We agree on one thing at least ;o)

I also agree we’re at the circles stage here so just two points.

1. Just War is the accepted terminology dating back from Christian medieval theology and not mine. But given that neither you nor I are pacifists we both think *some* wars are justified.

2. I am a Labour man (as is my family) and there is no question of me ever voting Tory.

Just a few quick points as we are beginning to go in circles, every war that which has ever been fought has been regarded by its perpetrators as a just war, going back centuries and including Hitlers murderous attacks on Germanys European neighbours, and the raping and pillaging the British empire went in for, so please, no more talk of a just war.

I would also add the type of campaigns you support are probably the best example of the massive failings of US and UK politicians, not least because there were often viable alternatives to war.

Your ignorant assertions about what motivates Irish Republicans, shows you are totally unwilling to place yourselves in another man’s shoes, whose tiny country suffered 800 years plus of often violent and humiliating occupation. You prefer to see Ireland through English eyes, I find this sad as you are clearly an intelligent fellow.

Your quote about the victims of the British empire reminded me of Hitler when he said, “Who remembers the Armenians?” or the butcher Stalin, “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Of course the Hitlerite holocaust was on an industrial scale and the Germans post war chancellor Konrad Adenauer* and the SPD opposition were quite correct to make a break with the past, my point was the British have never done this as far as the Empire was concerned thus they have never dealt with its victims, nor more importantly made any attempt to understand how they and their heirs feel. Thus you had UK politicians of both Parties believing the Iraqi’s would line the streets and cheer the arrival of British troops.

Life is just not like that, and if there had been a clean break with the Empire years the English may have been more able to understand this. It was also important to make a clean break with the empire and draw a line of understanding under it, not least because ‘thankfully’ England has not been occupied in a thousand years, thus there is no cultural memory of what it might be like to have experienced other peoples solders boots on English streets. Which is yet another reason why the English often lack empathy with those who suffer the yoke of occupation and appear bemused when people oppose there presence with arms in hand.

Finally on Palestine you make my point for me, yet you draw all the wrong conclusions. You say even though many Palestinian refugees have parents and grand parents who lived in occupied Palestine and what is now Israel, this does not give them the right of return. The basic requirement for citizenship in most EU nations, Ireland included, is to have a grandparent who is Irish. Surly if you consider the UK the hight of liberal democracy why do you set the bar higher for Palestinians but not Isrealis.

For you show double standards here, as by your silence you clearly support the right of Jews to return to that land, despite the last time many of there forbears set foot on it was hundreds if not a thousand or so years ago.

You say you’re a social democrat and good for you if this is true, whilst I am to the left of SD, it has a noble political tradition, but I have to say Blairism, with it military interventions and continuos use of the law to solve societal problems, has in my view bastardised that fine tradition and I am certain, if the Tories win the next UK election, many of these people will move to their true home which is on the political right, indeed this is already happening with many of Blue Labours camp followers. I sincerely hope you do not follow them.

Best regards

Mick

I’m not blaming you for the famine, but it happened, and the English have never come to terms with the shabby, mean spirited and heartless way there’re government and military treated their neighbours in their hour of need.

That you fail to address this issue, is the main reason why all my criticism is a totally mystery to you and your only answer is cold war crap about lefties, pacifist and the like.

You will may feel I am diverting this thread, but your take on this explains why you feel your governments still have the right to interfere overseas in other peoples lands and why you have no real understanding of why when they do, those you oppress oppose you arms in hand. As far as your victims are concerned, they see through all your nonsense about liberal or democratic intervention, or what ever dogooder terminology is the latest fad to come out of a big business funded think tank.”

You have accepted that you would support military interventions in certain circumstances so you agree with me that democratic states and possibly others ”
still have the right to interfere overseas in other peoples lands”.

The famine is totally irrelevant to the issue we were discussing and your attempt to say that because I happen to be born in a state which previously had failed to do all it could to assist those starving somehow precluded from making comments was gross whataboutery and man playing on the basis of my nationality. I think the English and British, at least those on the left, admit and accept the many wrongs of the British state against Ireland and the Irish, including but not limited to the Famine. That said it was no deliberate policy of murder or starvation on a par with Hitler, Stalin or Mao. The British state also commit grave crimes further afield in the empire (which Scots, Irish and Welsh people were involved in together with the evil English) and indeed against the British working class.

