Tony Blair/Tory or Labour?

POSTED BY: DallasFirefly
UPDATED: Thursday, June 8, 2006 19:12
VIEWED: 7593
PAGE 1 of 1

DALLASFIREFLY

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:13 AM

I know which party Blair heads, but frankly he seems more and more like a moderate Tory to me with each passing month. It took Labour 18 years to regain power after the 1979 disaster and this is what they're rewarded with? Blair is both a closet Tory and a liar imo, the sooner Bush's poodle is out of No.10 the better. Can't wait for PM Brown! Speaking of Brown, does anyone think he'll be a better PM than Blair, and more importantly, will he be real Labour or another Tory light?

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

SIMONWHO

Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:14 AM

A moderate Tory? The Conservatives never proposed tuition fees or wars of aggression or anti-citizen laws such as those we have now.

I suspect Gordon Brown will be more traditional Labour, however matters are set up so that he'll have a marginal majority at the next election and everything for him will be a struggle so he'll probably have to go more middle of the road anyway.

MERCURY002

Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
I know which party Blair heads, but frankly he seems more and more like a moderate Tory to me with each passing month. It took Labour 18 years to regain power after the 1979 disaster and this is what they're rewarded with? Blair is both a closet Tory and a liar imo, the sooner Bush's poodle is out of No.10 the better. Can't wait for PM Brown! Speaking of Brown, does anyone think he'll be a better PM than Blair, and more importantly, will he be real Labour or another Tory light?

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

well blair lives in number 11 (he moved cause number 11 is bigger) and what disaster in 1979 ? labour have only been in power since 1997 havent they? i thought that before them only the lib's and cons had the power in the uk.

Simon:"If the battle was so horrible, why did he name the ship after it?"
Zoe:"Once you've been in serenity you never leave"

MERCURY002

Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:27 AM

wait they were in power wernt they i was thinking of new labout in 74 then thatcher came in yeah labour suck, all of the benefits that we experienced first was from the conservative party the only good thing they have done was gordon brown and the monetary policy committee, thats really it.

Simon:"If the battle was so horrible, why did he name the ship after it?"
Zoe:"Once you've been in serenity you never leave"

DALLASFIREFLY

Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:47 AM

My knowledge of recent British history isn't as strong as I'd like, but here is what I know of Labour's electoral history:

Won with Ramsey MacDonald in the mid 1930's (I think 1936) and held power briefly.

Won with Clement Attlee in 1945 in a landslide and held power until 1951.

Won with Harold Wilson in 1964. Wilson was fond of calling frequent elections so I'm not sure of the dates of the General Elections during his time, but he won all but one. Labour held power most of the time between 1964-1979, including uninterrupted control between 1974-1979. In 1977 Wilson retired and was replaced as PM by Jim Callaghan. Callaghan was unable to rally Labour and in 1979 that toad Thatcher led the Tories to a huge win. After 1979 Thatcher led the Tories to victories in 1983 and 1987 and Major led them in 1992. Of course Blair led "New Labour" to victory in 1997 and beyond.

My hope is that Brown will become PM this year so that he'll have enough time to repair the damage done by Blair before needing to call the next general election. Blair might be a disappointment but the Tories will always be worse. One thing puzzles me, I had thought that Labour was protective of civil liberties, but under Blair the opposite would seem true. The Tories are knuckledraggers so is there a party in the UK that cares about individual liberties? Are the Liberal Democrats the party to vote for if you care about civil liberties?

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

CITIZEN

Sunday, May 28, 2006 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Mercury002:
wait they were in power wernt they i was thinking of new labout in 74 then thatcher came in yeah labour suck, all of the benefits that we experienced first was from the conservative party the only good thing they have done was gordon brown and the monetary policy committee, thats really it.

Benefits like the destruction of British industry, mismanagement of the economy, policies that are directly responsible for the current spiralling private debt, the disastrous privatisation of the rail network, terrible mismanagement of the NHS, and on and on and on...

Yeah the Conservatives are just great.

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
A moderate Tory? The Conservatives never proposed tuition fees or wars of aggression or anti-citizen laws such as those we have now.

