doctordunc Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 07:30:51 PM GMT Facebook
tags: tony benn, iraq, foreign policy (all tags)
by doctordunc on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 06:25:37 PM GMT
John McDonnell, MP Jeremy Corbyn, MP Harry Cohen, MP Katy Clark, MP Gavin Strang, MP Michael Meacher, MP Bob Wareing, MP Walter Wolfgang, NEC Tony Woodley, TGWU Jeremy Dear, NUJ Lord Ahmed
by grimupnorth on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 07:20:15 PM GMT
by Loz on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:36:06 AM GMT
He was utter crap, and the best he could do with John Bolton was throw insults.
He served the party very well (in his career) I won't deny, but he's a far left extremist.
He kept saying how we need to go through the UN, but he forgets the rapid corruption at the org, the sort of corruption that results in an evil regime like the chinese and international gangsters the russians wield a veto. He's clueless and out of touch.
[ Parent ]
by doctordunc on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 12:49:26 AM GMT
Tony was a very long way away of celebrating defeats: he was opposing the war altogether and proposing ways of ending it and avoiding it; and the UN - imperfect though it is (and the US and the UK have been instrumental in maitaining its imperfections) is the best we have. Let's not forget it was our government and the US government that vetoed UN resolutions condemning the gassing at Halabja, not Russia or China.
When people try to claim that it was those countries (such as France) that undermined the UN in 2002/3 it makes me tear my hair out. This was an organisation that was brought into being to prevent war and resolve conflicts, and yet we're supposed to believe that it is those who try to use UN resolutions as triggers for war who really understand its historic purpose!
Based on the reports of UNMOVIC in 2003 it would have been grossly irresponsible of the UNSC to pass a war motion, and thank goodness a majority on the UNSC realised that and did not destroy the good name of the organisation forever by sanctioning Bush and Blair's bloody folly.
by Loz on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:06:40 AM GMT
No he didn't. I watched the programme, and it was benn, who made reference to vietnam. Bolton responded by saying there was no point responding.
" If Tony did insult John Bolton: good. I don't believe in all this cosying up on the sofa for a gossip about politics as if it was a soap opera: these were people with fundamentally opposite analyses of a global situation that is seeing people be killed every day: I'm glad people are passionate and angry about it."
The difference being Bolton made his case using fact and reasoned arguement, benn articulated his by insult and emotive cries.
That is a sure sign of a sinking arguement.
"Let's not forget it was our government and the US government that vetoed UN resolutions condemning the gassing at Halabja, not Russia or China."
I have not heard of that.
Check the vetoes for yourself:
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm
"When people try to claim that it was those countries (such as France) that undermined the UN in 2002/3 it makes me tear my hair out. This was an organisation that was brought into being to prevent war and resolve conflicts, and yet we're supposed to believe that it is those who try to use UN resolutions as triggers for war who really understand its historic purpose!"
Doesn't bother me either way.
But lets not forget the quite odious underhand dealings of the french and chinese in iraq or the fact the russians GAVE AWAY our military plans.
The UN is a corrupt organisation, it is both banal,and baleful.
Yes, the US has its fair share of dodgy dealings, I am no apologist for some of their historical undertakings, but other have too which only further proves the point.
by doctordunc on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:22:50 AM GMT
The UNSC was unable to get a resolution condemning Iraq on Halabja because there was never any doubt that it would be vetoed (instead they had to have ones equally condemning Iraq and Iran over the incident). When the President of the Security Council did finally make a statement on Iraq's use of chemical weapons (which can't be vetoed) the US was the only country to vote against, and the UK was one of a very few countries to abstain.
by Loz on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:31:52 AM GMT
I call them as I see them. Socialist, communist, conservative, facist or whatever else. I am loyal to what is right, not to what politcal ideology I happen to support.
"The UNSC was unable to get a resolution condemning Iraq on Halabja because there was never any doubt that it would be vetoed (instead they had to have ones equally condemning Iraq and Iran over the incident). When the President of the Security Council did finally make a statement on Iraq's use of chemical weapons (which can't be vetoed) the US was the only country to vote against, and the UK was one of a very few countries to abstain."
Correct. I have never denied we and our brother across the atlantic have made some very bad moves, but I could just as easily list off similar "errors in judgement" by russia, china and a plethora of other nations.
by doctordunc on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:28:36 AM GMT
by Loz on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:33:05 AM GMT
It was a good programme, I'm sure we can agree on that at least.
by doctordunc on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:37:55 AM GMT
by Wiseman on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 06:49:58 PM GMT
1 History states that Tony Benn was a great socialist 2 Don't stick up for John Bolton 3 Tony is backing John's campaign 4 Read a history of british socialism
by Loz on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 08:31:07 PM GMT
by Jason on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:15:30 PM GMT
by jkitleft on Thu May 24, 2007 at 03:40:58 PM GMT