered to have be 'normal' and the health authorities are struggling to cope. Falluja General Hospital used to see two admissions every fortnight but now they have two admissions every day.

It seems hard to believe it is just coincidence that the town, which was the setting of one of the fiercest battles of the Iraq war, is now showing such abnormalities occurring amongst its young.

One can only speculate on the nature of the weapons deployed in the battle (I am sure the US will not be forthcoming with any answers) but it seems their effects will not be easily forgotten!

What makes a Soldier....

I meant to post this at the weekend but foolishly, I left the original email at work. It was sent as part of a weekly newsletter I receive from the Red Fridays campaign.

I have no idea who the author is but I found it to be extremely thought provoking; it brings reality into the world of politics. I found it to be very moving. I hope you do too....

The average British soldier is 19 years old.....he is a short haired, well built lad who, under normal circumstances is considered by society as half man, half boy. Not yet dry behind the ears and just old enough to buy a round of drinks but old enough to die for his country - and for you. He's not particularly keen on hard work but he'd rather be grafting in Afghanistan than unemployed in the UK .

He recently left comprehensive school where he was probably an average student, played some form of sport, drove a ten year old rust bucket, and knew a girl that either broke up with him when he left, or swore to be waiting when he returns home. He moves easily to rock and roll or hip-hop or to the rattle of a 7.62mm machine gun.

He is about a stone lighter than when he left home because he is working or fighting from dawn to dusk and well beyond. He has trouble spelling, so letter writing is a pain for him, but he can strip a rifle in 25 seconds and reassemble it in the dark. He can recite every detail of a machine gun or grenade launcher and use either effectively if he has to. He digs trenches and latrines without the aid of machines and can apply first aid like a professional paramedic. He can march until he is told to stop, or stay dead still until he is told to move.

He obeys orders instantly and without hesitation but he is not without a rebellious spirit or a sense of personal dignity. He is confidently self-sufficient. He has two sets of uniform with him: he washes one and wears the other. He keeps his water bottle full and his feet dry. He sometimes forgets to brush his teeth, but never forgets to clean his rifle. He can cook his own meals, mend his own clothes and fix his own hurts. If you are thirsty, he'll share his water with you; if you are hungry, his food is your food. He'll even share his life-saving ammunition with you in the heat of a firefight if you run low.

He has learned to use his hands like weapons and regards his weapon as an extension of his own hands. He can save your life or he can take it, because that is his job - it's what a soldier does. He often works twice as long and hard as a civilian, draw half the pay and have nowhere to spend it, and can still find black ironic humour in it all. There's an old saying in the British Army: 'If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!'

He has seen more suffering and death than he should have in his short lifetime. He has wept in public and in private, for friends who have fallen in combat and he is unashamed to show it or admit it. He feels every bugle note of the 'Last Post' or 'Sunset' vibrate through his body while standing rigidly to attention. He's not afraid to 'Bollock'anyone who shows disrespect when the Regimental Colours are on display or the National Anthem is played; yet in an odd twist, he would defend anyone's right to be an individual. Just as with generations of young people before him, he is paying the price for our freedom. Clean shaven and baby faced he may be, but be prepared to defend yourself if you treat him like a kid.

He is the latest in a long thin line of British Fighting Men that have kept this country free for hundreds of years. He asks for nothing from us except our respect, friendship and understanding. We may not like what he does, but sometimes he doesn't like it either - he just has it to do.. Remember him always, for he has earned our respect and admiration with his blood.

And now we even have brave young women putting themselves in harm's way, doing their part in this tradition of going to war when our nation's politicians call on us to do so.

When you receive this, please stop for a moment and if you are so inclined, feel free to say a prayer for our troops in the trouble spots of the world. Maybe you'll want to send it on to someone else too.

Why not leave a message here

Remembrance Sunday and The Afghanistan/Iraq Conflicts

Today is the day we remember all those who have died in conflict fighting to preserve our freedom.

Since my earliest childhood memory of men and women standing around the Cenotaph in warm black coats, silently laying wreaths of bright red poppies, it has been about those who fought in WW1 and WW2. Now, though, it must include those who have, sadly, been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

For me, that brings confusion.

Both of the world wars were just that - they were global. They were about fighting to protect our freedom against those who sought to invade and conquer us.

In Iraq and Afghanistan the conflicts are different in that we have chosen to invade those countries - albeit with the excuse we are ultimately protecting our home country from terrorist attack. Despite what Foreign Secretary David Miliband writes in today's Mail On Sunday, the argument is still not convincing.

Sir Jock Stirrup, Head of the Armed Forces, said on the Andrew Marr show this morning:

"We haven't done a good enough job of explaining to the public what our strategy is".

That is because there cannot be a strategy against a foe that uses the unpredictable tactics of the terrorist and promotes our presence in their homeland as that of the invader. Yes, you can 'take the fight to the terrorists' and kill hundreds in battle, thereby reducing the numbers but you cannot change the mindset, or the radicalisation of future generations.

