Robespierre's Warning - Ignored by Bush and Blair

Maximillien Robespierre (1758-94) was one of the leaders of the French Revolution. Most historians portray him as a cold-blooded, murderous monster who launched the Terror against dissenters from the revolutionary path. Perhaps he was a monster, but he was no fool. Consider this quote of his:
"The most extravagant idea that can be born in the head of a political thinker is to believe that it suffices for people to enter, weapons in hand, among a foreign people and expect to have its laws and constitution embraced. No one loves armed missionaries; the first lesson of nature and prudence is to repulse them as enemies." 
What a shame that our political and military leaders did not heed that warning before invading Afghanistan and Iraq! Robespierre made the statement above when some French revolutionaries wanted to spread the revolution by force into neighbouring European countries. Rather like Bush, Blair and their advisers more than 200 years later, the revolutionaries thought their armed incursion would be welcomed by the populations of the Netherlands, Germany, etc. Whatever else Robespierre was, he saw that as highly unlikely to happen, and he was right. The Insurgency in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan are fuelled by the same detestation of foreign invaders that he warned about, so long ago.
We are now being warned by no less a person than Mikhail Gorbachev that the USA should either prepare for withdrawal or another Viet-Nam. Wikileaks has given us horrifying insights into exactly how Coalition forces have conducted the war of liberation in Iraq. A recent "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 has analysed the raw data from the leaked documents, and found that nearly 67 000 innocent civilians have been killed since the invasion. Which begs the question - how did we get into this mess?

The answer usually begins with talk of "sexed-up dossiers" and "oil revenues". These points are valid, but I think they overlook one personal trait that Bush and Blair have in common: they are both devout Christians. As such, they are used to having their faith "tested" in various ways; their response, like all true believers, is to stay loyal to their faith through all trials and tribulations. This may be admirable, but many religious believers carry their tenacity of belief over into secular areas. Putting it simply - once they make up their minds to do something, they ignore all objections and criticism. Field Marshal Haig, the World War One General now reviled as "Butcher Haig" who sent his men over the top to be slaughtered on the Somme in 1916, is another example of a man of faith who stuck to his ideas (about tactics) in the face of evidence that they were wrong. As for getting out of this quandary - who knows? But let's hope that, next time our leaders plan to go charging into other countries to wage war on terror, someone reminds them of the words of the architect of terror - Maximillien Robespierre: "No-one loves armed missionaries".

The Mad Axeman Strikes

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

Well, the ConDems have struck  their blow(s) for common sense and thrift. Or so they say. I don't propose to discuss all the details of the Mad Axeman's cuts, but a few observations are in order. I have never understood the idea that by increasing national poverty (unemployment), we will somehow increase national wealth. As things stand, at least 400, 000 public sector workers stand to lose their jobs over the next four years. The money saved by sacking them will presumably go on paying their welfare benefits. Another mystery to me is the idea, beloved of the Tory Party, that by cutting benefits, the claimants will be forced into work. Exactly how they will find full-time employment,when the long-term unemployed mostly live in areas where no jobs exist , is not made clear. According to the Mad Axeman ( a veteran enemy of "the workshy"), these cuts will put the UK economy into a position of strength in four years' time, but he did not explain how he could guarantee this. What is guaranteed is that in four years' time, we will be close to the next General Election. The ConDems had better start praying that they've got their sums right.

Ahmad Jad - his Lebanese Gig

I see from press reports that my prospective signing for the alternative comedy circuit, Ahmad Jad (aka President Ahmadinejad of Iran) is on tour in the Middle East, having ignored my advice to come and do some real gigs in the comedy clubs over here. Still, I can't blame him - according to the reports that I have seen, Ahmad is going down a storm in Lebanon. According to the BBC:
"The highway that runs from the airport to the centre of Beirut has been decorated with Iranian flags and posters welcoming President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So have the roads that go south, which he will take when he visits villages on the Israeli border." 
I don't think we could have competed with that, somehow.I did approach my local British Legion, and they turned me down flat. It seems they're rather annoyed that incontrovertible proof exists to show that Iran was behind attacks on British troops in Basra. Some people will believe anything - and I only asked for fifty quid.
   Then there was the local Labour Club - but they turned him down, saying he was a Holocaust denier. Well, that's New Labour for you - no wonder they lost the Election.
Still, no such unfair reactions have been shown by the Hezbollah, who live in South Lebanon.Not for them to be offended by the deaths of British troops - or anti-semitism. It doesn't pay to be narrow minded. Mind you, it's all down to money. As the BBC says:
"Mr Ahmadinejad will be a welcome guest in Shia areas of Lebanon. Iran paid for much of the reconstruction that was necessary after the war with Israel in 2006.
The money, starting out with a bundle of US dollars for everyone whose house had been destroyed, was channelled through Hezbollah." Typical BBC - they still get his name wrong, even after several emails from me! If it wasn't for Ahmad Jad, Hezbollah Double Glazing would never have gone into business. They are also developing a new branch of calisthenics called "The Hezbollah Arm Stretch". They seem to have based it on a similar exercise which was popular in Germany in the 1930s, but I wouldn't want to speculate.

