Little media coverage of 7/7 attacks over weekend, why is this?

Yesterday was July the 7th 8 years on from one from a horrific day for London and the day in which 52 innocent people lost their lives in the London bombings on our public transport network. Yet if I’m not mistaken I saw very little coverage or any commemorative programmes on TV or even much in the papers why was this ? In the first year and a few after there was huge coverage church attending candle lit vigils and much more yet this year 2013 there was very little at all ? After the Woolwich attack as I’m still not convinced it was terrorism as such in the traditional understanding of such a act I get the sense the ruling class are holding back on pushing 7/7 after the division and heightened racial attacks after Woolwich on mosques and on Muslims in general. Perhaps they fear that stoking up the flame again will see this situation burn out of control ? It is an interesting thing. I for myself never will forget that day in a hot early July we’d just won the right to host the Olympics in London the day before and the day after was one of the darkest days in London’s history if not in Britain’s too. I remember the news reports it was scary and those innocent victims will never be forgotten. In the edition of the socialist the week after the bombings the socialist party wrote The photographs of the victims, the details of where they live, their cultural, ethnic and religious background – including Muslims – demonstrates that it was not the 'rulers' but the 'ruled', ordinary working-class people, who were blown to smithereens, or who had their lives blighted by terrible injuries, by the perpetrators of this obscene terrorist act. Those who carried this out deserve unequivocal and unqualified condemnation. But so do those who have created the conditions for the growth of terrorism. Cynically using the sense of grief and determination to face down the bombers, Blair has rushed in to argue that the 'Iraq war had nothing to do with the events of 7/7'. Ken Livingstone and eminent 'Islamic scholars' in The Independent all agree with Blair's arguments. However, this was not the view of the government's own Joint Intelligence Committee, which stated before the Iraq war that the terrorist threat "to western interests… would be heightened by military action against Iraq". So we mustn’t forget the London bombings and all victims of terrorism but also we must not give in to divide and rule be it on ethnic, religious or any other lines the ruling class likes to try and divide us for their own ends. Say no to occupation of western troops in foreign engagements for every nations and its people to have full and proper self determination to liberate themselves from oppression much like the Egyptian and Tunisian mass’s showed how to during the Arab spring.

All is still not well in Iraq

No western troops remaiand are rarely reported on in British media at least but the after math of the us and British lead invasion in 2003 has not left Iraq better off quite the contrary actually. Recent bomb attacks have highlighted how torn and divided Iraq still is today with the western invasion solving nothing but killing many in the process. There has been a surge in sectarian attacks in recent months on targets like mosques, restaurants and local markets. The suicide bombing came after three other attacks in the north of Iraq killed a further nine people. The violence has rekindled fears the country is being dragged towards a wider conflict between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority. Sunnis have accused the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of discriminating against them - a claim the government denies. Last month was the bloodiest in Iraq since June 2008, with 1,045 civilians and security officials killed. A recent article from the CWI on the 10 year anniversary republished below explains the situation and how we’re no further on for Iraqi workers as a whole and the west’s invasion solved nothing only to protect its own interests. Niall Mulholland, from the Socialist, weekly newspaper of the Socialist Party (CWI England and Wales) “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace”, Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (ca 56-117 ca), Roman historian Ten years ago, under the banner, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’, the US-led ‘coalition of the willing’ attacked Iraq. Despite huge public opposition, including tens of millions-strong global anti-war demonstrations on 15-16 February 2003, the “shock and awe” bombing campaign began on 20 March, followed by a land invasion a few hours later. The enormous military force descended on a people who had suffered 35 years of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, the 1991 Gulf War and 13 years of cruel United Nations (UN) sanctions, which destroyed the Iraqi economy, reduced millions to poverty and cost between half a million to one million Iraqi lives. WMD fiction The 2003 war was ‘justified’ by a torrent of propaganda and lies emanating from Washington and Downing Street, which was repeated by a compliant, right-wing media. President Bush accused the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, of attempting to enrich uranium to develop “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD). US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN on 6 February 2003 that Iraq was acquiring biological weapons capability. Tony Blair, the Labour prime minister, claimed that Iraqi WMD could be ready for use “within 45 minutes”. Saddam was also accused of aiding al-Qa’ida. These were all lies. Soon after the invasion no evidence of Saddam’s WMD could be found by the occupying forces or links between the former Saddam regime and ‘terrorism’. In fact, it was the occupation that caused such resentment that it brought al-Qa’ida’s sectarian terror to Iraq. Yet on the eve of the war’s tenth anniversary, the former prime minister told the BBC: “So when you say ‘do you think of the loss of life since 2003?’ of course I do. You would have to be inhumane not to, but think of what would have happened if he had been left there.” Blair’s trite comments do not even begin to address the enormous human cost of the war. From 2003 to 2011, 150,000 to 400,000 Iraqis are believed to have died violently, according to several studies. The respected medical journal, The Lancet, estimated a much higher figure of over 600,000 people dying violently between 2003 and 2006, alone. Added to this are countless thousands of Iraqis still missing and thousands of US, British and other coalition military personnel deaths and serious injuries. The harvest of death in Iraq left two million widows as primary family breadwinners and 4.5 million orphans (600,000 of who live in the streets). The war created four million refugees. One million fled to Syria. A further 1.3 million are internally displaced persons in Iraq. Only one in eight of these have returned home since 2008. The Bush/Blair Iraq adventure also came at considerable economic cost to the US economy. According to Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, it took $3 trillion from the US economy. While the funds are always there to fight foreign wars on behalf of big business profits and interests, American and British workers find their living standards falling dramatically. Blair’s justifications continue Interviews with Blair fail to put to him the real reasons for the invasion. Instead the war of imperialist aggression is dressed up as ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and attempts by Blair and Bush to export Western-style liberal democracy to the Middle East. The ruling classes internationally were divided over Iraq. World and regional powers were fearful of the consequence of invasion and the USA gaining at their expense. The Bush neo-cons, however, pushed for war. American and British imperialism, which previously backed Saddam, did not go to war to stop oppression or to introduce democratic rights and improve living standards. For decades, Saddam’s sadistic regime murdered and terrorised Iraqis while enjoying Western backing. After the overthrow of another Western favoured regional despot, the Shah of Iran, Saddam was encouraged by the West to invade its neighbour. Millions perished or suffered terrible injuries in the resulting eight-year war. Saddam fell foul of Western imperialism‘s interests when he invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1991. The potential for Saddam to control vital oil supplies terrified western powers and they quickly assembled a massive military force. The first Gulf War saw a US-led coalition quickly retake the oil-rich statelet but stop short at Iraqi borders. Little concern was shown for the opposition to Saddam in 1991 when the Western military force stood back as an uprising by Shi’ites and Kurds was brutally put down by the dictator. Cynically exploiting the heinous ‘9/11’ al-Qa’ida terror attacks, the White House and Downing Street eagerly seized the opportunity to directly intervene militarily to overthrow Saddam and to impose a pro-Western, pliant regime. Seizing control of Iraq’s abundant oil reserves, estimated to be 9% of the world total, was a key objective for US imperialism, as well as its vital geo-strategic interests in the Middle East. Perhaps it was to stop naked imperialist ambitions of these kind becoming public knowledge that led the Cabinet Office to insist the much-delayed Chilcot inquiry report will be published without crucial evidence that would reveal what Blair