The situation is rapidly deteriorating in Darfur. The Government of the Sudan, using Janjaweed forces has intensified its military offensive leading to the killing, rape, and displacement of innocent civilians on an immense scale.
On November 16th Kofi Annan put forward a three step for an African Union and United Nations hybrid force for Darfur. This included a $21 million support package to the AU with the deployment of several hundred soldiers and police and finally the deployment of a 17,000 strong hybrid force under UN command and control, to conduct peacekeeping duties in Darfur.
The Government of the Sudan has used its influence to prevent the UN from having a direct role. The result is a continuation of the muder, rape and attrocities.
Unless the international community acts, and acts now, to provide effective protection to civilians we risk genocide on a horrific scale.
I am calling on the Government to link up with other European countries to support the UN and the African Union in this peace plan to address the tragedy that is Darfur.
39 Comments:
You didn't seem to be as bothered when the Kurds and Marsh Arabs were being killed.
I trust the government will act as best it can.
In response to the first comment, you need to check my record. I was amongst the first to campaign to expose what Hussain did to the Kurds in Halabja and against his brutal suppression of the Marsh Arabs. I didn't see many of those who later supported the war demonstrating with us at that time including Tony Blair or other current cabinet members. Even in the Iraq war debate the Prime Minister was stating time and time again that the invasion of Iraq was not about regime change! This lends itself to the argument that many political leaders took the cynical view that Saddam Hussain was a brutal dictator but as long as he was their brutal dictator he was supported by them. Only when he stepped out of line did they judge it was necessary to remove him.
Ps Why am I up so early respoding to a blog comment?
Yet again I am dealing with another deportation case for removal at 8 am this morning and with the distraught relatives of the detainee!
I don't believe many MPs or Government Ministers comprehend the distress caused by these removals.
John your right most MP's, government ministers don't comprehend the stress they cause people with the policies they are supporting - which is why we need you as the leader of the labour party to burst their westminster bubble - bring them back to the real world where they are doing so much damage to so many people.
I for one would like to thank you for all the hard work you put in.
Yes, me too. Meanwhile , the papers today are full of rubbish "spin" from Number 10 about Cherie's present-buying and what Tony buys his mother-in-law for Christmas.It's sickening stuff weighed against the things which really matter.
there was a documenatary on some time ago about the situation with deportations now wasn't there?
as I've worked in this area I know that detainees will sometimes tell each other to make a fuss/ put up a bit of a fight while they are being taken to planes or being moved to another detention centre and there also have been "dirty protests" in the contractor's vans as you would get with prison prisoners; jus think how desparate you would have to be to do that. The programme quoted some examples of recent asylum seeker removals where the person being removed was so frightened of what they were having to go back to that they literally lost control of their bodily funtions.
I have read that this is what would often happen when the Gestapo came for people in Nazi Germany and you can read about what happened after Anne Frank and her family were discovered by the Gestapo in a book called "The Footsteps of Anne Frank" and hte detail is of course shocking. At the time of the Nazi concentration camps people who had been in them or seen them as they liberated them or whatever didn't usually talk about what they had seen, at least for years afterwards. These days we talk about anything and everything and hopefully this means that eventually the message will get through and they will stop trying to remove people to countries like Iraq and Zimbabwe which are obviously not safe.
The saddest thing about asylum seekers about every one that reaches the West or a safe neighbouring country represents about none others that didn't.
Blair wants to be careful what he puts his name to as we have been reminded yesterday when Pinochet died just how much Margaret Thatcher was associated with him.
When they increase targets for asylum removals the goverment know perfectly well how difficult it actually is in practice and technically to actually remove people as many have no documents (passprts etc) as it can take months to establish the person's natioanlity and identity and get the corresponding Embassy to accept this and issue travel docsin order for the country concerned to accept them back. Just ask any Immigration Officer. So it may be that people are being removed who actually have quite good or very good reasons for remaning in the UK, at least on exceptional leave if not full refugee status but because the govt can't remove as many of the others as they'd like due to no docs or because they have absconded from their temporary admission to this country (or they may be classed as stateless which is even more complicated) which happens frequently and it easy to do which they also know perfectly well in the Home Office. There are issues of manpower therefore in actually getting the papers ready to remove people which has to be done or the countries won't accept them back and the airlines wouldn't fly them and doing home visits etc from Enforcement for no shows/absconders etc. So why the Blairite govt even tries is purely to pander to the right wing media as it's actaully not practiacally possible or the Tories would have doen oit when they were in power. They also do not disporove the myth that you can stop people coming here in the first place, of course you can't! For lots of reasons such as many people in other countries are of course ignorant of our laws so they just get on planes or smuggle in lorries and get here anyway for a start! Facilitators and agents are sadly always available to exploit their fellow countrymen by smuggling them to safe countries for extortionate sums also and these usually take their passports off them (sometimes flushing them done the airport toilets) so that the people and the county they came from can't be identified so that they can't be sent back anytime soon and the smuggled peole don't always know in which country they have landed up, some of them are also illiterate, have never been on escalators before.....yes there are always economic migrants but how these poor people are all supposed to be cyncically manipulating us is beyond me.