Let's hope that his two day gig produces as many laughs as his memorable appearance at the UN - I'm sure we can depend upon it.

Michael Moore Writes for his President

I am a great admirer of Michael Moore, even if I sometimes baulk at his methods. He fearlessly opposes injustice and wrongdoing in his own country, and has been a vociferous opponent of the so-called "War on Terror". This is the full text of a speech that he has written for President Obama at the beginning of the tenth year of this war:
"A Senseless War Begins Its 10th Year ...an address to the nation from President Barack Obama (as reported by Michael Moore)
Thursday, October 7th, 2010
My Fellow Americans:
Nine years ago today we invaded the nation of Afghanistan. I’d just turned 40. I had a Discman and an Oldsmobile and had gotten really into LiveJournal. That was a long time ago. It was so long ago, does anybody remember why we're even there? I think everyone wanted to capture Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. But he got away sometime in the first month or so. He left. We stayed. Looking back now, that makes no sense.
Needing to find a new reason for the mission, we decided to overthrow the religious extremists who were running Afghanistan. Which we did. Sorta. Unlike Osama, they never left. Why not? Well, they were Afghans, it was their country. And, strangely enough, a lot of other Afghans supported them. To this day, the Taliban only have 25,000 armed fighters. Do you really think an army that tiny could control and suppress a nation of 28 million against their will? What's wrong with this picture? WTF is really going on here?
The truth is, I can't get an answer. My generals can't quite tell me what our mission is. If we went in there to rout out al-Qaeda, well, they're gone too. The CIA tells me there are under 100 of them left in the whole country!
My generals have also admitted the following to me:
1. There is no way we can defeat the Taliban. They enjoy too much popular support in the rural areas, the majority of the country.
2. Even though we've been there nine years, the truth is the Taliban, not us, not the Afghan government, control the country. After nine years, we’ve only completely run the Taliban out of 3% of Afghanistan.
3%!! (Just for reference, it took us only ELEVEN MONTHS after D-Day to entirely defeat the Nazis across all of Europe.)
3. Our troops and their commanders are still trying to learn the language, the culture, the customs of Afghanistan. The fact is, our troops are simply not trusted by the average people (especially after they've killed numerous civilians, either through recklessness or for sport).
4. The Afghan government we installed is corrupt beyond belief. The public does not trust them. President Karzai is on anti-depressants and our advisors tell us he is erratic and loopy on many days. His brother has a friendly relationship with the Taliban and is believed to be a major poppy (heroin) dealer. Heroin poppies are the #1 contributor to the Afghan economy.
The war in Afghanistan is a mess. The insurgency grows -- and why wouldn't it: foreign troops have invaded and occupied their country! The people responsible for 9/11 are no longer there. So why are we? Why are we offering up the lives of our sons and daughters every single day -- for no reason anyone can define.
In fact, the only reason I can see is that this war is putting billions of profits into the pockets of defense contractors. Is that a reason to stay, so Halliburton can post a larger profit this quarter?
It is time for me to bring our troops home -- right now. Not one more American needs to die. Their deaths do not make us safer and they do not bring democracy to Afghanistan.
It is not our mission to defeat the Taliban. That is the job of the Afghan people -- if that is what they choose to do. There are many groups and leaders of countries in this world who are despicable. We are not going to invade 30 countries and remove their regimes. That is not our job.
I am not going to stay in Afghanistan just because we're already there and we haven't "won" yet. There is nothing to win. No one from Genghis Khan to Leonid Brezhnev has been able to win there. So the troops are coming home.
I refuse to participate in scaring the American people with a phony "War on Terror." Are there terrorists? Yes. Will they strike again? Sadly, yes. But these terrorist acts are few and far between and should not dictate how we live our daily lives or make us ignore our constitutional rights. They should never distract us from what our real priorities are in making our country safe and secure: Everyone with a good job, families able to own a home and send their kids to college, universal health care that's coordinated by your elected representative government -- not by greedy, profit-hungry insurance companies. THAT would be true homeland security.
And what about Osama bin Laden? Nine years and we can't find a 6'5" Arab man who apparently is on dialysis? Even after offering $25 million to anyone who will tell us where he is? You don't think someone would have taken us up on that by now?
Here's what I know: Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire -- and if there's one thing I've learned about the rich is that they don't live in caves for 9 years. Bin Laden is either dead or hiding out in a place where his money protects him. Or maybe he just went home.
Just like we should do. Now. My condolences to the families of all who died in this war. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and wanted to do their duty because we were attacked. But we were not attacked by a country. We were attacked by a few religious extremists. And you don't defeat a few thugs by shipping halfway around the world thousands of armored vehicles and hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That is just sheer idiocy.
And it ends tonight.
God be with you.
I'm not a Muslim."
(End of speech, as transcribed by Michael Moore)
Few people could say it better - well done, Mike.

