Constituent’s Letter to Tory MP about Bombing Syria

Quote

Dear John Whittingdale,

I understand that you voted with the Government yesterday to bomb Syria.  Following our meeting two weeks ago when we presented you the petition about tax credits you mentioned amongst other things that you didn’t like John Maynard Keynes.  May I draw your attention to a few words written today by Michael Rosen.

Vote for war.
We’ve got to keep this economy going somehow.
Keynes wasn’t right.
But Keynes for killing makes sense.
Pump prime the arms economy, stimulated growth.
You see, everything connects.
When they don’t there’s trouble.
And when there’s trouble we pour oil on troubled waters.
Oil? Who mentioned oil?
Not me.
You must be thinking of someone else.
Thank you.
Bombs away!
Chin chin.

I think it says it all.  Keynes to suit a Tory agenda for war.  It seems to me that the West is nothing more than the military industrial complex.  It exists only to feed the war machine not for what is right but for money.  Arms dealers and politicians create the enemy and feed the enemy whilst we are treated to never- ending rounds of duplicity and deception and you spout sanctimonious words about freedom, democracy and keeping us secure.

All the while you threaten us by keeping us fearful for ourselves and our families.  You vote to kill innocent people in a foreign land where you won’t have to face the terror, blood and destruction which will result.  Lives of people just like you and me.  We rarely hear (apart from a few brave journalists who speak out) why terrorist attacks on the West occur – the elephant in the room is studiously ignored in a deliberate fashion.  And all the while Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are still in pieces as a result of Western interference.

When Secretary of State Kerry called Assad’s gassing of nearly 500 children a moral obscenity he had obviously forgotten Madeleine Albright’s assertion that the death of 500,000 children due to sanctions in Iraq were ‘worth it’.  Surely this shows that the so called moral compass of our politicians only applies when it suits their agenda.  The hypocrisy of our leaders is pathetic and deplorable.

So finally to remind you, last week at the Spending Review George Osborne said there was no money.  We have to tighten our belts, cut services, destroy people’s lives and all to satisfy an evil ideology not based on any sort of necessity.  This week suddenly there’s plenty of money for war equally to destroy people’s lives but in the most horrific way possible and with complete disregard for the victims.  Collateral damage I believe you politicians call it.  I can’t even bear to think about the terror that will be caused by our actions let alone the consequences for the future.  The past 14 years of spurious wars are testament to the stupidity of our leaders and an inability to learn any lessons at all.  Not that you want to learn the lesson, it would seem.

So do tell me Mr Whittingdale where is the money coming from if we didn’t have any last week?  I’m afraid I believe that these are political choices made by wicked men for the benefit of a few rich people who are determined to have it all at the expense of us all.  For someone who calls himself an economist you clearly either choose not to understand how our economy really works or you know but prefer to indulge in duplicity rather than the truth.

Yours sincerely,
Prue Plumridge

 

 

Arms manufacturers stocks soar after UK decision to join Syria bombing

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade told CommonSpace: “Unfortunately, where most of us see war and destruction the arms companies see a business opportunity. It is conflict and military intervention that fuel arms sales, and companies like BAE are only too happy to cash in from it. These companies don’t care who uses their weapons or the damage they cause, the only thing they care about is profit.”

The arms sales of the world’s four biggest corporations alone are equal to more than $100bn for 2013. 

 

Doesn’t anyone remember ‘The Power of Nightmares’?

Quote

The Power of Nightmares, subtitled The Rise of the Politics of Fear, written and produced by Adam Curtis, was a BBC documentary film series broadcast in 2004.

The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and noting strong similarities between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organised force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries—and particularly American Neo-Conservatives—in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed charts the similar processes operating in the current instalment of the so-called ‘War on Terror’ – the threat of ISIS.  His article (16.11.15), posted on openDemocracy, is an extremely important read given the UK Government’s determination to get involved in the bombing.   As Nafeez warns of the intention behind the latest spate of atrocities which culminated in Paris:

The goal, of course, is to inflict trauma, fear, paranoia, suspicion, panic and terror – but there is a particularly twisted logic as part of this continuum of violence, which is to draw the western world into an apocalyptic civilizational Armageddon with ‘Islam.’

Below, I copy and paste Nafeez’ conclusion to ‘ISIS want to destroy the ‘grey zone’.  Here’s how we defend it’, but I recommend that you read the piece in its entirety:

All this calls for a complete re-think of our approach to terrorism. We require, urgently, an international public inquiry into the colossal failure of the strategies deployed in the ‘war on terror.’

