Or not.
David Cameron told Ed Miliband
that "you are letting down America," when he was informed over the phone
on Wednesday that Labour would not be voting for his motion on Syria.
We have a Prime Minister with an overriding allegiance to a foreign
power, up to and including sending our Armed Forces to war. He simply
has to go.
Three cheers, then, for the MPs from 10 parties and an Independent who acknowledged Ed Miliband as the United Kingdom's real national leader. If UKIP is serious about being an anti-war party, then it ought not to field candidates against them.
The North East provided half of those Labour MPs who, because Miliband's amendment failed to rule out military intervention absolutely, voted against that before voting against Cameron's motion.
If UKIP is serious about being an anti-war party, then it certainly ought not to field candidates against Ronnie Campbell, Jim Fitzpatrick, Stephen Hepburn, Siân C. James, Grahame Morris or Graham Stringer.
Some people know what a sectarian civil war looks like. No MP from Northern Ireland voted with the Government last night. Not a single one.
Ed Milibrand seems no more convinced of this initiative than Malcolm Rifkind. Are you too PC to wonder why?
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you mean.
ReplyDeleteThe rank hypocrisy of David Cameron, Barack Obama, and their ilk who have been complaining bitterly about the poor children in Syria suffering from chemical attacks, being blown to bits, and now suffering napalm-like burns, just beggars belief. 'We must do something', is the cry.
ReplyDeleteMy comments may seem like wandering off topic but I don't believe so. Children are children wherever they live and are always the innocents.
Mr Cameron and Mr Obama are (quite rightly) appalled by these sufferings caused by chemicals, explosives, and corrosives. Figures of hundreds have been mentioned. It really is truly appalling. So, why do they inflict these sufferings on children in their own countries, and in the hundreds of thousands, even millions, and provide funds and premises where they can be clinically disposed of? I am speaking about abortion, the methods of which are remarkably similar to the atrocities in Syria, but which is supported by Mr Cameron and Mr Obama.
For the younger babies there is the vacuum aspiration where the baby is sucked out of the womb in bits through a tube with a knife edged tip. For the slightly larger baby there is the D and C whereby a hook-shaped knife cuts the baby to bits before the pieces are sucked out. Someone has the pleasant job of checking all the parts to make sure nothing is left behind.
And then there is salt poisoning where a strong salt solution is injected into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this and is poisoned. The salt also acts as a corrosive, burning off the baby's skin. Is this not appalling?
So, why do Mr Cameron and Mr Obama provide huge funds for the destruction of babies in their own countries, yet wring their hands in horror when virtually the same process is happening in another country? A dead innocent child is a dead innocent child, no matter where it lives, and ALL deserve our protection.
I ask this question in all seriousness because I simply do not understand how our political leaders can pass laws that end the lives of millions of their own children yet howl with sanctimonious rage when it happens elsewhere.
EM does not sound too convincing in his anti-war role. He and Rifkind are natural bedfellows.
ReplyDeleteRifkind opposed the Iraq War. I do not know what has happened to him in the intervening decade.
ReplyDeleteMiliband in his own words - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/30/britain-still-difference-syria