The Bishop, the Vatican and Holocaust Denial

Do you recognise this man? No, he is not part of the Pope's entourage during the recent Papal visit. He is a British Catholic clergyman - Bishop Richard Williamson of of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The Bishop is very much a traditionalist Catholic clergyman; like others in the SSPX, he is opposed to the modernisation of Catholicism and wants a return to traditional values (he is said to oppose the outfits worn by female tennis players - SEE HERE). This is not a crime, whatever views we may have. What is of concern about the Bishop is that, in common with David Irving and neo-Nazis everywhere, he is a Holocaust denier.In a written bulletin to SSPX members, he asserted:"The fact is that the 6 million people who were supposedly gassed represent a huge lie".  These views of his are well enough known, as is the fact that the Vatican and (praise God) most Catholics reject his views. Bishop Williamson was excommunicated in 1988, but was welcomed back into the fold of the Church in 2009. The present Pope wants to heal rifts, it seems. I suppose that is understandable, and at least the Pontiff did not not call in on Bishop Williamson for afternoon tea while visiting the UK. For me, this whole matter raises yet again the spectre of the Vatican's wartime stance on the Holocaust. What, I wonder, was the exact nature of the relationship between the Vatican and the Nazis? This is a huge subject, with much material written about it - SEE HERE. The wartime Pope - Pius XII - was a rabid anti-communist and, during his tenure, many war criminals escaped justice by fleeing Europe after 1945 on Vatican passports. This is not to say that Pius XII was involved; he seems not to have noticed. On the other hand, even his sternest critics praise him for hiding Jews in the Vatican during German round-ups in 1943/4. The jury is still out, and I'm not on the jury.
  What I can say, though, is that Bishop Williamson would almost certainly not have hidden any Jews. He has described them as "the enemies of Christ", and he believes the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" ( a well-known anti-semitic forgery) to be genuine. I wonder if this will lead to mass conversions to Catholicism among the extreme Right?

President Ahmadinejad - the Alternative Comedian

One reason why I don't care to write about the Iranian President is his name - it takes so long to type it. That could prove a problem in what appears to be his new chosen career - comedy. I don't know why he set out to follow in the footsteps of Frankie Boyle, etc, by doing his first gig at the UN, but I suppose it was the only one he could get. Anyway, it seems that his first gag went down a storm. When he suggested that the USA orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, people actually walked out! They must have been overcome with laughter. Mind you, President Ahmadinejad (must do something about that name) has come out with some scintillating one-liners in the past, for example:
On the Holocaust – Sept 2009
"They (the Western powers) launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they put on a show and then they support the Jews."
And then ( be ready to split your sides):
On Robert Mugabe – April 2010
"I condemn all pressures, all satanic pressures, pressures on the government and people of Zimbabwe."
And then there was:

On wearing ties – July 2010
"The supreme guide (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) himself has said in a fatwa that the wearing of ties or bow ties is not permitted."
He's a barrel of laughs, isn't he?

