Seeing past delusions

January 9, 2009

The “international community” seem to have a fair few delusions about a number of things. I will delve into some of these later but for now let’s concentrate on Gaza (again).
Evelyn Gordan in the Jerusalem Post has pointed out problem of leaving a territory still run by terrorists in this article. Operation Defensive Shield as an ongoing present has placed a secure lid on West Bank terrorism. If Israel were actually allowed to do the same or defied the idiots on the UNSC to secure Gaza from the ground, then the rocket fire would gradually be eliminated and, let’s face it, the people living there would actually see their standard of living rise.
Gaza is not starving. There have been regular deliveries of humanitarian aid, the WHO reported at the beginning of the fighting that there were two weeks worth of food in Gaza, there continues to be deliveries of aid. The reason people are suffering remains Hamas and Islamic Jihad, in other words, the terrorists.
Destroy the terrorists and you bring peace. Peace is not a utopia – it is an absence of war.


Israel’s necessity

August 7, 2008

There are two possible points in time when Israel will strike Iran, one being the autumn, the other being the spring. But as all analysts of the region must realise, war against Iran means war against Hamas and Lebanon, the core meaning of Lebanon being Hezbollah. But we must be clear that the Lebanese state is now actively collarborating and controlled by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran: Lebanon is now an enemy state and must be treated as such.
Following the strike against Iran, Israel must seal the Gaza Strip and the West Bank tight and mobilize for all out war against Lebanon. And this time, Israel must not withdraw afterwards.
The Lebanese government is now only nominal in nature, the real power in the Lebanon is Hezbollah and Israel must destroy the power of Hezbollah. It came surprisingly close to doing so in the 2006 war, despite the bungling of the IDF General Staff, Israel’s politicians and the stupidity of Condelezza Rice. The war plan must involve at least three main thrusts by as many soldiers as Israel can field; of particular importance is to seal the Lebanese – Syrian border and to provoke Hezbollah to fight in the field, where it’s valuable trained personnel can be destoyed.
That is the war phase. Once Lebanon has fallen to Israel, then comes the occupation phase. The plan for the occupation must be to a: the total destruction of Hezbollah as a military and political force, b: the breakup of Lebanon into ethnic states, the Christian and Druze parts of which can be armed and established by Israel (and hopefully the United States), while the Shia part is also established as a demilitarised state. It maybe that strategically important parts of Lebanon will have to be annexed to guarentee Israeli security, which may be legal given that Lebanon does not recognise Israel.
The greatest problem after eliminating Hezbollah will be the “refugee” Palestinian Arab problem. The best solution would be to expel them into Syria, or perhaps Iran! If this is not feasible, then Israel must undertake the administration and settlement of the Lebanese Palestinian Arabs. If they are given farms and the material to make a living, perhaps they could be pacified? At present, they cannot legally work and have no legal presence within the Lebanese state.

This scenario is inevitable given, as above, the  collaboration and control of Lebanon’s army and state by Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, given the seizures of Mt. Sannine and Mt. Barukh and the installation of anti-aircraft and radar systems there – which under international law have no right to be there, Hezbollah not being recognised as a state, instead acting as an “interest group” within Lebanon, one which freely flouts the laws of that state. The rearmament of Hezbollah has been openly allowed to happen by the Lebanese state and the UN force stationed in southern Lebanon.
Lebanon can no longer be considered a sovereign state as it has not been in control of its borders since the 1970s (when Arafat et al arrived), has been host to terrorist organisations that it has been unable or unwilling to remove and which undermine the state, and it now controlled by foreign powers and domestic terrorist groups.


UN Report on UK children

June 9, 2008

So the UN has decided that British children are poor and criminalized? Well, for one, we could ask the “sacred” UN what to do about the thugs knifing others. Or we could actually ask what right the UN has to have a go at the rich world when the rest of the world is much worse…let’s try child labour, sexual abuse, murder, imprisonment and bloody African juju magic.

Tell the UN to fuck right off.


Goodbye to Blogger, I hope!

November 23, 2007

Ok. Let’s try writing this in Word and then pasting it across.

Hi, this is hopefully my first blog that actually looks grammatical – on account of the bloody text editors screwing up all the time. I mean all I want to do is write and I feel like I’m being sabotaged by these text windows that break a sentence halfway through and cannot keep into a box.
I WANT TO SCREAM.

Anyway, today’s post is on the UN.
The United Nations General Assembly has just approved changes thrust through the UN Human Rights Council by underhand means. These include the abolition of the independent investigators into Belarus and Cuba and the reinstatement of the permanent agenda item on Israel, which comes at the behest of the Islamic bloc.
What does this mean and why does it matter? To you and me on the street in Britain – not a lot in any immediate sense. Israel is far away and who really cares what the rulers of tyrannical states actually do to their own people?
Well, this is why it matters. First and foremost, it is a near-requirement of leftwing politics that we regard the UN and the international community as having more legitimacy than nation states. But we have to scrutinise our own feelings on this and ask why this is the case? We all still believe in nation states, indeed the UN does, it is in the founding charter that the right to national self-determination shall not be breached.
So what then? Is it a belief in the morality of the UN? That by representing almost all the world, then the “united voice” of the international community holds a greater moral sanction than the voice of one man?
Well, patently this is rubbish. Less than half the governments represented at the UN were actually elected and many are outright tyrannies. What does a tyranny mean? It means a government that routinely denies its citizens the right to free speech, human rights, secure property against an arbitrary state and all the things that make life in the West so bearable.
Why have these countries been given moral gravitas by the left? Because they are anti-American. Why are they anti-American? Simple. The USA is not a tyranny, it does not always support tyrannies and indeed has a history of removing them from power. If the US were an empire like the Soviet Union, you could see a lot of these nations sucking up the US for fear of reprisal and envy of emulation.
In sum, the United Nations has to be looked at in the light of the 1940s. The UN was established primarily with the aim of being a body of arbitration between the great powers, Britain, France, the USA and USSR. Moral authority (misplaced in the UN, in any case) can achieve very little without the apparatus of the state. The UN can ask for troops to enforce resolutions but without co-operation this means very little.
Can anyone imagine the UN calling for troops to stop the US and her allies invading Iraq in 2003? For a start, the USA and Britain would have vetoed any resolution and in the theoretical circumstances of abstention, what could physically be done? The European nations have no control over the seas – that’s the US Navy’s prerogative, the Russian fleet is inferior and smaller, the Chinese navy small and still relatively backwards. And given the frightening display of military prowess in 1991 and 2003, Russia and China would not engage western troops at long range.
So on a practical basis the UN proves to be what it was originally, a talking shop for the world, moderated by the Great Powers. But why are we concerned about the subversion of the human rights organisations? Because we still look to the UN as a source of international legitimacy and morality.

It is time for the West to abandon the UN or close it down in its entirety. The UN is a corrupt and weak institution, which cannot manage to wield any authority, moral or real, in the 21st Century.
It would be better for an alliance similar to NATO to be set up, first and foremost a military alliance, as the military are the primary arm of the state. Such an alliance can only consist of democracies committed to the defence of human rights, international peace and order. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have no place in such an alliance, indeed with the exception of China they are the enemies what such an alliance would mean.
End the UN and free the world from the dead grasping fingers of tyranny.