Hats off to the United Nations, once again it has demonstrated it’s undisputed position as the world’s highest moral authority by vetoing sanctions against Zimbabwean tyrant Mugabe. The only bit that confuses me is when this repoer states that ” A BBC correspondent at the UN says the failure of the resolution will be a major blow for the United States and Britain.” Eh? Surely it will be a major blow for any nation that believes in liberty and freedom???
THE WORLD’S HIGHEST MORAL AUTHORITY.
Bookmark the permalink.
“Surely it will be a major blow for any nation that believes in liberty and freedom???”
And the people of Zimbabwe?
While what it actually is, of course, is simply further confirmation that the UN is a laughing stock, only supported by sanctimonious imbeciles … like BBC reporters.
The resolution would have imposed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and financial and travel restrictions on President Mugabe and 13 of his top officials.
What confuses me is that anyone can believe that that resolution would have made any fucking difference whatsoever. It merely goes to show how weak and pathetic the US/UK governments are in that this was the best that they could muster. Pathetic.
korova | 12.07.08 – 1:10 am |
True. I’d rather we’d nuke Russia, China, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea.
d_g you forgot to add korova to your list of target co-ordinates.
Looks like ra boyz from Anglo-American and Rio-Tinto and thier buddies at the top of the BBC will just have to wait a few more years until the old bugger pops his paws.
I used to wonder why the beeb was extra-obsessed by Zimbabwe.
I wonder no longer, just follow the trail of $$$$s.
GCooper: I actually thought of that but we wouldn’t want to waste a good nuclear missile on that moron, would we?
Unbelievable. It’s not a blow to the credibility of the UN, the credibility of Russia or China, or a blow to the people of Zimbabwe – the people who have been tortured and murdered by Mugabe’s brutal administration.
Nope according to the culturally deluded BBC it’s a “major blow” to the US and UK.
And look at the comments form:
Are you in Zimbabwe? Do you worry about increased international pressure?
Imagine the outcry from the BBC if the UK or US had vetoed an arms embargo on Zimbabwe.
That’s the main thrust of all BBC political broadcasting, isn’t it? What will harm Boooosh the most?
When I said that John Simpson was amoral in his reporting about Zimbabwe, I wasn’t kidding. This is the BBC position now: As long as the US is thwarted, it’s all good.
But forget about my foolish religious warmonger United Statesian point of view for a moment. Why add “Britain”? Blair is no longer in power, so the proverbial Poodle is no longer an issue. So why is it and Britain? What’s the point of combining the two countries into one goal?
Which begs the question, BBC:
To take DV’s point to its logical conclusion, for which countries would this not be a major blow? Are you people that clueless and disconnected from reality?
Further to this load of shite, the BBC are now taking their anti-sanction activism to a new level:
Sanctions: How successful are they?
Completely partisan, and exacerbated by the calls for audience opinions like ” Do you worry about increased international pressure?” It’s important to remember that the official BBC position, as stated on air and in various questions directed at the audience, is that the only acceptable sanctions fall under the Paddington Bear category: A really hard stare.
Will you alter your narrative if the answer is yes, BBC? Get real. What would you possibly do if enough people respond in the negative, saying that real hardcore sanctions are the only option?
You should replace the “all” in that answer with “off”.
The BBC should play its part in this tragic affair,it should place an embargo on broadcasting to Britain until Mugabe leaves power.
Peter | 12.07.08 – 2:58 am |
Only if they place an embargo on BBC News broadcasts in the US first!
Just let me have Radio 3, sans discussions of collectivism during concerts of Russian composers, or contemplation of the Chinese navel (with the excellent exception of Professor Wu and the woman composer they talked to whose name I missed). There haven’t been any useful sitcoms since “The Royle Family” and “Coupling”.
Assassin please.
What confuses me is that anyone can believe that that resolution would have made any fucking difference whatsoever. It merely goes to show how weak and pathetic the US/UK governments are in that this was the best that they could muster. Pathetic.
korova | 12.07.08 – 1:10 am
So, should we invade Zimbabwe now your anti-US chums have blocked UN sanctions?
Actually, in this case the BBC is correct, because hypocritical tyrannies like Russia, China and just about any African/Arab state you can mention don’t give a fly’s arsehole about suffering in Zimbabwe or anywhere else. Making people suffer is their meat and drink.
Funny that the BBC NEVER mentions the billions of dollars in Chinese and Russian made weapons that flood Africa.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article2291
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0812russia.htm
Anyone remember the BBC doing a Newsnight or Panorama special on this?
A twat slated the US and UK over this. I wonder what the lefty blogosphere’s idol will do about Mugabe:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bN328A4ZgazF/610x.jpg
“The amorality of the UN”
[Extract, from ‘Cranmer’]:-
“As ‘The Spectator’ has observed, the UN is not the Holy See, but the world’s impotence and inaction over Zimbabwe lends weight to the argument that, if there is to be a modicum of morality in world affairs, it is time to abandon this façade of enlightened world government, and establish the League of Democracies.