The implementation of Kofi Annan's plan would be welcome, but I don't believe it will stop genocide in Sudan.
Darfur is a vast area and even 17,000 troops could not prevent all the looting, raping and killing.
The genocide is directly in the political interests of the government, whose strategy is geared towards preventing the independence of Southern Sudan.
They want to preserve a state of emergency in Sudan and delay elections/the referendum on Southern independence giving them time to fully incorporate key Southern Sudanese figures and institutions into the state so they convince their people unity is in their interests.
In my view, the only way genocide will be prevented in Darfur is the way it was eventually stopped in Southern Sudan: through the unity of the people in that area politically and militarily.
The "Northern" word for Southern Sudanese people is literally translated as "slave". The government never believed Southern people were their equals until in the late 90s and early 21st century, rival militias in Southern Sudan joined together, won permanent control over Southern territory and set up their own government instutitions. They proved to the Sudanese government it was impossible to defeat them on the battleground and they must be considered equals in any negotiated agreement. Only after significant military advances were made by the SPLA did the government sign a reasonable peace deal it had any intention of keeping.
The Sudanese government now believes it can defeat Darfur on the battleground, and it has resorted to the same tactics of dividing resistance by offering government positions and peace deals it has no intention of keeping.
Darfuris must unite and prove both on the battleground and by setting up their own political and civil institutions that they are the equals of "Northerners" in Khartoum. Only then will they get a peace deal which is fair and which the government intends to keep.
The formation and success of the NRF, and the formation of a party political wing of the JEM are welcome advances. We need to support them.
Sorry for the long post - this is an issue I care very deeply about.
I'm sure the victims of Saddam will be delighted that you "demonstrated" against him in the eighties ... oh, how brave!
The fact remains that you voted to keep him in power. He's now on death row, and I think it's about time you thanked the Prime Minister and President Bush and apologised for your original opposition to the war.
As for Darfur, were the British and American governments to propose action, your track record suggests you'd march alongside your pal George Galloway to keep the Sudanese dictatorship in power.
Sham pops up with an out-of-the-blue comment about George Galloway shocker! The comments on this blog are becoming depressingly repetitive.
Change the record, sham, you apologist for mass murder.
I don't think I will. Far from being an apologist, I seem to be the only one who's actually criticising mass murder. The pro-Saddam, pro-Galloway rantings of everyone else on this blog are sickening, utterly sickening.
Sham,
Please reference a pro-Saddam or pro-Galloway rant on this blog.
I think the only "sickening" asoect of this blog is the rubbish being spouted by Sham. Blair did NOT get the vote for war on the basis of regime change - Saddam was supposed to have WMDs you silly man.
I wouldn't mind this idiot disagreeing with policies if he actually read or understood anything anyone said. He is politically illiterate
"I'm sure the victims of Saddam will be delighted that you "demonstrated" against him in the eighties ... oh, how brave!"
What would you rather he did at the time, set out on a one-man mission to assasinate him?
"The fact remains that you voted to keep him in power. He's now on death row, and I think it's about time you thanked the Prime Minister and President Bush and apologised for your original opposition to the war."
I don't know what John thinks about Saddam being on death row, but most people, including Blair, would rather he was not.
I can't think why he would apologise. Blair surely lied about his motives for the invasion, and has failed to moderate President Bush and his ill managed Iraq campaign, which has led to what the deputy sec. general of the UN describes as "civil war".
"As for Darfur, were the British and American governments to propose action, your track record suggests you'd march alongside your pal George Galloway to keep the Sudanese dictatorship in power."
