The war in Iraq is illegal. Millions and millions of people think so. Thousands marched.
But who defines illegal? Ah the UN never gave a mandate? But the UN never gave a mandate for NATO action in the former Yugoslavia, I don't remember anyone complaining about that.
Yes there was genocide but Saddam Hussain wasn't exactly a nice bloke, invaded two countries killed thousands of his own people.
There are circumstances when the international community may say something is illegal and we ignore them and we are right to do so. Don't get me wrong I think the war in Iraq was wrong but being illegal wasn't the reason.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Monarchy and the Succession
Japan discovered that Princess Kiko had just had a baby son. Firstly congratulations to her Imperial Highness.
As I'm sure you know Japan is a very conservative country. Only Males can succeed to the imperial throne and there has not been a male heir born for 41 years. Prime Minister Koizumi had talked about changing the law to enable a female succession.
Kiko's pregnancy temporarily stopped the debate and the arrival of a boy will put the debate off for a generation.
It may strange to hear this debate in the 21st century but this debate is certainly one that has been had in the UK before. The possibility of the accession of a woman to the English throne perhaps had more impact on England than any other event. Henry VIII was desperate to ensure a male succession and to do so he had 6 wives, broke with Rome and disolved the monastries. Ultimately this led to the Union with Scotand.
Of course us Brits can look at the cuurent Japanese suspicion of a female monarch with some superiority. Or can we? To this day though women are regarded as second class citizens as regards the succession. If Anne had been born before Charles it would have make made no difference male primogenature ensures male domination.
Japan may have forestalled its debate but surely its time to remove this anacronism from 21st century Britain?
As I'm sure you know Japan is a very conservative country. Only Males can succeed to the imperial throne and there has not been a male heir born for 41 years. Prime Minister Koizumi had talked about changing the law to enable a female succession.
Kiko's pregnancy temporarily stopped the debate and the arrival of a boy will put the debate off for a generation.
It may strange to hear this debate in the 21st century but this debate is certainly one that has been had in the UK before. The possibility of the accession of a woman to the English throne perhaps had more impact on England than any other event. Henry VIII was desperate to ensure a male succession and to do so he had 6 wives, broke with Rome and disolved the monastries. Ultimately this led to the Union with Scotand.
Of course us Brits can look at the cuurent Japanese suspicion of a female monarch with some superiority. Or can we? To this day though women are regarded as second class citizens as regards the succession. If Anne had been born before Charles it would have make made no difference male primogenature ensures male domination.
Japan may have forestalled its debate but surely its time to remove this anacronism from 21st century Britain?
Monday, September 04, 2006
The missed road
We are approaching the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. A whole tranche of programmes will no doubt appear.
When the cause of the attacks was discovered the decision was made to remove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime. And I supported that decision, I still do. No government can allow its people to be attacked in such manner.
Afghanistan is a hard place. Ask the Russians ask the British Empire of the 19th century, armies break on the place. What should have happened is that the most powerful armed forces in history and its Nato allies should have swamped the place. They should have put the infrastructure in place to make life better for ordinary Afghans. They should have driven the Taliban out.
September 11 gave the US immense goodwill. This goodwill left the US and Bush in a position to sort out the key middle east question Israel and Palestine. This fault line has fractured the region for 60 years.
Of course, as we know, they didn't do this. For some reason they went into Iraq. And what did they do? They destroyed the armed forces and allowed law and order to disintegrate, they allowed the infrastructure to disintegrate.
To keep law and order they either had to swamp the place with troops (something that the Generals on the ground wanted - it was the polticians who wanted a "smart war") or they had to keep the Iraqi Army in place. Ok get rid of the Generals, the Colonels etc but keep the junior officers on the ground in place. It would not be perfect, but could it be any worse than what we have now? I think not.
To me the tragedy of September 11 2001 is made considerably worse by the mistakes and missed oportunities.