“Unlike the Germans who have done all in their power to make amends to those who were murdered and abused during the Nazi period and in the process they have created a first class democracy which has no need of WMD to make it feel important on the world stage. The English State clings to the past and refuses to come clean about the full horrors of the British empire and still teaches its children to honour people who were oppressing others whilst stealing their lands and possessions.”

The Nazi crimes were unique and of a different scope and order to any of the crimes of the British empire (or the US empire or the many other European empires) and called for a de-Nazification and full break with the past far.

I went to a school maintained by the English State (sic) and as a child and young adult was taught in my History classes about British imperialism in India and Ireland, in a way which was very critical of the empire and in no way honoured those involved in its crimes. Your ignorant assuptions as to what children are taught appears to derive from a knee jerk anti British / English bigotry and chauvanism which is no better than other forms of ignorant prejudice but which is built into the DNA of much Irish Republicanism.

You remind me of those neo-con groupies who used to come on Slugger back when GW was in power, you seem oblivious to the fact that the wars you support have not brought peace to the middle east but inflamed it even more.”

Well I am a social democrat and member of the Labour Party rather than a neo-con.

“Even if the US government funded Palestinian refugees as you claim, which is news to me, it is of little importance when they also support Israel’s denial of a right of return for Palestinians who were driven from their land in 1948 and 67. The more so as the US government supports the right of Jews to live in Israel and the occupied territories, even though most have never lived within 5000 miles of that place.

For example if they wished, any Jew could gain citizenship of Israel along with a government subsidy, courtesy of US tax payers, when a Palestinian in Gaza or on the west-bank, if an Israeli officials wills it, cannot even cross the street or visit his old mum in the next village if it entails crossing a ‘border’ the UN rejects, or falls under the old chestnut Israel’s national security.”

Most of those who would want to exercise any right “return” are the children or grandchildren of those who came from what is now Israel or the occupied territories – they would not be ‘returning’ anywhere. Any such right of return would be a unique deviation from the norm for refugees, particularly those from agressor nations. The reality of war of independence is far complex that you suggest and of course huge numbers of Jews were driven from their native lands in 48 to settle in Israel and no one would suggest that they have any right to return.

“When you disagree with what I write, instead of saying why and arguing it through, you come out with cliches like “Nukes are not going to be uninvented ” and prattle on about rogue states, without giving a thought to how your own country has in the past; and still does behave at times. In my judgement invading Iraq without a UN resolution or the support of its EU partners is acting like a rogue State.”

This is a blog and I don’t always have the time to spell everything out in detail. But calls for nuclear disarmament are political wishful thinking in the extreme. They are here to stay which means that it is essential that democracies and respecters of human rights have them and that all other states are prevented from having them. Whatever the historical or other crimes of the UK and US you would presumably rather the UK have nuclear weapons that Iran?

“Plus you seem ignorant of the truth that in Iraq and Afghanistan, the UK government has not been a bulwark against the worst human impulses, they have been party to them as a recent case in London’s high court proved.”

Wars are not fun, gallant or easy, but just wars are the least worst option.

“By the way your being uneconomical with the truth when you say you were making an abstract example over nuclear weapons and dictators, etc. You were deliberately targeting Iran, at least have the courage to tell the truth.”

Irritating accusation of dishonesty here. I gave three extreme examples of scenarios in which there would be a strong case for humanitarian intervention (which you have now accepted you do not oppose on principle). I wasn’t thinking about Iran at all, I think they quite a long way from operational capability and think the realistic prospect of a nuclear strike against Israel to be relatively low.

cont…

Brit

You remind me of those neo-con groupies who used to come on Slugger back when GW was in power, you seem oblivious to the fact that the wars you support have not brought peace to the middle east but inflamed it even more.

Even if the US government funded Palestinian refugees as you claim, which is news to me, it is of little importance when they also support Israel’s denial of a right of return for Palestinians who were driven from their land in 1948 and 67. The more so as the US government supports the right of Jews to live in Israel and the occupied territories, even though most have never lived within 5000 miles of that place.

