BBC Blog Network

User Profile

ikamaskeip

Listed below are comments made by ikamaskeip between Monday, 26th October 2009 and Wednesday, 28th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

El Presidente 10:22am on 28 Oct 2009 sa488ny and #192.

Plainly the UK has not been a 'major player' on its own since the Potsdam Conference.
The UK was/is a 'major player' on the international stage in alliance with others whether that is direct Atlantic-relations or via NATO, the seat at the UNO Security Council, leading Commonwealth State, G8 member etc.
The status of the UK as a unified 4 nations firmly resolved to stand at the USA's side during the Cold War was essential, but those days are long gone.

The only place the UK has not and never could be any sort of 'player' is within the European Union.

The UK Parliament led by the nose by successive No.10 Governments of Conservative and Labour has devolved authority and powers to Brussels and in recent years to the 4 Nations of the UK.

On the whole the progression to the dissolution of the UK has been managed in a reasonable manner (exception being Northern Ireland's religious/sectarian-mob warfare): That trend continues and the sooner it is accomplished the better for all 4 Nation's Populace.
I say that because I really believe the only chance England and the English have of breaking out of the EU strait-jacket is when the other 3 (maybe not Wales if it chooses to stay-on) have gone their own way.

Whether England retains a Security Council seat is really of little import to its general political-economic-social progress. A 'special relationship' with the USA is useful but hardly essential particularly if England remains within NATO (lets face it, the recent years of cowardice and betrayal by France, Germany etc. whenever the 'frontline' forces are needed shows it did them no harm). The relatively loose economic-political-cultural ties of Commonwealth will surely continue with the House of Windsor at its Head.

The only fly in England's political-economic-cultural ointment is the EU: An institution founded by Paris-Berlin and based at Brussels as a sop to the Benelux - - it has brought nothing to England and the English that could not have been achieved without it. Indeed, by its aggravating EUrotocracy, corruption and patently undemocratic methods it has hindered the progression of the UK and of England (plus other nations, but that's upto them) - - when added to the fact Paris-Berlin-Brussels only interests in the UK are 1) the Financial Centre/Services sector, 2) the 60,000,000 market-place, and 3) a prosperous UK outside the EU is bad for the image of the EU, it is essential for England at least to quit the EU.

I submit an England of 49,000,000 can be a 'serious player' in terms of entrepreneurial talent, business acumen, liberty and individualism were its Citizens ever to be given the chance to make the choice.
If 4 million Scots and 1 million Irish who've complained for 300+ years about being in a Union of 4 really think they can be taken more seriously in a Union of 400,000,000 then good luck to them, but, that is surely not the way for England to go - - out of 4, into 27! Not only is the 'pure' and 'applied' maths all wrong, so, is the logic, reasoning, and above all the historical evolution.
England is a permanent part of geographic Europe and at times strategically, however, in terms of politics, economy, culture, heritage there is a diversion of experience that no blanket of one-size-fits-all rulings will ever surmount.

Of course it is all predicated on the Government based at No.10 finally offering the English the same 'Democratic-devolutionary' choices as they have undertaken with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 11 million UK Citizens have all had a say about their Political-National/International futures, however, the principle Nation that has basically funded all the rest throughout all those years has been denied that fundamental Democratic principle - - SELF DETERMINATION!

Oh well, a nice dream!
El Presidente 08:50am on 28 Oct 2009

"...Need for realism not isolationism.." and "...cooperation and coordination.."

No hint at all.

The row back from offering the UK/England Public any sort of Ballot/Referendum choice on their future is underway.

NuLab reneged on the Constitution and then Lisbon Treaty manifesto promises of Referendum. Blair and Brown lied to the British public.

Cameron and his Conservatives are undoubtedly beginning down the path to that same corrupt abandonment of the entitlement of Rights and Responsibilities owed to all UK Citizens.

After June 2010 whether a NuLab or Conservative Government the UK/England Citizens will continue to suffer from the venal, self-interested liaison of Westminster-Brussels elites: They will be 'singing and dancing' as they line their pockets, but, the British Public will continue to pay the 2nd larrgest contribution for the band, dance hall, catering etc. and so the EU gravy train will roll on.
Census question questions 08:37am on 28 Oct 2009 Well, asking a few questions about bedrooms and overnight visitors is hardly a shattering intrusion.

Mind you, I do wonder how the present 650 miscreants currently lining the corridors and seats of the Palace of Westminster would manage to answer them?

Q1) How many bedrooms do you have when combining your 2, 3, 4 homes?
Q2) How many overnight visitors are members of your personal staff 'assisting' in your parliamentary activities?
Q3) What is the sex of those 'assisting' visitors?
Q4) Which ones are 'family' members?
and, Q5) Does your Wife/Husband know?
Why them and not us? 07:13am on 27 Oct 2009 Armagediontimes and #333. Plus Glanafon and #328.

Oh no!

You must have been there (Kirkuk) same time as my brother was based there - - only he's been back 3 or 4 times working for an airline (ground crew) - - anecdotally he reckons the Kurds have got more happy with each passing year since Saddam and the Baathists got the heave-ho!

His 2nd stint there was January - March 2004 as a 'volunteer' when he got several trips in/out of Baghdad Airport - - the airline was ferrying American Forces and freight - - heard and saw the Green Zone cop it and was aghast at the decline in facilities, services across that city which inc. queues to put corpses in the make-shift morgues.