There was a real chance to establish a lasting peace in the middle east by flushing out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and by establishing a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Instead Bush went on the misguided path into Iraq. He has stoked anti-western feeling and the path to peace seems more distant than ever.
When the cause of the attacks was discovered the decision was made to remove Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime. And I supported that decision, I still do. No government can allow its people to be attacked in such manner.
Afghanistan is a hard place. Ask the Russians ask the British Empire of the 19th century, armies break on the place. What should have happened is that the most powerful armed forces in history and its Nato allies should have swamped the place. They should have put the infrastructure in place to make life better for ordinary Afghans. They should have driven the Taliban out.
September 11 gave the US immense goodwill. This goodwill left the US and Bush in a position to sort out the key middle east question Israel and Palestine. This fault line has fractured the region for 60 years.
Of course, as we know, they didn't do this. For some reason they went into Iraq. And what did they do? They destroyed the armed forces and allowed law and order to disintegrate, they allowed the infrastructure to disintegrate.
To keep law and order they either had to swamp the place with troops (something that the Generals on the ground wanted - it was the polticians who wanted a "smart war") or they had to keep the Iraqi Army in place. Ok get rid of the Generals, the Colonels etc but keep the junior officers on the ground in place. It would not be perfect, but could it be any worse than what we have now? I think not.
To me the tragedy of September 11 2001 is made considerably worse by the mistakes and missed oportunities.
There was a real chance to establish a lasting peace in the middle east by flushing out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and by establishing a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Instead Bush went on the misguided path into Iraq. He has stoked anti-western feeling and the path to peace seems more distant than ever.
Friday, September 01, 2006
If they wrote a book we wouldn't believe it
1997 heralded a brave new dawn.
18 years of Tory misrule was gone, a bright NEW government was in place. It cared. Education mattered, the environment mattered. We were promised an ethical foreign policy.
9 years later and what do we have?
A Labour Prime Minister in league with a right wing Republican President. A President that has mired us with a war that not only no one wanted, Iraq, but a President who has yet to understand the middle east requires a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A president who, and this hurts me to say it, was right to go into Afghanistan BUT then blithley ignored it for that war in Iraq.
We have a government that is interested in spin and image.
But what frightens me is I think it genuinely believes it is doing the right thing.
It gets worse. Michael "Something of the Night" Howard was actually critical of a Republican president. The current Conservative Leader "Dave" Cameron has called for emissions law go on in 1997 would you have predicted it?
I can't say The Dave appeals to me to vote for him. But I find it alarming that in a three horse race I find the Conservative horse more appealing than the Labour one.
Things can only get better, hold hands, things can only get better.
Oh I do hope so.
18 years of Tory misrule was gone, a bright NEW government was in place. It cared. Education mattered, the environment mattered. We were promised an ethical foreign policy.
9 years later and what do we have?
A Labour Prime Minister in league with a right wing Republican President. A President that has mired us with a war that not only no one wanted, Iraq, but a President who has yet to understand the middle east requires a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A president who, and this hurts me to say it, was right to go into Afghanistan BUT then blithley ignored it for that war in Iraq.
We have a government that is interested in spin and image.
But what frightens me is I think it genuinely believes it is doing the right thing.
It gets worse. Michael "Something of the Night" Howard was actually critical of a Republican president. The current Conservative Leader "Dave" Cameron has called for emissions law go on in 1997 would you have predicted it?
I can't say The Dave appeals to me to vote for him. But I find it alarming that in a three horse race I find the Conservative horse more appealing than the Labour one.
Things can only get better, hold hands, things can only get better.
Oh I do hope so.
Hello
Well this is not my normal blog.
I've kept it separate and private becuase I may want to post the occasional utterance of a political nature, these might not fit comfortably on the normal one. Politics and my job may not be a good idea.
I've kept it separate and private becuase I may want to post the occasional utterance of a political nature, these might not fit comfortably on the normal one. Politics and my job may not be a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)