“And then the UK could veto the membership of the EU.”
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/07/amorality-of-un.html
This is what ‘Cranmer’ is referring to (above) in ‘League of Democracies’:
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2007/12/time-for-british-led-anglosphere.html
Of course, it wouldn’t have to be British-led; but such a body of like-minded cultural nations would be an necessary organisation to counter the activities of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), such as this:-
“The OIC’s crusade against Islamophobia”
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/06/oics-crusade-against-islamophobia.html
So, should we invade Zimbabwe now your anti-US chums have blocked UN sanctions?
Anonymous | 12.07.08 – 10:31 am | #
Sorry to say, thanks to 12 years of nu-lab “military slash international social worker” policies, the UK would probably have difficulty invading the Scilly Isles if they were taken over by bin Laden tomorrow.
The UN has consistently failed to prove its utility to establish stability and peace in vulnerable countries and has just lost any credibility it had.
They have allowed themselves to become politicized, and failed to protect hundreds of thousands of people from violent deaths in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, East Timor, Somalia, Bosnia and Kashmir.
It’s ironic how successive Secretary-Generals always talk about resolving to act more decisively to ensure things like this never happen again, but like new year resolutions, nothing ever happens.
Bottom line: the U.N. is a failure. Anyone who would defend such an utter failure is just as inept as that political body. Or has a sick sense of humour.
The answer is for the true democracies ot leave the UN (and kick it out of New York) and set up a new organisation of the “willing”.
Only nations who are true recognised democracies would be able to join (and get aid).
Everyone else can get lost and burn in hell. Problem solved. Oh and there would be a nice empty building in New York to house it.
Let the black African leaders get their private jets paid for by the Chinese and Russians.
Sounds good to me. And an added bonus would be that the wouldn’t have the BBC trailing along for the ride like a groupie at a rock concert.
Martin 12:15: Why should the BBC care about the Russian and Chinese arms being supplied into Africa? They only cared about the US arms being supplied to Iraq pre 1990 not the much larger Russian and French supplies.
hey -who gives a shit about zimbabwe – its not our country – fuck em – why do people think that we should do ANYTHING at all about some pox hole in africa – the africans wanted independence -they got it – fuck em mate,not our problem.
cameron: The BBC doesn’t give a shit either. It just likes to bash Boosh and the USA.
After all George W Bush has done plenty to help Africa (as has Bill Gates) not that the BBC would ever report it.
But I agree. Let Africa sort out its own mess.
Only nations who are true recognised democracies would be able to join (and get aid).
Sounds wonderful, if somewhat childlike in its naivity. Who determines what the ‘true’ democracies are? Because to be honest, the US and the UK hardly have the credentials to judge given their own track records in supporting dictatorships.
Let Africa sort out its own mess.
What about the Middle East? Should it sort out its own mess? Or should we continue to back military action in the region? And if we should, why is the Middle East deserving of our intervention and Africa not?
“Sounds wonderful, if somewhat childlike in its naivity. Who determines what the ‘true’ democracies are? ”
We take a vote on it dummy.
korova | 12.07.08 – 6:33 pm |
To be honest, you’re using a weak straw-man argument. No country in the history of mankind has a pristine track record when it comes to dealing with nasty dictators. To stick your tongue out a the US and the UK for whatever has been done in the past is just a cop out.
There is no moral or logical reason to sit back and watch carnage just because various nations have imperfect pasts. By your logic, no European country should be allowed to intervene, nor should any Asian or African or South American nation. It’s a joke. That way lies the madness that all genocide and mass butchery or enslavement must be tolerated.
Why don’t you be a little more forthright and state that you think the darkies should be let alone to butcher each other until the cows come home, rather than stretch credulity to come up with phony excuses not to intervene.
DO YOU SEE THIS IN BBC?
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/07/lisbon-multicultural-portugal-10th-july.html#readfurther
WHY’S THAT?
Go figure…
Korova:
“Who determines what the ‘true’ democracies are?”
“What about the Middle East? Should it sort out its own mess?”
“Should we continue to back military action in the region?”
“Why is the Middle East deserving of our intervention and Africa not?”
Korova, a suggestion. Change your questions into statements, so that Biased-BBC can hear some of your OWN wisdom.
You sound like a bloody kid constantly wheedling his parents with why, why, why, all the while contributing nothing yourself.
Korova’s a self-proclaimed anarchist who’s probably 12 years old… and a troll.
korova: You’re an idiot. If you don’t know what a democracy is, I suggest you ask your mummy or daddy or your teacher at ‘skool’ on Monday.