Do you think that military intervention by Britain and America would be the best solution to that particular crisis?
"I don't think I will. Far from being an apologist, I seem to be the only one who's actually criticising mass murder. The pro-Saddam, pro-Galloway rantings of everyone else on this blog are sickening, utterly sickening."
See Curlew's comment above.
As said, John criticised Saddam for his mass murder campaigns in the 80s. Was the solution to that an ill managed American invasion in 2003? Probably not.
Susan, Susan, Susan,
:Sigh: Try reading what I say for a change. I've never, ever been an aplogist for murder. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo ... I supported the overthrow of those murderous regimes, unlike you, ya Ba'athist bint.
I mean, I wouldn't mind you disagreeing with my policies, but I don't like being described as "silly", an "idiot" and "politically illiterate" by a nonentity who doesn't even have the brains to set up her own blog.
Anon,
Protesting outside the Iraqi embassy would never have got rid of Saddam. If it wasn't for the invasion, he'd still be in power, and that's something McDonnell and Galloway will have to accept.
"Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo ... I supported the overthrow of those murderous regimes, unlike you, ya Ba'athist bint."
So you would support invasions of Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, and all other nations guilty of serious human rights abuses?
There can potentially be alternative solutions to these problems. Adolf Hitler obviously required military force to stop. It is debateable whether less people will die by the time Iraq is stable than would have died in the same period in Iraq had Saddam been left in place.
I say this as someone who actually supported the war, on regime change grounds.
"Protesting outside the Iraqi embassy would never have got rid of Saddam. If it wasn't for the invasion, he'd still be in power, and that's something McDonnell and Galloway will have to accept."
No, but it might have got the government to do something. This originates from you attacking John for defending himself against an accusation that he "didn't seem to be...bothered when the Kurds and Marsh Arabs were being killed."
I don't like George Galloway at all, but I don't think anyone on the left can actually wish that Saddam was in power as a desireable thing in itself - however, the question remains, has the war been even worse?
The countries services have been heavily privatised, their army has been badly damaged, the national identity of the nation, such as it was, has collapsed; there is a fair argument that it would have been better to leave Saddam alone more or less.
You aren't recognising the complexity of the war issue. It was not about "whether to leave Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq or not". It was about "shall we go to war alongside the Americans in Iraq", with unclear aims and limited control over how the overall operation was conducted. There is the issue of the financial cost of the war, and was it worth it when the Americans would have gone it alone anyway, and it's about our position in the world in relation to the US and the UN and the EU and others; moreover, the specific grounds on which there was a vote were related to WMDs, and in theory one should perhaps have voted against the war if one disbelieved that intelligence, even if one favoured regime change.
I reiterate - it was/is a much more complex issue than you make it out to be. I reacted towards the pro-war camp because I don't like soap box populist pacafist hysteria and so the anti-war lot put me off. But in truth there were a lot of perfectly sound arguments against the war.
Sham's latest personal comments are extremely offensive. No doubt they were intended to be. I would advise anyone else posting on this blog just to ignore what he says.It's not worth rising to the bait and he won't appreciate what you say anyway.For the record, I have got a blog.But I certainly wouldn't want individuals like Sham intruding into it.57 more dead in Baghdad this morning. He must be delighted.
Susan,
You started flinging about the insults, calling me a "silly man", an "idiot", "politically illiterate" and describing my comments as "rubbish" ... am I not allowed to find such remarks "extremely offensive"?
Not for the first time has someone slated me with impunity, then attemted to take the moral high ground when I've responded in kind. Such hypocrisy only succeeds in making you look like a fool, Susan.
57 more dead in Baghdad this morning. He must be delighted.
No, I am not, and what's more, if Britain and America were to pull out, the daily death toll would be much, much, higher.
Oh, and I also find the insinuation that I would be "delighted" with 57 dead Iraqis worse than offensive ...
Susan, apart from criticising Sham and telling people to ignore him (so much for denocracy) what exactly do yoi bring to the debate?
And if you've got a blog, why don't you let people like Sham comment on it even if they disagree. I've seen his blog and he allows comnents from people whio disagree with him!
Comrades,
Sham's sole intention is to wind people up. Therefore, I urge everyone to IGNORE his comments and avoid giving him the attention he so craves. Eventually he'll get bored and try annoying someone else.
tim f
Many thanks for your precis on Darfur, have been trying to understand who's who in the situation over there. Even the BBC website manages to tell a very confusing story. Am I right in presuming that any oil in the the Sudan is in the south of the country?