and Bush discussed in the run-up to the invasion? Backing dictators Blair and Bush have not faced trial for their Iraqi war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC), like the UN, is dominated by the interests of the powerful nation states. Only former despots and warlords from the Balkans and Africa, who have conflicted with imperialism, have been brought before the ICC at the Hague. With all other justifications for his war shredded, Blair asks: “If we hadn’t removed Saddam from power just think, for example, what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who’s probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq?” There is no doubt that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, whose regime murdered many people, including communists and trade unionists. But the former prime minister has no problem with dictators, per se. ‘Tony Blair Associates’ advise the Kazakhstan despot, Nazarbayev, the butcher of striking oil workers. And Blair’s ‘liberated’ Iraq is today run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who even the right-wing Economist accuses of “dictatorial tendencies”. The 2003 invasion greatly increased Arabs’ sense of humiliation and injustice at the hands of imperialism. This was an important factor fuelling the 2011 revolutions against Western-backed dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as widespread anger at the lack of democratic rights, mass joblessness and poverty in these societies. The ‘Arab Spring’ does not at all justify Blair’s neo-colonial adventure but actually validates the position of the Socialist in the run-up to the Iraq war; that removing the tyrant Saddam was the task of the Iraqi working people by a united mass struggle. The toppling of close Western allies, Ben Ali and Mosni Mubarak, who were supposedly ‘impregnable’ dictators like Saddam, in late 2010 and early 2011, showed this was also a possible course of action for the Iraqi masses. ‘Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’? John Prescott, Labour Deputy Prime Minister in 2003, now Lord Prescott, recently admitted to the BBC that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 “cannot be justified”. He said he had backed the invasion because he believed George Bush had a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush and Blair did claim the defeat of Saddam would act as an impetus for a new ‘road map’ for peace in Israel and Palestine. But as the Socialist warned in 2003, the oppression of Palestinians would continue unabated after the Iraq invasion. For its own imperialist geo-strategic interests, the US continues to support Israel, its closest ally in the region, while genuine Palestinian self-determination and statehood is further away than ever. In an interview with BBC’s Newsnight, Blair agreed that ‘daily life in Iraq today is not what he hoped it would be’ when he opted to invade ten years ago. Blair claimed there have been “significant improvements” but that “it is not nearly what it should be”. This is an understatement, to say the least! The Socialist resolutely opposed imperialist intervention in 2003, and correctly predicted it would bring oppression and chaos - opening up the gates to sectarian conflagration - and that imperialism would be bogged down in a long conflict. The occupiers’ policy of ‘de-Ba’athification’ of Saddam’s largely Sunnis-based regime, and the disbandment of the Iraqi army, resulted in sectarian purges of Sunnis. This ignited fierce Sunni-based resistance. Brutal colonial occupation, including the systematic torture and abuse of civilians in notorious jails like Abu Ghraib, the siege of Fallujah city and the massacre of resistance fighters and many civilians at cities like Haditha and Balad, ensured growing mass opposition to the US-led occupation, which was not just confined to Sunnis. Anti-war sentiment grew in the US, Britain and internationally. Despite their awesome military machine and war chest, the Coalition was unable to crush the resistance and resorted to divide and rule tactics. They backed Shia against Sunni, causing an orgy of bloodletting. Consequences According to investigations by the Guardian and the BBC’s Arabic language service, in 2004 the Bush administration turned to the “Salvador option” - named after the US’s role in running right-wing death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s. Shia militias were armed and financed by the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result. The Sunnis were the main losers in the sectarian civil war. A US-imposed ‘constitution’ institutionalised sectarian and ethnic divisions. Elections in 2005 led to Shia-based parties winning a majority in parliament and the prime minister’s office. A corrupt ruling class, and reactionary, sectarian-based political parties struggle over Iraq’s natural resources while the mass of people live in poverty. Although Iraq has $100 billion (£66 billion) a year in oil revenues little of this trickles down to the people. It is the eighth most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. The capital, Baghdad, which is home to a fifth of the country’s 33 million population, is still a city at war, divided up by oppressive military checkpoints and barriers, and vulnerable to indiscriminate, sectarian outrages. Baghdad and central Iraq suffer daily bombings, assassinations and kidnappings. Bush and Blair’s legacy includes a fivefold increase in birth defects and fourfold increase in cancer rates in and around Fullujah, as a consequence of the Coalition forces’ use of radioactive depleted uranium munitions. Western politicians like to contrast Baghdad to the relative peace in the oil-rich Kurdish region and majority-Shia provinces. But this is illusory. The Shia in the south are relatively safer because one community dominates overwhelmingly. Unemployment is high, however, and most Shias still live in dreadful poverty. Kurds Tensions between Kurds, Arabs and other minorities simmer in the semi-independent Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). Much to the chagrin of the central Baghdad government, the Kurdish regime has made 50 oil and gas deals with foreign companies and exports oil directly to Turkey. After decades of brutal oppression, many Kurds hope they can move towards real self-determination. But the KRG is surrounded by states that have a long history of oppressing Kurds. The reactionary Kurdish leaders are in ‘alliances’ with the US and Turkey, one of the worst perpetrators of Kurdish oppression. An indication of the growing conflict over oil and territory between KRG and the central Iraqi regime is seen by clashes between Kurdish peshmerga fighters and Iraqi troops. The removal of Saddam has not made the world a “safer place”, as Bush/Blair promised. In fact, the world became much more violent and volatile. Saddam did not have “weapons of mass destruction” but after the 2003 invasion “rogue state” regimes, such as North Korea, concluded that only way to stop a US-led attack against them was to acquire them. Despite imperialism’s setbacks in Iraq, the US and Britain continue to wage conflicts around the world to further their vital interests. Trying to create distance from Blair’s war, Ed Miliband said the Iraq war was a mistake but he continues to support British troops in Afghanistan and does not call for an end to US drone strikes. The 2003 war and occupation have had long-term consequences for the region. Putting Western forces in Iraq was meant to further isolate and encircle Iran. However, Tehran found it had influence over the Shia-dominated Iraq government and the regional ‘Shia Arc’ was strengthened. Partly to counter Iran, reactionary Gulf states and Western imperialism are meddling in Syria, exploiting the Sunni-based opposition to Assad. The Syrian conflict is spreading to Lebanon and Iraq, where a ‘Sunni Spring’ has seen mass opposition demonstrations in Sunni areas. Revolution The majority of Iraqis do not want to be dragged back to the horrors of civil war. But to stop more conflicts, to end imperialist interference and to kick out the corrupt, reactionary ruling elites, working people need an alternative. Iraq had a powerful Left until it was crushed by a CIA-backed coup in the 1960s and, later, by the Saddam regime. The most important lesson from that tragedy and from the horrors of the last decade is the need for working people to have an independent, class-based party to fight for their interests. Such a party would demand the nationalisation of the oil riches, under democratic public ownership, to benefit the masses. As the 2011 revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia showed, mass struggles will develop against tyrants, and despite the movements’ limitations, can throw them from power. But to succeed in making fundamental system change, working people need a socialist programme, in each country, regionally and internationally. Before the first Gulf War and years of sanctions, the literacy rate in Iraq was more than 90%, 92% of Iraqis had safe water and 93% enjoyed free health care. In 2011 after years of imperialist occupation, 78% adults are literate and 50% of Iraqis lived in slum conditions (17% in 2000). Over 1 million Iraqis are ‘internally displaced. Nearly half of the capital’s 400,000 ‘internal refugees’ (displaced victims of sectarian terror) live in squalor in squatter settlements. A quarter of Iraqi families live below the poverty line, according to the World Bank. Less than 40% of adults have jobs. Millions lack electricity, clean water and other essential services.

