21 February 2007
The time has come to supend the blog once again. I did it last year for a month, but this time looks as if it could be rather more permanent. I will be leaving Mexico in a few days and heading off to England. The plan is to job hunt, see family and friends, and try to take stock of my life.
If I decide to stay in England, then another blog may, or may not, get started. If I return to Mexico I will almost certainly start this one up again.
16 February 2007
George Galloway makes the warwankers look stupid yet again.
The warwanking fraternity just love attacking George Galloway, the Respect MP. How their hearts must have beaten just that little bit faster when The Guardian reported that the Serious Fraud Office had recomended that a prosecution be brought against him over his alleged dealings in Iraqi oil.
There is only one problem with the story: it's a complete fabrication.
If any warwanker is reading this, I have a question. What's it like being a loser, time after time?
Stand to attention!
This very tasty bit of talent was a sergeant in the American Air Force until she posed for Playboy magazine. Now she is an ex-sergeant, but hopefully a lot richer.
The Exile notes the way that her snatch is neatly trimmed and wonders if that is the regulation style?
Yes, I know, you want to see more of her, don't you? Here you go. . .
15 February 2007
Warmongers still spread the "genocide" myth about Milosovic
Neil Clark has had an idea: every time a warmonger accuses the late President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic, of being responsible for genocide, Neil drops them a line and asks them to point out where this genocide actually happened. That the Balkan Wars were brutal, and carried plenty of atrocities in their wake is not the matter under discussion. Genocide is a different thing, so when did it occur? So far none of them have had the bottle to answer his simple question.
Why does he bother? Probably because these clowns keep trotting out the same line time and time again. It was the excuse for the war against Yugoslavia in 1999, and it turned out to be just as much of a fantasy as Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The people who argue that Milosovic was guilty of genocide tend to be the same types who argued for war against Iraq, and who will probably go on to support whatever aggression the USA decides to mount against Iran. That is, if they are not too busy screaming for war against Sudan.
Young Ollie Kamm has decided to weigh in to this debate, by arguing that Milosovic had legal control over the forces that committed the Srebrenica Massacre. The problem here is that nobody is arguing that massacres did not take place: they did and all sides carried them out. What Neil is saying is that genocide did not take place; that is the matter under debate and evidence of a massacre is not the same as evidence of genocide.
By plowing his lonely furrow, Neil reminds them that not everyone is gullible enough to swallow the warmongers' nonsense.
13 February 2007
Washington eyes an attack on Iran.
The last few years has seen tension between Washington and Tehran ratcheted up time and again. Now the Americans have taken a further long stride towards war with Iran by producing a seriously dodgy document which alleges that Iran is aiding the Iraqi resistance. The Independent makes the obvious point that if true, this would put the final nail in the coffin of the tales that Blair was spreading around four long years ago; namely that Iraq had the indigenous capability to produce sophisticated weaponry. Washington now claims that they cannot even produce a bomb to blow up American vehicles with and must import them from Iran! Patrick Cockburn and Juan Cole have both weighed in against the report, as has Antiwar.com.
None of these criticisms will have any effect if the USA is seriously bent on starting another war. The question is are they?
It is possible that Washington is playing a highly dangerous game of blame the Iranians for domestic political reasons. Iraq has become a disaster and the next presidential elections are now less than two years away. It is possible that the Americans simply want to blame Iran for the mess, and thus to divert attention from the Chimp's, and the Chimp's party's, failings.
However, it is just as likely that we are now in the run-up to another war - and the problem is that nobody seems to know just how the Iranians will respond. It is obvious that the Americans cannot launch a ground attack against Iran, for the simple reason that they do not have enough troops. Thus the only option is a series of rolling air attacks on Iran's facilities. Everything that comes out of washington seems to be suggesting that the American plan relies on the Iranians doing what Washington wants. That in itself is a dangerous aspect of this wheeze: we will do this, and the other side will do that - so what if they don't?