Nope he's pretty far over on the conservative bench all the way.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:15 PM

I'm afraid there is no "LABOUR " Party in U.K. anymore. The creation of "New Labour" pretty much turned them into the British Democrats.
On the world stage whoever is in power we would still be involved in Iraq and the so-called war on terror and whoever is in number ten would still be trying to pass laws eroding civil liberties because we are too scared of the U.S. economy to stand up for ourselves and too mistrustful of Europe to form a block powerful enough to counter the Americans.
Perhaps the Chinese can do better.

MRSKBORG

Sunday, May 28, 2006 9:39 PM

Said from day one that when Blair/Labour took over that all that had changed was the name.

For all of the reasons listed above.

I could rant for several hours about Mr Blair and his so called New Labour policies but I think I said all I need to with my first line.

I will just say this - the policies instituted by Westminster Government in England/Wales have not all been adopted by the Scottish Parliament.(notably, we are not going to be charging an arm and a leg for University) Odd, given that it too is Labour led yet the policies are different. Maybe it is time for Mr Brown to take over after all.

"This movie may be a beautiful butterfly, but I loved that damn caterpillar." Joss Whedon.

FLETCH2

Sunday, May 28, 2006 11:47 PM

He's post Thatcherite, which means that on major issues he's about the same as the Tories which are also a post Thatcherite party. I don't think that makes him or Labour the same as US Democrats any more than Tories are the same as the Republicans.

What IS interesting is that the new Tory leader is going to the left of Blair on a number of issues be interesting to see how that all shakes out.

KPO

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:01 AM

Quote:
whoever is in number ten would still be trying to pass laws eroding civil liberties because we are too scared of the U.S. economy to stand up for ourselves

I don't understand how this follows - can you elaborate on this point?

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:09 AM

oldenglanddry,

Caught between the US and the EU ??? Jeez, what muddy thinking. It's like saying you can't decide between cyanide and steak. The US kleptocracy has no one else's interest in mind (not even its citizenry).

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
we are too scared of the U.S. economy to stand up for ourselves and too mistrustful of Europe to form a block powerful enough to counter the Americans.

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

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:10 AM

KPO,

Quote:
whoever is in number ten would still be trying to pass laws eroding civil liberties because we are too scared of the U.S. economy to stand up for ourselves
----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand how this follows - can you elaborate on this point?

I don't understand this either. Spain did a quick turn-around.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:41 AM

It comes to this. Brits have always believed that security both personal and national was the legitimate domain of government. All major parties when in power are vulnerable to claims that they are not doing enough to ensure public safety and public order. The Tories are vulnerable because they actively campaign on a law and order platform, Labour is vulnerable because the Tories catergorise then as being weak on L&O.

So if anything bad happens --- inner city riots, IRA bombings, Islamic militants --- the knee jerk reaction in both parties is to clamp down and to back police requests for more power. Once the crisis has lifted there is a gradual relaxing of powers, either through legislation or by simply not exercising powers that could be used.

Case in point. The Official Secrets act, an act from (I believe) the first world war. If you work for the government in almost any capacity you will have signed a copy. Citizen almost certainly has given his job history. In theory once signed you can't speak about your job at all without home office approval, it's illegal, you can go to jail. Some administrations use it to plug leaks that are politically damaging even if the information being leaked is in the public interest, while other administrations only use it for legitimate national security reasons. It's old legislation, probably violates all kinds of modern human rights ideas but it remains in use because all governments can find a use for it

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:51 AM

But keeping troops in Iraq is like painting a bull's eye on Britain. Why make it a target with a massively unpopular war that originally had nothing to do with the country?

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

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 1:18 AM

It depends on your point of view. The USS Cole and 9/11 happened before Iraq remember? In these cases the US was being hit just for maintaining troops in the gulf region. In which case the UK was already a target for Afghanistan and any number of other reasons. In addition HMG really did believe that Saddam had WMD in which case doing nothing isn't an option either.

As for popularity. Big demos aside (and we have big demos about almost everything because we are a small country with a reasonably good train service) public support for war was very high (80+%) before the war and even higher in the immediate aftermath.

It fell once it became obvious there was no quick victory and well, people felt lied to.