Iraq 10 years on, no lessons learnt, no to all imperialist wars

10 years on from the start of the Iraq war where we were taken in to a unjust illegal war still no lessons seem to have been learnt from the western capitalist powers. Its almost as if we’re at year zero every time. Iraq costing billions and killing over a million was one of the defining periods of the last labour governments reign and will forever have their finger prints all over it. I wouldn’t go as far as to say all who stillare in labour supported the war as clearly many didn’t but why would you wish to remain in such a party which took us to war illegally? Ten years ago, under the banner, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom', the US-led 'coalition of the willing' attacked Iraq. Despite huge public opposition, including tens of millions-strong global anti-war demonstrations on 15-16 February 2003, the "shock and awe" bombing campaign began on 20 March, followed by a land invasion a few hours later. The enormous military force descended on a people who had suffered 35 years of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the 1991 Gulf War and 13 years of cruel United Nations (UN) sanctions, which destroyed the Iraqi economy, reduced millions to poverty and cost between half a million to one million Iraqi lives. WMD fiction The 2003 war was 'justified' by a torrent of propaganda and lies emanating from Washington and Downing Street, which was repeated by a compliant, right-wing media. President Bush accused the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, of attempting to enrich uranium to develop "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN on 6 February 2003 that Iraq was acquiring biological weapons capability. Tony Blair, the Labour prime minister, claimed that Iraqi WMD could be ready for use "within 45 minutes". Saddam was also accused of aiding al-Qa'ida. These were all lies. Soon after the invasion no evidence of Saddam's WMD could be found by the occupying forces or links between the former Saddam regime and 'terrorism'. In fact, it was the occupation that caused such resentment that it brought al-Qa'ida's sectarian terror to Iraq. Yet on the eve of the war's tenth anniversary, the former prime minister told the BBC: "So when you say 'do you think of the loss of life since 2003?' of course I do. You would have to be inhumane not to, but think of what would have happened if he had been left there." Blair's trite comments do not even begin to address the enormous human cost of the war. From 2003 to 2011, 150,000 to 400,000 Iraqis are believed to have died violently, according to several studies. The respected medical journal, The Lancet, estimated a much higher figure of over 600,000 people dying violently between 2003 and 2006, alone. Added to this are countless thousands of Iraqis still missing and thousands of US, British and other coalition military personnel deaths and serious injuries. The harvest of death in Iraq left two million widows as primary family breadwinners and 4.5 million orphans (600,000 of who live in the streets). The war created four million refugees. One million fled to Syria. A further 1.3 million are internally displaced persons in Iraq. Only one in eight of these have returned home since 2008. The Bush/Blair Iraq adventure also came at considerable economic cost to the US economy. According to Joseph Stiglitz, the former World Bank chief economist, it took $3 trillion from the US economy. While the funds are always there to fight foreign wars on behalf of big business profits and interests, American and British workers find their living standards falling dramatically. Interviews with Blair fail to put to him the real reasons for the invasion. Instead the war of imperialist aggression is dressed up as 'humanitarian interventionism' and attempts by Blair and Bush to export Western-style liberal democracy to the Middle East. The ruling classes internationally were divided over Iraq. World and regional powers were fearful of the consequence of invasion and the USA gaining at their expense. The Bush neo-cons, however, pushed for war. American and British imperialism, which previously backed Saddam, did not go to war to stop oppression or to introduce democratic rights and improve living standards. For decades, Saddam's sadistic regime murdered and terrorised Iraqis while enjoying Western backing. After the overthrow of another Western favoured regional despot, the Shah of Iran, Saddam was encouraged by the West to invade its neighbour. Millions perished or suffered terrible injuries in the resulting eight-year war. Saddam fell foul of Western imperialism's interests when he invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1991. The potential for Saddam to control vital oil supplies terrified western powers and they quickly assembled a massive military force. The first Gulf War saw a US-led coalition quickly retake the oil-rich statelet but stop short at Iraqi borders. Little concern was shown for the opposition to Saddam in 1991 when the Western military force stood back as an uprising by Shi'ites and Kurds was brutally put down by the dictator. Cynically exploiting the heinous '9/11' al-Qa'ida terror attacks, the White House and Downing Street eagerly seized the opportunity to directly intervene militarily to overthrow Saddam and to impose a pro-Western, pliant regime. Seizing control of Iraq's abundant oil reserves, estimated to be 9% of the world total, was a key objective for US imperialism, as well as its vital geo-strategic interests in the Middle East. Perhaps it was to stop naked imperialist ambitions of these kind becoming public knowledge that led the Cabinet Office to insist the much-delayed Chilcot inquiry report will be published without crucial evidence that would reveal what Blair and Bush discussed in the run-up to the invasion? Backing dictators Blair and Bush have not faced trial for their Iraqi war crimes. The International Criminal Court (ICC), like the UN, is dominated by the interests of the powerful nation states. Only former despots and warlords from the Balkans and Africa, who have conflicted with imperialism, have been brought before the ICC at the Hague. With all other justifications for his war shredded, Blair asks: "If we hadn't removed Saddam from power just think, for example, what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who's probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq?" There is no doubt that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, whose regime murdered many people, including communists and trade unionists. But the former prime minister has no problem with dictators, per se. 'Tony Blair Associates' advise the Kazakhstan despot, Nazarbayev, the butcher of striking oil workers. And Blair's 'liberated' Iraq is today run by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who even the right-wing Economist accuses of "dictatorial tendencies". The 2003 invasion greatly increased Arabs' sense of humiliation and injustice at the hands of imperialism. This was an important factor fuelling the 2011 revolutions against Western-backed dictators in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as widespread anger at the lack of democratic rights, mass joblessness and poverty in these societies. The 'Arab Spring' does not at all justify Blair's neocolonial adventure but actually validates the position of the Socialist in the run-up to the Iraq war; that removing the tyrant Saddam was the task of the Iraqi working people by a united mass struggle. The toppling of close Western allies, Ben Ali and Mosni Mubarak, who were supposedly 'impregnable' dictators like Saddam, in late 2010 and early 2011, showed this was also a possible course of action for the Iraqi masses. John Prescott, Labour Deputy Prime Minister in 2003, now Lord Prescott, recently admitted to the BBC that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 "cannot be justified". He said he had backed the invasion because he believed George Bush had a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush and Blair did claim the defeat of Saddam would act as an impetus for a new 'road map' for peace in Israel and Palestine. But as the Socialist warned in 2003, the oppression of Palestinians would continue unabated after the Iraq invasion. For its own imperialist geo-strategic interests, the US continues to support Israel, its closest ally in the region, while genuine Palestinian self-determination and statehood is further away than ever. In an interview with BBC's Newsnight, Blair agreed that 'daily life in Iraq today is not what he hoped it would be' when he opted to invade ten years ago. Blair claimed there have been "significant improvements" but that "it is not nearly what it should be". This is an understatement, to say the least! The Socialist resolutely opposed imperialist intervention in 2003, and correctly predicted it would bring oppression and chaos - opening up the gates to sectarian conflagration - and that imperialism would be bogged down in a long conflict. The occupiers' policy of 'de-Ba'athification' of Saddam's largely Sunnis-based regime, and the disbandment of the Iraqi army, resulted in sectarian purges of Sunnis. This ignited fierce Sunni-based resistance. Brutal colonial occupation, including the systematic torture and abuse of civilians in notorious jails like Abu Ghraib, the siege of Fallujah city and the massacre of resistance fighters and many civilians at cities like Haditha and Balad, ensured growing mass opposition to the US-led occupation, which was not just confined to Sunnis. Anti-war sentiment grew in the US, Britain and internationally. Despite their awesome military machine and war chest, the Coalition was unable to crush the resistance and resorted to divide and rule tactics. They backed Shia against Sunni, causing an orgy of bloodletting. Consequences According to investigations by the Guardian and the BBC's Arabic language service, in 2004 the Bush administration turned to the "Salvador option" - named after the US's role in running right-wing death squads in El Salvador in the 1980s. Shia militias were armed and financed by the US. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result. The Sunnis were the main losers in the sectarian civil war. A US-imposed 'constitution' institutionalised sectarian and ethnic divisions. Elections in 2005 led to Shia-based parties winning a majority in parliament and the prime minister's office. A corrupt ruling class, and reactionary, sectarian-based political parties struggle over Iraq's natural resources while the mass of people live in poverty. Although Iraq has $100 billion (£66 billion) a year in oil revenues little of this trickles down to the people. It is the eighth most corrupt country in the world, according to Transparency International. The capital, Baghdad, which is home to a fifth of the country's 33 million population, is still a city at war, divided up by oppressive military checkpoints and barriers, and vulnerable to indiscriminate, sectarian outrages. Baghdad and central Iraq suffer daily bombings, assassinations and kidnappings. Bush and Blair's legacy includes a fivefold increase in birth defects and fourfold increase in cancer rates in and around Fullujah, as a consequence of the Coalition forces' use of radioactive depleted uranium munitions. Western politicians like to contrast Baghdad to the relative peace in the oil-rich Kurdish region and majority-Shia provinces. But this is illusory. The Shia in the south are relatively safer because one community dominates overwhelmingly. Unemployment is high, however, and most Shias still live in dreadful poverty. Tensions between Kurds, Arabs and other minorities simmer in the semi-independent Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). Much to the chagrin of the central Baghdad government, the Kurdish regime has made 50 oil and gas deals with foreign companies and exports oil directly to Turkey. After decades of brutal oppression, many Kurds hope they can move towards real self-determination. But the KRG is surrounded by states that have a long history of oppressing Kurds. The reactionary Kurdish leaders are in 'alliances' with the US and Turkey, one of the worst perpetrators of Kurdish oppression. An indication of the growing conflict over oil and territory between KRG and the central Iraqi regime is seen by clashes between Kurdish peshmerga fighters and Iraqi troops. The removal of Saddam has not made the world a "safer place", as Bush/Blair promised. In fact, the world became much more violent and volatile. Saddam did not have "weapons of mass destruction" but after the 2003 invasion "rogue state" regimes, such as North Korea, concluded that only way to stop a US-led attack against them was to acquire them. Despite imperialism's setbacks in Iraq, the US and Britain continue to wage conflicts around the world to further their vital interests. Trying to create distance from Blair's war, Ed Miliband said the Iraq war was a mistake but he continues to support British troops in Afghanistan and does not call for an end to US drone strikes. The 2003 war and occupation have had long-term consequences for the region. Putting Western forces in Iraq was meant to further isolate and encircle Iran. However, Tehran found it had influence over the Shia-dominated Iraq government and the regional 'Shia Arc' was strengthened. Partly to counter Iran, reactionary Gulf states and Western imperialism are meddling in Syria, exploiting the Sunni-based opposition to Assad. The Syrian conflict is spreading to Lebanon and Iraq, where a 'Sunni Spring' has seen mass opposition demonstrations in Sunni areas. Revolution The majority of Iraqis do not want to be dragged back to the horrors of civil war. But to stop more conflicts, to end imperialist interference and to kick out the corrupt, reactionary ruling elites, working people need an alternative. Iraq had a powerful Left until it was crushed by a CIA-backed coup in the 1960s and, later, by the Saddam regime. The most important lesson from that tragedy and from the horrors of the last decade is the need for working people to have an independent, class-based party to fight for their interests. Such a party would demand the nationalisation of the oil riches, under democratic public ownership, to benefit the masses. As the 2011 revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia showed, mass struggles will develop against tyrants, and despite the movements' limitations, can throw them from power. But to succeed in making fundamental system change, working people need a socialist programme, in each country, regionally and internationally. With extracts taken from http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/757/16346/20-03-2013/iraq-ten-years-after-shock-and-awe

Murdoch, the real capitalist media barron

As the Murdoch empire lurch's from one crisis to the next Rupert Murdoch and his cronies invlved at the top of news corp and news international have not learnt their lessons and continue to plague ordinary working people.


The fall-out from the Murdochgate scandal has continued following the arrests of ten top editors and journalists who currently work for or have worked for the Sun newspaper.

These arrests are part of the police investigation "Elveden" into suspected bribery and corruption of police officers. It will come as no surprise to anyone aware of the methods of News International that journalists routinely paid police officers for information. Bribing a public official is a criminal offence, but that never stopped the Sun or the News of the World in the past.

Trevor Kavanagh, the associate editor of the Sun has claimed there is a witch-hunt against the paper and News International. He blames elements of News Corp, who owns News International, for handing over a portion of the 300 million internal company emails to the police that led to the arrests.

There is growing evidence that some within News Corp, who are involved in a power battle with Rupert Murdoch, are looking to get rid of large parts, if not all of the toxic News International.

Kavanagh complained that Sun employees had been subject to dawn raids by up to 20 police officers who went through children's clothes drawers looking for evidence. No doubt the Met police, who lost a police commissioner and deputy commissioner already due to the scandal, are trying to prove their independence from the Murdoch Empire.

However, Kavanagh was not so forthcoming in his criticisms of police methods when socialist Tommy Sheridan was the subject of a widely condemned police and state vendetta. This included having his home raided and young child traumatised. He was arrested outside his place of work and faced years of persecution, not least by the Scottish Sun and the now defunct News of the World, who he defeated in a defamation case in 2006.


The Socialist party continues to call for a genuine democratic public inquiry, involving representatives of the trade union and labour movement, into the actions of the Murdoch empire. This must include the handing over of all documents, emails and other information to allow a full expose of the relationship between News International, the police and the political establishment.