Such a talented comedian will miss his chance, however, if his career is not carefully guided. I am considering asking the Comedy Store here in London to give him a booking. If anyone can suggest another venue, I'll try to get President Ahmadinejad (must do something about that name!) to appear. And then, of course, a snappy stage name is needed. I think "Ahmad Jad" has a nice ring to it. Watch this space...

OFSTED and the Need for Vigilance

Like all teachers, and anyone else involved in education, I am often bemused by the pronouncements of OFSTED, the Government's inspection agency for schools, playgroups, LEAs, and just about everything else you can think of to do with education. One such is today's announcement that 457,925 of the 1.65 million children who have been diagnosed with special educational needs (SEN) have been diagnosed wrongly.The implication is that schools "mistakenly" identify pupils as having special educational needs in order to get extra funding. This is not true, but it has brought excited banner headlines to the Daily Mail and other such papers. A swingeing refutation of the OFSTED claim is made by Zoe Williams in today's "Guardian", and can be read here.
 Speaking generally, there is a more pressing point that occurs to me: OFSTED has been in existence since 1992. During that time, it has inspected thousands of schools, observed tens of thousands of lessons, produced staggering amounts of paperwork, spent vast amounts of taxpayers' money and driven some  teachers to suicide. If schools really are wrongly labelling children as having special educational needs, why has it taken the ever-vigilant OFSTED so long to discover it?

Burning the Koran

 I rarely praise politicians, but I must say that world leaders are to be congratulated for condemning the proposed Koran burning in Florida on the 11th of this month. Pastor Terry Jones, the instigator of this event, appears to have learned none of the lessons that have been learned, at great cost, by our military and political leaders. Sorry to sound wise after the event, but even at the time of 9/11, I thought that the attacks were meant as provocations, intended to propel the USA and her allies into some kind of precipitate action. Unless Bin Laden and his cronies are idiots, they must have known that there would be a powerful military intervention against them, and would have planned for it. Well, in war, you don't do what your enemies want you to do. 9 years down the line, I think we've done just that, paying a huge cost in lives, money and material, two countries have been devastated - and we still haven't caught Bin Laden. Still, light is beginning to shine, realisation of what kind of enemy we are dealing with is growing, and President Obama is 100% correct to say that the proposed Koran burnings will cause a "bonanza" in recruitment for Al-Qaeda. If Bin Laden has any money left, he'll be sending it to Pastor Jones in grateful payment for helping the cause.

Tony and Harold - Two of a Kind?

In case you hadn't noticed, Tony Blair was signing copies of his memoirs, called "A Journey", in Dublin today. He seems capable of dividing opinion everywhere; there were angry protesters outside the book store, and admirers who wanted a signed copy of his book inside. Christopher Mayer, who was our ambassador in Washington, shortly after 9/11, has written critically of Blair in today's "Daily Mail". Mayer makes the point that: "...memoirs usually seek to skew history in the writer's favour and all are self-serving to some degree". He goes on to allege that Blair seems still to  want to be "...a player on the world stage", and writes some interesting material about Blair's support for George Bush in the launching of the so-called "War on Terror".
What I find interesting is the fact that we have seen self-seeking memoirs by an ex-Labour PM before. At university, I had the good fortune (!) to read Harold Wilson's account of his time in office. There are some interesting parallels between these two Labour politicians. Wilson, like Blair, was a controversial figure when PM.Both took office after a lengthy period of Conservative tenure in government. Like Blair, Wilson tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to negotiate peace between all parties in Northern Ireland. Like Blair, his term as PM was dogged by scandals about his cabinet colleagues (eg, John Stonehouse). Also, at that time the USA was engaged in a war- in Viet-Nam. Unlike Blair, however, Wilson steadfastly refused, publicly, to send British troops to fight in Viet-Nam, despite American pressure. Right-Wing American politicians never forgave Wilson for (as they saw it) failing to help an ally.
Or did he? There are numerous eyewitness accounts of British SAS soldiers being deployed against the Viet-Cong during the Viet-Nam War. One ex-gunner told me of how one Royal Artillery battery was seconded to the Australian Army in Viet-Nam, and no-one ever found out about it. All of which points to another similarity between these two Labour politicans, though Wilson seems to have been the more able politician - or was he just more cunning?

