Categories
Uncategorized

Sexuality is an important part of who you are – denying it for social acceptance or gain is wrong but understandable – but campaigning against it is just wrong

Conservatives UK - Would this be a fair slogan for the current Tory Party?  I think it would make great new slogan! What you guys think? | Facebook

WOKE and the Tory Party

The Tory Party has not been shouting from the rooftops about its views on WOKE rights which is not surprising since its policies are decided on by the Tory Central Office in England.

The most powerful lobbying group in the Party is the “Cornerstone Group” and its influence and demands will prevail over weaker opposition and be the deciding factor in any policy pertaining to WOKE activists.

Jacob Rees Mogg Makes Billions From No Deal Brexit

2005: The Cornerstone Group Website Launch.

 In his opening address Chairman Edward Leigh MP wrote about the aims and aspirations of the Group:

“We represent traditional Tory themes of nation, family, enterprise and compassion, founded on Judaeo-Christian ethics. We keep the flame burning because we believe that a vigorous discussion about Conservative ideas can be of immense value to our party”

“We applaud David Cameron’s decision to speak up in favour of marriage.”

British Conservatives lead charge for gay marriage - The Washington Post


The Tory Party Cornerstone Group

A large and influential group of Tory MP’s dedicated to maintaining the traditional values which have shaped the British way of life throughout the country’s history.

It believes in the spiritual values which have informed British institutions, its culture and its nations sense of identity for centuries, underpinned by the belief in a strong nation state.

It stands for the Monarchy; traditional marriage; family and community duties; proper pride in the nations distinctive qualities; quality of life over soulless utility; social responsibility over personal selfishness; social justice as a civic duty, not state dependency; compassion for those in need; reducing government waste; lower taxation and deregulation; protection of ancient liberties against politically correct censorship and a commitment to a democratically elected parliament.

It is opposed to gay marriage and is generally fairly homophobic.

Abortion should be banned.

Sexual abstinence should be taught in schools.

Contraceptives should be discouraged.

Immigration should be strictly controlled.

Liberalism  is a disease.

Image result for mundell images

Tory Party Insider Comments:

The group is mono-ethnic, mono-cultural, anti-diversity and anti-homosexual and it commands a major swathe of the parliamentary Tory Party and its membership.

It is a good development. The policies they advocate are very sensible. Those who brush them off as reactionaries betray their own bigotry in a way.

The Group’s views are held by many Northern voters and there are many more who would like to see extra emphasis on some of the Cornerstone principles. Lurching hard to the right wins more voters in the North.

The Cornerstone Group are an important lobbying group who will make sure the Party remains focused on its full policy agenda.

Image result for mundell images

Jan 2016: Ultra right wing Tory Cornerstone founder member Mundell Comes Out the Closet as Gay

Mundell married Lynda Carmichael in 1987. The couple separated in 2010 and divorced in 2012. They have 3 children: Oliver, 28 (elected to Holyrood), Eve 26 and Lewis 25.

He wrote on his personal website:

“it is time to acknowledge in public as well as in private, who I am. I hope that coming out will not change anything about how I am treated.”

In another online post he wrote:

“New Year, new start! I have already set out my political priorities for the year and now I am setting out my personal one: Having taken one of the most important decisions of my life and came out as gay I just want to get on with it, and now, just like that, I have said it. I still cannot rationalise my feelings, but they are not uncommon, particularly in men of my age.” He added:

“Of course, everybody who gets to this point, has have their own journey. I have certainly been on mine, conflicting emotions, of doubts and fears, but ultimately positive and uplifting, with an unstoppable direction of travel. Over time, I have come to understand that, for me, the only way to be truly happy on a personal level is to acknowledge in public as well as in private, who I am.”

Comment: Living a lie is never easy but being a founder member of the Cornerstone Group takes the biscuit.

What does 'woke' mean to Britons? | YouGov
Categories
Uncategorized

Letter from America – a teacher warns of the inherent dangers in allowing the implementation of Sturgeon’s insidious and cancerous Trojan Horse WOKE creep

Wokeness: what does it mean and how did it become weaponised?

An American teacher warns about the invasion of WOKE orthodoxy in the education sector

I have been a teacher for nearly two decades. My awareness of WOKE ideology started about five years ago when our schools began to be consumed by “WOKE ideology”.

The schools became obsessed with sophomoric and divisive notions of diversity, equality, and justice; increasingly hostile to freedom of expression; addicted to cancelling anything that offended the WOKE movement and prioritised activism over understanding as the goal of education.