There is no doubt the political elite, the metropolitan police and our cosy media barrons have got far to close in recent years. This is no surprise to me as as a socialsit it is clear to me that the capitalist currently own all of the media, control and influence the police and have a strangelhold over all 3 major political parties. This is no coincidence that Murdochgate flared up to me as there was always dodgy going's on in the media world and the political elite including Tony Blair who chased after Rupert Murdoch for years practically begging him to support his party in their rise to power in the late 90's.

The hypocrisy of Ed Milibanda nd the Labour party to now try to distance themselves from the Murdochs is frankly sickening considering the sucking up they did in their time in government and after. Even untill recently Ed Miliband met with senior representitives of News international. He only opposed and jumped on the phone hacking scandel bandwagon when there was public support for it. Not before. Confirming my thought that the political elite media and police are all in it together with eachother covering eachothers backs whenever there is the need.

It is simply the capitalist world playing its hand.

What's in a name ?

With todays labour party quite clearly not supporting workers or working class people at all i wondered should they be forced or even not think about dropping the name labour ?

To me a young person involved in politics i have only known a pro market, pro privatisation, pro imperialist war labour party and for them to rest on their past success's if you can call them that is a insult to ordinary working people.

It is a fraud to be quite honest for the labour party today who no longer has a working class base like it used to. lenin was right labour was never a socialist party yes but it always had a duel complection having a workers base with a bourgeois leadership. Even in Militant we realised this for those who thought we were reformist for working inside the labour party. But today how anyone can seriously suggest labour represents ordinary working people or is vaguely socialist at all is living in cloud cookoo land to be quite honest.

The likes of the LRC and other good socialists point to the fact the labour party still have the trades union link. This is all very well if this hadnt been severaly hampered by many many anti trade union laws incidentily not repealed by a labour government in power for 13 years.

Small cabals - who have no connection with the radical and heroic periods of Labour - run a machine totally alien to working class people. Any socialist - inside or outside the Labour Party, and it is mostly the latter - is bound to come into collision with them.

This does not preclude "heated debate", not just with the Con-Dems but also with and against Labour councillors and the majority of Labour MPs who are doing the dirty work of the government in justifying cuts and carrying them out at local level.

It is unrealistic to think that workers who are losing their jobs - some of them never to work again - and many seeing vital services destroyed should engage in polite exchanges with 'Labour... Yes Labour councils and councillors'. It is legitimate to express anger and, yes, rage - not just against the Tories and Liberals - but against a Labour caste at local level which is inflicting terrible punishment on working people.

It is also necessary to forcefully take up and oppose those who seek to excuse Labour sell-outs. Some on the left refused to endorse the Socialist Party's implacable opposition to 'all cuts'. But we were at one with those like Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants union and Bob Crow, leader of the RMT transport workers union. Those who are prepared to accept 'some cuts' are acting as a left flank, apologists for Labour councillors and councils who are betraying everything which the Labour Party originally stood for.

For instance, Waltham Forest council - controlled by Labour - has inflicted £3 million of cuts to wages and conditions of its workers yet £18 million has been paid to 'consultants' whose main job is to make these cuts to jobs and services! And this is as typical of 'Labour' councils as Tory or Lib Dem.

Will local government emerge at the end of the 'cuts programme' in the absurd position of the NHS where "in 2006, Accountancy Age reported that the NHS was spending more on consultants than all Britain's manufacturers put together"?

This scandal was pushed through by the likes of New Labour health ministers Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt, who then got cushy, well-paid jobs in the health private sector!

However much of the debate in the labour movement at present is on the character of the Labour Party at present and whether is it possible to reclaim it in the future. We can never say never where politics are concerned. Nor is it theoretically excluded that if a mass workers' party is not urgently built, the impulse for a new party could come from within even a bourgeois party.

Such is the depth of the present economic and social crisis that, in time, this can find an expression even in such a party leading to a left split, out of which could come the basis of a radical or even a new mass workers' party.

Something like this happened in Greece where the 'left-wing' of the liberal capitalist party the Centre Union - led by the late Andreas Papandreou - came out of that party following the overthrow of the Greek military junta in 1974.

Such was the sweep of the revolution in the post-1974 period and the colossal changes in consciousness which this evoked that the objective basis for the new mass socialist party Pasok was created. The present 'Pasok' is a million miles removed from its socialist origins.

But we do not think that it is likely that Labour could be transformed in Britain in the next period. We cannot just 'wait' for future events to hopefully change the Labour Party, while in the meantime the working class goes to hell in a handcart.

We have to seek to exert pressure now through a new workers' party, no matter how small initially. The Labour party has been transformed under the New Labour counter-revolution carried out first by Blair, then by Brown and today by Miliband into a capitalist formation.

In fact, Tony Blair recognised this when he declared that New Labour was an entirely 'new party'. Conversely if Labour is to be 'transformed', as some still hope, then this would effectively mean setting up a new party, which by standing on clear socialist policies would represent a clear break.

Labour's current policies are a continuation of Blair's pro-capitalist agenda. This is expressed in terms of policy; witness Miliband's completely pro-capitalist assault on the trade unions at the TUC. It is reflected also in the internal organisation and character of the Labour Party which is fundamentally different from what existed in the past.

The old Labour Party, of which we were a significant force (through Militant - now the Socialist Party), involved the participation of the working class and the trade unions. It was a 'bourgeois workers' party' - with a pro-capitalist leadership at the top but a base among workers below. But it was also very open and democratic, and the leadership was forced to take account of the rank-and-file and its views.

Those who seek to argue that 'nothing has fundamentally changed' in the character of the Labour Party are mistaken. Compare the present situation in the Labour Party to the 1960s. Harold Wilson, supported by Barbara Castle the Labour minister at the time, tried to push through anti-union legislation.

This was massively opposed by the rank-and-file of the party and the majority of the National Executive Committee. If Wilson had not retreated he would have been compelled to resign. Neither could he militarily support US imperialism on the Vietnam War- despite the urgings of the then US President Johnson - for the same reason.

Tony Blair, however, got the support of Labour's conference delegates - who in the past were solidly to the left of the leadership - for the obscene and criminal Iraq war.

Some object that to describe New Labour as 'capitalist' is an 'exaggeration', because workers are still voting Labour. This, it is argued, indicates that Labour - 'warts and all' - is 'different' from the other two capitalist parties.

Yes, Labour is 'different', in the same way as the Democratic Party in the US differs from the right-wing Republican Party. The Democrats are more 'liberal' but are still a pronounced capitalist party.

So also was the Liberal Party in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Sections of the working class and the trade unions in Britain saw it as an alternative until mighty events - the decline of British imperialism and its inability to continue to grant concessions to the working class - undermined this. This prepared the way for the rise of the Labour Party itself as a mass political expression of the trade unions.

Those who furnished the mass basis for the Labour Party were the sons and daughters of workers who previously voted Liberal. This will happen with the building of a new party. Those who have voted Labour and still do can be won to a new mass workers' party.

Even to those who hope that Labour can be changed, we pose the questions: 'What do we do now in the political and electoral arenas? How does the labour movement exert pressure on Labour in order to defeat and change its present craven capitulation to big business, which is disheartening its former and present supporters? By propaganda or vague hopes for the future alone? The bureaucratic caste which dominates Labour is totally impervious to this.


So i would suggest all that are serious about a new workers party should suggest that any new workers party in the future which i'm confident will happen should not include the name labour as it has been shamefully wrecked by the current party which claims to stand for working people but clearly does not.

The labour party on N30 and beyond

Alot of talk this week will be on the big one day public sector general strikes this wednesday of course but many including Len Mcklusky are still hoping the Labour party will back these strikes.

In this piece in the Morning Star :
http://t.co/aeezb0Sf


Len tries to make out Labour can be workers friends and that it can be reclaimed and will hopefully support the unions on strike this week. Sorry Len i do not share this optimism with you pal.

Len speaks a good game but i am yet to be convinced he is serious a bout taking back the labour party. The fact he thinks he can convince Ed Miliband who condemned the strikes on June 30th this year already means nothing to him clearly. It will be interesting to see if Len changes his mind if Ed fails to back these strikes which i suspect he will not.
The pension reforms being force fed to workers by this Con-Dem government and being threatened all the time with taking away any offers and increasing anti trade union laws is as thick and fast as ever from the tories.
But also dont forget these proposals were drawn up by a Labour lord Lord Hutton who suggested these cuts to workers pensions after the Labour government had negotiated a deal not so long ago that was fair.
Ed Balls yesterday on TV admitted that Labour would be having to do something similar making workers in the public sector work longer, pay morea nd get lessas a result of their agreement that workers must pay for a crisis that they did not cause.

With the labour leadership Balls and Miliband together workers do not have a ally at all in fact Miliband was photographed laughing and joking with David Cameron and Nick Clegg on 30th of June this year disgustingly.

I hear that many labour councils and labour members are supporting this week's strikes. I think this is great of course i'm not dogmatic against la bour if their membership supports striking workers that is a good thing but be under no illusion this is easy for the members to back as they hold little influence on the leadership and are many ordinary public sector workers too.
For them to be serious about opposing this government they must urge their councillors and MP's to move to a no to all cuts position and refuse to make cuts at a local council level next year.

As public sector workers prepare for the planned 30 November one-day strike, the question of a political voice of opposition to cuts, along with their strength in the union, is posed.

Pieces like this on Labour List only set to underline many socialist party members views that Labour cannot be reclaimed and a new workers party is needed.
http://t.co/3ZiFTFkE
In the piece the new labour member claims that strikes damage labours electorability and Labour should not be backing strikes instead siding on the side of the public. Not bothering to mention ordinary public sector workers are not only members of that same public but are also tax payers who can vote. This blairite writes them all off in one fail swoop.
I would think it is sufficient to say that as the Labour Party currently stands, it is not really possible to openly campaign for socialist policies, and even if we could, it wouldn't sound plausible to the electorate, bearing in mind the policies carried out over the 13 years of the previous Labour governments. So we see the clear need to independently put socialist policies before the electorate, and try to build a pole of attraction around which the unions can organise politically.

