Sunday, 31 January 2010

how much longer

will a small group of Guardian-minded individuals insist that theirs is the only possible truth, contrary to all the evidence? On Iraq of course. I recommend this post on Harry's Place, and I also ask readers to think outside their dinner-party Yasmin Alibhai-Brown emotional irrational tosspot arguments and to wonder why they, and their Guardian-reading dinner-party companions, do not wax similarly foam-flecked spittle about the intervention in Kosovo? About which there is no dispute, unlike in respect of the Iraq intervention, that it was illegal under international law? Because they agreed with it? And if so what does that mean for their "Bliar" crap that I am getting bored with deleting from the comments every time I post on this subject?

Oh but silly old us. A Prime Minister who actually knew what he believed in and wanted to do something about it had to be got rid of, and we are left with a dysfunctional ditherer, who has left only David Cameron's failure to convince the public standing between the British people and a Tory landslide. A hung parliament is what is most likely. Thanks Gordon. Thanks Guardian. Don't come crying to me when it's all done.

Oh and diligent readers will know that I almost never make predictions about elections or other contests, despite those on the comments who try to pretend that I do, but I have made one today.

In the name of God, go.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

How much longer will a small group of Griffiths-minded individuals insist that theirs is the only possible truth, contrary to all the evidence? There wasn't any evidence to support the war and that is why opponents of the war are so angry.

jane said...

so the screaming mob outside the inquiry have been silenced have they? Sorry son but Saddam Hussein is dead and no matter what you say you cannot bring him back to carry on being your favourite dictator and Jacques Chirac's best business partner

Anonymous said...

Are you in favour of the death penalty in general, Jane, or only for selected people?

jane said...

not at all

Anonymous said...

So you were opposed to the hanging of Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali?

Anonymous said...

Did you really write "Thanks Gordon. Thanks Guardian. Don't come crying to me when it's all done." I know you have an almighty exaggeration of your own importance but do you really think it's likely that they would.

Jonny said...

I read the Guardian and I agree with you on Iraq. I look forward to Yasmin Alibhai's column because it gives me something to splutter at in the morning. I can't get Le Monde or Liberation in the Glenholt Post Office. I'd like to read Hurriyet, but they only translate into English online, and don't have a very good crossword.
Nice to see the president of Iraq thanking the British for their intervention on Saturday.

Anonymous said...

Why has everyone conveniently forgotten the horrors that were occurring under Saddam's rule?
There will no doubt be an inquiry soon to determine whether D-Day was legal or not.
L9

Mr London Street said...

I think the difference - and I'm not a party political animal and I loathe the Guardian - is about the honesty. Kosovo was billed as nothing but a humanitarian intervention and enjoyed widescale support. But the reasons for action in Iraq changed consistently throughout. What does that tell you? Why didn't Blair just claim it was on humanitarian grounds, or just be honest and say it was regime change pure and simple? I suspect because he knew there would be no public support for that, and there wasn't.

jane said...

anon 0950 yes I was opposed to the hangings as I oppose the death penalty everywhere

jane said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jane said...

anon 1111 has your irony meter gone sproing?

jane said...

Mr London Street in fact there was plenty of public support for regime change pure and simple, I heard it on the doorsteps every weekend, it is just that people with those views do not read the Guardian, nor are they given a platform in the public media. Nobody should confuse the views they hear from their friends (they are similar to yours, that is why those people are your friends) with the views of the country as a whole. Why do you think the Labour Government was re-elected in 2005 if everyone was so angry and disgusted? No Labour MP in Reading East since then of course.

Mr London Street said...

This is a bit specious - I'm sure that Iraq wasn't by any means the sole issue in the election but the fact that the main opposition party was also in favour of the conflict would have drawn the sting somewhat. The Labour vote did decline though - what do you put that down to? This was of course before the credit crunch.

I think there was nowhere near as much support e.g. for removing Saddam as there was for doing something about Zimbabwe. And I assume your conviction for following the wishes of the country as a whole stops - as it rightly should - short of campaigning for reinstating the death penalty? The will of the people argument can be a convenient expedient, I suppose, when it suits your agenda.

Just to stress again that I'm not a Guardianista and I despise Alibhai-Brown and her clique. But you didn't respond on my point - if there was ample grounds for action based on regime change, and everybody was so supportive, why all the fluff about WMD?

jane said...

Mr London Street, of course Iraq was not the sole issue in the 2005 election, which is rather a long time ago now, the top issue was somewhere between dog poo and Reading Buses I recall, and you are probably right that there was more support for invading Zimbabwe (which I profoundly wish had been done) to remove Mugabe - views on Iraq seemed about evenly divided to me, though only about one in ten ever mentioned it on the doorstep - I certainly would not say that "everyone" supported regime change in Iraq, only that some people did. The words about WMD were not fluff, they were serious. The weapons were or are in Syria as any fule kno.

Anonymous said...

Certainly this Iraq inquiry will not satisfy the noisy people.

Anonymous said...

Top national issues were dog poo and collection of refuse bins - ie, the slashing of collection from weekly to fortnightly.

Some of us informed The Groiniad about this during the campaign proper, when telephoned and asked for 'top issues on doorstep'. Said Groiniad refused to print answer.

So - shock horror - The Daily Mail comes to the rescue and runs with refuse collection as a Mail campaign later on.
Guardian missed out again....