The purpose of this letter is to alert the “sleep-wokers”. A sleep-woker is one who has not taken the WOKE creed to heart, but tacitly complies with the linguistic, pedagogical, political, and moral imperatives of wokeness.

Sleep-wokers go through the motions; they are like religious folk who say prayers without thinking, attend worship services without engaging, and perpetuate dogmas without believing. I was a sleep-woker. In some ways, due to a combination of timidity and tiredness, I still am.

Sleep-woking, like sleepwalking, is very dangerous. While sleep-woking, an English teacher can unwittingly help cancel Chaucer, Keats and Conrad in the name of decolonisation. A biology teacher might find herself obliged to deny important differences between the sexes. A football coach will not be able to cheer on a player after a strong tackle, as strength and physical violence smack of toxic masculinity.

Wokeness has proven to be oppressive and totalitarian rather than inclusive and liberating

Most of my sleep-woking colleagues are good people. Like me, they were lulled into complacency by a WOKE take-over that was slow and subtle.

What’s more, some changes were initially promising and even corrective — of course we should pay more attention to marginalised voices and overlooked narratives, and I am glad that we now do.

To bemoan an expanded curriculum is simple chauvinism. In the end, however, wokeness has proven to be oppressive and totalitarian rather than inclusive and liberating.

My objection is to the effect of WOKE ideology on education, not to liberal politics. My grievance is that teachers are increasingly under pressure to adopt the WOKE agenda or be ostracised.

I empathise with the difficult situation that top school officials find themselves in. As wokeness takes over culture, schools face enormous pressure to follow suit.

That said, those with the power to stop the degradation of education have a special responsibility to do so, and those of us with less power have a responsibility to remind our superiors of their duty.

The Promise and Problems of Being Woke | Psychology Today

Here is some of what wokeness introduces:

Offence in is the Eye of the Offended

Schools are required to teach that if one feels offended, one has been offended. For example, if a student or colleague claims to have been offended by your words or actions, it does not matter if you intended no offence. More troubling is the fact that it does not matter if your words and actions were not those that a rational person should find offensive — you are an offender merely by virtue of the fact that someone claims to have been offended.

Since legal norms follow ethical norms, if schools (and societies) succeed in changing the ethical norms of speech and offence, they will eventually have a basis upon which to change the legal norms.

As soon as they can show that a normal or typical person is offended by certain language or certain ideas, they will be able to argue that a person presenting such language and ideas is failing to abide by the reasonable ethical cultural expectations.

In essence, we are training students how to be offended so that their perceived offence can be used to eliminate anti-woke expression.

Elimination of Non-Woke Student Clubs

Any student group that resists WOKE orthodoxy is forcibly disbanded or prevented from forming with the outcome that free thinking students have trouble officially meeting and inviting speakers.

If a non-woke speaker is invited, the wokes mobilise to deny them a platform and they feel righteous for doing so.

Few free thinking students openly identify as such because they are afraid of repercussions from teachers and other students. Not only is this unfair, but it is also dangerous.

Alienated free thinking students are being pushed away from moderate disagreement towards political extremism.

No Resisting WOKE Slogans

Opposing WOKE slogans or voicing contrary slogans is not tolerated.

Since opposing wokeness is thought to be motivated by hate, voicing opposition to WOKE slogans is tantamount to hate speech.

A student who challenges a WOKE slogan is bullied and harassed by the WOKE majority.

Meanwhile, WOKE slogans and images are hung in school buildings and cannot be removed.

Cultural Appropriation

White or Western students are told not to participate in cultural traditions of non-white, non-Western people — the oppressors cannot participate in the culture of the oppressed.

For example, several white students who wore shirts with African designs were reprimanded and forced to change their clothes. The fact that the shirts were a gift from their teacher, a black African man, made no difference. The students wore the shirts to show affection for their teacher and to honour his gift, but that was still cultural appropriation.

In another instance, a musician was reprimanded for blending a western and non-western musical style into a new artistic expression. The musician was accused of cultural imperialism.

Cancelling Curriculum

Shakespeare, Homer and other canonical authors are being eliminated from the curriculum. In some cases, schools and teachers boast about cancelling these patriarchal racists. Even at schools that do not officially cancel canonical Western texts, the texts are subtly replaced in the name of anti-racism.

The result is that many students move on to university never having read Homer or Shakespeare, though they will have been required to read many texts and attend many lectures on intersectionality and gender identity.