The problem with the middle east is that they don’t sort their own problems out (such as the invasion of Kuwait) and many of the problems of the middle east (like Muslim terrorism) end up on our streets.
Korova is a ‘cow’ in Russian and in this case self-explanatory
I have looked and listened at this site for some time.
For readers info please see my initial statement of my opions about the BBC. I am opposed to the BBC because of (in my opinion) it’s complete and utter betrayal of neutrality and honesty. The BBC is evil and corrupt to it’s modern libral (not true libral!) world view and must be disposed off.
About Zimbabwe and africa in general. It becomes as no suprise about the BBC statement. If we could look at the facts about africa and its regimes after the end of foriegn imperial rule (however I did hear white’s had colonise parts of africa before blacks) we only see what?
I agree about previous post on the UN why was the UN founded what does it do? The BBC is in religious denial about africa and the plight of africans. The religion political correctness and multicultralism (unless your white or yellow living in africa)and it must be obeyed. It is European or America’s fault no one else can be blamed. Until we stand up as men (all mankind) and start telling it as it is (note BBC) hiding and fudging facts about unplesent truths. serious issues of rape, murder, torture and corrupt behavour will not go away. I hold the BBC partitially responsible for the peoples of africa’s suffering.
Rapture of the father: Whilst I agree that the BBC doesn’t paint a fair picture of Africa, don’t you think that it is a bit harsh to then claim that “the BBC is partially responsible for Africa’s suffering?” Africa’s suffering is basically due to corrupt indigenous dictators. It is sadly endemic in the political culture, and frankly, until democratic countries like South Africa start seriously condeming it and forcing their neighbours to act, the situation is not going to change. The BBC certainly do pander to a black victim mentality, but the problem lies in Africa and its political psyche. Western nations should be prepared to intervene where necessary (eg to stop serious bloodshed), but the problem can only be solved from within. However since the BBC is saturated with liberal post-colonial guilt, I’d expect Brown to resign quicker than get fair and balanced news reporting on any sensitive issue.
American British and maybe European forces COULD be used in Zimbabwe. With I am sure very quick and positive results for the vast majority of Zimbabwean citizens.
IMO Mugabe COULD be overthrown in no more then 24 hours virtually without bloodshed. Democracy restored within a year or so, and countless hundreds of thousands if not millions spared slow starvation, or some other very nasty premature death.
Remember; Allied forces defeated The entire Axis forces in only 5 years.
Not so far sorting out a few rag heads in pick up trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, has how taken 4 and 7 years respectively and counting. Not defeating communist North Viet-Nam took 12 years.
So our recent history books would seem to indicate that the western military is becoming less effective as time goes on, in spite of having a massive superiority in just about everything imaginable, including hard cash.
DOES THIS MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE TO YOU?
Because it makes none to me.
As I see things, the British and American establishment.
1 Only fight wars that are in the establishments interests. Which are sometimes the same as the British people’s, and sometimes they may not be.
2 Only fight wars they KNOW they are going to win whatever happens. Although of course the establishments objectives may be very different from what we are told they are by the BBC and the MSM. Viet-Nam being a very fine and defining example.
So the questions are NOT should ‘we’ do something, the answer is morally obvious. Or COULD ‘we’ do something quickly for the long term betterment of the common people of Zimbabwe.
The questions are. Does our establishment have a positive incentive or plan to do so?
Given that they may have a plan of some sort.
Can we trust them to do the proper, effective, quick job, we know they COULD do. Or would they once again radically prolong the suffering and agony just to make a fast buck. So end up continuing to exploit the counties vast amount of increasingly valuable natural resources, by then installing another murderous dictator, with habits only temporally better then Mugabe’s?
I completely trust the establishment to do what they perceive to be best for them, never for us, or any common people, on purpose.
If you REALLY want to know the future of Zimbabwe. Try to work out what exactly is in the best long term interests of the establishment. If you succeed you will then have a better then 95% chance of correctly predicting what it will be.
Whatever you do, pay absolutely NO direct attention to what the BBC misinforms you about the entire worlds situation. The BBC is not wrong some of the time as far as this is concerned, it is effectively wrong 100% of the time.
Not because the BBC is collectively populated by fools and six form socio-political media studies interns. Even though the BBC may like you to think that is the reason.
It is because thats the whole entire purpose of the BBC, as much, as often as it can get away with it, and sometimes when it can not so much anymore.
Why should the Employees at the BBC care?
They know there will always be a completely corrupted main stream media propagating lies 24/7, whether paid for by the TV tax payer or not, for them to work for.
They know they are the best qualified and experienced profoundly dishonest con artists currently available on the market by definition.
‘Good’ bullshitters cost good amounts of money, and all the best ones earn easy fortunes doing exactly what they are told to do, working for the mind control industry.