As I listened to the bugler at my local cenotaph service occasionally missing the notes and stopping during his performance of The Last Post, I acknowledged there are those in this country who would try to claim that speaking out against our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is being unsupportive of our troops. It is not.

To speak out against an unjust and legally dubious conflict is, in reality, being totally supportive of those who do not have a choice!

.

Director Of The FBI Is A Hypocrite!

Predictably, the outcry over the compassionate release of the only person convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, has been loud and spoken malnly with an american accent.

Poor old Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, has been the main target. He claims to have made the decision to release Megrahi all on his own but as we all know it is very unlikely to have been allowed to proceed had it not been part of a much bigger political picture.

Poor old Kenny has, today, received a scathing letter from the director of the FBI in the US, Robert Mueller. In it he writes:

"Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of 'compassion'."

Hmm now where do we start on that one?

Megrahi's trial is generally accepted to have been, at best, controversial and was not tested in front of a jury but in front of a panel of three Scottish judges sitting in a 'neutral' country. Proof of the quality of the investigation normally rests on the evidence presented to the court and again this has been disputed with claims that some of the 'proof' was fraudulent or fabricated.

Sadly, Megrahi's release stopped his scheduled appeal, which would have tested all of the above and hopefully brought a more balanced judgement on the guilt of the accused.

But what could almost be the funniest part of the letter, if it was not so serious, is the part saying:

"Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law."

Remember this was written by a senior law officer in a country that has brought the word 'rendition' into the English vocabulary, where anyone suspected of actions that could be even remotely related to terrorism, were flown around the world while hooded and chained, were tortured by water boarding and worse, were mentally abused and held in a prison camp on foreign soil without due process of law or being formally charged with any offence - all for years on end.

If this is the definition of justice to which Mr Mueller refers then it is hard to know who is the greatest danger to the 'rule of law'.

To be able to criticise Mr MacAskill, the distinguished director of the FBI should first have made certain he was writing from the lofty peaks of the moral high ground.

If the recent behaviour of the US intelligence services is now seen as a benchmark for 'justice' then... stop the world..I want to get off!

The 'Dud Missile' Of An Iraq War Enquiry

Yesterday afternoon, our failing prime minister, Gordon Brown, finally announced what many have been demanding for years - an enquiry into the Iraq war. So far so good.

The fully independent enquiry is to be held in secret, will not report until after the next general election and will not apportion any blame. Now that is all bad!

After the recent scandal over MPs expenses when the prime minister promised a more transparent government, does he really think the British public will have any trust in such an enquiry? Has he not been told of his party's total crash in the polls?

Many questions about the legality of the Iraq war still remain unanswered, even though the original claims about weapons of mass destruction have been proved false.

A secret enquiry where no-one ends up taking responsibility is about as much use as a cat flap on a submarine.

The families of thousands of dead Iraqis and those of the 179 British service personnel killed as a result of the conflict, deserve much more than just another high profile cover up!

Iraq - More 'Official' Lies!

An article in today's Independent's Commentators section by the much respected Robert Fisk highlights the deception that is still being 'spun' about our role in Iraq and the state in which the country has been left.

The article has been based around a letter, forwarded to him by one of his readers, Tom Geddes, and penned by someone with an illegible signature from the Ministry of Defence's "Iraq Operations Team, Directorate of Operations"

It justifies our involvement in Iraq by stating:

It is important to remember that our decision to take action (sic) in Iraq was driven by Saddam Hussein's refusal to co-operate with the UN-sponsored weapons inspections...The former Prime Minister has expressed his regret for any information, given in good faith, concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which has subsequently proven to be incorrect."

Mr Fisk, in his article, points out:

Saddam Hussein did not "refuse to co-operate" with the UN weapons inspectors. The whole problem was that – to the horror of Blair and Bush – the ghastly Saddam did co-operate with them, and the UN weapons team under Hans Blix was about to prove that these "weapons of mass destruction" were non-existent; hence the Americans forced Blix and his men and women to leave Iraq so that they and Blair could stage their illegal invasion. I saw Blix's aircraft still on the ground at Baghdad airport just two days before the attack. Note, too, the weasel words. Blair did not give his information "in good faith", as SM (the illegible writer at the MoD) claims. He knew – and the Ministry of Defence knew (and I suppose SM knew) – they were untrue. Or "incorrect" as "SM" coyly writes.

Interesting words about a lie that very few journalists seem willing to keep in the public eye.

Action in Iraq was an unforgiveable abuse - of democracy here in the UK, of the decision making process of the United Nations and certainly of the people of Iraq and of our troops.

While it may be convenient to just sweep it under the carpet with the rest of the falsehoods from the Blair years, we must make sure that the truth is eventually acknowledged!