They can speak at length about toxic masculinity and a panoply of so-called phobias, but they would not recognise the terms “iambic pentameter” and “dactylic hexameter”, let alone recognise actual examples of the meter.

Normalising Fallacies

Ad hominem attacks are presented as the cornerstone of critical thinking rather than as a fallacious form of argumentation. Teachers educate students to evaluate texts and arguments by primarily attending to the author’s race, gender, and sexuality.

Mandatory Training

Students attend mandatory training sessions in which experts teach them how to identify and report microaggressions. And since to a student with a hammer everything looks like a nail, the students begin informing on each other and on their teachers.

White teachers are told to attend racial-political re-education workshops in which they strive to overcome their whiteness in the classroom. (It has long been accepted that “whiteness” is a meaningful category.)

Teachers who claim to not be a racist are seen as the worst, most unredeemable kind of racist and labelled heretics who will not admit heresy. Suffering from something called “white fragility”.

Trigger Warnings

Before introducing any new activity teachers are required to compile lists of trigger warnings for it. The warnings which are shared with students alert them to any and all things in the subject that could cause them stress, frustration, anger, or sadness.

Manners and Dress Codes

A side-effect of the WOKE attacks on tradition, authority, and hierarchy has been the revocation of dress codes. So long as their genitals are covered and no profane words are visible, students can and do wear anything they like.

Many students eat meals with headphones in their ears while watching videos on their phones. The less respectful students don’t bother with headphones. “Sir” and “Ma’am” have long since disappeared as too authoritarian and gendered. The terms “master” and “headmaster” cannot be used as master might connote slavery.

Elimination of Objective Assessments

Exams are being eliminated for two reasons: first, because exams are apparently inherently racist, sexist, classist, heteronormative, or otherwise unfair; second, because exams cause students stress, and stress makes students feel bad, and feeling bad negatively impacts their well-being.

Additionally, some students do poorly on exams, and this has the potential to result in a situation that is inequitable.

Pronouns

Schools are increasingly pressured to identify their pronouns.

Failure to identify one’s pronouns is seen as transphobic or cis-centric or both. Students can reassign their own pronouns at will.

If a teacher mistakenly does not use the student’s preferred pronoun, the teacher is accused of misgendering.

Misgendering a serious offence, even a kind of violence.

In Summary

The unchecked advance of wokeness results in two major failures.

First, teachers and students lose the ability to freely read, write and speak as pupils and teachers.

Second, the education provided becomes unrecognisably impoverished.

The second effect is probably the hardest to accept. In place of free-thinking young scholars, the education system churns out generations of woke activists who believe that feelings matter more than facts, that perception is reality, and that it is more important to judge a text than to understand it — where “judging” means anachronistically interpreting the author’s words in light of the most recent WOKE orthodoxy.

Students claim to be proud practitioners of social justice yet they have only an elementary command of grammar and geography.

They struggle to write complete sentences and are unable to locate Turkey on a map.

Some question the need to take maths seriously given that maths is apparently grounded in Western patriarchal rationalism.

Wokeness has been achieved at the expense of education.

Reason has been subordinated to passion.

Plato’s charioteer has been replaced by the horses he was meant to reign in.

To not be woke is to be asleep: unconscious or ignorant of what is really going on.

Perhaps some of you are disturbed by some of the woke excesses at your schools and in your communities, even if, like me, you readily support appeals for greater diversity, genuine inclusion, and a multicultural curriculum.

There are some who instinctively to dismiss the excesses as isolated incidents with sayings like “The pendulum will swing back” or “That will never happen at my school.”

But the pendulum will not swing back because the WOKE movement is not a pendulum; it is a steamroller.

One of the canniest bits of WOKE linguistic manipulation has been appropriation of the term “WOKE” itself.

To not be WOKE is to be asleep: unconscious or ignorant of what is really going on.

Either one is Woke or one is not aware of reality.

Or, as in the words of a WOKE student “if you are not WOKE, it must be because you are uneducated or hateful — or both.

Such is the WOKE reality. (The Critic)

Cancel culture, and the toxic rebranding of the 'woke left'
Categories
Uncategorized

Scotland sent 56 MP’s to Westminster and the sum of all their achievements was a recognition that women should be provided with free sanitary towels – Nationalist policy needs to be changed to abstentionism now – bring our MP’s home

The 1707 Act of Union Handed Scotland Over To a Very Wealthy English Elite Supported By Lickspittle Unionist Politicians Who Maintain Their Power Through the Impositon of Oppression on Scots – caltonjock

The Discredited 1707 Act of Union

The 1707 “Act of Union” was signed off, against the wishes of Scots, by a corrupt landowning, political elite.