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 2:21 AM

Fletch2,

I don't know why you continually feel the need to lie.

Quote:
public support for war was very high (80+%) before the war and even higher in the immediate aftermath.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,879104,00.html
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Tuesday January 21, 2003
The Guardian
Support among British voters for military action against Iraq has slumped six points in the last month to its lowest level since pollsters ICM began regularly tracking opinion on the question for the Guardian last summer.
This month's Guardian/ICM survey shows that outright opposition to the war has risen to 47%, the highest level on any poll since last August.
The survey results also show that an overwhelming 81% of British voters now agree ... that a fresh United Nations mandate is essential before a military attack is launched on Saddam Hussein."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:1kFzpSTfhaIJ:www.eriposte.com/war
_peace/iraq/iraq_war_worldwide_support.htm+%22iraq+war%22+%2Bpoll+%2Bbritain+%22poll+2003%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
"Washington Post 2-18-03: (In the U.K.) Today's poll, conducted by ICM, showed 52 percent opposed to military action, with 29 percent in favor and the rest undecided."

Quote:
HMG really did believe that Saddam had WMD in which case doing nothing isn't an option either.

The Downing Street minutes tell otherwise.

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

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 2:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The Official Secrets act, an act from (I believe) the first world war. If you work for the government in almost any capacity you will have signed a copy. Citizen almost certainly has given his job history. In theory once signed you can't speak about your job at all without home office approval, it's illegal, you can go to jail. Some administrations use it to plug leaks that are politically damaging even if the information being leaked is in the public interest, while other administrations only use it for legitimate national security reasons

I have signed the official secrets act.

I haven't told anyone anything about what I do that contravenes that

.

And in the aspect of whistle blowing the OSA has already been tested and lost...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 3:06 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/11/npoll1
1.xml

Which Downing Street minutes?

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 3:09 AM

I don't think you are supposed to reveal that you've signed it without Home Office approval.....

Some civil service types were jailed in the 80's for it. I'm kinda out of date these days...

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 3:40 AM

Well, I've got a few nicknames picked out for you. I need to think about them before I pick an especially juicy one.

BEFORE the invasion, Brtish opinion was more 'against' than 'for'. It was MOST 'against' unilateral action (a paltry 80% against). That was at the same time that 1 - 2 MILLION people showed up in Trafalgar Square to protest the Iraq invasion. You know, those few people you so dismissively mentioned

The invasion started March 20, 2003. Bagdhad fell April 9, 2003. You picked a poll starting April 1 when Britain was engaged (once the war started public opinion was sure to pick up) and things looked to be going well. AND EVEN ON APRIL FIRST, IT WAS ONLY 54 - 40, NOT THE RINGING PRE-WAR ENDORSEMENT YOU CLAIM.

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

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 4:15 AM

Well even your figures showed more people for than against so I didn't need to make that point. The poll I found was to illistrate a point. You see some of the same people you claim were so against unilateral action didn't think so 2 weeks later when they thought they had an easy victory. This was if you remember a war without a second UN resolution and so unilateral by your definition. So if your poll is accurate 80% against became 66% for, so I guess they were not that set against it on principle....

As for names. Where I come from you only give really insulting names to people you like. That's why I'm going to call you Barbie.

It suits you.

RUE

Monday, May 29, 2006 7:14 AM

No, what you said was this:
public support for war was very high (80+%) before the war.
And in fact it was not.

Guardian 01/21/03

opposition (with new UN resolution) 47%
support 30%

opposiiton (no new UN resolution) 81%
support (0)

WashPost 02/18/03

opposition 52%
support 29%

And don't tell me you never heard of the Downing Street Minutes. What a crock.

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

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 12:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I don't think you are supposed to reveal that you've signed it without Home Office approval.....

Erm, no.

And I don't work for the Home Office

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 6:52 PM

No I read the minutes that where published last year. Since they didn't include a section that said that HMG didn't believe that Saddam had WMD's I assumed you were talking about another memo I may have missed.

Could you quote the section you are refering to?

FLETCH2

Monday, May 29, 2006 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, what you said was this:
public support for war was very high (80+%) before the war.
And in fact it was not.

