REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tony Blair/Tory or Labour?

POSTED BY: DALLASFIREFLY
UPDATED: Thursday, June 8, 2006 09:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5402
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:18 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Fletch.... why did you all go to war on ambivalent data? Was that why the intell had to be "sexed up"? It's clear that most people really didn't believe it before the war, and they really don't believe it now!

You see, sooner or later the truth will out.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.



Define "most people." I'm serious. Even if you take the poll Rue keeps quoting for the UK population then it would appear that most people thought there were WMD's. Unless you think the UK population will invade a country just because the UN says it's ok?

I wrote a long version of what I think happened a while ago but I can't find the thread.

The really short version is this. Sanctions against Iraq were becoming unpopular and the UN would probably have dropped them in a few years. Without sanctions Saddam would have rebuilt his military and WMD programs and put down the Kurds and the Shiites. Over in the Defence department Pearle and Wolfowitz have been listening to Akmed Chalibi of the Iraqi National Congress. INC has spent many years providing Washington with "Intelligence" about Iraqi WMD and even "defecting scientists." Realising that sanctions will soon be history and utilising public fear post 9/11 they start to build a strategy for Iraq.

Now the CIA know's that INC's intelligence is worthless but Chalibi and his defectors have the ears of the Defence department and the administration. There is a genuine belief that INC's intelligence is the "right stuff" since it comes from boots on the ground and "Saddam defectors." CIA material that fits is taken seriously, that which contradicts INC's tales gets ignored. Going in the Administration really believes there are WMD's and that the Iraqi's will greet the American forces as liberators.

Saddam on the other hand has a PR problem. People know that his regime lies. In addition, if the UN wants WMD verifiably destroyed in front of inspectors then what do you gain by throwing inspectors out and destroying them in secret? At this point everyone really does think he has WMD's. Note that after the Inspectors initial "we didn't find anything much" report countries voted to give inspectors more time not to pull them out and declare the job done.

In the leadup to war the Bush administration tries to link the idea of WMD's with terrorism to make the case that WMD's are too dangerous to be left in the hands of a madman. They push this hard because the US has had a taste of hard core international terrorism and it's easy to play on people's fears. Saddam before was abstract and miles away, the American people wouldn't have deposed him to satisfy a UN resolution or to stop his murder but as a potential threat to the US? That they will stand for. Is it overplayed? Probably, but a few years down the road it could be a potential scenario no matter how unlikely. Governments often play up the best or worse case scenario to gain public support for their actions.









NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:23 PM

DALLASFIREFLY


I think the main problem with Tony Blair is that he's a moralist in a country that doesn't really want moralizing leaders. He also behaves much more like a President than like a PM. I've read complaints on both of these grounds from the left and right in British politics. I'm not going to claim to understand how UK subjects think, but I do have a feeling that Blair would be more popular in this country than in his, given his penchant for moralizing and authoritarian leadership. Perhaps someone from the UK could comment on this? Do you think Blair would be better suited for American politics, and do you think he's too Presidential in his approach to governing?

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 2, 2006 11:54 PM

FLETCH2


On paper a British Prime Minister is more powerfull than an American President.

1) He has the right to declare war without the consent of Parliament
2) He can sign treaties without consultation
3) deploy the armed forces
4) Make appointments to his cabinet without approval.
5) decide when elections can be held
6) there are no term limits

Because of the nature of Parliamentary democracy you can't get to be PM without being good at debate and presenting ideas. Bush can disappear let a Presidential Spokesman handle the press and give a couple of speeches a year. Blair has Prime Minister's questions in the House once a week where he has to counter the opposition leader and answer questions. That means you don't get to be PM without being reasonably articulate.

I suspect that's why Americans like him. If you look at the way ideal Presidents appear in TV and movies they are always passionate, disciplined and articulate. I don't know that the US political system nescessarily select for those properties where as British politics does. The US President in theory could be an unknown governer 6 months before an election cycle. A British PM is likely to have spent years as a minister or shadow minister and (if in opposition) years as a party leader before the big job.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 4:34 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I was waiting for a response but didn't see this until late today. (What can I say, it was posted late Friday, and unlike Geezer2, I have a life.) It's too late today to reply, so this is just bumping it up to keep it in view.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 8:28 PM

FLETCH2


I have a life, I just dont spend it running around calling people on forums liars that's all.