For example if they wished, any Jew could gain citizenship of Israel along with a government subsidy, courtesy of US tax payers, when a Palestinian in Gaza or on the west-bank, if an Israeli officials wills it, cannot even cross the street or visit his old mum in the next village if it entails crossing a ‘border’ the UN rejects, or falls under the old chestnut Israel’s national security.

When you disagree with what I write, instead of saying why and arguing it through, you come out with cliches like “Nukes are not going to be uninvented ” and prattle on about rogue states, without giving a thought to how your own country has in the past; and still does behave at times. In my judgement invading Iraq without a UN resolution or the support of its EU partners is acting like a rogue State.

Plus you seem ignorant of the truth that in Iraq and Afghanistan, the UK government has not been a bulwark against the worst human impulses, they have been party to them as a recent case in London’s high court proved.

By the way your being uneconomical with the truth when you say you were making an abstract example over nuclear weapons and dictators, etc. You were deliberately targeting Iran, at least have the courage to tell the truth.

As to the sound of your stamping feet, when you wrote, ‘I’m not going to get into the famine.” well that is alright then, you can call people barbarians, their nations rogue states, you can claim for yourself and nation liberal values, but you are to afraid to even concede an injustice your nation committed over a hundred plus years ago and against its nearest neighbours at that.

I’m not blaming you for the famine, but it happened, and the English have never come to terms with the shabby, mean spirited and heartless way there’re government and military treated their neighbours in their hour of need.

That you fail to address this issue, is the main reason why all my criticism is a totally mystery to you and your only answer is cold war crap about lefties, pacifist and the like.

You will may feel I am diverting this thread, but your take on this explains why you feel your governments still have the right to interfere overseas in other peoples lands and why you have no real understanding of why when they do, those you oppress oppose you arms in hand. As far as your victims are concerned, they see through all your nonsense about liberal or democratic intervention, or what ever dogooder terminology is the latest fad to come out of a big business funded think tank.
to come out of

Unlike the Germans who have done all in their power to make amends to those who were murdered and abused during the Nazi period and in the process they have created a first class democracy which has no need of WMD to make it feel important on the world stage. The English State clings to the past and refuses to come clean about the full horrors of the British empire and still teaches its children to honour people who were oppressing others whilst stealing their lands and possessions.

But in the real world there isnt a will so the perfect option is not there.

“On this, I would just add to send a former colonial power and the armorer and financier of Israel into any Muslim nation is about a dim whited and arrogant as any politician could be. Unless chaos and a bloodbath was on their agenda.”

See above. In any event the US is a huge funder of Palestinian refugees and all sorts of people so the characterisation of armorer and financier of Israel is misleading.

“5/ I find this question insulting and unworthy of a reply.”

Don’t be so sensitive. Sounds like you agree with me. So presumably you would have supported in invasion of Iraq whilst he was murdering 200,000 of this own people? Or if we had waited until the next genocide you would also have supported it but just not in between genocides?

“6/ Same with this question and coming from someone whose nation sat back and allowed millions of Irish people to starve and used its military to protect exports of food from a land suffering from famine, I wonder if you are even in a position to ask it. ”

I’m not doing to get into the Famine now but I am no more responsible for the famine than you and in every position to ask such a question.

“7/Not sure who you mean here, if it was Saddam, I have already answered this question although I have never believed he has ever been in a position to develop a nuclear capability and use it in a genocidal attack and bar Israel nor is any other nation in the middle east.”

I was giving an extreme abstract example to find out what your basic principles are here. I assume that you would agree with an intervention in the extreme case. And where does Iran fit into your anwer?

“Perhaps if the US, UK Russia and France were to set a better example when arguing to abolish and control nuclear weapons, we would all find ourselves on more solid ground. Instead countries like India, Pakistan and others see our demands as gross hypocrisy, and sadly they are correct to do so.”

Nukes are not going to be uninvented and the liberal democracies need to keep them given the risks posed by rogue states, dictatorships and islamist terrorists. I see India in a completely different light to Pakistan. In any event I’m not sure what the direct relevance of this is to the issues in hand.

