Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Hear the whistle blowin!

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Well well, confirmation upon confirmation as revelations emerge to confirm further what we who oppose the manipulation of our society and the sacrificing of our soldiers for lies have said from the start.

The grand coalition rattled off by our Commander in Thief now exposed as the cajoled and spied upon and quietly "diplomatically" horsewhipped into line. Dark tidings indeed as we see that those who call the UN useless are the ones who purposely sabotaged it and subverted it. Little surprise it can't be effective when we show only bad faith toward the international community.

These are the marks of an agenda of perpetual war and expansionism that even our armed servicemen should eventually come to see is a meatgrinder just using them and spitting them out to further dishonourable aims.

Truth is the record is clear that we the US have routinely subverted the UN on any legitimate attempt to act against tyranny in areas where we were benefitting and continue to benefit from such tyranny. How many more revelations before our friends at mil.com will acknowledge that this administration is strutting all over their willingness to serve for legitimate defence of our nation but not for lies?

Or is the thirst for war more powerful in the soldier's mind than simply ejecting those who represent our nation in bad faith and holding the next to account to make the UN effective with policing authority and ability and work through true multilateral channels.

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=40&num=10339&printer=1

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1143550,00.html

http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_10643.shtml
(a long but worthy read and it takes the whole system to task not only neo-cons.)

A much more valid reason to eschew Kerry as much as Bush and find ourselves a real progressive option.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    well it looks increasingly like our whistle blower escaped prosecution to avoid more truths coming out. bad.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wonder if we're about to see a trend of people exposing themselves to the force of law (by accusing ministers of lying, say) in order to compel the release of sensitive information?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That time is long overdue. These are the true Patriots who's love of the nation and its overall future weighs more than loyalty to the system or the government, especially when the institutions have for too long demonstrated purely elitest self interest at the expense of the citizens they are sworn to serve.

    The era of the Pentagon Papers has returned and with it, further indictment that our leaders have ignored the lessons of our own past and continued to foist lies and misinformation to enhance their own grasp on power.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can someone tell me what the UK/US have actually done wrong here? I'm not sure I understand why it is wrong to spy on other countries and organisations whose decisions can affect a nation's security...

    {OK, so I'm playing dumb a little, but you get my drift}
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Because whilst pontificating about the need for multilateral legitimacy both the UK and US governments were performing the very acts for which those who often seek to expose them are dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Frankly MoK, you should know by now that noone's security was under any threat other than that of Iraq's itself and despite internal efforts by some countries to prevent this war based on lies and a made for television charade of respect for international law, the reality is that the invasion was going to occur by hook or by crook regardless of its legality.

    I have laid out the larger principle at work here, namely willfull undermining of the UN followed by subsequent claims of its inherent ineffectiveness. Small wonder when two leading members actively sabotage it and its integrity.

    In point of fact, all those past issues you claim the UN as being singularly useless in addressing were by and large subject to similar sabotage or UN veto in order to ensure that US/UK interests (and most certainly Israel's interests) remained unhindered by legality or convention.

    If that isnt enough, i suggest you take the time to read through all ive said and provided in my first post. The UN isnt the problem, our routine bad faith is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Can someone tell me what the UK/US have actually done wrong here? I'm not sure I understand why it is wrong to spy on other countries and organisations whose decisions can affect a nation's security...

    {OK, so I'm playing dumb a little, but you get my drift}

    MoK, I am surprised at you. Do you NOT know that ONLY the US and UK have ever spied, in the history of the world?

    lool.gif

    You see... the collaborator still has a hard-on for those who stiffled its generous stipend from Baghdad, and the collaborator continues its crusade to betray the interests of those two nations.

    Self loathing is a terrible psychosis to observe, is it not? ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Once again demonstrating how little understanding or impartial judgement you are capable of mustering, Than. Rah rah nationalistic robot with no capacity for critical analysis of macro political duplicity.

    Face it, without a gun and some spoon fed propaganda about "the enemy" you are cub league all the way.

    Youll even attack your own countrymen for daring to unveil political corruption (though you claim to distrust the political establishment yourself). Heaven forbid you should have to acknowledge the lies and scheming of your idols.

    Hypocrit!

    Oh and once again nice evasion of the issue still awaiting a response.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You talk as though only the UK has ever spied on the UN. Pretty much every technologically capable country spies on the UN and its members, its just embarrasing to have an idiot like Clare Short blurt it out using it as a personal attack on Tony Blair.

    In fact the transcripts that Clare Short read were almost certainly not aquired by MI6 directly, the NSA is on the UN's doorstep - its far more likely that they were the ones who 'bugged' Annan's office and the intelligance was simply passed on to the British.

