One reason to call for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan is that the war is costing the British taxpayer too much money. How much did the invasion of Iraq cost us? We are not told. Once war is declared the money needed to fight the war is ring-fenced. Generals, quite rightly, ask for the soldiers and equipment they need to “do the job.” We, the taxpayers, are never allowed to decide whether we want to blow all that money away in explosions, never allowed to say we would rather spend our money on something else.
Politicians are, by definition, ring-fenced. Our system means we have a Minister of Defence, whose remit is to extract as much money as possible from the Treasury to spend on soldiers, armaments, etc. Similarly with all the other ministers. We, as normal human beings, know we have a certain amount of cash, some of which we have to spend on food, heating, mortgage, etc, and some which we spend on various activities. If one activity costs too much, we give it up.
We might well find ourselves in the position of wanting, but not being able to afford, a New Year holiday in Barbados. But instead, we might go for a springtime cycling holiday in Cornwall. Government spending is allocated in such a way that once the decision is taken to go to Barbados, there is no procedure for changing to a Cornish cycling trip.
If the British government cut its large expenditure on war and armaments, there would be plenty of money left for cycling trip expenditure which might actually achieve more than war.
It is. however, necessary to use the cliché, and think ‘out of the box.’ Last night on BBC Question Time www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime/,Nick Griffin www.bnp.org.uk was one of the guests. Hedged around with shifts of language, we nevertheless gather that the British National Party wishes to drive non-white people out of Britain.
We all know that Europe is being infiltrated in vast numbers by immigrants from Asia and Africa; why? Because their own countries offer them little hope of improving their lives.
Do we approve of immigration? And if so, how much? Well, we can, and should, discuss that. But surely everyone must approve of abolishing poverty in Third World countries.
One reason why life in Third World countries is getting worse and worse rapidly is because the population is rising. Now it is no use us telling an African family to have fewer children. With no welfare, no pensions, etc, the African couple will have six, seven, eight, children in order that some of the children will survive to look after their parents in old age.
But there is a simple solution, tried and tested.
Simple does not mean easy.
In the 1980’s the United Nations predicted world population would rise to 12 billion, which is far more than Planet Earth can support. But, mercifully, this prediction has now been revised, and the forecast is now a bit under 9 billion round 2040 (which is still far more than Planet Earth can support).
But why the revision of 3 billion less?
In 1989, the state of Kerala, in south India, was one of the poorest parts of the world. The average daily earning was 89 cents. A Brazilian educator Paulo Freire www.ptoweb.org/freire.html sexyracy.blogspot.com taught that education should be about the basic problems of living. Kerala started a state-wide campaign to teach people to read, with reading material which discussed hunger, poverty, safe drinking water, etc. Singers travelled the state encouraging participation. A slogan was shouted “Kerala reading, Kerala beautiful”. There were reading classes in the fields, on the shore, in cowsheds.
By 2000, Kerala literacy was nearly equivalent to that in the First World.
And, and, and … the women were literate, and the birthrate has declined to 18 births per thousand per year, while in much of Africa it is over 60 per thousand.
In the 1980’s, in many of the poorest countries, only about 3 % of women could read. Where women have learnt to read, the birthrate drops.
It costs much less to teach people to read, than it does to drop bombs on them.
The solution is simple; not easy; in a way very complicated; but simple: we need to set the cost of the Afghan war against the cost of sending books and teachers to poor countries; we need to take into account the fact that if we do spend the money on books not bombs, we may start to stop the reason for the British National Party’s existence.
That is a simple solution.
Stop starvation … with books.
I I obtained some of these figures from The Meaning of the 21st Century, www.21school.oz.ac.uk/ by James Martin,www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/
Friday, 23 October 2009
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Leave Afghanistan Alone; Prepare for the Real War
It is surely obvious to more or less every thinking person in the world – except of course to politicians who are blinkered into short-sightedness by the need for re-election in four years’ time – that humanity is hurrying towards a crisis which will make even the horrendous deaths of First World War, Second World War, gulags, concentration camps, not to mention AIDS etc, look relatively trivial.