It was heralded by the English as a voluntary joining of the two nations which would become a single United Kingdom. All would be equal.  But that is not what transpired.

The English trap was sprung within weeks of the signing of the treaty when the Sovereign of the two states declared Westminster to be the seat of the newly formed United Kingdom.

England’s green and pleasant land would survive but Scotland would be consigned to the historical rubbish dump.

And historical evidence from that time to the present day supports many thousands of allegations that Westminster politicians have only ever acted in the best interests of England and against the wishes and needs of Scots.

The 1707 Act of Union Handed Scotland Over To a Very Wealthy English Elite Supported By Lickspittle Unionist Politicians Who Maintain Their Power Through the Impositon of Oppression on Scots – caltonjock

Scots Are Ready for Change: Now::

Conditioned by the brutality of the first and each succeeding Westminster regime over 300+ years, the Scottish view of Westminster is far removed from that of the people of Newcastle or Leeds.

The majority of Scots perceive Westminster to be a parliament that has imposed 313+ years of murderous and dictatorial rule.

They see it as a political regime that has denied them their right to economic and political sovereignty. Westminster is not Scotland’s Parliament and never will be.

Scots, with Brexit forced upon them against their wishes, are now clear in their minds that Unionist politicians will continue to impose their will over Scots regardless of any economic, social or other hardship.

The Scottish nation is of little consequence to the political ambitions of the political elite of Westminster.

How did England and Scotland become the 'United Kingdom'? - ppt download

Modified Abstentionism

S.N.P. MP’s should no longer routinely participate in any of the political activities at Westminster, including withdrawing MP’s from all joint committees and no attendance to the House of Commons.

MP’s would, in all other respects, continue to actively represent their constituents only engaging where necessary with other political Party’s and their representatives on matters affecting their constituents.

This would ensure no financial detriment to S.N.P. MP’s. but would send a shot across the bows of the Tory dominated parliament and frighten the Labour and Liberal Party’s who would be consigned to the opposition benches forever.

Scottish and English history: 1707 act of union : HistoryMemes

Categories
Uncategorized

Before the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 – Scotland’s most able statesmen of the day stood up for Scots and vehemently opposed it – We need him back at the coal face of politics leading the government before Scotland is sold down the river of political and financial gain yet again

The return of Alex Salmond | The Economist

18 Mar 2003: Do not rush to war with Iraq – Alex Salmond – House of Commons

Fundamentally, the debate is not about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or even oil, though oil is certainly a factor. The debate is about a new world order, with an unrivalled superpower adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and how we accommodate that and come to terms with that new world order.

Eighteen months ago the United States had an atrocity committed against it and it is still in a trauma. The point was made a few minutes ago, and it is undoubtedly correct. On 12 September 2001, the day after the attack on the twin towers, the United States was at its most powerful.

In its moment of greatest extremity, the United States was at its zenith. In addition to its unrivalled military might, it carried total moral authority throughout the world.

A hundred or more nations signed messages of sympathy, support or solidarity with the extremity that the United States had suffered. Now, 18 months later, that enormous world coalition has been dissipated.

I do not take the position that it was only a gang of four who gathered in the Azores. I accept that there are more countries—or at least countries’ Governments — who are signed up, but the coalition of the willing for the campaign against Iraq is very narrowly based.

Anyone who wants confirmation of that should just count the troops: 300,000 United States and British troops, and I understand that 1,000 Australians have been asked for, and 100 Poles have been offered. That is a very narrowly based coalition indeed.

The Prime Minister believes that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration.

That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.

Former US president and UN special envoy

In his undoubtedly powerful speech today, the Prime Minister argued that the weapons inspection process had never worked. He came close to saying that it had all been a waste of time.

I remember a speech on 2 October at the Labour conference in which another powerful speaker went into enormous detail to show how successful the weapons inspection process had been in the 1990s and how it had led to the destruction of chemical weapons, the chemicals used to make weapons, the armed warheads and the biological weapons facility.

He concluded that, “the inspections were working even when he (Saddam Hussein) was trying to thwart them.”

I watched that speech on television. Many hon. Members were there. The speaker was President Bill Clinton. The television was doing cutaways to Ministers, including the Prime Minister. They were all nodding vigorously last October when President Clinton said that through the 1990s that policy worked and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction than were destroyed, for example, in the Gulf war.