“If you are against the UK having such weapons great, but if you support them, I place you in the camp of the hypocrites and bullies. All those like the UK, USA, Iran, Russia NK, Israel and the two Indian sub continent nations, etc and those why waste great sums of money trying to create a nuclear capability and all of whom cry do what we say, not what we do or what our peoples want.”

Of course I’m not against the UK having such weapons. Democratic nations who subscribe to liberal values and human rights form the bulwark against the worst human impulses and its absolutey vital for the West to retain its military power.

They didnt lie and proposing negotiation with Saddam is simply not real world politics.

“2/ Unlike you in all probability and the US and British governments I was never a cheer leader for Saddam and I actually did support those who opposed Saddam’s rule; and if I had any political power, I certainly would not have put all my eggs in one basket and only supported individuals who were willing to become CIA tools. The consequences of which became tragically obvious to all, when the USA first occupied Iraq and gave these people an element of power.”

You dont really believe I was a cheerleader for Saddaam so catch yourself on as they say round here. I read Republic of Fear before the first Gulf War so I am well aware of the nature of Saddam’s regime in graphic disturbing detail. The point was that the regime was never going to be removed without foreign intervention.

“3/ I do not believe in itself the Talaban was ever been a threat to the west, although I agree they were gravely mistaken to give refuge to Bin laden’s crackpot outfit. Having said that, if the US administration had not been in such a rush to war, using Afghanistan to up the fear level so they would be able to target Iraq. Bin laden could have been left to believe he was safe, and then US special forces/who-ever could have done the job they were set up to carry out.”

Some special forces attack could have taken out OBL (maybe) but not the whole of AQ let alone the Taliban state which protected them. Again this is dream world politics like your negotiation with Saddam suggestion.

“I also believe given the massive influence of the Saudi regime in Afghanistan back then, [due to having funded greatly the war against the Soviets, if the US had so wished they could have put pressure on their Saudi allies to get the Talaban or its allies to set up Bin Laden.”

So what the US could have sorted it all but they just loved wars so much they didnt bother??

“Instead 8 years on Bin Laden is still roaming the world free, having, with US and British help and stupidity, inflamed a large area of Pakistan.”

God knows what an unmolested AQ and Taliban have done by now.

“4/ Of course the Hitlerite Nazis were a threat to Europe’s peace long before they invaded Poland and many working class socialist (my lot as you call them) volunteered to fight Hitlers surrogates in Spain, so this part of the question is not relevant.”

So you do believe in wars which are not in self-defence (I’m sure many of your Republican friends on here would be surprised as they would argue that such wars are illegal esp. without UN support). So wars to preserve the peace of Europe are OK but not the peace of the middle east?

“What I will say about military intervention overseas is this, firstly a nation like the UK, with its history of bloody imperialism is not the best option to invade other peoples countries, what ever the reason.”

Like it or not the US is the world superpower so if you are going to have a military intervention they are going to be involved. the UKs support or non-support would not have made fundamental differences to the outcome. The problem is that many nations are willing or prepared to act so it falls to the Brits to help out.

“Having said that I can see the sense in some situations of using a short term military intervention, and I stress the words short term. However what is an impossibility is to successfully export democracy or socialism come to that, on the end of Bayonets. The Russian occupation of Eastern Europe proved this, and in case you need reminding so does Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Good we both support humanitarian intervention (though no doubt with differences as to the justificatory criteria and its application to certain facts). I never mentioned the export of democracy or socialism

2/ Unlike you in all probability and the US and British governments I was never a cheer leader for Saddam and I actually did support those who opposed Saddam’s rule; and if I had any political power, I certainly would not have put all my eggs in one basket and only supported individuals who were willing to become CIA tools. The consequences of which became tragically obvious to all, when the USA first occupied Iraq and gave these people an element of power.

3/ I do not believe in itself the Talaban was ever been a threat to the west, although I agree they were gravely mistaken to give refuge to Bin laden’s crackpot outfit. Having said that, if the US administration had not been in such a rush to war, using Afghanistan to up the fear level so they would be able to target Iraq. Bin laden could have been left to believe he was safe, and then US special forces/who-ever could have done the job they were set up to carry out.