Keep the thread and pontificate until you are blue. I'm done with you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 4:36 AM

RHODRI


You want Labour?
Vote Prescott!

He wouldn't take any sh~t from anyone!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 9:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Since Geezer2 has ceded the thread, I’m posting to clear up any misinformation he may have generated.

He claimed that Blix, the US, Britain and Russia were convinced Iraq had WMD. And because of that conviction, the US and Britain were compelled to take action. Neither is true.

BLIX

Starting with Blix, Geezer2 took a short quote from Blix’s new book to ‘show’ Blix was convinced Iraq had WMD. Since this book isn’t available online, we ended up trading random quotes from different sources back and forth to validate our positions.

The truth is that before reentering Iraq for inspection, Blix did think there may be WMD retained from 1991. After he started inspections, he began to ‘have doubts’ there were WMDs at all. And he said many, many times that just b/c the destruction documentation didn’t list every weapon Iraq was thought to once have had, didn’t mean such weapons existed. He said it would take a few more months of inspection to validate the absence of WMD with reasonable certainty. After 11 weeks of renewed inspection, Blix made his report to the UN. (full text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2763653.stm ) Quotes form the report:
Quote:

Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations. Mr President, in my 27 January update to the council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, most importantly prompt access to all sites and assistance to Unmovic in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure. This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.
Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. As the absence of adequate evidence of that destruction has been and remains an important reason why quantities of chemicals have been deemed "unaccounted for", the presentation of a list of persons who can be interviewed about the actions appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance. The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting. The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on 20 January, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq. (But) A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview.
Unmovic has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing. In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found. In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found. Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items - conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction. … the task of "disarmament" … under resolution 1441, were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span..


Shortly afterwards, inspectors found over-range conventional missiles, which were in the process of being destroyed (Iraq was allowed to have conventional defensive weapons) when, on March 7, 2003 Blix made another presentation to the UN (transcript here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2830505.stm ) It’s a cautious and technical document, but one significant quote is :
Quote:

Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.
During this time, Iraq had complied – under pressure and at the last minute – but complied, with every demand made. This included the declaration to the UN, returning inspectors to Iraq, allowing good access for inspections, destruction of potentially over-range conventional missiles, and other times large and small. Blix only needed a short timetable (months) to show compliance.

Largely due to a continuing pattern of compliance and the lack of WMDs, Bush issued a final, and illegal, ultimatum to Iraq to avoid war. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
Quote:

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.
Despite the fact that this new condition had nothing to do with WMD, the US commenced its official attack on Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Quote:

On March 20, 2003 at approximately 02:30 UTC or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the 48-hour deadline, at 05:30 local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad.


Was Blix CONVINCED Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs as Geezer2 claims? Far from it.

As I get the time, the next installment will be Russia.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 9:50 AM

FLETCH2


You keep putting words in my mouth Barbie, that's why I choose not to deal with you. I never said he had to be CONVINCED all I ever said that the he believed. You need lots of hard evidence to be convinced of anything, you can believe based on a lot less. I may believe you are a shrew however since I can't prove it I'not convinced.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 10:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer2,

Yanked your chain, didn't I?

What you said was this: HMG really did believe that Saddam had WMD in which case doing nothing isn't an option either.

There is no doubt in your statement. You could have omitted 'really' to allow for a lack of absolute certainty. You could have said "did believe Iraq MIGHT have WMD". Or, "concluded it was safer to ASSUME Iraq had WMD." But you included no wiggle room. Saying "really believed Iraq had" means "was convinced".

But this is completely off the topic. Did Blix believe Iraq definitively did have WMD?






Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 2:37 PM

FLETCH2


Actually, no. You didn't yank my chain, my work did. I should never post when I'm angry.

Sorry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 8, 2006 9:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I was going to post a very long analysis on Russia, with references and quotes. And maybe I'll do that later. But people in general don't like long posts, so I'll use Geezer2's own logic. He states that a government which "really believed" there were WMD couldn't NOT take action, in this case attack Iraq. To make this a little less convoluted:

A government which believed Iraq had WMD would have to attack Iraq.

Russia, Germany, France, and possibly China signalled they would not authorize the use of force against Iraq. Therefore, by Geezer2's own logic, they did not "really believe" it had WMD.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL