BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 01:38 PM

Stigweard - yes.




On a different tack, I found a nice quote above : -

"I think it's diffcult to reason with somebody who is intent on destroying your culture and occupying your country especially in the case of an authoritarian regeime with WMDs and a huge army."

It seems to apply in quite a number of situations.

Even, to my chagrin (since I am not an IRA supporter) Ireland.

And more if you redefine WMDs to include economic WMDs.




As to the shoes, Bliar (I like that coinage) usually seems to have a few cards up his sleeve. I wonder what the comeuppance will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 06:03 PM

There do seem to be certain conflicting signals directed towards China, these days. On the one hand, there's stigweard's observation that the Dalai Lama is ignored, perhaps shunned, whereas Bush recently congratulated Taiwan's new incumbent President (who may not be so incumbent, as it is now looking) on his recent election.

China of course, is livid at this recent Bushism.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 06:35 PM

Since the thread is going all over the place, I remind people that Idia Amin was also responsible for playing the accordion. He learnt it as a British soldier, and wasn't too good, I believe. Otherwise maybe he'd have channelled his ambitions elsewhere, and become the kind of authoritarian squeezebox player you sometimes run into at sessions.

.....................

The evidence that Libya was responsible for Lockerbie is pretty shaky. There were other countries and organisations in the frame for it as well, but Libya was a bit more convenient than some of them. All very murky.

.....................

Also the suggestion that Libya has made big disarmamant concessions which weren't on offer already is a bit questionable. It's suggested that the Iraq war made Gaddaffi much more conciliatory - what seems to have happened is that it made Blair (and presumably Bush) more willing to accept the concessions already on offer. Suited everyone to cosy up in public at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 28 Mar 04 - 06:53 PM

There was an old story about Amin and a jigsaw puzzle...

Apparently he was in his 'study', accompanied by his advisors one day. He was trying to fit a piece of sky that he had in his hand in to a vacant space in the puzzle. No matter which way he rotated the piece, it was becoming obvious that it wasn't the correct one, and not wishing to criticise him too much, one of his advisors commented, "Perhaps, Excellency, it does not fit".
Whereupon, Amin took a large paperweight from the table, and hammered the piece of the jigsaw into place, shouting "I'll make it fit".....

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 07:04 AM

Your post GUEST,Tír Eoghain - 26 Mar 04 - 03:24 PM, regarding alternative activities might go some way to explaining the breakdown of the fatalities - provided in the link supplied by Guest GH - Deaths attributed to Nationalist/Republicans amount to just over 58%, because there were no ambulance drivers, doctors or nurses on duty because they were all out killing people - Yeah Right!!!

Sorry I missed the Ireland v Scotland game last Saturday, friends who watched it said it was one of the best games of this six-nations - well done Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 04 - 09:14 AM

stigweard,

Simple question in relation to Chinese/Tibetan relations.

It has been a province of PRC since 1950

It clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with the current UK Government - So what serves the best interests of the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 04:43 AM

Teribus,

Can I refer you to my post of 27 Mar 04 - 06:17 AM - the second link there will provide some background to the UK involvement in Tibet's past.

"It has been a province of PRC since 1950."

Because it was invaded - bit like Kuwait was by Iraq, Poland was by the Nazis and China was by the Japanese. Before that it was a soverign nation, and the UN has agreed the invasion was illegal.

"So what serves the best interests of the UK?"

Nice try! According to our Tone, anywhere there is an injustice being perpetrated against a population by an oppresive regeime it's in all our interests to act - or is that only when we get some sort of material gain?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:12 AM

Stigweard,

So the sum total of the UK's involvement with Tibet dates back about 100 years ago, where the Younghusband incursion/expedition, call it what you will, suceeded in placing two trading agents in Lhasa - Your point?

It certainly does not suggest to me that the occupation, liberation? of Tibet is a peculiarly UK problem. As you rightly say - "..it was invaded.......and the UN has agreed the invasion was illegal." That was in 1950, so early days yet for the UN to have even thought about doing anything about it - you have to appreciate, they do have a bit of a back-log of work. Case in point - they recognised Israel as a sovereign state and guaranteed it's security in 1948, and that is still work in progress - be patient Stigweard, they'll get round to it - eventually. "According to our Tone, anywhere there is an injustice being perpetrated against a population by an oppressive regime it's in all our interests to act" - quite right Tone it is - The "all our interests" bit IS the UN, the international community as a whole.