I also believe given the massive influence of the Saudi regime in Afghanistan back then, [due to having funded greatly the war against the Soviets, if the US had so wished they could have put pressure on their Saudi allies to get the Talaban or its allies to set up Bin Laden.

Instead 8 years on Bin Laden is still roaming the world free, having, with US and British help and stupidity, inflamed a large area of Pakistan.

4/ Of course the Hitlerite Nazis were a threat to Europe’s peace long before they invaded Poland and many working class socialist (my lot as you call them) volunteered to fight Hitlers surrogates in Spain, so this part of the question is not relevant.

What I will say about military intervention overseas is this, firstly a nation like the UK, with its history of bloody imperialism is not the best option to invade other peoples countries, what ever the reason.

Having said that I can see the sense in some situations of using a short term military intervention, and I stress the words short term. However what is an impossibility is to successfully export democracy or socialism come to that, on the end of Bayonets. The Russian occupation of Eastern Europe proved this, and in case you need reminding so does Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the way if there was the will, it would still be possible to replace the NATO front line troops in Afghanistan with a UN peace keeping force made up of solders from nations in which Islam is the main religion. If this was suggested I would need to consider a fresh all the options available.

On this, I would just add to send a former colonial power and the armorer and financier of Israel into any Muslim nation is about a dim whited and arrogant as any politician could be. Unless chaos and a bloodbath was on their agenda.

As to Sierra Leonne I know very little about that situation and thus am unable to comment on it.

5/ I find this question insulting and unworthy of a reply.

6/ Same with this question and coming from someone whose nation sat back and allowed millions of Irish people to starve and used its military to protect exports of food from a land suffering from famine, I wonder if you are even in a position to ask it.

7/Not sure who you mean here, if it was Saddam, I have already answered this question although I have never believed he has ever been in a position to develop a nuclear capability and use it in a genocidal attack and bar Israel nor is any other nation in the middle east.

Perhaps if the US, UK Russia and France were to set a better example when arguing to abolish and control nuclear weapons, we would all find ourselves on more solid ground. Instead countries like India, Pakistan and others see our demands as gross hypocrisy, and sadly they are correct to do so.

If you are against the UK having such weapons great, but if you support them, I place you in the camp of the hypocrites and bullies. All those like the UK, USA, Iran, Russia NK, Israel and the two Indian sub continent nations, etc and those why waste great sums of money trying to create a nuclear capability and all of whom cry do what we say, not what we do or what our peoples want.

Its not an attempt to wind you up but to get you off your morally “pure” high horse of condemning others without actually setting out your position.

In my view the case for military inverventions in the kinds of cases identified in points 5. to 7. of my post above is unanswerable. If you agree then our dispute is a much more limited one about the relevant tests and thresholds and the broader platitudes against war, invasion, occupation and imperialism (sic) and interference become unsustainable.

If you dont agree that your position is in my view morally unsustainable.

Brit

As soon as I read the above line, I new it was from you, as once again you have deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote, in your childlike wish to wind me up. What I actually wrote was “imperialist ‘type’ [mh] military interventions” which is something completely different, although it for the locals the differences matter little as the military still engage in a low density warfare strategy. Which in a country like Afghanistan quickly turns a large section of the population against the foreign armies.

It matters not a jot to many Afghan locals what reason lays behind Nato being in Afghanistan, as the Soviets learnt to their cost, it is they’re very presence which pisses them off and makes them join the Talaban.

Leaving aside your inappropriate use of the term ‘imperialist’ (which you no doubt chuck in without understanding what it means) where do you stand? Its very easy to criticise actual policies and actions from the sidelines because actual policies go wrong and are subject to Sods law.

1. How would you have dealt with Saddam’s Iraq and non-cooperation with weapons inspectors?

2. How would you have (if at all) aided those elements in Iraq which wanted to overthrow the Ba’ath regime?

3. How would you have had the US and its allies respond to 9/11 and what would you have done to respond to the threat of the Taliban regime and the AQ friendly parasites?

4. Do you consider any military action not undertaken in immediate and direct self-defence to be wrong? If so please confirm that you thought the British participation in WW2 was wrong as well as the Nato action in Kosovo and the British invervention in Sierra Leonne.

5. Please confirm that you would rather allow a genocide of millions to take place rather than support a military intervention which was the only way to end it.