If Planet Earth continues to warm as it is doing now, vast areas of grain-producing temperate lands (such as the Great Plains of North America) will turn to dust, tropical countries will become completely uninhabitable, etc. It is now reckoned that of the fish which there used to be in the oceans only ten per cent are left. Etc. Etc. Incidentally the likely prediction is that if the Arctic ice melts much more, the Gulf Stream will turn from a warm current to a cold current and Britain and northern Europe will be submerged under 2 miles of pack ice.
There will be death not on a scale of millions, but of billions. Billions.
Scientists have discovered all sorts of ways of slowing down, even preventing, Global Warming. But politicians are, by definition, incapable of paying attention to scientists. First, most politicians are ignorant of science, and not interested enough to read about it. For heaven’ s sake, I’m not a scientist; I’m a poet. But I try and take an interest in what the scientists are doing, because they are changing our world – very rapidly.
Secondly, the solutions which might help Planet Earth – along with all of us human beings, not to mention the animals, birds, insects, fish, and so on – are not going to be working within the four years which is all that politicians think about.
So we, the ordinary citizens of the world, must hammer this message at our so-called leaders: Concentrate on what is really important. Stop wasting money (and sending people to their death) in Afghanistan. Spend a bit more of our money on what is really worth while.
More to come in future blogs.
If Planet Earth continues to warm as it is doing now, vast areas of grain-producing temperate lands (such as the Great Plains of North America) will turn to dust, tropical countries will become completely uninhabitable, etc. It is now reckoned that of the fish which there used to be in the oceans only ten per cent are left. Etc. Etc. Incidentally the likely prediction is that if the Arctic ice melts much more, the Gulf Stream will turn from a warm current to a cold current and Britain and northern Europe will be submerged under 2 miles of pack ice.
There will be death not on a scale of millions, but of billions. Billions.
Scientists have discovered all sorts of ways of slowing down, even preventing, Global Warming. But politicians are, by definition, incapable of paying attention to scientists. First, most politicians are ignorant of science, and not interested enough to read about it. For heaven’ s sake, I’m not a scientist; I’m a poet. But I try and take an interest in what the scientists are doing, because they are changing our world – very rapidly.
Secondly, the solutions which might help Planet Earth – along with all of us human beings, not to mention the animals, birds, insects, fish, and so on – are not going to be working within the four years which is all that politicians think about.
So we, the ordinary citizens of the world, must hammer this message at our so-called leaders: Concentrate on what is really important. Stop wasting money (and sending people to their death) in Afghanistan. Spend a bit more of our money on what is really worth while.
More to come in future blogs.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The Emperor's New Clothes in Helmand
John Hutton, www.johnhuttonmp.co.uk/ epolitix.com apinfo.co.uk who, in June 2009, resigned as Minister of Defence, was interviewed as a Defence spokeman on Channel Four News www.channel4.com/news/last night (October 14th). He uttered the standard government pronouncement on the need to send more British troops to Afghanistan, ‘to finish the job there.’ In answer to one of Jon Snow’s interjections, www.channel4.com/news/authors.jsp, Hutton asseverated this was ‘not a political matter” because it was “a matter of UK national security.”
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
War wrong? War stupid.
I guess the majority of British people now think it was wrong for Mr Blair to follow Mr Bush and order the invasion of Iraq. Wrong. Wrong. An illegal war. Invading Iraq meant disregarding the principles of the United Nations. Blair’s decision now seems not only wrong morally, but also very stupid.
The real motive for invading Iraq must have been to get hold of as much Iraqi oil as possible. Has this been successful? We are kept in the dark.
What is the morality of sending British soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Well, we could argue that for a long time. But, in a way, we don’t need to argue the morality, because we can simply say that the Afghan war is a very stupid mistake.
