Sunday, July 25, 2004
Waaaah, I'm so fat! No surprise why of course, I have rather allowed my at home eating habits slip towards 'constantly grazing', too many crisps and ice-cream. Though not at the same time. I'm not pregnant or anything. Both my sister and I tend toward my father's body shape, while my sister has the fairer all-over distribution that seems to come more from my mother's side of the family the simularity between the my profile and that of my Dad (or indeed Alfred Hitchcock) is undeniable. My sister has the dog to walk several times a day and goes to the gym regularly, both activities which would drive me crazy in no time at all. The alternative I've settled on is fervently wishing for the excess poundage to magically disappear overnight. So far my sister is in the lead when it comes to tangible results.
Meanwhile, The Sunday Telegraph have decided to blame the events in Sudan on me. The Nimns prepare the way for evil. Yep, by marching against Bush and Blair ignoring international law and the will of the international community whenever it suited them I've given material comfort to Sudanese militias and torturers. Apparently I'm currently torn up by trying to decide how to square supporting military intervention in the Sudan after not supporting it in Iraq.
This is of course, all bollocks. I support neither. As ever the Telegraph is busy fulmigating against so many straw men and other fallacious arguments.
The UN's refusal to authorise armed action to make Iraq conform with UN resolutions (thanks to the French unconditional veto) was the green light for dictators everywhere.
Whereas the constant support of the US for the Israelis unconditionally vetos any UN advancement of a peace process in favour of whatever crumbs the Israelis feel like dropping from their table. I would also suggest that the 'fuck you then' of the 'Coalition of the Willing' to the UN is more damaging than the 'no' vote, the latter, however odious, following the procedures of the UN to come to a democratic decision, the former having all the legality of Saddam's land-grab of Kuwait almost fifteen years ago.But both arguments are equally invalid. If one or other worked then everyone would be a member of the UN and abide by it's decisions as a global government, the fact is that of course many countries were quite happy to stay outside the pale, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iraq, before the vote and after the American invasion. But Conservatives have always distrusted organisations like the UN which threaten their power, so they come up with excuses for why it's bad.
On the other hand, it could equally be argued that rape, murder and mass expulsion are also other time-honoured cultural traditions in Africa, which the West would be wrong to intrude upon.
Note the casual racism.
Either way, the Nimns are baffled. What can they say? Full of froth and wrath, they opposed US military action against an Iraqi regime which had caused the deaths of some two million people. How can they now demand that the US intervene in Sudan? Worse still for them, it has to be the US, because all major UN projects are only made possible by US military and logistical strength. So how could the UN logically authorise the US to use force against Sudan when it withheld permission for the US to use force against a regime which - incredibly - was actually more vile than the rapists and hen-eaters of Khartoum?
Of course, it might help if the Telegraph could point to some NIMNs that opposed force in Iraq yet support it here. The fact they haven't suggests to me that there aren't any. That the clamour is one entirely in the heads of the opinion writers for the newspaper.
Of course, Sudan still has "friends" - of a sort. It is both a member of the Arab League and of the African Union. This means that one of the worst - certainly this week: as for next week, who can say? - countries in Africa enjoys a double indemnity. It associates with two rival sets of unspeakable, if spectacularly inept gangsters, who despite their many differences regularly call upon one another's diplomatic muscle in the UN.
The Telegraph opposes such practices when it's a cartel of black men doing it for one another. The paper, still nominally under the proprietership of Conrad Black, arch-Zionist and friend of the Israeli goverment, supports it fully when it's the US protecting Israel from those wicked Muslims.
It just goes to show how short people's memories are if, thirteen months after 'formal' warfare in Iraq ceased, conservative cheerleaders are trying to argue that the disastrous campaigns of Tony and George in Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect models for how morality should operate in the modern world. At the risk of setting up some straw men of my own, are the Telegraph really suggesting the best thing for all concerned is for an non-UN force to invade Sudan, terrorise and kill a large proportion of the people suffering at the moment, allow most of their torturers to escape and then invite them to return and take back control when we've had enough?
Meanwhile, The Sunday Telegraph have decided to blame the events in Sudan on me. The Nimns prepare the way for evil. Yep, by marching against Bush and Blair ignoring international law and the will of the international community whenever it suited them I've given material comfort to Sudanese militias and torturers. Apparently I'm currently torn up by trying to decide how to square supporting military intervention in the Sudan after not supporting it in Iraq.
This is of course, all bollocks. I support neither. As ever the Telegraph is busy fulmigating against so many straw men and other fallacious arguments.
The UN's refusal to authorise armed action to make Iraq conform with UN resolutions (thanks to the French unconditional veto) was the green light for dictators everywhere.
Whereas the constant support of the US for the Israelis unconditionally vetos any UN advancement of a peace process in favour of whatever crumbs the Israelis feel like dropping from their table. I would also suggest that the 'fuck you then' of the 'Coalition of the Willing' to the UN is more damaging than the 'no' vote, the latter, however odious, following the procedures of the UN to come to a democratic decision, the former having all the legality of Saddam's land-grab of Kuwait almost fifteen years ago.But both arguments are equally invalid. If one or other worked then everyone would be a member of the UN and abide by it's decisions as a global government, the fact is that of course many countries were quite happy to stay outside the pale, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iraq, before the vote and after the American invasion. But Conservatives have always distrusted organisations like the UN which threaten their power, so they come up with excuses for why it's bad.
On the other hand, it could equally be argued that rape, murder and mass expulsion are also other time-honoured cultural traditions in Africa, which the West would be wrong to intrude upon.
Note the casual racism.
Either way, the Nimns are baffled. What can they say? Full of froth and wrath, they opposed US military action against an Iraqi regime which had caused the deaths of some two million people. How can they now demand that the US intervene in Sudan? Worse still for them, it has to be the US, because all major UN projects are only made possible by US military and logistical strength. So how could the UN logically authorise the US to use force against Sudan when it withheld permission for the US to use force against a regime which - incredibly - was actually more vile than the rapists and hen-eaters of Khartoum?
Of course, it might help if the Telegraph could point to some NIMNs that opposed force in Iraq yet support it here. The fact they haven't suggests to me that there aren't any. That the clamour is one entirely in the heads of the opinion writers for the newspaper.
Of course, Sudan still has "friends" - of a sort. It is both a member of the Arab League and of the African Union. This means that one of the worst - certainly this week: as for next week, who can say? - countries in Africa enjoys a double indemnity. It associates with two rival sets of unspeakable, if spectacularly inept gangsters, who despite their many differences regularly call upon one another's diplomatic muscle in the UN.
The Telegraph opposes such practices when it's a cartel of black men doing it for one another. The paper, still nominally under the proprietership of Conrad Black, arch-Zionist and friend of the Israeli goverment, supports it fully when it's the US protecting Israel from those wicked Muslims.
It just goes to show how short people's memories are if, thirteen months after 'formal' warfare in Iraq ceased, conservative cheerleaders are trying to argue that the disastrous campaigns of Tony and George in Afghanistan and Iraq are perfect models for how morality should operate in the modern world. At the risk of setting up some straw men of my own, are the Telegraph really suggesting the best thing for all concerned is for an non-UN force to invade Sudan, terrorise and kill a large proportion of the people suffering at the moment, allow most of their torturers to escape and then invite them to return and take back control when we've had enough?