Ps enjoyed your blogsite.
Eventually he'll get bored
You're right, once McDonnell either doesn't get on the ballot paper or gets humiliated in the vote.
But while there's just the slightest possibility of this man becoming the British Prime Minister I will continue to speak out. It will be a disater for Britain, Iraq and the people of Darfur were he to enter Number 10.
Ignore me if you will but you'll be ignoring the truth.
curlew said...
tim f
"Many thanks for your precis on Darfur, have been trying to understand who's who in the situation over there. Even the BBC website manages to tell a very confusing story. Am I right in presuming that any oil in the the Sudan is in the south of the country?"
There's lots of oil in Sudan but yes, much of it is in the South. Needless to say, until the CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement, signed Jan 2005) the South didn't receive any of the proceeds. Shortly before the formation of the SPLA, Bentiu, one of the earlier oil-rich areas to be discovered, was "moved" from the South to the North!
"Ps enjoyed your blogsite."
Thanks!
What do I bring to the debate? Well, how about 30 years'membership of the Labour Party, 22 years as active trade unionist, roughly similar amounts campaigning from the Miners'Strike to CND, five General Elections, and countlkess local ones.I'm also a local councillor.
Let's go back to the beginning. Our Prime Minister is responsible for an illegal war which every day causes more deaths and suffering. If we'd never invaded Iraq, many thousands would still be alive. Blair should be in jail, not touted as some sort ofhero.
John McDonnell and many other MPs like Jeremy Corbyn and Alice Mahon were against Saddam when the rest of the West was only too pleased to give him succour.I find it deeply insulting that someone who clearly does not even digest what people are saying on this issue should rant and rave and dare to suggest that being anti-war equates with being pro-Saddam.Sham's sole intent is to wind people up.He's actually pretty good at it. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with somoene if arguments are expressed in a cogent and comradely way. I think we'd all agree that's not exactly the case in this instance. I admit I have allowed myself to be wound up.From now on, willjust be concentrating on building up support for this campaign. Two calls today from disaffected members who are thinking of re-joining.
I think it's fairly evident how constructive Sham wishes to be in discussion of these matters given that he hasn't answered any of the following points (stripped of explanation here) from myself:
"Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo ... I supported the overthrow of those murderous regimes, unlike you, ya Ba'athist bint."
So you would support invasions of Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, and all other nations guilty of serious human rights abuses?
"Protesting outside the Iraqi embassy would never have got rid of Saddam. If it wasn't for the invasion, he'd still be in power, and that's something McDonnell and Galloway will have to accept."
No, but it might have got the government to do something. This originates from you attacking John for defending himself against an accusation that he "didn't seem to be...bothered when the Kurds and Marsh Arabs were being killed."
You aren't recognising the complexity of the war issue. It was not about "whether to leave Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq or not".
"The fact remains that you voted to keep him in power. He's now on death row, and I think it's about time you thanked the Prime Minister and President Bush and apologised for your original opposition to the war."
I don't know what John thinks about Saddam being on death row, but most people, including Blair, would rather he was not.
I don't know why he'd apologise...
"As for Darfur, were the British and American governments to propose action, your track record suggests you'd march alongside your pal George Galloway to keep the Sudanese dictatorship in power."
Do you think that military intervention by Britain and America would be the best solution to that particular crisis?
He missed a few others as well.
Oh, and as Curlew said:
"Please reference a pro-Saddam or pro-Galloway rant on this blog."
Sham is ludicrously stereotyping this campaign and the left generally, though there isn't actually any foundation at all for claiming that leftwingers are pro-Saddam.
