Dear Lord Ashdown, Ref Syria

I watched Paddy Ashdown this morning on TV in amazement. He sounded like the worst Tory in history and yet he claims to be a ‘liberal’. I no longer know what that word means after theree years years of Coalition government. Ashdown is a disgrace to his party . ..but read on. This blogger says it much better than I can…

Madkentdragon's Blog

United Kingdom

30th August 2013

Dear Lord Ashdown,

Re Syria and Chemical Warfare

I was not impressed with your appearance on the BBC News Channel this morning, please put a stop to your testosterone inflamed opinion and listen to what the majority of the British Public are saying.

We all acknowledge that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, but who used them?

Was it the Syrian government or was it the Taliban? Until the United Nations issue their report, we are dealing with speculation and spurious rumours.

You talk about established International Law, but fail to remember that this country, as a partner with the United States broke this law due to our interference in Iraq – and this was done on spurious information and rumours; well – once bitten, twice shy.

Also, you want to go in to this country – fair enough no British boots on…

View original post 263 more words

7 thoughts on “Dear Lord Ashdown, Ref Syria

  1. beetleypete

    Looks like Ashdown is just obsessed with becoming an elder statesman of British Politics. His speech looked very rehearsed, every nuance, changes in timbre of the voice. It was like a method actor at work. Pitiful to see how they keep changing sides, just to maintain any influence, however tenuous. Nice re-blog, I have ‘liked’ the original. Regards, Pete.

  2. beastrabban

    I’m afraid I didn’t see this, though I don’t doubt it was exactly as you and Pete have described. One other piece of information spring to mind about the Coalition’s readiness to attack Syria. A few months ago I found a piece on one of the anti-Islam blogs reporting a piece from French television. In an interview on TV the former French foreign minister claimed that the decision to attack Syria had been made by Cameron during a meeting in London two years ago. The blog included the clip of the former minister making this claim. Now I have to say that I don’t know how true this is. There is still rivalry between us and the French, and they themselves have certainly been willing to use force contrary to international law when it suited them, such as in the case of secret service bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand. If it is true, then it indicates that there has been a long term strategy to remove Assad. In this case, the chemical weapons attack is merely a pretext for military action, not a cause.

    1. sparaszczukster Post author

      I saw that French thing too. Given what’s happened in Iraq and Libya I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s been a long term plan to systematically remove Middle Eastern rulers. I don’t know exactly why but I suspect diminishing oil reserves has to be part of it. Cameron’s apparent step back from the brink after the vote against him is a tactic he couldn’t avoid. I suspect Obama will get Congress’ support and Cameron will use this to persuade enough of those rebel Tories to play along with him next time. Meanwhile he has a week or so to poison the opposition viewpoint via the media and put out a lot of propaganda about our great military reputation for ‘humanitarian’ intervention.

  3. beastrabban

    There are three pieces in the book, Unmasking Terror’, edited by Christopher Heffelfinger, which give an indication why America, and Obama, are so keen to attack Syria. The book’s an analysis of Islamic terrorist activities across the globe. Michael Young’s article, ‘Syria, the US and Terrorism’, notes that the pro-Israel and NeoCon factions in the US were already highly dissatisfied with Syria by 2002. Syria had provided a refuge for Palestinian terrorist organisations, and was allowing Sunni terrorists to cross the border into Iraq. They also resented Syria’s refusal to back the invasion of Iraq. The Syrian regime were also accused by the Americans of breaking the international boycott against Iraqi oil by importing it illegally in the Kirkus-Banyas pipeline. There were also skirmishes between American and Syrian military forces in Iraq itself. In June 2003 American forces attacked what they believed to be a Syrian convoy smuggling Iraqi officials into Syria. During the incident 80 Syrians were killed and 30 Syrian border guards captured.

    This all seems to me to be the real reason for war, not the claims that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people.

    As for the Saudis in Iraq and Libya, I read a review of a book in Lobster that made the case that we’ve already passed peak Saudi oil. From reading Greg Palast’s book, ‘Armed Madhouse’, it’s clear that the Saudis are extremely jealous of their leadership as the world’s primary exporter of oil, to the extent that they will take action to prevent other nations breaking the limits they set on oil production, such as against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Furthermore, I got the impression that Beetleypete was right in that part of the reason the Saudis promote an extreme, fundamentalist Islam is to divert attention away from the decadence and authoritarianism of their own personal rule. Adam Curtis is his film, ‘The Power of Nightmares’, stated that the Saudis encouraged there domestic Islamic terrorists to fight in Afghanistan as a way of getting them out of the country and hopefully killed.

    1. sparaszczukster Post author

      Lots of salient points here. Whether we have already reached peak oil or not, its inevitable that it will happen. Its not a huge step from there, given that virtually everything that brings in the cash for the wealthy relies on oil, to accept that the battle for the Middle East is a battle for the last drops of that oil and the total control of its extraction and transportation to the West. Our glorious leaders are currently having a hard time trying yet again to convince citizens, totally disillusioned with perpetual military exploits, that they should be allowed to embark on yet another. Those citizens, now experiencing rapidly reducing living standards, are no longer so easily duped by the flimsy ‘moral case’ for these wars. Its significant, I think, that Cameron, Obama and now Hollande are complaining that the people’s reluctance is responsible for a loss of their ‘reputation’ as great world leaders. Are they trying to convince us to let them have their way and unleash the bombs simply so they don’t lose face? Their ‘honour’ is unmasked as mere conceit. They’re having tantrums. The convenient fiction of democracy has momentarily taken on a life of its own and now they’re faced with a dilemma. Do they continue to maintain the fiction and give up on this war? Or do they kill the myth once and for all…and then what?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s