    Every member of the permanent security council actively spies upon each other, its a fact, just not one that needs to be blurted out by idiots like Clare Short.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Obviously you miss the point as much as our "head-in-the-sand" friend Thanatos. I did not claim nor insinuate that either the UK or the US were the ONLY countries in the history of the UN to spy on the council.

    The point here concerns the integrity of the proponents for war, namely the US and UK, who, whilst claiming to be actively endeavouring to achieve a peaceable resolution to an impending (and now realised) crisis of international military interventionism, were in fact undermining the process through duplicitous back channel cajoling, spying and diplomatic blackmail which clearly demonstrates their disingenuous intent from the very start.

    Try not to forget the long winded rationale and PR put forth in the media by our two nation's leaders and all the supposed respect for international law upon which they based their demands for immediate action. Such pontification rings ever more hollow with each new confirmation of that which was cogently argued by opponents of war for corporate hegemony from the very start, that this was fully intended and planned long before 9/11 and that the agenda of discrediting the UN is plain to see and an even clearer indictment of our own international criminality and duplicty, however evil other nations may be as well.

    Trying to hold up Washington and London as bastions of magnanimity, justice, truth and goodness as the misinformed public generally tends to believe, by hearkening to the argument that others are doing it too sounds as irresponsible and intellectually dishonest as it does eminating from the lips of a child caught red handed. Other nations were not the ones claiming moral legitimacy in a push for war to supposedly advance the "rule of law", ours were!

    Time to call a spade a spade and hold our lying, deceitful and corrupt leaderships to account for their wrongs as well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does the word "sanctimonious" mean anything to you?

    If you can honestly sit there in front a your computer and say that each of the UN countries (apart from the US and UK) was acting in the interests of anyone but themselves, if you can say that none of them (except the US and UK) were spying to another, if you can say that no-one (apart from the US and UK) was willing to use any form of bribary, if you can honestly argue any of that then your criticism holds water.

    If not it is just another rant. Fell free get it off your chest if you like, but what the US and UK have done is no different to what any other country would have, had they got the "power" to do so. In this case they didn't...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but what the US and UK have done is no different to what any other country would have, had they got the "power" to do so. In this case they didn't...

    You're referring to the war against Iraq I take it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Does the word "sanctimonious" mean anything to you?

    Yes and it applies well to the very nature of our governments whom you seem so willing to excuse for lying to the public and making a farce of the very "rule of law" which THEY, not "other nations" were drumming into the public consciousness with all the contrived and now repeatedly and demonstrably proven false "intelligence".

    Simply refuse to acknowledge that the wrongdoing of our leaders should be held to account as much as those of the villains they collude with, regardless of their brutal repressions, until such time as any dare cut the puppet strings, eh MoK?

    Don't dare seek for progressive awakening of our societies, that would upset this wonderful status quo you seem so ready to defend. For shame.

    By dismissing every revelation in turn, as you have systematically done to date, you seem blissfully unaware that so doing undermines the intellectual integrity of your own claim that the UN is irrelevant and ineffective by failing to aknowledge that our government's have in fact be largely to blame fo any such inefficacy. Can't expect multilateralism to achieve just ends of non-militant conflict resolution when the giant and its lapdog systematically veto repeated attempts (as in the case of addressing Israel's own wrongs amongst other documented cases) to hold nations accountable or, as in this instance, spy upon those attempting to avert the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in the absence of legitimate threat.

    Like Than, you seem intent on rushing back to the safety and non-discussion of "saddam was a bad man" as if that makes undermining the "rule of law" okay for us. Hell, lets just invade and kill everyone we dislike and conquer all nations which have resources we want, might makes right! (Thanatos certainly subscribes to that).

    I feel sorry for the world you seem content to bequeath to your children once our leaders have finished dismantling any possible check on unrestrained imperialist aggression. The blowback in that era will be a legacy of shame for the majority's failure to judge ourselves by the same measure according to which we deem others worthy of destruction and co-option.

    Excuses for our evil only further encourage our leaders to continue creating straw men for later removal without any real concern for the suffering that will occur in the interim.

    A truly laudible stance you adopt indeed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Simply refuse to acknowledge that the wrongdoing of our leaders should be held to account as much as those of the villains they collude with, regardless of their brutal repressions, until such time as any dare cut the puppet strings, eh MoK?

    Actually I don't "refuse to acknowledge" wrong doing, more that I accept some areas because I appreciate that global politics and the power game are never as clean nor will I accept that the US and UK are the only "bad guys" on the block.