TUSC and the Socialist Party could and should be playing the part of exerting a gravitational pull on the labour movement (and party) towards socialism. But to be able to do that requires a medium (field) of comradely debate and approach.

On the other hand, we do believe that the few socialists who are labouring away to change the Labour Party are pursuing a futile task. Never in its history has the left been so weak both in the Parliamentary Labour Party and among the rank-and-file.

We have pointed out many times that they are like prisoners smuggling the occasional note between the bars to workers outside. Very few workers participate in what is increasingly an empty shell. In fact even the 'shell' may no longer exist if Miliband gets his way and further dissolves the party, particularly the influence of the trade unions within it.

Small cabals - who have no connection with the radical and heroic periods of Labour - run a machine totally alien to working class people. Any socialist - inside or outside the Labour Party, and it is mostly the latter - is bound to come into collision with them.


This would be the case if the LRC or Socialist appeal our comradely cousins still inside the Labour party from our militant days every organised properly into a serious force instead of working largely as individuals. If they took a stronger stance on cuts and fought the labour leadership and appealed to workers to rejoin the party on mass. But so far this is not happening.

It is unrealistic to think that workers who are losing their jobs - some of them never to work again - and many seeing vital services destroyed should engage in polite exchanges with 'Labour... Yes Labour councils and councillors'. It is legitimate to express anger and, yes, rage - not just against the Tories and Liberals - but against a Labour caste at local level which is inflicting terrible punishment on working people.

It is also necessary to forcefully take up and oppose those who seek to excuse Labour sell-outs. Some on the left refused to endorse the Socialist Party's implacable opposition to 'all cuts'. But we were at one with those like Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil servants union and Bob Crow, leader of the RMT transport workers union. Those who are prepared to accept 'some cuts' are acting as a left flank, apologists for Labour councillors and councils who are betraying everything which the Labour Party originally stood for.

For instance, Waltham Forest council - controlled by Labour - has inflicted £3 million of cuts to wages and conditions of its workers yet £18 million has been paid to 'consultants' whose main job is to make these cuts to jobs and services! And this is as typical of 'Labour' councils as Tory or Lib Dem.

Will local government emerge at the end of the 'cuts programme' in the absurd position of the NHS where "in 2006, Accountancy Age reported that the NHS was spending more on consultants than all Britain's manufacturers put together"? [London Review of Books.]

This scandal was pushed through by the likes of New Labour health ministers Alan Milburn and Patricia Hewitt, who then got cushy, well-paid jobs in the health private sector!


On reclaming the Labour party we can never say never where politics are concerned. Nor is it theoretically excluded that if a mass workers' party is not urgently built, the impulse for a new party could come from within even a bourgeois party.

Such is the depth of the present economic and social crisis that, in time, this can find an expression even in such a party leading to a left split, out of which could come the basis of a radical or even a new mass workers' party.

Something like this happened in Greece where the 'left-wing' of the liberal capitalist party the Centre Union - led by the late Andreas Papandreou - came out of that party following the overthrow of the Greek military junta in 1974.

Such was the sweep of the revolution in the post-1974 period and the colossal changes in consciousness which this evoked that the objective basis for the new mass socialist party Pasok was created. The present 'Pasok' is a million miles removed from its socialist origins.

But we do not think that it is likely that Labour could be transformed in Britain in the next period. We cannot just 'wait' for future events to hopefully change the Labour Party, while in the meantime the working class goes to hell in a handcart.

We have to seek to exert pressure now through a new workers' party, no matter how small initially. The Labour party has been transformed under the New Labour counter-revolution carried out first by Blair, then by Brown and today by Miliband into a capitalist formation.

In fact, Tony Blair recognised this when he declared that New Labour was an entirely 'new party'. Conversely if Labour is to be 'transformed', as some still hope, then this would effectively mean setting up a new party, which by standing on clear socialist policies would represent a clear break.

Labour's current policies are a continuation of Blair's pro-capitalist agenda. This is expressed in terms of policy; witness Miliband's completely pro-capitalist assault on the trade unions at the TUC. It is reflected also in the internal organisation and character of the Labour Party which is fundamentally different from what existed in the past.

The old Labour Party, of which we were a significant force (through Militant - now the Socialist Party), involved the participation of the working class and the trade unions. It was a 'bourgeois workers' party' - with a pro-capitalist leadership at the top but a base among workers below. But it was also very open and democratic, and the leadership was forced to take account of the rank-and-file and its views.

Those who seek to argue that 'nothing has fundamentally changed' in the character of the Labour Party are mistaken. Compare the present situation in the Labour Party to the 1960s. Harold Wilson, supported by Barbara Castle the Labour minister at the time, tried to push through anti-union legislation.

This was massively opposed by the rank-and-file of the party and the majority of the National Executive Committee. If Wilson had not retreated he would have been compelled to resign. Neither could he militarily support US imperialism on the Vietnam War- despite the urgings of the then US President Johnson - for the same reason.

Tony Blair, however, got the support of Labour's conference delegates - who in the past were solidly to the left of the leadership - for the obscene and criminal Iraq war.

Some object that to describe New Labour as 'capitalist' is an 'exaggeration', because workers are still voting Labour. This, it is argued, indicates that Labour - 'warts and all' - is 'different' from the other two capitalist parties.

Yes, Labour is 'different', in the same way as the Democratic Party in the US differs from the right-wing Republican Party. The Democrats are more 'liberal' but are still a pronounced capitalist party.

So also was the Liberal Party in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Sections of the working class and the trade unions in Britain saw it as an alternative until mighty events - the decline of British imperialism and its inability to continue to grant concessions to the working class - undermined this. This prepared the way for the rise of the Labour Party itself as a mass political expression of the trade unions.

Those who furnished the mass basis for the Labour Party were the sons and daughters of workers who previously voted Liberal. This will happen with the building of a new party.

Even to those who hope that Labour can be changed, we pose the questions: 'What do we do now in the political and electoral arenas? How does the labour movement exert pressure on Labour in order to defeat and change its present craven capitulation to big business, which is disheartening its former and present supporters? By propaganda or vague hopes for the future alone? The bureaucratic caste which dominates Labour is totally impervious to this.

But Labour's reaction could be different if a new party was formed, with a solid base among trade unionists. Electoral success for such a party could force change in the current anti-working class, anti-union stance of New Labour. More importantly, it would provide a political voice to millions who are effectively disenfranchised.
We face much ridicule from others on the left and even from some within the Labour party which i accept is enivitable while people still feel the labour party can be changed.
But Keir Hardie in Britain and James Connolly in Ireland - who were pioneers, like we are today for workers' parties - were also ridiculed. They got very small votes initially (Hardie gained 8% of the vote in his first parliamentary election in the Lanarkshire coalfields). They were proven to be correct and their critics silenced by the development of the kind of parties they campaigned for.

What is TUSC ?

The trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) was set-up last year to enable trade unionists, community campaigners and socialists who wanted to resist the pro-cuts consensus of the establishment parties to stand candidates in the 2010 general election.

By registering TUSC with the electoral commission, candidates could appear on the ballot paper as Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition rather than as 'Independent' which they would otherwise have to do under electoral law.

TUSC came out of a series of discussions by participants in the No2EU-Yes to Democracy coalition, which contested the 2009 European elections with the official support of the RMT transport workers' union, the Socialist Party, and others - the first time a trade union had officially backed a national electoral challenge to Labour since the party's foundation.

TUSC is a coalition with a steering committee which includes, in a personal capacity, the RMT general secretary Bob Crow, and fellow executive member Owen Herbert; the assistant general secretary of the PCS civil servants union, Chris Baugh, and the union's vice-president, John McInally; the president of the National Union of Teachers, Nina Franklin; and the recently retired general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, Brian Caton. The Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party are also represented on the committee.

TUSC is a federal 'umbrella' coalition, with agreed core policies endorsed by all its candidates but with participating organisations accountable for their own campaigns. Its core policies include, among others, opposition to public spending cuts and privatisation, student grants not fees, and the repeal of the anti-trade union laws.

It makes a clear socialist commitment to "bringing into democratic public ownership the major companies and banks that dominate the economy, so that production and services can be planned to meet the needs of all and to protect the environment".

A tribute to Brian Haw a inspirational peace campaigner

Sadly today we hear of the news that Peace campaigner Brian Haw has died Brian who had been suffering from a long term heart condition sadly lost his life last night. Brian who many will remember was the guy who since the start of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afganistan .

Mr Haw, 62, set up a camp in London's Parliament Square in 2001 in protest against UK and US foreign policy.

In March 2011, a High Court ruling obtained by London's mayor forced him to move his camp on to the pavement.

In a statement posted on Mr Haw's website, his family said he had died on 18 June in Germany, where he had been receiving medical treatment.

They said Mr Haw, from Redditch, Worcestershire, passed away in his sleep in no pain.

'Courage and determination'

An additional statement on his website from his campaign representatives said: "Brian showed great determination and courage during the many long hard years he led his Peace Campaign in Parliament Square, during which it is well documented that he was relentlessly persecuted by the authorities which eventually took its toll on his health.