Now, don't just take the UK, go ask some of our fellow Europeans, France and Germany for example. Alternatively, ask the Indians, the South Koreans or the Japanese. Tell them that they should have a chat to China about Tibet, ask them to tell China that they (the chinese) should withdraw from Tibet, pay stax in compensation and restore the country to it's previous glory. By all means ask them, I have a very good idea what their answers would be singularly, and collectively - might not be right, might not be fair, but then most things in life are neither right, or fair - Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:40 AM

Teribus,

"Your point?" was that the Younghusband expedition was responsible for drawing China's attention to the straegic location and value of Tibet, and this event led to the eventual invasion by the People's Army (though it's far more complicated that, but to illustrate British involvement in Tibet).

"It certainly does not suggest to me that the occupation, liberation? of Tibet is a peculiarly UK problem" and I would agree - it isn't, nor is the possible loss of any culture anywhere in the world. As for the UN, I think with China being a permanent member of the Security Council we can be sure the veto would be used, even if someone had the political will to table one.

"...go ask some of our fellow Europeans...etc" That's not the point here - I was more interested in what Tone wasn't doing about even meeting the DL.

"but then most things in life are neither right, or fair - Fact" So should we all give up and let the people with the biggest guns, most money etc run the show for their own ends?

"China about Tibet, ask them to tell China that they (the chinese) should withdraw from Tibet, pay stax in compensation and restore the country to it's previous glory" Not even the DL would accept that was over going to happen - how about an autonomous region within China where people can live the life they wish without state oppression?

Tibetan culture offers us an alternative to the current dominant human mindset, which has an emphasis on the material and not the fact humans simply want to be happy. Over 2000 years of intense study of the mind and inner well-being of humans could be lost and we can't afford that as a species, and it's a mark of our ability to act civilised as to whether we let it disappear forever.

For an introduction, try The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, by Soygal Rinpoche. you never know, you may like it!

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:45 PM

Stigweard,

Thanks for the recommendation of the book in your post - I will look it out.

When you say - "the Younghusband expedition was responsible for drawing China's attention to the strategic location and value of Tibet, and this event led to the eventual invasion by the People's Army."

Come on, that's a bit of a stretch isn't it. I believe that when Mao's boys went walk-about to expel the KMT, they would have quite happily have gone into a number of places on a more-or-less permanent basis.

As for - "So should we all give up and let the people with the biggest guns, most money etc run the show for their own ends?"

That's pretty much how the world has struggled along thus far, irrespective of culture or continent. Situations arise when things can be changed and things happen to improve the lot of mankind, sort of three steps forwards two steps back sort of routine, but progress is made (little steps again).

DL pays a visit to the UK and his PR agent? (Ms Carrick) requests a meeting with the Prime Minister, unfortunately over the period of the visit the PM is busy. Now, I'm sorry, but that seems fairly plausible to me, what's the problem? Has there been any statement to the fact that the current PM has vowed that the DL will never darken his door - don't think so.

The DL should be concentrating on talking to the Chinese, they are the ones he has to convince that such a province would pose no threat to them. The number of temporary world leaders he has visited previously will not sway the Chinese decision one way or another.

As to saving the culture of Tibet, that can only be done by Tibetans.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 06:17 AM

Stigweard, Do you really believe that Blair would protest to China over Tibet, not much chance of that happening, it`s quite simple, unlike Iraq, China is a mighty nation, and they Do have many weapons of mass destruction.
What are the chances of Batman Bush and Robin Blair ridding the World of this tyrannical regime?, again no chance, notice how when China said your time is up, Britain had to high-tail it out of Hong Kong.
Might is right and always will be, pity the poor country that tries to save it`s culture with a gun pointing at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 07:18 AM

Ard Mhacha,

"...notice how when China said your time is up, Britain had to high-tail it out of Hong Kong."

Er, I think that had something to do with time of expiry of a lease.

Nothing whatsoever to do with a, "tyrannical regime", telling anybody to get out of anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Stu
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 10:02 AM

Teribus,

"As to saving the culture of Tibet, that can only be done by Tibetans." Superb! I think you're playing devils advocate here Mr. T - but I'll rise to the bait. This is like saying the only way the Native Americans could keep their culture and tribal lands was by doing it themselves - and we all know what happened there, or the Jews could have saved themselves from the Holocaust etc. They don't actually have a choice in this matter.