as for being "humiliated" as the Blairites keep telling us we will be consider the following facts
a) the public is now to the left of New Labour
b) the Left can win as it did in the latest Labour party NEC elctions
and c) in order to win anything you have to "dare to lose"; you have to be in it for a start and the negative talkers of humiliation is probably hoping we won't even try thus making their job easy for them and anyway if we fall flat on our face with our left candiate so to speak we'll just get back up again' it's been done before and politcal clinates can change. It's going to be hard as the right wing generally has done a good job of villifying perfectly reasonable,caring and humanitarian left wing views as "loony" though in today's climate how any one can think it's "loony" to support women, gay people and to be anti-war in the present climate is beyond me. As for Darfur apart from calling for Kofi Annan's plan to be implemented we can only look at the global causes behing these conflicts which are of course affected by many things from the arms trade to poverty and hunger and any leftie worth their salt whether("loony =" or not will be found campaigning on these issues won't they be it through charities, pressure groups or through the Labour party and government, we are all uinited in our aims, the non Blairite rest of the Labour party are not some kind of wired dictator worshippinf sect, they are just normal concerneed activists as were for example the Greenham Common women twenty five years ago. It was alright then to soeak out passionately over issues you cared about or even get angry, as in teh "angry young man/woman" stereotype but nowadays if you do rage peacefully against the war in say Iraq by protesting peacefully in say Parliament Sqaure as should be your democratic right you are seen as really subversive (you have to get police permission for demos now). The left wing may not have won in the eighties when it came to the 1983 election but they weren't silenced as there are now which reminds me Arjun -not silenced I presume?!
At least now everyone's bloggimg ideas will spread more widely and quickly and it will help to disseminate some of the entrencheed right wing bias in much or our media etc, and the effects of have an effectivley righ twing government for othe last nine years. Also it's quick as because of hte govt's policies we arte all much busier working wetc just to keep body and soul together so less time so bloging suits.
The Independent tomorrow is runinng a front page today on why government policy forces women on to the streets in the light of the Ipswich murder hunts., which should be interesting.
To end on a more cheerful not the odds on a white Christmas are 8-1!
just wanted to change the subject!
Sham's sole intent is to wind people up
You're actually pretty good at it yourself, Susan ...
Btw, ignore me all you want, but I'm not going away.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
"The truth hurts, doesn't it?"
?
You've still ignored every question I've put to you. They really weren't rhetorical if my last post didn't make it clear.
(I should have a name here by the way - but it won't let me log in. Hrmph.)
Anon - click on "other" and type your name in.
Anonymous, you want the truth? You can't handle the truth! [Sorry! :)]
Here are the answers to your questions:
Zim, Sudan, NK:
So you would support invasions of Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, and all other nations guilty of serious human rights abuses?
I'm absolutely in favour of regime change and democracy in those states, and why the hell not? If invasion were proposed, I wouldn't oppose it.
Protesting outside embassies:
No, but it might have got the government to do something. This originates from you attacking John for defending himself against an accusation that he "didn't seem to be...bothered when the Kurds and Marsh Arabs were being killed."
The fact is, it achieved nothing. McDonnell protesting outside the Iraqi Embassy didn't depose Saddam - the action of Blair and Bush did. If he wanted to support the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, he would have backed the overthrow of Saddam, as they did.
Sham=naive:
You aren't recognising the complexity of the war issue. It was not about "whether to leave Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq or not".
That's what it boiled down to. Leave him in charge to develop WMDs, or take action to remove him.
Saddam's punishment:
I don't know what John thinks about Saddam being on death row, but most people, including Blair, would rather he was not.
It's true that perhaps Saddam's hanging may lead to a temporary upsurge in violence, leaving him to rot in a cell might also lead to increased violence - in the longer term - a constant reminder of the past.
Saying sorry:
I don't know why he'd apologise...
For stabbing the Kurds and Arabs in the back, perhaps? And in any case, people are constantly calling on the Prime Minister to apologise, likewise I'm calling on McDonnell to do the same.
Darfur:
Do you think that military intervention by Britain and America would be the best solution to that particular crisis?
Maybe it will. The current "solution" appears to be achieving precisely nothing.
Pro-Saddam, pro-Galloway:
Please reference a pro-Saddam or pro-Galloway rant
From Paddy the Puritan, in the immediate aftermath of Saddam being sentenced:-
"Chill out you guys! Dont lose your perspective. Saddam is nothing compared to the real enemies such as Bush, Blair, Sharon, Olmert etc.
"In fact the worst excess in iraq occured when Saddam was an ally of western imperialism, he chilled out a bit when he saw the error of his ways and you have to give him some credit for heriocally resisting the forces of imperialism.
"Have some sympathy for the old bat for fucks sake, his performance in the show trial was far better and more convincing than anything the prosecution could come up with.
"He would have been acquited in any proper trial.
"Tell me, who killed more Iraqis, Saddam or Bush/Blair?