    They are not the route of all evil as you would have us believe.
    By dismissing every revelation in turn, as you have systematically done to date, you seem blissfully unaware that so doing undermines the intellectual integrity of your own claim that the UN is irrelevant and ineffective by failing to aknowledge that our government's have in fact be largely to blame fo any such inefficacy.

    That is just bollocks I'm afraid. The UN is ineffective and therefore the US and UK (and other nations which you conveniently overlook) take steps to secure their national security.

    Do you want another list of nation where UN intervention has been lacking, or perhaps you would like me to remind you that I have stated that the fact that the US and UK are able to act like this actually proves my case.

    That the UN cannot take action against either nation for [what you claim is] a breach of international law really supports what I have said all along. If the UN is not powerful enough to do something here, then it really is pathetic wouldn't you say?
    the illegal invasion

    When I see a court ruling to that effect I will agree with you. But the law on this issue is not as clear cut as you would like, is it?
    Like Than, you seem intent on rushing back to the safety and non-discussion of "saddam was a bad man" as if that makes undermining the "rule of law" okay for us.

    I guess that the rule of law is more important than the removal of a dictator then. Nice to know which side of that fence you sit.

    And before you go into another rant about how we support other dictators, let me remind you that I have never supported my nations stance there either.
    Excuses for our evil

    Like not doing anything because it might breach the "rule of law" you mean...?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Actually I don't "refuse to acknowledge" wrong doing, more that I accept some areas because I appreciate that global politics and the power game are never as clean nor will I accept that the US and UK are the only "bad guys" on the block.

    They are not the route of all evil as you would have us believe.[/GLOBE]

    Seems youve taken to spinning what is said into sensationalistic spin rather than simply understanding the criminality that our governments ARE culpable of in this situation.

    What you suggest here continues to echo that of the child caught doing wrong who excuses his actions with a mere "everyone else was doing it...". I hold those elected to represent the integrity of our supposedly "superior" way of life to a higher standard of ethics than that, obviously you don't.

    That is just bollocks I'm afraid. The UN is ineffective and therefore the US and UK (and other nations which you conveniently overlook) take steps to secure their national security.

    Once again, this situation - as repeatedly and even now continually being demonstrated - had nothing whatosever to do with any threat to our national security. Neither country was under legitimate threat of any kind. You can continue with this delusion if you wish but it speaks to a mindset determined to justify a desired notion rather than factual reality. I expect a greater degree of rationale from you MoK.
    Do you want another list of nation where UN intervention has been lacking, or perhaps you would like me to remind you that I have stated that the fact that the US and UK are able to act like this actually proves my case.

    Show me a list by all means and then let us examine the background of US/ UK administrations' vetos or other machinations to ensure said countries (through which our illicit corporate or geo-political aims were being perpetrated) were not taken to task responsibly by the international community.

    If you think that duplicity by the two self proclaimed bastions of truth and justice and the rule of law and their efforts to block multilateral and peaceful solutions proves your case, then you sorely misconstrue the nature of the UN. You villify the UN as if it and its mandate could be monolithically isolated from the intent of its composite members. Thus you villify the wrong agency, if ensuring global peace and the sovereignty of nations means anything to you whatsoever (which i begin to doubt from your incessant protestations to the contrary).

    By not holding our own leaders to account for their bad faith and their intent to perpetrate war at any cost in order to simply take what we want, you apparently welcome a return to the era of empire when nationlistic expansionism and the power to carry it out foremd the global order. We all know from history what that perspective led the world into.
    That the UN cannot take action against either nation for [what you claim is] a breach of international law really supports what I have said all along. If the UN is not powerful enough to do something here, then it really is pathetic wouldn't you say?

    Just the opposite actually. I would argue that it underlines all the more clearly that we as citizens must undertake our civic duty to hold such deceitful leadership to account and demand ever more strongly that mechanisms be instituted to ensure that those governments conspiring to subvert international law will be indicted and charged before the world court, without exception.

    The failure here wasn't the UN's, it was our own governments'.

    When I see a court ruling to that effect I will agree with you. But the law on this issue is not as clear cut as you would like, is it?

    No, the law is quite clear, its the politics that are convoluted. You might consider scrutinising the efforts underway in the UK to uncover precisely what the Lord Justice said of the matter before likely being cajoled and browbeaten by #10 into returning an assessment favourable to the government. Especially in light of the fact that even further revelations continue to emerge as to the reticence of the UK military to attack Iraq due to a belief that it was illegal. Even your armed service seemed to show more genuine concern for international law than your elected leadership.

    I guess that the rule of law is more important than the removal of a dictator then. Nice to know which side of that fence you sit.

    Actually, yes it is. Nations which claim to uphold the rule of law cannot simply dismiss such an immutable principle and hope to hold others to that measure thereafter. Dictators come and go and in fact are primarily put in place by our own governments in the first place.