You are absolutely right. I got ahead of myself, I shouldn't use hyperbole in the presence of nit pickers.

I will go away and ritually flog myself.

HEB

Monday, May 29, 2006 8:56 PM

This is why we should all vote lib dems . It used to be that I would far rather have voted labour rather than Tory but now I can't really tell them apart.

The lib dems are the only party that are actually any different. They are the only ones consistently sticking up for our civil liberties and the only ones who will actually do anything about the environment if they get into power.

Tony Blair might think that he's only using these infringement of human rights against terrorists but what about the precedent these changes in the law set for the guy in office 10, 20 years down the line.

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 9:10 PM

The problem with the Lib Dems is that they don't have a clue.

If they ever actually got government they wouldn't know what to do with it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

HEB

Monday, May 29, 2006 10:26 PM

You say that but the thing is that it's not going to happen overnight. If their number of MPs continues to increase then in the future they will become the opposition. As this occurs they will gain a lot more experience. Also as their voters and MPs increase they are likely to gain more funding which will help them develop.

I'd like to see them have a continued increase in voters so this can happen.

Anyway people would probably have said the same about Labour after their 18 years not being in power but they got New Labour and got a clue.

Also I think they have more of a clue then Charles Kennedy gave the impression of. They are doing ok as part of the coalition in Scotland. Yeah Menzies Campbell hasn't started off great but he needs a chance to settle in(though I preferred Simon Hughes).

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

CITIZEN

Monday, May 29, 2006 11:08 PM

The Scottish liberal democrat party isn't the same party as the English one.

And it's a Chicken and the egg thing, they're going to have to get power to gain the experience and they're going to have to prove they have experience and credible policies before anyone will vote for them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

HEB

Monday, May 29, 2006 11:16 PM

Well it's a state party within the liberal democrats and so technically led overall by Menzies Campbell.

Well it's not really a chicken or the egg thing because it's not all or nothing. Power comes in bits to a certain extent. By gaining more MPs and becoming the opposition first. By showing that they are doing good things in the constituencies of MPs and on local councils they can show that they work and therefore persuade people to vote for them.

Also which of their policies do you think aren't credible?

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

DALLASFIREFLY

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:40 AM

I would have a difficult time choosing between the Liberal Democrats and Labour if I voted in the UK, but I would likely go with Labour, especially Labour without Tony Blair as PM. Aren't the Lib Dems partly made up of former SDP members? I remember reading about a splintering of Labour in the early 80's with the hawks forming the SDP. At any rate I'm hoping that Labour under Brown will be more respectful of civil liberties. I think there is a reasonably good chance that Labour and the Liberal Democrats will have to form a coalition after the next general election, which might be a good thing for the UK.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:41 AM

Kinda. The Lib-Dems are party formed by the merging of the SDP and what was left of the Liberal party. The Liberals where the original big tent party and at one time they were the natural opposition to the Tories. Unfortunately they had a nasty tendency to fragment, and they split and split to a point they nearly became extinct.

The SDP where former members of Labour that broke away after the 1979 election defeat. For a brief time there was talk about them being a third force in politics they entered into an electoral pact with the Liberals and later merged with them. Paddy Ashdown, the leader of the combined party liked to see them as being equivalent to the US Democrats.

The Lib-Dems have some interesting policy initiatives and seem to be well organised on a local level, they just dont seem to be able to translate that into major gains in Westminster mainly because of the UK electoral system.

DALLASFIREFLY

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:53 AM

I guess the argument goes that a vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Tories since Labour is the only center-left party strong enough to form a government. I remember the Liberal party from British history. Didn't Labour absorb their left wing and then go on to be the main leftist party? I seem to remember this happening after WW I. I think Lloyd George was the last Liberal PM. At this point Blair's Labour is to the right of the US Democrats, which is a complete reversal of the positions of the two parties from ten years ago. It's a pity when a Tory leader can go to the left of a Labour PM. One other thing that Blair did that really pissed me off was forbidding Labour representatives from attending the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It's been tradition for US Democrats and Labour to attend each others campaign kick offs as a sign of support. Blair didn't want to offend Bush so he put his foot down with Labour MPs who wanted to go to Boston.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

HEB

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:38 AM

I have to say that unfortunately I don't think it's likely that the Lib Dems will gain enough MPs at the next election to even become the opposition let alone a coalition. But my hope is that it will happen sometime in the forseeable future.