"We should have a whip round for a tin of Quality Street chocolates, I understand he's quite partial to them.
"Despite his faults Saddsam stands as a hero to the anti imperialist movement and the Arab nation.
"Look I know Saddam is a bit of a dodgy geezer, but he's OUR dodgy geezer for better or worse."
And from Joe F:-
"Galloway was protesting outside the iraqi embassy back in the day when new labour's prayer-buddies like rumsfeld were embracing saddam and selling him weapons."
It seems the similarities between Galloway and McDonnell could not be clearer ... "oppose" Saddam in the eighties, support him in the nineties, and march for him in the 2000s.
No lefties love Saddam:
Sham is ludicrously stereotyping this campaign and the left generally, though there isn't actually any foundation at all for claiming that leftwingers are pro-Saddam.
No foundation at all for claiming that leftwingers are pro-Saddam?
Really??? Read what Paddy said, allied to this little quote from the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow, when sucking up to Saddam:-
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."
Satisfied?
(my thanks to new member!)
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
"I'm absolutely in favour of regime change and democracy in those states, and why the hell not? If invasion were proposed, I wouldn't oppose it."
Uh. Ok. Well, I'm not in favour of invading any of them. Britain and the US are too unpopular around the world and would have too many ground difficulties. We don't have the resources in money, equipment, or manpower to do the job properly. We would create an unstable puppet democracy easily undermined by propagandists in the country. We would be saying, to hell with international law, freeing all countries to act as they please, with Britain and the US unable to act as a world police force, as they would like to, owing to lack of resources. Attacking North Korea might provoke having nukes fired back at us, if we invaded Sudan everyone would say it was just about oil and it would make us look even worse...
"The fact is, it achieved nothing. McDonnell protesting outside the Iraqi Embassy didn't depose Saddam - the action of Blair and Bush did. If he wanted to support the Kurds and Marsh Arabs, he would have backed the overthrow of Saddam, as they did."
It may have achieved nothing, but I reiterate that the point this stems from is that John didn't care.
As for deposing Saddam by military force, it would've made sense in the first Gulf War - not pursuing Sadaam at that time was in my opinion fairly immoral, leaving him to gun down all the Kurds who revolted at that time, or tried to flee. But by the time Iraq was finally invaded the genocide had ceased and there were signs that the Kurds might manage to split off given time and support - Sadaam had lost most effective control of the Kurdistan region before the invasion. A kurdish uprising in a few years could have been supported, leaving the Sunnis and Shias under a weakened and unpopular Sadaam.
" That's what it boiled down to. Leave him in charge to develop WMDs, or take action to remove him."
WMDs??? Anyone takes that seriously now? Honestly, he was no more well equipped than Kazakhstan or something. As I said, there was a developing situation which could have led to a more sensible means of ousting him. And there were other factors at play. Even if you consider WMDs and him ruling to be the most important issue involved, you have to take into account concerns of resources, wider strategy, possible effectiveness of the policy, etc.
"It's true that perhaps Saddam's hanging may lead to a temporary upsurge in violence, leaving him to rot in a cell might also lead to increased violence - in the longer term - a constant reminder of the past."
Well, I oppose his hanging on moral grounds. I don't believe in the death penalty, full stop. I think you do have to have some moral absolutes.
"For stabbing the Kurds and Arabs in the back, perhaps? And in any case, people are constantly calling on the Prime Minister to apologise, likewise I'm calling on McDonnell to do the same."
Well, he won't apologise because he doesn't believe he was wrong. And the Kurds still aren't in an ideal situation. They still want Kurdistan, which could have been a realistic possibility the way Iraq under late Sadaam was going.
"Maybe it will. The current "solution" appears to be achieving precisely nothing."
I have to say I don't understand what's happening with Darfur. I agree that nothing seems to be happening presently. Blair seems to think some progress is being made.
"Please reference a pro-Saddam or pro-Galloway rant"
I apologise - I hadn't read those posts before. Where were they from? "He would have been acquited in any proper trial" - eek. Well uh. That's rubbish. And certainly pro-Sadaam.
"No foundation at all for claiming that leftwingers are pro-Saddam?"
Well that's complicated. I meant left wingers generalised. I don't know any personally who are at all pro-Saddam anyhow. But ok. You're partly right here.
"Galloway was protesting outside the iraqi embassy back in the day when new labour's prayer-buddies like rumsfeld were embracing saddam and selling him weapons."