This guy sums up what true determination and campaigning is all about. staying to the task till the very end. His courage to fight to campaign against the foreign policies of successive british governments and campaign for peace is admirable and i feel personally he should have a statue or a plaque or something to help us who campaign for the same goals of peace and freedom for oppressed nations to remember him by. He would have wanted his message to continue and i hope the spirit of teh anti war movements is continued.

One of the things Brian would have loved to have seen is the bringing to trial of the likes of Tony Blair and George Bush who in his words were war criminals and need to be brought to justice for killings of thousands of innocent iraqi's and afgans.

Britain finally pulls out of Iraq but the scarres still remain

The UK's military operation in Iraq will officially end at midnight, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

It comes after the Royal Navy completed its training of Iraqi sailors, with the last personnel leaving the country on Friday.

While Operation Telic, the name for the UK mission in Iraq since 2003, will finish, a handful of staff will remain at the British embassy in Baghdad.

At its peak the operation involved some 46,000 personnel.

Most UK forces withdrew in July 2009 from Basra, their main base, but 81 Navy trainers remained at the port of Umm Qasr and there were three UK personnel based in Baghdad.

The completion of the mission on Sunday comes eight years after Britain became involved in invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.


Defence Secretary Liam Fox paid tribute to the 179 British personnel who died since 2003 "fighting for security and stability in Iraq".



A total of 1,800 Iraqi personnel were trained on 50 different courses, including maritime, small arms, oil platform defence, and maintenance training, the Ministry of Defence said.

Britain is still involved in Nato's training mission in Iraq, with 44 UK military personnel still in the country.

Members of Iraqi Security Forces will continue to be trained at UK-based courses, such as the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "Royal Navy personnel have used their formidable skills and expertise to bring about a transformation in Iraq's naval force.

"The Iraqi navy has a key role to play in protecting Iraq's territorial waters and the oil infrastructure that is so vital to Iraq's economy, and I am proud of the role British forces have played in making it capable of doing that job."


As this 8 year mission draws to a close after a very bloody occupation. It highlights the fact that we were wrong to invade iraq it was quite clearly a illegal war but as usual AMerica and Britain make up their own rules t suit themselves.

If they had supported the over throw of Saddam Hussain just like what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia with their dictators so many lives may not have been lost on both sides.

Of course the world is safer now Saddam is gone but the price it came at was heavy and not just financially.

The Iraq war will have cost millions if not billions of pounds to fund.



Now the west has its oil safely secured they can leave it was clear it was always about oil as there were deals done at the time as we have later heard recently.


So i am glad the Iraq invasion is over but we must not forget how many have lost lives and lives ruined by bombings and american occupation.

Iraq has a government of sorts but there needs to be real working class representation there. The banning of trade unions in Iraq is quite worrying and must be opposed.

Today we remember all those who have lost thier lives in the conflict on both sides. Hope now there c an be peace between the different factions within Iraq. It will always be complicated there but hopefully with a working class lead movement things can begin to look better for ordinary Iraqi's.

In who's hands is the NHS safe ?

As we sit here listening to David Cameron plead with us all to believe in his latest NHS reforms we are left wondering in who's hands is the NHS safest with ?

The tories plans to hand more power to doctorsa nd consultants giving them the power to over see budgets and letting them make decisions on where teh money is spent. They aim to bring in consortiums with groups of doctors and medical profesionals making the decisions for us. People who are not trained in dealing with big budgets and management are being asked to do just that.

Apparently this is now in the national interest according to call me Dave. Where have we heard this before ?

But the question is would this all be even possible if new labour hadnt opened the door to private investment.

Back in 2001 Tony Blair introduced a scheme called PFI. Privately funded iniccitive in other words.

This key decision which lead to private money filtering into the NHS like a poisonous toxic threat is about to have its door rammed open by these tory reforms.

So when people in the labour party say the NHS would be safer under them and they set it up so understand it best we do have to question their history with the organisation.

No doubt waiting times came down under labour and satisfaction levels shot up but as a consequence this has opened up the door to privatisation which in all honesty the tories have always wanted to do.

With the health secretary Andrew Lansley financially backed by private health firms clearly there are alterea motives at play here.

As much as the tories and David Cameron like to spin this bill it is clear what their eventual goal is.

We all realise that the NHS cannot stand still whilst our population grows and grows, especially our elderly population but selling parts off will not solve this.

A big re think by all needs to happen now. Not just a pause in proceedings of the bill but a total scrappage and a starting again with it all.

I believe the best people who know how the NHS should be run are the patients. If they are happy with how it is right now then leave it alone. If it needs e xtra investment then do that but always always keep it publically funded for the benifit of all not just the few.

Why i dont foresee a left turn for labour

So before i start this may be a contravertial post for some who read this blog and if you are a labour member and easily offended by anything that isnt wholely in support of labour then you may be best not reading this.

Also these are all my own personal views and if you wish to challenge me to a debate i'd be happy to do so. I dont intend to upset anyone and if i do that is not my intention.

Firstly i like many last year after the genearl election as a reaction to the tories gaining power with the aid of the lib dems joined labour. So you may have views on me joining then now leaving labour a month or so ago but i will explain why here.

Now labour in opposition have always tried to play to the mass's and try to appeal to all. This time they are trying to appeal to this so called "squeezed middle" with a new leader since the departure of Gordon Brown after he was forced to stand down last summer has presented labour with a leader in Ed Miliband. I did have a vote in the leadership elections and chose Ed Balls que the critisism which i will take on the chin firmly as i was lead to believe he was the most opposed to cuts and at the time had a no cuts position i thought. I later discovered this was not the case and like all polititains was using this to gain votes from the left. It worked to a extent. I was fooled. I know how lib dem and student voters feel now to be betrayed but this was just the start of a long list of betrayels for me on a personal level.

I take aboard all the critisism thrown my way for leaving labour not even a year into my membership and not staying to fight back against the blairites but i feel like many others labour can no longer be regained by the left.

There is still a element of labour members and supporters who do genuinely believe labour is a left wing party and is socialist . Neither of these terms could be further from the truth. Yes as Tony Benn once said labour may have socialists in it but is no way a socialist party in any shape or form.

Ed Miliband labours new leader has had a slow start and i felt he wasnt making the right noises in changing the direction of the arguement on the need for cuts.

My own position is no to all cuts which i feel goes along with my socialist views and approach to politics. I dont feel the working class should have to pay a penny or loose any services that they depend on due to the mistakes of the bankers.

I should have known better really with labour. I have to admit now that although i'm very involved now i was not always into politics much at all and my decision in joining labour was probably a rushed one and one i put down to my nievity in politics and not discovering what else is out there.

I personally do not see labour party turning left at all in its attempts to regain power and reach out to disaffected voters. Let me explain why.

For many years the left in labour and the left in general have been pushed back and back. One example of this is the purge on the left by Neil Kinnock who expelled many fine comrades from Militant who later went on to form Militant labour and now the Socialist Party as they are known as today.
Any attempt by the left even when it did have more of a base in labour not like today when it is just made of idealists and centrists from the LRC who make good noises in terms of socialism and may well want things to change but do very little about helping it to happen. People in the LRC and left wing members of labour i believe are being quite misleading in their attempts to draw people and socialists back to labour. After the outrageous decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and new labours attempts for privatisation of the NHS, Royal mail with consignia we all remember that especially those in CWU and who cannot forget the way Tony Blair tried to cut the link with the trade unions with labour to move to a party much like the democrats in America today.

We can also not forget how Tony Blair and his new labour government of tories in disguise failed to untighten the anti trade unin laws imposed on the British trade union movement today from Margret Thatcher all those years ago.

Labour are a social democratic party apparently but support changing things within the capitalist system we currently live in. I feel this is reformism in all honesty and quite simply you cannot make the capitalist system fair while the few at the top have the economic power and wealth and the rest have to do the best with the rest.

This was reconfirmed to me when a recent interview with Ed Miliband on labours so called alternative to the cuts and the tories program was
“We’re not about to replace it, but there are different forms of capitalism we can have . . . My socialism is not about a blueprint for the perfect society, but it is about saying we can have a more equal, just and fair society.”

How is that even possible when your still working within the capitalist society and trying to reform it ? capitalism cannot be reformed in my view and only its over throw and a move towards a socialist society will make things truely fairer. This coupled with a worker controlled planned economy with real political democracy will lead to true fairness not this muffled version polititians like to throw about like they know the meanin of the word.

I wont go into my critisisms of Ed Miliband personally here but i dont believe he is against cuts and his apearance on the big TUC demo on March 26th was just insulting quite frankly when his party support the need for cuts and would be carrying out cuts right now if they had won the election last year.
In recent months labour has tried to appeal to disaffected lib dem voters who feel betrayed also after Nick Clegg sold them out to the tories to join the coalition. It would appear especially after one of the four labour MP's who quit the party back in 1981 David owen who left over not being prepared to accept decisions on the EU, on nuclear weapons and on the structure of the party, and so he left The SDP is a lot like labour and new labour especially so we may end up seeing a party in the shape of that in the years to come under Ed Miliband he did always say one of his great politics inspirations is Roy Jenkins. Says alot about where he wants to take labour now.

As for the labour left argueing that there will always be a place for the left and socialists in labour while the trade union link is kept ensuring a link to the working class is a vaild arguement it doesnt stand up when the leadership for years has repeatably ignored the union link and appeared to take the unions funding and said thanks very much leaving the unions with their hands ringing. You do have to question what the unions get out of the labour link these days as it certainly isnt much or anything near a voice if you ask me.


Ed Miliband won't be taking Labour into general, or principled, opposition to the cuts. In his first TV interview as Labour leader, shortly after the shadow cabinet was named, he warned he would not support public sector strikes over pensions, and that industrial action would alienate the wider public and undermine Labour's efforts to fight other spending cuts.