I hate the mentality about voting for which ever one of Labour or the Conservatives you least dislike, especially now that they're so indistuingishable in the centre. Building up three/multi party politics in this country by voting for the Lib dems or any other country doesn't strike me as a wasted vote if you agree with their politics.

A Douglas Adam's quote:

'On [the robot's] world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.'

'Odd,' said Arthur, 'I thought you said it was a democracy?'

'I did,' said Ford, 'It is.'

'So,' said Arthur, hoping he wasn�t sounding ridiculously obtuse, 'why don't the people get rid of the lizards?'

'It honestly doesn't occur to them,' said Ford. 'They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.'

'You mean they actually vote for the lizards?'

'Oh yes,' said Ford with a shrug, 'of course.'

'But,' said Arthur, going for the big one again, 'why?'

'Because if they didn't vote for a lizard,' said Ford, 'the wrong lizard might get in.'

...................
Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood
.................
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.

DALLASFIREFLY

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:06 AM

That's a good one HEB. Freakin lizards!

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
At this point Blair's Labour is to the right of the US Democrats, which is a complete reversal of the positions of the two parties from ten years ago. It's a pity when a Tory leader can go to the left of a Labour PM.

I'm not so sure that Labour are on the right of the Democrats, I think the frames of reference between the two countries are so different as to make direct comparison almost impossible. I don't think there is the equivalent of the states rights, small central government conservative in the UK. I'm not sure that there is a direct match for libertarians either.

Labour moved to the center because that's were the votes are. The Tories moved to the center for the same reason, the problem is that there is a very narrow policy range that appeals to middle ground voters so by definition both parties end up having those policies in their platform. Within that narrow band each is grabbing whatever policy initiatives neglected by the other. So you have the Conservatives -- traditionally the party of business -- now talking about the environment and Labour --- once the more radical party -- now talking about a secure business environment.

Quote:

One other thing that Blair did that really pissed me off was forbidding Labour representatives from attending the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It's been tradition for US Democrats and Labour to attend each others campaign kick offs as a sign of support. Blair didn't want to offend Bush so he put his foot down with Labour MPs who wanted to go to Boston.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

Actually I think they did go, just not "officially"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/25/wbush2
5.xml

What's even weirder is that a party of UK Conservatives went to the Democratic convention.

DALLASFIREFLY

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:14 AM

That is bizarre, the UK Tories going to our convention I mean. Is the annual Labour Party Conference held in August? I remember that Margaret Thatcher was replaced by Major at a Tory party conference in 1990. It would be good to see Blair go this year.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

RUE

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:50 AM

Geezer2 ('Fletch2' that's your new name since 'Geezer' is now Slick)

Quote:
YOU SAID HMG really did believe that Saddam had WMD in which case doing nothing isn't (wasn't ?) an option either.
I SAID The Downing Street Minutes tell otherwise.

There were two parts to your statement 1) HMG really did believe Hussein had WMD; and 2) because of that it was compelled to take action. But the Downing Street Minutes (quotes below) reveal no WMD urgency.

Quote:
The only way to overthrow (Saddam's regime) was likely to be by massive military action. (REGIME CHANGE as the basis for war, not WMD)

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (WMD INTELLIGENCE faulty)

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. (WMD CAPABILITY poor, at best)

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. (War was based on regime change, for which there was NO LEGAL BASIS)

And once the UN weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq and SHOWING NO WMD there was no shred left to justify the war.

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

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:26 AM

Barbie, Barbie Barbie,

HMG believed Saddam had WMD. You won't find anything in the memos that says otherwise.

And doing nothing was not an option. In the memoes do you see any option that says they should do nothing?

You can argue all you like about UN resolutions and about if it's America's job to be the World's policeman and those would be damned good arguments but the fact is that the British government, US government, Russian government, hell even Hans Blix all thought Saddam had WMD. Application of 20/20 hindsight is revisionist history.