Read history. No foreign power has ever conquered Afghanistan. However we judge the morality of invading Afghanistan, there is only one sensible course of action left now: admit defeat, withdraw as soon as possible, and save the lives of British soldiers.
The real motive for invading Iraq must have been to get hold of as much Iraqi oil as possible. Has this been successful? We are kept in the dark.
What is the morality of sending British soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Well, we could argue that for a long time. But, in a way, we don’t need to argue the morality, because we can simply say that the Afghan war is a very stupid mistake.
Read history. No foreign power has ever conquered Afghanistan. However we judge the morality of invading Afghanistan, there is only one sensible course of action left now: admit defeat, withdraw as soon as possible, and save the lives of British soldiers.
The Afghanistan Mistake
In ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ the Afghanistan war always comes up. How does Tony Benn react to the war there? He is highly intelligent and well-read; he knows history. His principle argument is incontrovertible.
NO ONE HAS EVER CONQUERED AFGHANISTAN.
The British tried three times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: there were three Anglo-Afghan wars: in 1839 – 1842; in 1878 – 1881; and in 1919. The Soviet Union tried: their Afghan war lasted from 1979 – 1989, and ended in defeat and undignified withdrawl. In 2001 NATO forces invaded Afghanistan, and are fighting there still. NO FOREIGN POWER HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUBDUING THE AFGHANS FOR LONG. Has there ever been any point in invading this wild mountainous country?
What arguments are there for continuing the Afghan war? Government spokesmen say Afghanistan is a training-ground for terrorists. But north-west Pakistan is an equally important training-ground. British ministers are obviously embarrassed by this fact, since Pakistan is officially an ally of the West. The Afghanistan war is justified as an attempt to control the production of opium, since most of the heroin sold on the streets of Europe and America is derived from Afghan opium. But nothing will stop the production of opium, as long as Afghan farmers earn vastly more for opium than for any other crop. So what use is the war?
I have the greatest respect for the soldiers fighting there. Of course it is dangerous, and uncomfortable. Nothing alters my respect for their bravery, fitness, and determination. But however brave they are, it does not alter the fact that they are fighting an unwinnable war in a country which is best left alone.
Every day ordinary lads in uniform perform acts of great bravery. The British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are highly trained professionals. Their wives and girl-friends, their parents and grandparents, accept their wounds and their deaths. But suppose the British Government had ordered conscription. When the United States fought and lost the war in Vietnam, their army of conscripts had no reason to behave with the restraint and discipline of professional soldiers. The Vietnam war damaged America hugely. Just imagine British conscripts fighting in Afghanistan, as the National Service boys fought in all those miserable so-called little wars of the 1940’s and 50’s. 21st century British conscripts in Afghanistan? They’d mutiny. But just because they are professionals it is still wrong to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in an unwinnable war. It is still wrong even though they remain silent and do not complain as conscripts surely would.
Admit defeat, and bring the troops home. How could any sane person not agree with Tony Benn?
NO ONE HAS EVER CONQUERED AFGHANISTAN.
The British tried three times in the nineteenth and early twentieth century: there were three Anglo-Afghan wars: in 1839 – 1842; in 1878 – 1881; and in 1919. The Soviet Union tried: their Afghan war lasted from 1979 – 1989, and ended in defeat and undignified withdrawl. In 2001 NATO forces invaded Afghanistan, and are fighting there still. NO FOREIGN POWER HAS EVER SUCCEEDED IN SUBDUING THE AFGHANS FOR LONG. Has there ever been any point in invading this wild mountainous country?
What arguments are there for continuing the Afghan war? Government spokesmen say Afghanistan is a training-ground for terrorists. But north-west Pakistan is an equally important training-ground. British ministers are obviously embarrassed by this fact, since Pakistan is officially an ally of the West. The Afghanistan war is justified as an attempt to control the production of opium, since most of the heroin sold on the streets of Europe and America is derived from Afghan opium. But nothing will stop the production of opium, as long as Afghan farmers earn vastly more for opium than for any other crop. So what use is the war?