We don't know just how sophisticated the Iranian military is. It might be pretty shoddy, lacking spare parts and poorly trained. On the other hand the country does seem to have been preparing for war for at least two years, and what their tactics will be is is anyone's guess.
When Israel attacked Lebanon's Hizbullah last year, they were sent packing by that militia: a militia that is armed and trained by Iran, but that does not give us much grounds for speculation as to how Iran will behave if America attacks her for the simple reason that a ground attack is out of the question.
The most logical answer is that Iran will make life hell for the USA in Iraq, but even that is unclear. Iran has submarines and could use them against the American fleet. She could block the Straights of Hormuz and choke off Europe's oil supply. She might even have sleeper units sitting in American cities waiting for the order to do something or other. Nobody seems to know. . .
It is this uncertainty that makes the situation so tense, and the future so troubling. When Germany attacked Poland in 1939, she had a fairly clear idea of how the Poles would fight back. Nobody in Washington can say the same thing today.
12 February 2007
|Those who enjoy watching the wankblogs squirm will love the tale that follows. Neil Clark felt obliged to take young Ollie Kamm to court over some remarks that the latter had made. The case was thrown out on a technicality which led to a bout of crowing on Ollie's part, and a claim that he would never, ever, resort to the law to settle a blog dispute.|
However, Neil has discovered that he has actually done this on at least two occasions. To cover up for his bout of forgetfulness, Ollie has been posting like buggery all weekend, probably in the hope that we will give him a break. Sorry, Ollie, but it goes against our basic principles to give a sucker a break. Score one for Neil Clark, the Exile reckons.
Staying on the theme of bloggers and the law, Guido has threatened legal action over a claim that he tried to ally the Federation of Conservative Students with the British National Party, over 20 years ago.
The problem that Ollie and Guido have is really summed up by these two stories. Resorting to law is just a mistake in principle, especially if you want to present yourself as a champion of free speech, or as a gadfly hitting the political establishment, as Ollie and Guido respectively like to do.
07 February 2007
Laugh along at Ollie Kamm
The Hitchenswatch blog is dedicated to, well, watching C. Hitchens. Young Ollie Kamm is a Hitchens' groupie, so it is natural that he rises to his hero's defence whenever he sees a chance. Unfortunately, he tends to bollocks things up, as this exchange shows. . .
Hitchens had written about "deracinated young Muslim men," which led Sonic, his watcher, to comment that such sentiments are best "expressed in the original German". Along pops Ollie to make the idiotic point that deracinated has French roots!
Do you think that someone should explain sarcasm to this warmonger? It is the same sarcasm that the late Molly Ivin used when she wrote that a Pat Buchanan speech "sounded better in the original German".
Another fine mess, Ollie, another fine mess.
War with Iran: one possible outcome
As various types scream for a war against Iran, this writer has imagined what the first day could be like.
In the real world, only one thing is clear: just about all military plans fall apart as soon as the armies close.
05 February 2007
Americans may be losing the air war over Iraq
It's official, folks: the four American helicopters that crashed over Iraq in the past two weeks were brought down by Iraqi fire.
We still don't know if the Iraqis have managed to deploy a new anti-aircraft missile, or if they are just getting better with what they already have, but four downed helicopters in two weeks is a good score by guerrilla warfare standards.
Only time will tell if the Americans are losing their air superiority over Iraq. If they are then supplying their troops will become impossible, as the roads are already controlled by the Iraqi forces.
It just gets better and better, doesn't it?
02 February 2007
The Independent Working Class Association
Following on from last night's post, Duncan Money commented that a working class party of the type we advocated already exists. It is called the Independent Working Class Association, and it has four councillors in Oxford.
Looking at the party's manifesto, most of the concerns that working class people have seem to be addressed: this is obviously not a bunch of students out to change the world before going off to earn a packet in the City of London.
The Exile is a bit dubious about their idea of lowering the age of majority to 16, but one can't have everything. By and large the people behind the IWCA come over as sane, sensible and working class: they are out to answer people's real needs, and are not putting themselves forward as the workers' vanguard.