Bullshit

She's at it again: Senora Kirchner, the increasingly desperate president of a near bankrupt Argentina, is following in the footsteps of her predecessor, General Galtieri in hoping to distract the Argentinian populace from domestic woes by making noises about the Falkland Islands, which she claims "belong to Argentina."

No they don't - in fact the islands were claimed by British Navy Captain Byron in 1765, though at the time they were a French possession, subsequently ceded to Spain but reclaimed by the British in 1833 since when the islands have been continually under British sovereign rule.

President Kirchner likes to refer to Argentinian territorial integrity, but for those who imagine that the islands are a short hop from Argentina (perhaps like the Isle of Wight apropos Britain) it's worth remembering that they are 310 miles from the Patagonian coast.  On that basis perhaps the USA will claim Cuba, which is 16 miles from Florida!

The 3000 inhabitants are resolute in their desire to remain under British protection; in fact the Argentinians rather blew it when they invaded in 1982, forcing the inhabitants to drive on the right and declaring Spanish to be the official language.  There were other heavy-handed diplomatic balls-ups at the time which served severely to piss-off the islanders.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that there is to be a referendum amongst the islanders concerning sovereignty, adding that Britain will "respect and defend the results of the plebiscite."  Also the islanders' leaders cite the UN charter regarding self-determination of peoples whilst President Kirchner bangs on about "colonial rule."

The Argentinian president would be better advised to focus her energies on the looming financial crisis in her country, and also bear in mind that apparently a substantial part of the Argentinian population actually don't give a damn!

Until the next time

More Middle East

Well, well, I see that it has been announced today that Israel has authorised further building of illegal settlements in the occupied territories and in East Jerusalem, the day after the overwhelming majority vote in the UN in favour of Palestine's status.  Is there a limit to the extent of the arrogance of the Israelis?

Meanwhile there is fierce fighting in the vicinity of the airport at Damascus, with the rebels now having possession of what are reported to be "heavy weapons" plus shoulder-launched ground-to-air missiles.

And in Cairo, Tahrir Square is once again the scene of vigorous protests.

Is it my imagination or is it fact that there was once a Middle-East Peace Envoy in the person of that slippery fellow Blair?

If fact it was, where is this all-powerful factotum, this peace-wallah?  Has he perhaps decided to take a back seat and spend a little more time with his money?

At least I never voted for him, just as I never voted for his now-prosperous wind-baggy predecessor!  

Until the next time

Going In Large

Well now, yesterday I posted two pieces, the first suggesting that the UN decision to implement a no-fly zone plus other measures was "too little, too late" whilst the second stated that the first casualty of war is the truth.

As for the first of the articles, I must admit that any military credentials I might have been thought to possess have been shattered. Yes, Gadaffi's men are in Benghazi, but soon they will find themselves it seems, without any means of supply. And stupidly, I had not imagined that the UN-sanctioned coalition would go in so hard and so quickly. It seems that the French began operations even whilst the Paris summit was in progress. And now I read that already 112 "Tomahawk" cruise missiles have been fired at Libyan air defence facilities. This is serious stuff. I imagine that the coalition allies are expecting the supporters of Gadaffi to start to distance themselves from the régime.

As for the second post, the Libyan statements given out today include the biggest lie I have ever come across viz: "We have not fired a single bullet at any of our people" And as for your cease-fire... Dear oh dear.

For Gawd's sake Muammar! We might be "infidels" but we are not bloody stupid.

And a message for your supporters: no, nobody harbours colonial ambitions towards Libya and neither does anyone intend to steal your oil!

Wake up!

Until the next time

Edit/Update: Just heard an interview with a Tripoli resident who spoke frankly - and very bravely. he lives about 500 metres from an air base which was the target of coalition-launched missiles. He put the lie to Libyan Government claims of civilian casualties: he was very impressed with what he called "good shooting", in particular citing the case of a Land-Rover AA vehicle being destroyed with a single shot. He added that the people were in the street watching these events! He went on to describe Gadaffi as a man who "has run out of ideas" Perhaps he was correct; now Gadaffit is threatening civilian targets in the Mediterranean. Nothing new there, bearing in mind Lockerbie of course and Gadaffi's support for the repulsive IRA.

Too Little, Too Late, Horses and Stable Doors

The news last night, welcome here at least, that the UN Security Council had voted in favour of a "no-fly" zone and other unspecified military measures, certainly provided a cause for celebration in Benghazi.

However, less than 24 hours later, we see that Gadaffi's troops are at the gates of the city, unhindered today in their rapid advance from Ajdabiya. Meanwhile, there is to be a conference tomorrow in Paris where members of the newly-formed coalition will discuss (I suppose) the realities of instituting the "no-fly" zone.

Given that the coalition has assured us all that there is to be no occupying force on the ground in Libya (and UN Resolution 1973 does not authorise this) and the well-known saw that wars are never won from the air, one feels that when asked to retreat, withdraw etc., Gadaffi who appears to hold nearly all the cards at present, will simply say "No."

And then what?

A week too late I think.

Until the next time

A Damned Good Idea

Let's face it: Gadaffi is an arsehole; similarly his bizarre and ranting son: "We are not a Mickey Mouse"...

After the balls-up in Iraq, the world in general seems rather cautious, understandable perhaps given that there is a war to win in Afghanistan.

So there is a petition to sign, asking the UN Security Council to implement a "no-fly zone" in Libya, the aim being to achieve 1,000,000 signatures. I have signed, though I have to say that place names like Tobruk and Benghazi suggest to me that a more robust response would be appropriate...

I doubt that Field-Marshal Rommel or The Auk would have done so much hand-wringing! Of course we live in different times and a different world. So for example, the British Government can waste time and money discussing plain cigarette packets whilst civilians in Libya are being murdered by their own government.

Thanks to Banned for the link to the petition.

Until the next time.

Even Bigger Brother

Last month, I wrote about the British Government's plans to record every email; internet site visit, text message etc.

Now, on CNET it is reported that following a proposal from the Chinese Government that the UN, in particular its ITU - International Telecommunication Union, is looking into means of ending the ability of those using the Internet to remain anonymous. The article adds that the United States' National Security Agency is also looking into "IP Traceback."

Of course there are justifications: spammers, those sending out viruses or Trojans, but according to a leaked ITU document there are other possibilities:

1.5 Proxy "Safe harbor" A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.

I should add that the veracity of this document has been denied by an attender* of ITU sessions, but in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies, "He would wouldn't he?"

Mandy Rice-Davies
Image Source: here

I cannot honestly say that I feel threatened by these rather sinister proposals, but I am certain that there are parts of the world where others are going to feel very differently.

Whether or not you consider me paranoid, I do recommend that you read the CNET article.

Until the next time

*I absolutely refuse to use the word "attendee." The suffix "ee" signifies passivity, as in "nominee", one who is nominated. Similarly, the words "retiree" and "standee" (!) are rubbish and should be eschewed by any with respect for the English language.