How has over $5 trillion succeeded only in permitting an extremist terror-state, to conquer a third of Iraq and Syria, while carrying out a series of assaults on cities across the region and in the heart of Europe?

The re-assessment must accompany concrete measures, now.

First and foremost, our alliances with terror-sponsoring dictatorships across the Muslim world must end. All the talk of making difficult decisions is meaningless if we would rather sacrifice civil liberties instead of sacrificing profit-oriented investments in brutal autocracies like Saudi Arabia, which have exploited western dependence on its oil resources to export Islamist extremism around the world.

Addressing those alliances means taking decisive action to enforce punitive measures in terms of the financing of Islamist militants, the facilitation of black-market ISIS oil sales, and the export of narrow extremist ideologies. Without this, military experts can give as much lip-service to ‘draining the swamp’ as they like – it means nothing if we think draining it means using a few buckets to fling out the mud while our allies pour gallons back in.

Secondly, in Syria, efforts to find a political resolution to the conflict must ramp up. So far, neither the US nor Russia, driven by their own narrow geopolitical concerns, have done very much to destroy ISIS strongholds. The gung-ho entry of Russia into the conflict has only served to unify the most extreme jihadists and vindicate ISIS’s victim-bating claim to be a ‘David’ fighting the ‘Goliath’ of a homogenous “kafir” (infidel) crusader-axis.

Every military escalation has been followed by a further escalation, because ISIS itself was incubated in the militarized nightmare of occupied Iraq and Assad-bombed Syria.

Thirdly, and relatedly, all military support to all actors in the Syria conflict must end. Western powers can pressurise their Gulf and Turkish state allies to end support to rebel groups, which is now so out of control that there is no longer any prospect of preventing such support from being diverted to ISIS; while Russia and Iran can withdraw their aid to Assad’s bankrupt regime. If Russia and France genuinely wish to avoid further blowback against their own citizens, they would throw their weight behind such measures with a view to force regional actors to come to the negotiating table.

Fourthly, it must be recognized that contrary to the exhortations of fanatics like Douglas Murray, talk of ‘solidarity’ is not merely empty sloganeering. The imperative now is for citizens around the world to work together to safeguard what ISIS calls the “grey zone” – the arena of co-existence where people of all faith and none remain unified on the simple principles of our common humanity. Despite the protestations of extremists, the reality is that the vast majority of secular humanists and religious believers accept and embrace this heritage of mutual acceptance.

But safeguarding the “grey zone” means more than bandying about the word ‘solidarity’ – it means enacting citizen-solidarity by firmly rejecting efforts by both ISIS and the far-right to exploit terrorism as a way to transform our societies into militarized police-states where dissent is demonized, the Other is feared, and mutual paranoia is the name of the game. That, in turn, means working together to advance and innovate the institutions, checks and balances, and accountability necessary to maintain and improve the framework of free, open and diverse societies.

It is not just ISIS that would benefit from a dangerous shift to the contrary.

Incumbent political elites keen to avoid accountability for a decade and a half of failure will use heightened public anxiety to push through more of the same. They will seek to avoid hard questions about past failures, while casting suspicion everywhere except the state itself, with a view to continue business-as-usual. And in similar vein, the military-industrial complex, whose profits have come to depend symbiotically on perpetual war, wants to avoid awkward questions about lack of transparency and corrupt relationships with governments. They would much rather keep the trillion-dollar gravy train flowing out of the public purse.

Milan Kundera — ‘The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting’

Let’s not forget that we were swept into the invasion of Iraq on false pretences, with disastrous results for the peoples of the region.  Let’s fight even harder to stop the political elites in their gung-ho desire to bomb.  Let’s argue for the alternatives suggested by Nafeez Ahmed.  Jeremy Corbyn is certainly on board… but it seems that some of the Parliamentary Labour Party, like Mike Gapes and John Woodcock, are minded to vote with David Cameron and the Conservatives.  It is up to the LP membership and all right-minded people to challenge their decision, and so block Cameron’s futile plan to bomb a solution on the Middle East.

 

Further recommended:

Welcome to the 21st century – The Crisis of Civilisation Nafeez Ahmed’s 2011 “Crisis of civilization” film  (80 minutes)

The Power of Nightmares  Adam Curtice’s three part BBC documentary