The Prime Minister now seems to be denying what he accepted only last October. We are told that the majority of the Security Council would have voted for the second resolution, if it had not been for the nasty French coming in at the last minute and scuppering the whole process. Let us get real. Have we listened to what other countries were saying?

The Chileans proposed an extension of three weeks, but they were told by the United States that that was not on. In the debate in the General Assembly, country after country expressed their anxieties about not letting the weapons inspectors have a chance to do their work.

They were told that the nasty French—I am not sure whether the Conservative party dislikes the French more than the Liberals, or vice versa were being extremely unreasonable, but the French position, and the Chinese position in order to become acceptable, resolution 1441 had to be amended.

Everything has been consistent in the opposition of countries that are against a rush to military action. Somebody should speak up for the French, because their position has been consistent, as has that of the Russians and the Chinese.

The Chinese, the French and the Russians issued a declaration on the passage of resolution 1441. It sets out exactly how the British and the United States ambassadors agreed that it was not a trigger for war.

The reason that those countries did not want a second resolution was not that it would be a pathway to peace I wonder who dreamed that up in Downing street. The reason was that they saw it as a passport to war, so obviously they opposed a resolution drawn in those terms.

The majority of smaller countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly countries did not want to rush to war because they saw that there remained an alternative to taking military action at this stage of the inspection process.

media-alex-salmond

We are told that the Attorney General has described the war as legal. We could go into the legalities and quote professor after professor who has said the opposite, but one thing is certain: when the Secretary General of the United Nations doubts the authorisation of military action without a second resolution, people can say many things about that action, but they cannot say that it is being taken in the name of the United Nations.

The argument is that it will be a salutary lesson, that a dictator will be taught a lesson and that that will help us in dealing with other dictators.

I suspect that the cost of the action — I do not doubt the military outcome for a second will be so high in a number of ways that it will not provide a platform for an assault on North Korea or Iran, which form the rest of the “axis of evil”.

I do not think that the policy of teaching one dictator a lesson and then moving on to other dictators can work. Most of us know that it will be a breeding ground for a future generation of terrorists. That is not the case because people like Saddam Hussein.

The images that will be shown throughout the Muslim world will not feature him, although, without any question, he will be more attractive as a martyr when he is dead than he has ever been while alive. The images that will be shown are those of the innocents who will undoubtedly die in a conflict that will be a breeding ground for terrorism.

BillClinton

President Clinton’s address to the labour Party Conference in Blackpool October 2002, (6 months before the invasion of Iraq

Sound advice was falsely embraced by Tony Blair and his government who only six months later ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the terrible consequences have been visited upon many nations of the World, (in particular the middle East) ever since.

Bush and Blair are now retired and earning financial fortunes from speeches, advisory activities in support of many governments around the world and other business. Indeed Blair and his wife are multi-millionaires.

But thousands of our young men and women serving in the armed forces have been killed in action or returned to their families maimed through physical and or mental injury. The rest of their lives to be lived out handicapped and in permanent pain as will the many thousands of families who lost their sons and daughters.

Why did Blair not listen to President Clinton and Alex Salmond. The last 18 years future could have been so different.

The debate: http://www.warmwell.com/iraqwardebate03.html

The video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?172964-1/foreign-policy-issues

IRAQ
Categories
Uncategorized

Before the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 – Scotland’s most able statesmen of the day stood up for Scots and vehemently opposed it – We need him back at the coal face of politics leading the government before Scotland is sold down the river of political and financial gain yet again

The return of Alex Salmond | The Economist

18 Mar 2003: Do not rush to war with Iraq – Alex Salmond – House of Commons

Fundamentally, the debate is not about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or even oil, though oil is certainly a factor. The debate is about a new world order, with an unrivalled superpower adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and how we accommodate that and come to terms with that new world order.

Eighteen months ago the United States had an atrocity committed against it and it is still in a trauma. The point was made a few minutes ago, and it is undoubtedly correct. On 12 September 2001, the day after the attack on the twin towers, the United States was at its most powerful.

In its moment of greatest extremity, the United States was at its zenith. In addition to its unrivalled military might, it carried total moral authority throughout the world.

A hundred or more nations signed messages of sympathy, support or solidarity with the extremity that the United States had suffered. Now, 18 months later, that enormous world coalition has been dissipated.