"I don't think we should be talking about industrial action. I think it is very premature to be talking about that", he said. Didn't take long, did it?

So when would be the 'right time' for Labour to respond? When would supporting workers and communities resisting the cuts be the "right thing to do"?

The election of Ed Miliband and his shadow cabinet, even if containing many of 'the Next Generation', has not fundamentally reversed the direction that Labour has taken over the last 20 years. Labour is a party now happy to manage the market economy, and accept all its limitations, even if that means being embroiled in the sacking of thousands of workers across the country.

The coming cuts battles will be the catalyst in town after town, for the idea and building of a new party, firmly rooted in the organisations and communities of working people. The idea will grow that, let down by the three main parties, working people need their own party that will properly defend the idea of public services and public ownership against the current common agenda which accepts that the victims of the recession further punished, rather than the culprits.

The weakness of the labour left to even get their own superstar as some on the labour left like to call John McDonald, on to last years leadership ballot and not recieve 33 nominations faling short and Diane Abbot then taking the token left candidate on the ballot is another clear sign the left within labour is dead and beyond repair and must be abandoned and a new workers party formed.
Diane Abbotts record as a labour left winger doesnt look great.

Through the wonders of Google, I came up with this word to describe her: 'tergiversant' (to change sides or loyalties; apostatise to be evasive or ambiguous; equivocate). Like most Labour MPs she puts herself and her career above all else.

On her own website, after pointing out that in 1987 she made history by becoming the first black woman to be elected to the British parliament, it egotistically states: "She has since built a distinguished career as a parliamentarian, broadcaster and commentator".

Last summer she wrote an article supporting Gordon Brown as party leader, whilst in 2007 she was listed as a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs and supported McDonnell in the last leadership election. She is not listed as supporting the 'People's Charter'.

She opposed the 'Blair wars' yet voted against an inquiry.
Today in 2011 she has now been part of the strong majority in the commons who voted for western intervention in Libya against Cornel Gadaffi so how left is she really ?
She also most notably sent her son to a private school to the outrage of many of her Hackney constituents. When questioned about this she replied: "In 2001, when my son was facing secondary transfer, the average numbers of boys nationally getting five GCSE A-Cs was 42%. In Hackney the average number of black boys getting the same result was 9%. And the school in Hackney that we were actually offered was so poor that it closed shortly afterwards.

But since then: a Labour government has poured money into Hackney schools; a series of excellent academies has opened in the borough; attainment levels overall in Hackney have gone up. So if he was transferring to secondary school now, I would not face the same dilemma." So she presumably supports academies.

Did I also mention her cosy late night - on the couch - TV slot with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo up till recently.

Many within labour on the left argue for this join labour and turn it left approach this is doomed to fail in my view and is creating false illusions of being able to change the party from within.

Of course, the fact Labour did so well in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election has Labourites all excited that the party looks electable again so soon. Such people are not allies of those wanting to fight the coalition government's cuts. For these Labourite working class betrayers why build for a strike (harms Labour's electoral chances) or go on a demonstration - unless there is a Labour MP addressing the crowd on the need to vote Labour

As has been said, the attitude to the Labour Party and the relationship and role of socialists and revolutionaries to it is an old argument. We have the dismissive sneering of those in the Labour Party that the left outside cannot get decent votes. Well, that depends, doesn't it? The Scottish Socialist Party had six MSPs for a time and Respect had one MP before the usual left splits. I wonder where the Socialist Alliance would be today if it had stayed together. Their policies of MPs on a worker's wage and recallability are even more relevant today in the wake of the electorate's disgust over the MPs' expenses scandal.

We saw all trade union strikes condemned under Blair and Brown. Now Ed' Miliband has recently condemned any idea of unions uniting in strikes against the cuts to bring the coalition government down. This from a man whose election depended on those unions affiliated to the Labour Party and who made a pitch for the votes of workers during the leadership contest.

The gap between the rich and poor widened more under New Labour than it did under the Tory governments before them - fact. We have seen the Labour Party in government take Britain into war in Iraq despite the largest ever demonstration in British history. That dwarfed the anti-Vietnam protests of the 1960s. How many Labour MPs voted for war ?

We saw none of the privatised utilities brought back into public ownership - in fact we saw more privatisations - despite the pledges made against by Labour in the lead-up to the 1997 general election. Private finance initiative extortions continued under the Labour government and anti-union laws were retained. A drive towards funding by big business to move away from reliance on union funding was only set back by the cash for honours scandals!

We soon saw what happened to the promises of an 'ethical' foreign policy, of the government being 'whiter than white' and sleaze-free. We saw increasing attacks on civil liberties, the draconian and misused 'anti-terrorism' laws and a drive for compulsory ID cards - actually revoked by this coalition government! Labour got us involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, remained committed to the renewal of Trident and signed us up to the production of two aircraft carriers (destined to be without planes for 10 years).

New Labour did nothing to restrain the irresponsible gambling by the banks and finance industries and, to top it all, Brown claimed to have abolished 'boom and bust'. How many people because of those grossly irresponsible proclamations (made by a Labour leader, not a Tory) - and in the belief that property prices would forever rise - took out second mortgages or massive credit card debt?

The marketisation of the NHS and education went further under a Labour government than it did under the Tories. Privatisation of our public services were added to by attacks on final salary pension schemes. All the while most Labour MPs acted like they were to the manor born and constantly voted themselves large pay rises, pension enhancements and expenses, whilst urging restraint on the working and middle classes.

New labour were a reformist government wedded to trying to moderate capitalism. But one with a landslide majority and benefiting from a buoyant economy that produced so little gain for the working class Where was the left in the Labour Party during all this? Backing Blair, then Brown in the name of 'unity' and for a Labour victory 'to keep the Tories out' - that's where!

The Labour right have learnt enough to ensure the left will get nowhere near gaining control. Look what happened to the leadership bids of John McDonnell, a good friend of PCS. He could not even get enough nominations to stand as a candidate against Blair, and then Diane Abbott headed him off by playing the diversity card to magnificent effect: she kept John off the ballot, but not the other middle-aged, white males. A far, far cry from the Tony Benn-Eric Heffer challenge of 1982!

Internally, clause four was jettisoned and party democracy crippled, with the result that Labour conference cannot make manifesto policies; MP selection procedures were changed, allowing candidates to be imposed from above; and the Parliamentary Labour Party is not accountable to the organisation as a whole. How will the left be able to operate today? Every democratic change that the LRC argues for will be voted down if those in control (with eager media support) assert that it will hinder Labour's electoral chances.

Labour-affiliated unions will think twice about strike action against the cuts, now Miliband has argued Labour will not support them. Remind me, how many such unions called strikes under the last Labour government? What does anyone think Labour would do back in power with a massive deficit after arguing for cuts at the last general election? This will not be 1997 all over again with the cheerful optimism, seemingly justified at the time in the context of an economic boom.

There will always be those within labour who see things through rose tinted spectecles despite every betrayal. Look at the typical Labour Party membership today - either those who always justify support for Labour, no matter what the betrayals of the working class, with 'the Tories will be worse'; or those seduced by meaningless babble from Blair, Brown and now Miliband.

Those wanting to participate in the LRC and the Labour Party are aiming to engage with people whose loyalty is 'to the Labour Party, no matter how awful'. Instead we should be engaging with those disgusted with all three main political parties, not fostering illusions in Labour all over again. It is not up for change, never really was, and is even less open to socialism today.

It is, of course, far easier to mix with 'socialists' in the LRC than to engage with the mass of the working class outside the Labour Party. It is easier to stay in the Labour Party and have a pint in the bar, commiserating over every betrayal, than start a real working class party all over again. But the LRC is misleading millions of working class people into once again looking to the Labour Party rather than to a real alternative fighting for real socialism with workers faith restored in politics .


The alternative to labour

As socialists on the left we argue for the need for a new workers party.
A century ago trade unioniss and socialists came together to fight for independent political representation for the working class: the result was the Labour Party.

In the past the Labour Party, however imperfectly, provided a voice for the working class. Today, however, New Labour is a party of the giant corporations, its policies a continuation of Margaret Thatcher's attacks on the lives and living conditions of working class people.

Public services are being sold off; the occupation of Iraq has led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and over two thousand 'coalition' soldiers; democratic rights are being undermined in the name of fighting terrorism; and the Tory anti-trade union laws, the most repressive in the European Union, have been left almost completely intact.

We believe that the chance to reclaim the Labour Party has long passed and there is no point in continuing to fuel false hopes. The recent success of the new Left party in Germany, winning 8.8% of the vote and 54 MPs, gives a glimpse of the potential for a new left force. We pledge to do all in our power to bring a new workers' party into being in England and Wales.

We believe it would be wrong, at this early stage, to attempt to predetermine the structure or every aspect of a new party. That can only be decided on the basis of democratic debate leading to agreement amongst the forces involved.

However, if it is to be successful, it is crucial that a new party, and any pre-party formations, be open, democratic and welcoming to all those who want to work together against the neo-liberal onslaught on the working class. This means that all groups and individuals, provided they are in agreement with the basic aims of the party, should have the right to democratically organise and argue for their point of view.
This also reaches out to all who do good work within labour and consider themselves left wing and socialist but are feeling disenchanted by Labours neo-kliberal record of the last few decades. We will always welcome all that was good about labour into a new movement for a new workers party. We are not totally against labour for the sake of it we do recognise Labour did do some good things but it is not enough for the working class to live off concessions it needs real representation.