Does anyone hope to get Blair's book for Christmas?

Christmas is coming...already?

We've all heard the refrain: "Christmas comes early every year", but even I was surprised today, when I visited our local Marks & Spencer branch. To my amazement, they were selling Christmas cards (£5-00 for 20). And it's not even September! I don't know whether anyone else has noticed the early signs of Christmas anywhere, but if you have - isn't this just a little too soon? It might, of course, be a sign of desperation by the stores. They must be so desperate to maintain turnover, that they want to corner the Christmas market early. What next? Will pubs and hotels be taking Christmas party bookings in June? When will we start to hear Slade and Jona Lewey singing in Sainsbury's? The possibilities are boundless. Oh dear...

Osama and the Chimera

I hate to admit it, but I wasn't sure what a "chimera" was, until I looked it up online. I came across several meanings, two of which I thought of interest. Here is one: " a mythical fire-breathing monster with the head of a lion, body of a goat, and tail of a serpent". Right - and here's another:" a grotesque product of the imagination". For some reason, this made me think of the ever elusive Osama Bin Laden, who stands (somewhere- or is he bedridden?) as one of the greatest monsters of our time. The fact that no-one seems to have the remotest idea where he is, or even if he is alive or dead, makes me wonder if he is, perhaps, a product of a paranoid imagination, like bogeymen, trolls - or chimeras. But of course, I exaggerate. He must be alive - isn't that why Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded? Now, as we all know, US combat troops left Iraq this week, with their mission (hopefully) accomplished. British troops left some time ago. The war goes on in Afghanistan, of course, but there is hope for a withdrawal of NATO troops in the not-too-distant future. As things stand, they will probably leave without finding Bin Laden. Whether this is important or not, we are not told.
 Some things are clear, however. About 7 000 NATO troops (mostly American) have died in both theatres. For exact figures (so far) see here.  Civilian casualty figures are disputed, but run into six figures. Another grim statistic is that about 200 000 US personnel who have served in Iraq have developed various mental health problems. I have no similar figures for UK troops, but they must be high. Then, of course, there are the wounded and disabled. If Bin Laden set out to cause mass bloodshed, mayhem and damage to the West, then he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. And (if alive), he may still escape capture.
If Bin Laden wears socks against the cold, he must laugh them off his feet every night.

George and the Dictator

It's very rare for me to read the "Times", but as I made a long train journey today, I bought a copy to pass the time. One article that caught my attention was by one Martin Fletcher, with the title: "Galloway meets Ahmadinejad - a shameful sight". As George Galloway ("GG") and the repressive regime in Iran have featured in my postings before, I read the article with interest. It seems that GG hosts a weekly programme called "The Real Deal" on Press TV. For those who have never heard of Press TV, it is an English language TV channel run by the regime in Iran. Others may be unaware of GG's interest in the media - he also hosts a radio programme on Talk Sport radio which I have only ever listened to for a few minutes. I became very bored with GG reading letters from admirers telling him how wonderful he was. I've not seen his interview with President Ahmadinejad (much as I'd like to), but Fletcher's account of it sounds typical of GG. He asked the Iranian dictator "patball questions", ie, easy questions to answer. He avoided asking any awkward questions (such as "Why did your security forces shoot down opposition demonstators last year?"), and prefaced his one question about Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani (see below) with the words: "Every so often an issue comes along which is seized on by enemies of Iran and magnified...". Martin Fletcher comments: "It was a performance more demeaning even than Mr Galloway's appearance on Celebrity Big Brother as a cat."I agree with that conclusion, but I wonder if GG has another agenda at work? He must be aware that there will be widespread criticism of this so-called "interview", as there has been criticism of his previous escapades. Personally, I think he revels in it - it always seems to me that he enjoys controversy, as it provides him with publicity and boosts his ego. Anyone who doubts that GG has an overweening ego should listen to his radio programme. Like Gloria Swanson, he knows that: "Good publicity is great, bad publicity is good - no publicity is awful!". And let's face it - without the heat and dust he stokes up, who would notice Mr Galloway anyway? No, like I have said about Jonathan Ross, I believe GG to be an operator, out to further his own ends. The difference between them lies in the fact that Ross is said to have cultivated Media Moguls; Mr Galloway prefers tyrants and dictators. Well, as the old saying goes: "A man is known by the company he keeps".