So anecdotally, what do we know? Well, not a lot at all - - the tragedy of Iraq will be a stain on the 'west' forever and for the ordinary Iraqi it is an ongoing nightmare.
Not sure we can take this any further as all the 'numbers' stuff tends to take a long time to really sort out: Suffice to say I believe the final total will be much nearer 100,000 than 1 million.

glanafon, I forgot to write that I did take each death seriously which if you bothered to read my Comments properly you would have realised, e.g. ".. tragic though every death of an Iraqi is.. clearly could have been avoided.." (see #295 ) and "...even amongst all that carnage.." and "...the 100,000 deaths is far too many.." (see #322)

Believe me, when you've had a comrade hit by sniper and you cannot move to him for 2 hours while he dies (Armagh border) you take each death seriously.
Why them and not us? 11:04pm on 26 Oct 2009 glanafon and #328.

"Involvement"?

'Death': 1972 - '81 4 Para inc. 3 N.I. tours.
'Data' collection: Retired Economist.
'How many people': Is that in Iraq? If so, I wouldn't know anymore than you do - - I can only go by the statistical reports of the following:

Iraq Body Count (IBC) founded by John Sloboda and Hamit Dardagan - - a Humanitarian watch manned by volunteers since 2003; the Journal of Humanitarian Assistance with its unique oversight reports on Iraq casualties; the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq and its monthly trawl of figures; for the 'Coalition' the most relaible source would seem to be 'iCasualties.org' - which deals specifically with the Military operations.

As for my methodfology, I imagine it would be similar to your and the above organisations:

Refer to (1)News Media, (2) NGOs, (3) 'primary sources', e.g. hospitals, morgues, undertakers, families, (4) Official sources - - Iraq Government, Police, Registrar for issue of death certificates etc. which should lead to some 'cumulative overall figure'.

That said, there are issues of 'mass graves', 'whole-sale disappearances' and the likelihood Saddam's regime had not 'registered' everyone (especially those deemed 'enemies', so predominantly Shia/Kurd).

However, if you are suggesting that the 900,000 bodies I claimwere not killed are all in mass graves then I really have to dispute that! That is some very large, deep holes and without proper equipment a wholly unlikely scenario.
The fight over a Blair presidency 10:36pm on 26 Oct 2009 Blair does not have anything like an 'estate' near Aylesbury or up north.

He has a 4 bedroom house with relatively small front garden and an extensive rear garden. Some additional building has been done - - apparently to accommodate 'security' - - other than its rural setting and usual personal refurbishments inside there is nothing special about it.

No, I can't say how I know.
Why them and not us? 10:11pm on 26 Oct 2009 Armagediontimes and #297..

Both John Hopkins and the Lancet Reports were made at the height of the destruction.

I can only tell you that it would be a useful exercise if you looked again at these 2 distinguished centres' follow-up reports: You see both have retracted their original 'untested' figures and the revised numbers, though still truly tragic, may make you reconsider.

Of course, I don't expect you to change your 'holocaust' irritation with the facts as that would involve you in a volte face of which all your Comments so far suggest you are incapable.
Why them and not us? 10:05pm on 26 Oct 2009 DistantTraveller and #298.

Yes, it is amazing how far the BBC has come or should that be fallen from its pinnacle of Journalistic integrity and veracity.

When we recall that the Report on rumoured 'anti-semitic' attitudes among BBC staff has been kept under lock and key it adds to the speculation as to motive for turning such a blatant blind-eye so often to one individual's na(z)ty proclivities.

That said, I have to agree with you that censoring such vileness is a difficult decision - - but, I would liken it to consideration of content that supports/proposes 'child pornography' as a reasonable thing - - you may let the odd Comment through in order to facilitate debate, but, in excess of 50 from 1 person and you have to wonder aloud if there isn't something rather unpleasant affecting Moderation under House Rules!?

No doubt the excuse/umbrella reason BBC would give is that used for the recent appearance by the BNP leader "..all-inclusive," however, as the BBC constantly does knock-back access for all sorts of Individuals with their axes to grind it is a little less than convincing argument. Of course BBC could hide behind the European Poll results with the QT show, except, BBC by its Charter has to do no such thing and regularly ignores Public Opinion.

How else could BBC not devote an entire QT to any of the following: A referendum on the EU/Lisbon Treaty, or, Immigration policy, or use of CCTV/ID Cards? Afterall, entirely legitimate surveys such as MORI, Gallup etc. have time and again reported numbers of Britons interested in these matters far in excess of the votes given for an extreme right-wing group in 1 particular Election.
No, I am afraid, in the case of this type of repeated publishing of dangerously racist ideas I do have to suggest there is the possibility of an ulterior motive that goes way beyond Political Correctness ruling the BBC corridors.

It will be interesting to see if this particular Comment gets to see the light!?
Why them and not us? 9:44pm on 26 Oct 2009 BobRocket and #301.

No, Wiki's entry is precisely the sort of unfounded and patently unrealistic 'numbers' based on supposition rather than fact. Just because someone wrote it was 500,000 death doesn't make it so: Nothing like that number has been reported by Iraq hospitals and morgues and even in the midst of all the carnage that amount of deaths would have created a 'body-count' beyond any coping infra-structure Iraq had then or now.

Look at the web-pages and check the actual Data.

The 100,000+ deaths is far too many, but, a good deal better than the 1 million.

E.g. If you listen to the western 'news' it regularly reports Coalition Forces Deaths as approaching 9,000 when the actual total is a tragic less than 5,000: Even the sophisticated Armed Forces' services with all their infrastructure specific to recording death and casualty numbers gets fed misiniformation.
Why them and not us? 9:30pm on 26 Oct 2009 No, unfortunately for you, not stupid at all!

Which is why you find your quacker is all quacked-out!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

ikamaskeip