This approach will help ensure the new formation is attractive to trade unionists, community and environmental campaigners, and anti-war activists. Most importantly it will assist in reaching out to workers and to young people who are not yet active in struggle. In this way we can unite the strongest possible forces to build a powerful working class party that is capable of effectively opposing the anti-union laws, cuts, privatisation, environmental degradation and war.

We believe that such a party would represent a fundamental break with the big business parties which currently dominate politics, giving workers the opportunity to resist the neo-liberal capitalist agenda and fight for a socialist programme - including a living minimum wage, full trade union rights and for fully funded, democratically controlled public services.


So i hope if you are a labour member or not you have found my little piece interesting and i hope to have explained a bit more of my position at present. If you would like to discuss anything i have wrote here further do let me know and i again apoligise if i have offended anyone at all that is not my intention at all with this post.

Why we'd be wrong to go into Libya

So as the news reports flood in daily and the pressure mounts on cornel gadaffi


in Libya by his own people. Rebels who are anti cornel gadaffi


are gaining momentum and capturing more and more of cornel gadaffi


strongholds.

The news that the west including America and the Uk wish to impose a no fly zone in the country is a interesting debate to be had. The actual idea in principle is good but the difficulties and complications that can arise out of our intervention in Libya could be catastrophic i feel.

Ever since 2003 when US and Uk armed troops and aircraft invaded Iraq with no resolution and backing from the UN security council the arab world has held these two countries in high trepedation, rightly so in my opinion.

With just recently our prime minister David Cameron visited Egypt where things are still not right for the people by any means with the army still holding much of the power there.
David Cameron who was originally going to Egypt and otehr middle eastern states along with a whole set of british arms salesman yet later when the troubles and struggles started happening in Egypt and other middle eastern countries the trip was quickly spun to mean a democratic mission to spread the wests idea of democracy that they talk about so much.
We dont have to look far back to remember Tony Blair heading to the Libyian capital Tripoli to be photographed shaking hands with cornel gadaffi



So on one hand Tony blair was advocating the removal of a tyrant to his people in Iraq in the form of Saddam hussain illegally yet allowing himself to be shown in the broad light of day shaking hands doing deals for arms with cornel gadaffi.


David Cameron who i feels mirrors himself on Tony Blair in many ways and wants to go further than Blair in many ways has not ruled out military intevention in Libya if need be. He claims we must be ready for all eventuallaties . Funny that, wasnt that the same thing Tony Blair said about Iraq when it was later found that Saddam Hussain never had any Weapons of mass destruction that we were lead to believe .

So i do think any intevention in the middle east after the contraversy of the Iraq invasion of which the debate of whetehr we wre right to invade and take out Saddam was right or not still rumbles on to this day. I really dont think the middle eastern people would be too pleased with our policeman style tactics on foreign policy of late. I think this is one issue we must stand back and see how thing unfold. If there becomes a chance once hopefully cornel gadaffi is ousted by his people and over thrown and a humanitarian crisis unfolds then of course we should send people in to help out where we can. But no to military action for me.

From banks to blood

So i've been inspired to write this blog post by a fine comrade i follow on twitter called@ leaveitmark well worth a follow if your not already. She is a good friend of the socialist way who i have hosted and re blogged some of his excellent work on this blog in the past too.

The idea from this blog post has come from the recent events in the middle east and north africa. The helplessness we humanitarian socialists feel in the west. We live so far away and feel our governments do not represent our views anymore.

We are left wondering how we can help our brothers in these countries under such oppressive rulers. I have been following events in Tunisia, Egypt and now with colnel gadafi and his fightback against the anti governments protests in Libya.

Quite often the mainstream media outlets like the BBC and Sky news will not show or tell you the whole story. As journalists are banned from entering Libya we can only go by what we hear through independant sources.

Before the internet was taken down by colnel gadafis government to oppresse his countries people even more lots of videos of amatuer videos posted on the website You Tube showing some horrific human killings. I heard of one you tube video of a whole hospital being bombed to the ground by gunships, this to me is a mindless act of revenge on his own people for having the bravery to stand up and fight back. The bloodshed has been terrible. We still dont know the total death toll and i suspect it will continue to grow as colnel gadafi
looks to hit back at anti government protesters who have taken several towns along the eastern border.

What has saddened me most about all this tradegy of human lives lost to the hands of a evil dictator intent on crushing the rebellion of people wanting a new fresh start similarly to what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia is the fact that we as a country in Britain have funded this mad ruler for years and years arming him with weapons in exchange for oil which the ruling class's seem to fascinate over. The UK once had its own storage of oil off the coast of Britain in the north sea we did sell all this off for profit and now find ourselves buying up oil from rogue arab states around the middle east doing dodgy deals.

This press release from

http://www.caat.org.uk/press/

ebruary 2011
CAAT condemns empty words from Government as arms sale drive continues

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) today condemned the Government's reaction to revelations about UK arms exports to the Middle East. It calls on the Government and UK companies to withdraw from a controversial Middle East arms fair which starts this weekend and for fundamental reform to the UK's irresponsible arms export policy.

Yesterday it was revealed that the UK Government had approved the export of goods including tear gas and crowd control ammunition and sniper rifles to Bahrain and Libya, as well as a wide range of other military equipment to authoritarian regimes in the region.

CAAT calls for an immediate arms embargo to the region, for a thorough review of why such exports were ever licensed in the first place and for fundamental reform to the UK's irresponsible arms export policy.

The UK must cancel its participation in the IDEX arms fair which starts this weekend.

The Government's arms promotion unit, UK Trade & Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO) will be exhibiting at the International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX), the largest defence and security event in the Middle East and North African region. The UK arms industry body Aerospace|Defence|Security (A|D|S) claims that 10% of exhibitors will be from the UK and says “our sizable presence at IDEX 2011 shows that we mean business.” IDEX takes place from Sunday 20th – Thursday 24th February, in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Sarah Waldron Campaigns Coordinator at CAAT said:

“It is astounding that the government is still insisting it has a responsible arms export policy while, in the same breath, admitting that it was happy to supply authoritarian regimes with the means to crush dissent.

Far from seeking to restrain arms sales, the UK government actively promotes them . While this policy stands there is no prospect of meaningful arms control.

The UK must cancel its participation in the IDEX arms fair this weekend, end its irresponsible arms exports and stop using taxpayers' money to promote arms sales.”

ENDS

This little press release sums a lot of the British current policy is to sell deadly arms to rogue leaders around the world in exchange for resources such as oil or important allowances.

I for one believe that the British ruling class's who have been up to these dodgy back hand deals for years now have blood on their hands. They bring great shame on the british people for pulling our name through the dirt with all these deals they carry out behind our backs. We never get a say whether we should support a foreign dictator or sell arms to them. This sort of democracy never happens. I do wonder why? I imagine it would never happen that would be why. Most british people have a sense of the world and would not tolerate this i'm sure of it but alas we have no say in such matters. Such deals are left to the ruling class's at the very top, the ones who hold all the power and most of the worlds money to decide our futures in many ways.

As my mum said to me earlier what if colnel gadafi went off his head and on one of his mad rants decided to use his military might we have armed him with against us if we fall out with him which we seem to be doing now rightly so. The guy is completely unstable and unpredictable as shown with his attacking of his own citizens.

The title of this blogpost was titled from banks to blood which i feel is very apt for what is currently going on at the moment as the constant drive for profit be it through arms or oil or even playing with peoples lives is just highliting to me how far the ruling class's will go to preserve their capitalist state of society.

I think going back to the title of this post the role of banks and ethical banks could be brought to the front here with our banks in the west still holding money from dictators from the ex president of Egypt apparently his funds have now been frozen but why only now ?

We have surely known about these regimes


for decades now so why cant we block them off from storing money in our banks and not funding their dirty horrible habbits and buying up more arms to use against their own people.

I do think that a ethical bank needs to be created or formed that does refuse to do business with any of these evil dictators around the world. Perhaps we could stop them in their tracks a lot sooner this way.

We do owe it to the people of these countries to send our solidarity and stand by them against these tyrants even though the powers that be in our country decided they were good enough to stay there for years. This is no more apparent than our very own Tony Blair has been photographed on several ocasions shaking hands and coming across all very friendly with colnel gadafi. This to me just smacks of complete hypocrisy by someone who is now a appointed middle east envoy i'm still not sure by whom exactly probably himself as he does seem very keen to be teh policeman of the world sorting out every countries troubles and thrusting his own brand of democracy on these nations.

I personally feel helpless living back in the Uk while all this is going on out in the middle east i wish there was more i could do to help the people on the ground facing hardship every day.

I think its a fine effort from Malta who have offered their country as a safe havan to disaffected Libyans looking to flea the humanitarian crisis and colnel gadafi's iron fist.

I do think if there is anyway the United Nations can possibly step in and help civilians wishing to leave the country to a neighbouring safe havan they should do so. I think the international response to colnel gadafi and his cronies in the middle east so far has been one ofa passive nature not getting too involved. But as i have said in previous blogposts and i raised at the last debating society i attended you can bet your bottom dollar that America and Britain and other major world players will be plotting behind the scenes with what will happen next in terms of their own national interests of capital and investments in the regions as we do tend to rely on their oil a lot. With threats to cut off oil supplies and pipelines this must worry western governments greatly especially if their economy starts to stall due to lack of oil.


So in conclusion i say that we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the innocent oppressed people of these nations. Stand by them in solidarty and offer any support we possibly can as no one deserves to live under such rule and i for one cant even begin to imagine how awful things must be on the ground there.