6. Please confirm that you would rather allow a mass famine and death by starvation of millions in a failed/gangster state that support a military intervention to depose the regime if that was the only way to feed the people.

7. Please confirm you would rather allow a dictator who was known to be about to develop nuclear capability and use it in a genocidal attack to start a nuclear holocaust then intervene to prevent it happening?

‘As things go from bad to worse, with Karsi, who was to be Nato’s rabbit out of the hat, mired in corruption and an electoral fix. The Afghan police exposed as totally unreliable, with Karsi’s army not far behind; and a US army officer murdering GI’s due to his opposition to the Afghan/Iraq war. ‘

Good post and that’s about the sum of it . The ‘slaughter’ in Texas may also have other repercussions within US army ranks in the field and in US society . The mood of American voters re the Afghan war is as negative as that of British voters . As President Obama is still ‘deciding ‘ the proper ‘strategy’ to follow and this 8 years after the US invasion one wonders if he’s finally listening to what his gut instinct should be telling him . In an economy with 17 -20% real unemployment , a dollar in decline and mid term elections next year – I think we all know how this one will end . We’re into face saving time and putting a gloss on what has been probably the most inept military sally into another country since the charge of the light brigade .

Have the British soldiers ‘died’ for nothing in Afghanistan .

Yes . But not for the first or the last time in Britain’s long history of foreign wars or colonial misadventures . The very worst being WW1.

But then your British soldier just follows the orders of his generals like soldiers everywhere (well perhaps not everywhere ) .The general follow the policies handed down by their political superiors and hope that the ‘politicians ‘ have made the right decision .

As we know from history – the latter ‘make ‘ mistakes sometimes ‘deliberately’ and sometimes through ‘stupidity ‘ and sometimes through both as we see in afghanistan .

Very strongly made point that, thanks. For me it highlights no good ever comes from these imperialist type military interventions. I realise my tone on this subject may seem a bit harsh to some, but I passionately believe if we civilians do not speak out and oppose our military being sent to Afghanistan, then there will be no one speaking up for the squadies bar the cheer leaders for war, let alone the Afghan people who bare the brunt of western military intervention.

I have just read a review in the Daily Telegraph about a new biog of the late Harry Patch and this old soldiers take on war; especially WW1 which he regarded as a totally obscene and unnecessary slaughter, and I have no doubt many of today’s NATO troops feel much the same about Afghanistan.

To my mind the best way of supporting the young men and women who are currently serving in Afghanistan, is to demand the UK government brings them home.

“Could it be that there simply are more poppies around due to increased opium output there?“

It is my understanding that all the crops in Afghanistan are processed there, but maybe the Karzai clan might also be acting as florists.

It is clear that anyone who is serious about fighting the good fight when it comes to the War on Terror should be encouraging more young people to show their solidarity with the troops by shooting up the sweet smack produced in Afghanistan.

Remember kiddies, ask Santa for smack this Christmas or the terrorists win.

Could it be that there simply are more poppies around due to increased opium output there?

1. Tolstoy on occasions of state sponsored remeberance:

“that is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason and conscience.”

2. Me on charity emblem buying :

“Today I bought a pink ribbon, for the admirable cause of breast cancer research. I pinned it on my shirt. Tomorrow I will wear wear a new shirt; I will not seek out the breast cancer research people, for I have made my donation and purchased my emblem. I choose not to wear my emblem for 5% of the calendar year. I wonder if in thirty years time others will wear their emblem so proudly for what their forebears did in the Mau Mau campaign; if they will stand by the cenotaph with the remnants of the veterans and remember the victories :
[BBC,2002]
“Kenyan Mau Mau veterans’ groups are cataloguing a potentially damaging dossier on alleged human rights abuses in the 1950s.

This could lead to a huge legal action for compensation against the UK Government. BBC Two’s Correspondent programme reveals some of the new evidence that lies behind the veterans’ claims.

Suspects being checked for the mark of the Mau Mau
Suspects would be checked for the mark of the Mau Mau
The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in the 1950s was a murky part of the British military’s past.

The ruthless, clandestine Mau Mau movement found its roots in the Kenyan Kikuyu tribe.