I do not take the position that it was only a gang of four who gathered in the Azores. I accept that there are more countries—or at least countries’ Governments — who are signed up, but the coalition of the willing for the campaign against Iraq is very narrowly based.

Anyone who wants confirmation of that should just count the troops: 300,000 United States and British troops, and I understand that 1,000 Australians have been asked for, and 100 Poles have been offered. That is a very narrowly based coalition indeed.

The Prime Minister believes that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration.

That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.

Former US president and UN special envoy

In his undoubtedly powerful speech today, the Prime Minister argued that the weapons inspection process had never worked. He came close to saying that it had all been a waste of time.

I remember a speech on 2 October at the Labour conference in which another powerful speaker went into enormous detail to show how successful the weapons inspection process had been in the 1990s and how it had led to the destruction of chemical weapons, the chemicals used to make weapons, the armed warheads and the biological weapons facility.

He concluded that, “the inspections were working even when he (Saddam Hussein) was trying to thwart them.”

I watched that speech on television. Many hon. Members were there. The speaker was President Bill Clinton. The television was doing cutaways to Ministers, including the Prime Minister. They were all nodding vigorously last October when President Clinton said that through the 1990s that policy worked and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction than were destroyed, for example, in the Gulf war.

The Prime Minister now seems to be denying what he accepted only last October. We are told that the majority of the Security Council would have voted for the second resolution, if it had not been for the nasty French coming in at the last minute and scuppering the whole process. Let us get real. Have we listened to what other countries were saying?

The Chileans proposed an extension of three weeks, but they were told by the United States that that was not on. In the debate in the General Assembly, country after country expressed their anxieties about not letting the weapons inspectors have a chance to do their work.

They were told that the nasty French—I am not sure whether the Conservative party dislikes the French more than the Liberals, or vice versa were being extremely unreasonable, but the French position, and the Chinese position in order to become acceptable, resolution 1441 had to be amended.

Everything has been consistent in the opposition of countries that are against a rush to military action. Somebody should speak up for the French, because their position has been consistent, as has that of the Russians and the Chinese.

The Chinese, the French and the Russians issued a declaration on the passage of resolution 1441. It sets out exactly how the British and the United States ambassadors agreed that it was not a trigger for war.

The reason that those countries did not want a second resolution was not that it would be a pathway to peace I wonder who dreamed that up in Downing street. The reason was that they saw it as a passport to war, so obviously they opposed a resolution drawn in those terms.

The majority of smaller countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly countries did not want to rush to war because they saw that there remained an alternative to taking military action at this stage of the inspection process.

media-alex-salmond

We are told that the Attorney General has described the war as legal. We could go into the legalities and quote professor after professor who has said the opposite, but one thing is certain: when the Secretary General of the United Nations doubts the authorisation of military action without a second resolution, people can say many things about that action, but they cannot say that it is being taken in the name of the United Nations.

The argument is that it will be a salutary lesson, that a dictator will be taught a lesson and that that will help us in dealing with other dictators.

I suspect that the cost of the action — I do not doubt the military outcome for a second will be so high in a number of ways that it will not provide a platform for an assault on North Korea or Iran, which form the rest of the “axis of evil”.

I do not think that the policy of teaching one dictator a lesson and then moving on to other dictators can work. Most of us know that it will be a breeding ground for a future generation of terrorists. That is not the case because people like Saddam Hussein.

The images that will be shown throughout the Muslim world will not feature him, although, without any question, he will be more attractive as a martyr when he is dead than he has ever been while alive. The images that will be shown are those of the innocents who will undoubtedly die in a conflict that will be a breeding ground for terrorism.

BillClinton

President Clinton’s address to the labour Party Conference in Blackpool October 2002, (6 months before the invasion of Iraq

Sound advice was falsely embraced by Tony Blair and his government who only six months later ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the terrible consequences have been visited upon many nations of the World, (in particular the middle East) ever since.

Bush and Blair are now retired and earning financial fortunes from speeches, advisory activities in support of many governments around the world and other business. Indeed Blair and his wife are multi-millionaires.

But thousands of our young men and women serving in the armed forces have been killed in action or returned to their families maimed through physical and or mental injury. The rest of their lives to be lived out handicapped and in permanent pain as will the many thousands of families who lost their sons and daughters.

Why did Blair not listen to President Clinton and Alex Salmond. The last 18 years future could have been so different.

The debate: http://www.warmwell.com/iraqwardebate03.html

The video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?172964-1/foreign-policy-issues

IRAQ