This, however, is true, and does incline you to seriously distrust the motives and aims of the war.
I've been at plenty of fringe meetings when Saddam was still in power and John and all the left wing MPs always said that they didn't like the policy of containment i.e. just leaving him there in power after he invaded Kuwait in the first Gulf War but that they didn't have a lot of choice unless the Iraqi people manageed an uprising on their own as if as has now happened, the US and us were to invade them in the way we have done, they predicted it would lead to a guerilla war, insurgency and even a Civil War as they already knew all about the politics of the Middle East region and that it would not wash with them if America came along acting like the world's policeman which it still thinks it is and making sure it gets the spoils of oil that it depends on by privatising all the relevant companies etc in Iraq to enable it to do so, i.e. plundering it's assets in the name of reconstruction. Sadly at the time Clare Short believed their hype about proper reconstruction but of course no-one else did, hence her too late resignaton and Robin Cook's timely one which John led the standing ovation for.
Photoshop CS4
Windows XP
cheap jordan shoes
Microsoft Office
Metallic UGG Boots
Mini UGG Boots
First of all, we should love links of london charms our motherland. Let’s take a great links of london charm interest in the development of our links of london Sweetie Bracelets hometowns and take an active part in our school and activities.
Secondly, let’s fill the world links london Sweetie Braceletwith love. We should show our respect links london Bracelet for old people, our parents and our teachers. We should also care for each links of london Bracelets other and help those in need. More importantly, all links of london Necklaces of us must be faithful and honest in our daily life.
Finally, let’s links london Necklace work together to save energy and protect our natural environment, including animals, trees, flowers and grass.
As for myself, I will study links of london friendship bracelets even harder and try my best to do all the above.
Dear fellow students, let’s start links london friendship bracelet fight now and spare no effort/efforts to do a links of london Sweetie Watches little bit every day, every hour, and every minute!
I agree with you, your saying is so good and usful for me. Thanks. Are you also like
ugg boots sale
ugg australia
uggs
It’s a meaningful and interesting topic. Thanks.
Paragraph star UGG boots, many shops Amoy’s that some people go online to buy or Shopping Service, in a word, they are
very good look, take a look at the stars with their own, become a star is a small case! This the reason why
ugg boots sale are so popular now!Put on cotton boots is also moving up and
quiet,such as the ugg boots uk match with the pants.there is also a good dress with Miu leather. At the same time, necessary are gloves, ear muffs, snow ugg boots, sunglasses, scarf and so on, which you can pick the beautiful pieces of dress, no matter how technology, let us heavily armed first.so
now ugg boots sale in many shoes shop.there are many ugg boots you can choose in the
ugg boots uk shop!
hi , just loof buy cheap fake rolex and our best replica watches are very cheap fake swiss watches Replica Swiss watches replica Rolex
u can find on this sit cheap replica omega| cheap rolex|cheap replica rolexcheap replica|all good quality sone Cheap handbags can designer handbags and replica watch as fake watches Discount designer handbagshandbags Discount handbags SWISS WATCH
|cheap rolex|cheap replica rolexcheap replicabuy cheap fake rolexreplica Omega WatchesRolex Watch ReplicaReplica Rolex Watchesfake air kingRolex Explorerreplica rolex DateJustreplica watchesfake Omegareplica rolexRolex Day Date Wathcesfake rolexreplica rolex submarinerrolex air kingcheap rolex air kingRolex Day DateRolex Day Date replicafake Rolex Day Daterolex daytona replica
Buy Kamagra
Earn Google
M65 Jacket
Viagra Cialis
Cheap Kamagra
Cheap Viagra
Cheap Cialis
Make Money on Google
M65 Field Jacket
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Viagra Cialis
Earn Google
Airline Dog Carrier
Airline Dog Carriers
Airline Approved Dog Carriers
ED Hardy Wholesale
Copy DVD Software
How to Send Fax
14k Yellow Gold
Redneck Costume
14k Gold Heart
Tandem Baby Stroller
More and more people began to collect jordan shoes. If you are Michael Jordan fans, you must have collection air jordans . If you want to buy the cheap jordan shoes,you can search the internet.Jordan is the hero of every individual mind. Of course, we are also very like the air jordan shoes .So you will like the air jordans,you will found the shoes make you become more and more beautiful.
Post a Comment
<< Home