Their aim was to win back their land and personal freedoms denied them by the British colonial power at the time.

Lawyers, working with Kenyan Mau Mau veterans’ groups, have taken over 6,000 depositions alleging numerous major human rights abuses, including rape, torture, indiscriminate killing and theft of property.

Mwangi Kanyari
Mwangi Kanyari reflects the thousands now looking for justice
Mwangi Kanyari is one of the Mau Mau veterans – he feels bitterly aggrieved.

He gave six years of loyal service in the Kings African Rifles and was wounded in action.

After retiring from the regiment in 1946, he was left with nothing. It was then he joined the Mau Mau.

New evidence has been unearthed alleging British atrocities, on such a scale that it will require the rewriting of British imperial history.

Professor Caroline Elkins
Prof Caroline Elkins – the figure of 50,000 deaths is a conservative estimate
Professor Caroline Elkins of Harvard University has been investigating the claims.

She says that in excess of 50,000 people could have been killed by British security forces. A significantly higher figure than was previously admitted.

Human rights abused

The Correspondent programme reports a number of human rights abuses:

* Horrific tortures and murders committed by white officials and local soldiers under their command
* Castration and blinding for defying captors
* Fatal whipping
* Rape by British soldiers

There were also tales of daily killings at a British-run slave labour camp called Embakasi.

It was here that Mau Mau convicts were made to build the foundations for what is now Kenya’s main airport.

These stories are typical of a widespread and systematic attack by British forces against the Kikuyu people who were sympathetic to the Mau Mau campaign.”

And what is this about the IRA’s “Northern Irish” campaign? If you mean the Occupied Six counties, you should say so. This assumes the IRA activities in Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal and the belly of the beast (the mainland you would call it) are of no consequence.

Of course none of these jingoistic rags will analyse just why there are so many dead squadies being repatriated, as both the main UK parties are behind these newspapers campaigns full stop, and there is not a cigarette paper between them as far as support for this hopeless and criminal war is concerned.

As things go from bad to worse, with Karsi, who was to be Nato’s rabbet out of the hat, mired in corruption and an electoral fix. The Afghan police exposed as totally unreliable, with Karsi’s army not far behind; and a US army officer murdering GI’s due to his opposition to the Afghan/Iraq war.

Two weeks ago in London I marched through the cities streets demanding troops out of Afghanistan with serving British army solders alongside me, something I have never in my lifetime experienced before. More to the point, one of them reported on returning to his base the following week, he received a round of applause from his comrades, not as he had expected looks of withering contempt.

The more this wicked and futile war is proved to be a charade the more jingoistic the media, Blue Labour and the Tories become. Perhaps Mick, instead of making judgments on surface impressions as to how many poppies are worn in London, you would do better to ask those waring them and their fellow countrymen what they really think about this war? For UK opinion polls do not support the implication you are clearly attempting to make. As Joe C made clear on another thread, people wear the red poppy for a host of differing and often complex personal reasons.

Or have you to joined this obscene jingoistic media stampede which applauds the deaths of other peoples sons and daughters and does not give a thought to the wishes of the majority of the Afghan people.

Just a final point on this, the US and British government openly admitted Karsi’s election as President could not stand, as it was fraudulent and there would have to be an election rerun. When Karsi’s opponent refused to play ball, due to the lack of checks and balances if a second round was held, instead of dissolving the government and placing into power a temporary administration made up of a cross section of Afghan society, including the Talaban, until fresh elections could be held in the spring.

Our gallant politicians, Obama, Brown and Cameron, etc,etc, shrugged their shoulders and said problem solved. They then picked up the phone and said, President Karsi, good luck for your second term in office.

Could more contempt possibly be shown towards the Afghan people than this. I cannot see how.

Shame on all who support the sending of young squadies to die in support of an incompetent, reactionary crook who brought power with our tax dollars and pounds and maintains the support of our politicians for no better reason than, like the Soviets before them, they are unprepared to think outside the box and take the only logical decision.

Until they do we all have blood on our hands and make no mistake in time Nato will withdraw from Afghanistan in much the same way as the Soviets did. But by then, the Sun, Mirror and the rest of these rags will no longer have use for dead squadies.