I have the greatest respect for the soldiers fighting there. Of course it is dangerous, and uncomfortable. Nothing alters my respect for their bravery, fitness, and determination. But however brave they are, it does not alter the fact that they are fighting an unwinnable war in a country which is best left alone.
Every day ordinary lads in uniform perform acts of great bravery. The British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are highly trained professionals. Their wives and girl-friends, their parents and grandparents, accept their wounds and their deaths. But suppose the British Government had ordered conscription. When the United States fought and lost the war in Vietnam, their army of conscripts had no reason to behave with the restraint and discipline of professional soldiers. The Vietnam war damaged America hugely. Just imagine British conscripts fighting in Afghanistan, as the National Service boys fought in all those miserable so-called little wars of the 1940’s and 50’s. 21st century British conscripts in Afghanistan? They’d mutiny. But just because they are professionals it is still wrong to ask our soldiers to risk their lives in an unwinnable war. It is still wrong even though they remain silent and do not complain as conscripts surely would.
Admit defeat, and bring the troops home. How could any sane person not agree with Tony Benn?
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
The Anger of the Apathetic
As I said in my previous blog, The Guardian on March 17th, 2005, contained an article by Tony Benn www.tonybenn.com.archive.html titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
I think this is a serious challenge to the citizens of Britain. How can we best follow the implications of Tony Benn’s Guardian article? There are two ways in which to push the debate forward. The first is to consider how and where we, the citizens of Britain, can influence government, and take more part in government. This of course needs a huge amount of discussion, and will be developed later, Alternatively, we jump immediately into current political debates about urgent political problems. The two most obvious and most urgent are the war in Afghanistan and the ‘drugs problem.’ In his ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ Tony speaks eloquently on these two topics. There is no doubt where he stands on both these questions. For myself, I cannot see how any sensible person could disagree. Watch this space.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
I think this is a serious challenge to the citizens of Britain. How can we best follow the implications of Tony Benn’s Guardian article? There are two ways in which to push the debate forward. The first is to consider how and where we, the citizens of Britain, can influence government, and take more part in government. This of course needs a huge amount of discussion, and will be developed later, Alternatively, we jump immediately into current political debates about urgent political problems. The two most obvious and most urgent are the war in Afghanistan and the ‘drugs problem.’ In his ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ Tony speaks eloquently on these two topics. There is no doubt where he stands on both these questions. For myself, I cannot see how any sensible person could disagree. Watch this space.
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Tony Benn: "Not Apathy,but Anger"
As I said in my previous blog, The Guardian on March 17th, 2005, contained an article by Tony Benn www.tonybenn.com.archive.html titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
I think this is a serious challenge to the citizens of Britain. How can we best follow the implications of Tony Benn’s Guardian article? There are two ways in which to push the debate forward. The first is to consider how and where we, the citizens of Britain, can influence government, and take more part in government. This of course needs a huge amount of discussion, and will be developed later, Alternatively, we jump immediately into current political debates about urgent political problems. The two most obvious and most urgent are the war in Afghanistan and the ‘drugs problem.’ In his ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ Tony speaks eloquently on these two topics. There is no doubt where he stands on both these questions. For myself, I cannot see how any sensible person could disagree. Watch this space.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them.”
I think this is a serious challenge to the citizens of Britain. How can we best follow the implications of Tony Benn’s Guardian article? There are two ways in which to push the debate forward. The first is to consider how and where we, the citizens of Britain, can influence government, and take more part in government. This of course needs a huge amount of discussion, and will be developed later, Alternatively, we jump immediately into current political debates about urgent political problems. The two most obvious and most urgent are the war in Afghanistan and the ‘drugs problem.’ In his ‘Evenings with Tony Benn’ Tony speaks eloquently on these two topics. There is no doubt where he stands on both these questions. For myself, I cannot see how any sensible person could disagree. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