As a race we have a collective resposibilty to keep our cutural diveristy, and cultures like Tibet need help every now and then, because not everyone with a big gun is right.

"Come on, that's a bit of a stretch isn't it" The Tibetans don't think so. Your following comment I would agree with.

Ard - "Might is right and always will be, pity the poor country that tries to save it`s culture with a gun pointing at it." Too true.

"Batman Bush and Robin Blair" - Bizarrely enough, Boy George has met and talked with the DL, as recently as last year, much to the disgust of the Chinese (which is what Tone is thinking about). One can hope his motives are that he wants to make the world a better place and fight injustice, but I believe it's more likely he wanted to needle the Chinese and let them know who's boss.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: DougR
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:56 AM

Gee, Stig, thanks for giving GWB the benefit of the doubt! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:04 PM

Aye , Right you are Teribus, if it would have been the Falklands, Gibralter or the wee sick six, they would have brought their brave squaddies out on to the streets.
When China said run they ran.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:38 PM

Ard, you really should try taking a bit more water with what ever it is you are rendering yourself safe on.

A wee bit of history for you:

"In June 1898 the Second Convention of Beijing presented Britain with a 99 year lease for the New Territories, beginning 1 July 1898 and ending 1 July 1997."

Being extremely good tennants Ard, when the lease expired we threw a terrific party and left. Not a dry eye in the house, ask Chris Patton.

Unlike Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Falklands and the North of Ireland are not held on leases.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:59 PM

Hong Kong proper, and Kowloon, were not part of the New Territories, and theoretically had been ceded to Britain permanently.

There can be very little reason to doubt that, if the country next door had been some powerless third world state rather than China, some way would have been found to avoid handing over a population that on the whole did not in fact wish to be handed over.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 12:59 AM

MGOH,

Your "little reason to doubt" being based on what exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Terry K
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 01:28 AM

Gaddafi is yet another victim of people's perceptions based on media misinformation. Maybe. Certainly from what I saw in the months I spent in Libya following the RCC takeover, the efforts were all aimed at dismantling the sytematic corruption that held Libya back under King Idris, and giving Libya back to the people. The nationalisation of BP (which happened while I was there) was only a part of that - and a positive part to boot. The burning of our flag at the British Embassy to celebrate the fact was a less positive aspect.

The essential thing is that a Gaddafi was needed. The good thing is that, of the RCC members, he was the best choice to be leader. What is less appreciated is that Gaddafi brought prosperity to a people who had previously been denied a share in the country's wealth, brought a new sense of pride and, lets face it, a stability since 1969 which could not possibly be foreseen by outsiders.

Maybe Libya had some (as yet unproven) dodgy contacts with terror groups. There is probably more evidence to connect the ANC and its much vaunted erstwhile leader to such activities.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 11:26 AM

Aye, McGrath trying to get through to yer man is like attempting to convert Pasiley to the Franciscans.
The citizens of Hong Kong told Chris Patten where to go when he arrived to tell them that the your mighty neighbours are taking over and there is damm all we can do about it, now had it been Argentina, Spain or Ireland , Chris wouldn`t have been going anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM

By all means Ard, please continue to run on fiction. It makes your posts and comments so quaintly "Oirish". I'll continue to rely on fact if it's all the same to you. MGOH can continue with his "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" nonsense.

Have fun over Easter, Oh favoured and fortunate subject of the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Tiocfaidh
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 05:56 PM

Sure you could never make us subject to anything, Teri baby.
Isn't that what all the bawr was about in the first place?

What waves are you ruling these days, by the way?

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Gareth
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:02 PM

You must excuse Ard M - I gather (from his previous posts) that once upon a time a British "Squaddy" must have given him a nasty look and this has affected his judgement ever since.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Tiocfaidh
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:07 PM

Yes. British squaddies had a habit of doing that

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 12:35 PM

Gareth In your ignorance rave on, after all you take every statement from Blair as the truth, God help your wit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 01:41 PM

Based on what? Based on common sense about the way the world works.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 04:47 PM

But perhaps I have more respect than Teribus for the possibility that the British government in that kind of situation might choose to have some regard for the wishes of the people involved, when realpolitic didn't make that impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 04 - 04:56 AM

Your regard for the British Government taking the views of the people concerned didn't seem to be all that evident whenever the Falklands was discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bliar shakes hands with Gaddaffi
From: GUEST,Pamwe
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 06:25 AM

How many of you heroes have put anything right?    Bigotry and ignorance are not qualifications.