    Hold our nations and leaderships to the rule we so actively preach to the rest of the world (whilst simultaneously subverting it for illicit ends) and subject those who so undermine it to indictment and judgement equally and we would incrementally expose the support networks which install and support these regimes in the first place.

    Self-styled unilateral policing of the world by the mighty (rather than by global consensus and mandate and formal institutions whose charters are fixed and transparent) is both arbitrary and despotic in its own right, as history has repeatedly shown.
    And before you go into another rant about how we support other dictators, let me remind you that I have never supported my nations stance there either.

    Like not doing anything because it might breach the "rule of law" you mean...?

    No. Acting within the frameworks of clear and transparent mandate according to our sworn national ratifications of various conventions and charters and the intent to ensure all are accountble equally to those precepts is not "doing nothing".

    Nor was "nothing" being done in Iraq. Containment was sound, inspections were continuing (as we see them doing as well with equally little to show for it) and Saddam was effectively hobbled.

    Given that a sufficient percentage of Iraq's own people were prepared to rise up and oust him according to their own wishes rather than those imposed upon them from outside by force, his rule would have ended without our direct assault, especially if the brutal regime of sanctions had been lifted from the shoulders of the people it was hurting the most.

    Did other nations invade and occupy the US to give it its freedom? Did Cromwell invite France to invade and occupy Britain to overturn the tyranny of Charles? No. Was there blood and lamentable loss of life in both counts? yes, however that blood was shed by the citizens of our nations themselves on the very soil those patriots fought to free for themselves and their posterity rather than on a foreign battlefield for a people whom our nations have long demonstrated an uter disregard.

    Magnanimity, however much you wish to buy into the PR and spin, had nothing to do with this invasion. Power, geo-political control the realignment of their resources to the dollar standard for the eventual and longterm profit of our oil barons WERE the issues at stake.

    Simply look at the ongoing refusal of our "ruling council" to allow free and direct elections (musnt let the majority have its way) and the myth of "liberty" becomes all the more blatantly obvious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine Seems youve taken to spinning what is said into sensationalistic spin rather than simply understanding the criminality that our governments ARE culpable of in this situation.


    Please tell me exactly which laws have been broken by the US/UK spying on the UN, and who enforces these “laws”.
    What you suggest here continues to echo that of the child caught doing wrong who excuses his actions with a mere "everyone else was doing it...". I hold those elected to represent the integrity of our supposedly "superior" way of life to a higher standard of ethics than that, obviously you don't.

    No, I’m not saying that everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn’t we. I am saying that it is how diplomacy and international politics works. It has since time began…
    Show me a list by all means

    Here’s your starter for ten…

    Cambodia
    Tibet
    Zimbabwe
    Uzbekistan
    Rwanda
    The Balkans
    Nicaragua
    Vietnam…


    Hang on, doesn’t that list include places where I know that the US has a big hand in the problems? Well, yes it does. So why doesn’t the UN act against them?

    If the UN Charter/mandate doesn’t allow them to act, or doesn’t give them the power to act then that just underlines what I am saying. If they are powerless to act at times when they need to, what it the point of their existence?

    There are several basic “rights” which the UN is supposed to uphold and they should have the power to do this, irrespective of national borders.

    Oh, and the murder of your own citizens is something which those “rights” cover. Therefore acting against someone like Saddam should not be an issue where borders apply…
    Nations which claim to uphold the rule of law cannot simply dismiss such an immutable principle and hope to hold others to that measure thereafter.

    So, if they hadn’t claimed to be “upholding the rule of law” then you would have been okay with their actions?
    Self-styled unilateral policing of the world by the mighty (rather than by global consensus and mandate and formal institutions whose charters are fixed and transparent) is both arbitrary and despotic in its own right, as history has repeatedly shown.

    Which takes me back to the UN. If global consensus was enough then I would agree with you, but you have to act on that consensus. I don’t think that any nation would have disputed that Saddam was “a bad man” but, like you, to many people were just happy to let him continue on his merry way. Either the UN stands for something, or it doesn’t….
    Nor was "nothing" being done in Iraq. Containment was sound, inspections were continuing (as we see them doing as well with equally little to show for it) and Saddam was effectively hobbled.

    Really, so he hadn’t killed any of his citizen between 1991 and 2003 then?

    Oh and inspections were only continuing when Saddam allowed them to.
    Given that a sufficient percentage of Iraq's own people were prepared to rise up and oust him

    Prepared to, but not able to. That is a major difference. Had they been able to, they already would have, but we all saw what happened in 1991 when they tried…
Sign In or Register to comment.