“The trouble with monarchy, however, is that, by definition, no one can stop the Prince from becoming King Charles III, because the British are not allowed to vote for their head of state. Charles Windsor constantly interferes in politics and promotes every variety of reactionary superstition and new-age quackery. He sounded like the leader of a messianic cult when he announced in a recent book, “I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to … indicate possible ways we can heal the world.” Yet whatever his personal failings, he will be King because he was born to the right mother.”
Monthly Archives: April 2011
@peterhain Loads of TV coverage of Cameron and Clegg at wedding but none of Ed. BBC airbrushing Labour like the Palace?
Yes, you read that correct. Peter Hain, and the Labour party, expect the BBC to focus on Ed Miliband during the Royal Wedding. Politicising a public event is never a good idea Peter – public hates it.
Another example of their arrogance was Ed Miliband informing his followers that he was walking to the Abbey; in order to meet the crowds. I’m sure Her Majesty will not enjoy the Leader of Her Loyal Opposition trying to use the wedding of her grandson as a method to attract votes.
Yesterday, the President of the United States had to make an announcement to declare he was an official resident of the Union and born in the country. Yes, a President had to yield to the odious anixety of a minority, who are covertly concerned about the racial diversity of America; or as Christopher Hitchens described it, the decline of ‘White America’
The United States is fighting two wars; $14 trillion in debt, $1 trillion+ deficit, decline in living standards and an accumulating poverty rate. Yet the head of government had to put aside these fiscal and social issues to address his origin of birth.
Utterly pathetic and a tragic day for American politics.
Opposition MP’s, and officials, deserve credit when he or she takes a principle stand. Chris Bryant is one of them. This controversial Labour politician has spoken out on Libya and effectively admitted to the correct action needed;
We’re coming to a fork in the road. We either get rid of him and we should get rid of him – or we should get out of there.
Mr Bryant is a proud supporter of liberal interventionism, from my own understanding, and has never once apologised for his support for the Iraq liberation. And rightly so. It takes great courage to stand passionately in favour of liberal interventionism and the criticism that succumbs you. It is a rather contentious moral position to pursue, but it is a doctrine well worth admiring.
The Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of arming Libyan rebels as a method to destabilise the Gaddafi regime – the dictator lost support of all tribal leaders today, too. But yet, the tyrant remains.
I feel the rebels do have sufficient means to overthrow the regime; with Gaddafi losing alliances with his traditional supporters of the tribes, it is only a matter of time before he stands down. However, Britain should provide the catalyst for his demise. Effective military support to the insurgents will be required and, most notably, the arms to provide such outcome.
NATO should seriously considering supplying weaponry to the Libyan rebels. And quickly.
Before he received the office of First Lord of the Treasury, a humble Lord Palmerston defended his actions, as Foreign Secretary, and assistance for revolutions across Europe in the 1840s.
When Disraeli, and others, engaged in several long nights in the Commons to impeach Palmerston’s foreign policy; he eloquently responded;
“I hold that the real policy of England… is to be the champion of justice and right, pursuing that course with moderation and prudence, not becoming the Quixote of the world, but giving the weight of her moral sanction and support wherever she thinks that justice is, and whenever she thinks that wrong has been done.“
Benghazi might have been salvaged from the merciless hands of Gadaffi, but Misrata is still suffering a daily slaughter. Libya is in a tedious and brutal stalemate with the rebel army showing it lacks the strength to liberate Tripoli – without NATO providing additional support.
NATO has continued air-strikes around the country; most notably a devastating strike on Gadaffi’s compound last night, which has led to the questioning of a possible targeted assassination policy from coalition forces. A policy which is effectively illegal under international, or a very controversial area.
Britain, French and Italy have sent military equipment and ‘military advisors’ (read special forces) to provide some level of coherence and validity to the rebel command structure. And the United States have authorised the use of predator drone operations to provide more logistical and military support to ground operations. In other words, we’ve moved away from the UN mandate of a conventional ‘no-fly zone’ enforcement role.
President Obama has great ambivalence on liberal interventionism after his candidacy for the US Senate 2004 was entirely built on the moral equivalence of the Bush administration foreign policy and historical events. The President risks becoming the very embodiment of the symbol he argued against, and he knows it. Throughout his presidency, his conduct of foreign affairs have been rather timid and suffered from a great reluctance to do ANYTHING. The man is haunted by his own fears.
To suggest Obama is behind the curve on the Arab Awakening is an understatement, the European Union – surprisingly – have been more alert to cries of their Arab brethren than tone deaf Washington. Europe, privately, are aware of the possibility of ground operations being required to combat a humanitarian crisis and possible human migration into southern European countries. Diplomats are constructing a legitimate reason to seek UN authorisation and to persuade the Chinese and Russians not to veto such deployment.
And Washington is still claiming the rebels require no real significant means to become victorious. The State Department honestly thinks a small rebel outfit could overthrow the Gaddafi regime without UN assistance. They [rebels] simply cannot and this is the daunting reality now facing NATO.
Either we withdraw to a traditional ‘no fly zone’ operation or NATO declares war on Gaddafi; these are the only two options left to NATO – it has promised not to abandon the Libyan people. There is no such thing as a ‘step up’ war. And it is clear we are already, in all but name, at war with Libya