In practice almost all in the media have a collectivist superiority complex brainwashed into them at university. So most of them don’t need to be told what to do, just employed straight from school. The modern graduate especially, embraces fascism without knowing they are in every deed and thought. Or indeed having any clear idea what real fascism is all about. These people now infest the top levels of every government institution and organization by default.
Nazis do not march around the streets in jackboots anymore. [ In the United Kingdom the real ones never did.] They go by the name of Common Purpose among others and they only march around in jackboots sometimes in their dreams.
No country in the history of mankind has a pristine track record when it comes to dealing with nasty dictators.
Well done, that’s kinda the point. Who defines what is a democratic state? Every country has a pretty dodgy record with regarding the recognition of varying governments. Which begs the question, who would define what is a democratic country worthy of this wonderful club that was proposed earlier? UK, US, Russia, China?
Andy – Why don’t you contribute something? Why don’t you explain your perspective?
Anonymous – Congratulations, you have won tit of the week.
Andy – Why don’t you contribute something? Why don’t you explain your perspective?
Yeah, yeah – answer a question with a question. Typical waste of bandwidth from a worthless troll. Twat.
korova | 13.07.08 – 12:39 am |
Well done, that’s kinda the point. Who defines what is a democratic state? Every country has a pretty dodgy record with regarding the recognition of varying governments. Which begs the question, who would define what is a democratic country worthy of this wonderful club that was proposed earlier? UK, US, Russia, China?
Wait a minute – what does my point about no government ever having a perfect track record have to do with them being “a democratic state”? What kind of nonsense is that?
A government is defined as a democracy based on a set of criteria involving the way the members of government are elected, removed, and have their terms set, as well as the powers they have (or don’t), and the divisions of those powers. The shit they get up to afterwards is irrelevant to that definition.
Your contention is completely false. “Democratic” has nothing to do with “morally pure and perfect and filled with unicorns and rainbows.”
Here’s an easy litmus test for ‘democracies’: start by looking at the roster of nations who voted for sanctions. If more help is required, for comparison look at the roster of nations who vetoed sanctions.
This should be on your other Blog shouldn’t it DV? After all, it’s your opinion on the UN and Zimbabwe and diddly squat to do with the BBC. Never mind, I suppose it doesn’t seem to matter these days.
Martin says “Funny that the BBC NEVER mentions the billions of dollars in Chinese and Russian made weapons that flood Africa.”
Never Martin? You know what they say about ‘never’?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7503428.stm
Of course, the liberal/left are already campaigning, care of uncritical BBC propaganda, for even more (unlimited numbers?) Zimbabweans to get right to work and stay in UK and no doubt become UK citizens along with unlimited numers of refugees from e.g. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Afghanisatan, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Syria,etc.
And the interests of UK indigenous people are further reduced under the ‘diversity’ priority of multiculturalism:
“Call to let Zimbabwe exiles work”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7501288.stm
“Afghanisatan” above, is merely a Freudian slip; substitute e.g. Bangladesh.
Joel, there is always one article that BBC supporters can find to show that the BBC does report from a point of view other than their normal one. One could almost believe that the BBC had a policy of always producing one article that reports against the normal world view of the BBC. However a diet of bad USA, evil American supplying arms to Iraq etc. etc. etc. is hardly counter-balanced by one article reporting to the contrary.
‘there is always one article that BBC supporters can find to show that the BBC does report from a point of view other than their normal one.’
Sure, but this one is among the headlines on the front page of the News website. 24 hours after Martins post.
joel: You’re a prat. Why do you continually think that the BBC news website is the ONLY output for the BBC?
If you bothered to read my post (if you can read) I wanted to know why no Newsnight special with Michael Prick investigating Chinese arms sales or why no Panorama expose on how evil Russia is selling billions of Roubles of weapons to the Sudan?
Would you like to answer?
The AK47 has a great marketing line “..it can be used by a child…” Brilliant.
Joel you must be so proud of your commie friends in China and Russia. Do you talk about that at ‘skool’ with teacher?
Sure, but this one is among the headlines on the front page of the News website. 24 hours after Martins post.
Joel | Homepage | 13.07.08 – 11:42 am |
It happens to be the first time the BBC has reported on China’s military backing of Darfur:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/7945670478483354783/#408860
See if you can find any coverage prior to today’s.
Korova
“Who defines what is a democratic state?”
“Which begs the question, who would define what is a democratic country worthy of this wonderful club that was proposed earlier?…”
Yet more fucking questions!
C’mon you self-absorbed navel-gazing twat, lets have more of your own answers.
But won’t their paymasters in China be agry?
“Sure, but this one is among the headlines on the front page of the News website.”
I guarantee that the vast majority of those who receive the BBC’s output,do so via television and radio.
Outside the bloggosphere,I have never heard anyone say,”Did you see the BBC website last night”