Did the US administration play up the WMD threat as a justification for war? You bet. No nation goes to war for any reason but it's own narrow self interest. The US wasn't going to war over gassed Kurds, gang raped women, mass graves. Those were just dead A-rabs and US commitment to someone elses human rights very rarely extends to spending blood and gold in their defence. So yeah they played on your fear so you'd have the commitment to take down a lunatic. A lunatic who would probably have been out from under UN sanctions within a year or so, one who had a brutal liking for slaughtering his own internal opposition. God knows what we would have had to deal with 10 or 15 years down the line.

I said this before and I'll restate it. We have lived out a timeline which has been far from great. There is a temptation to take what we know today look back and try to remake the "bad" decision. That works in Scifi movies. But the truth is you have no way of knowing if doing nothing would be better or worse.

Sometimes in real life there are no good decisions.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
That is bizarre, the UK Tories going to our convention I mean. Is the annual Labour Party Conference held in August? I remember that Margaret Thatcher was replaced by Major at a Tory party conference in 1990. It would be good to see Blair go this year.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

My bet is that he wants to hold out until 2008 so that he can stay in office as long as Mrs Thatcher did.

RUE

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:40 AM

Geezer2,

You know, I was going to respond with all sorts of quotes from Hans Blix, Russian diplomats, HMG intelligence and on and on to show everyone how wrong you are. Once again, as many time before, you are completely 180 off.

And then I thought - why? Not ONE comment I've taken exception to has been right. NOT ONE And then, once more, you unashamedly lie without one shred of proof to call your own. So, I'm holding my reply.

You're not worth it.

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

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:55 AM

So you can't because we know you can't.

Go to it girl --- oh and I want dates too SVP

RUE

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:22 AM

Geezer2,

So how did I know you'd post that?

See, you can't prove what you claim. Worse, I've proven you wrong every time. Shall I recount the many lies you told in detail? You know, about support for the war being high, about the largest demonstration in Bristish history being ordinary, about US spending being flat (in real terms) during the Clinton administraion, and on, and on ... Do you really want me to emBARE-ASS you further?

I'm hoping you go for it - I have my post just full of quotes ready to go.

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

RUE

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:28 AM

I'm giving it 10 minutes and then I'm gonna take off. I've wasted enough time on you.

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

DALLASFIREFLY

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 2:32 AM

FLETCH2
Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 15:33

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DallasFirefly:
That is bizarre, the UK Tories going to our convention I mean. Is the annual Labour Party Conference held in August? I remember that Margaret Thatcher was replaced by Major at a Tory party conference in 1990. It would be good to see Blair go this year.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My bet is that he wants to hold out until 2008 so that he can stay in office as long as Mrs Thatcher did.

Damn, I hadn't thought of that. I hope Labour has a strong enough sense of self preservation to make sure Blair is out no later than 2007.

I wanna be Mr. Baccarin!

FLETCH2

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:09 AM

Oh what the hell.

Hans Blix from his book "Disarming Iraq"

"My gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that it had the documents to prove it."

(the book isnt online but is quoted in many places including the Butler Report page 112)

http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/89
8.pdf

"We have also noted in the papers we have read that the broad conclusions of the UK intelligence community (although not some particular details) were widely-shared by other countries, especially the assessment that it was likely that
Iraq had, or could produce, chemical and biological weapons which it might use in circumstances of extremity. We note that Dr Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, has said that:

My gut feelings, which I kept to myself, suggested to me that Iraq still engaged in prohibited activities and retained prohibited items, and that it had the documents to prove it.

Where doubts existed, they were about the extent to which the intelligence amounted to proof, as opposed to balance of probability. "

Russian

http://www.cdi.org/russia/239-11.cfm

" BBC Monitoring
Russian analysts predict three scenarios of US war against Iraq
Source: Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, Moscow, in English 1512 gmt 9 Jan 03"

"The second theory predicts that combat operations will last between six and 12 weeks. The main elements include the following: a major surprise resistance from Iraq's air force; protracted street battles in some towns; moderate civilian casualties and heavy property damage, attempts by Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction to a limited extent and strike oil fields in the region. Experts believe the chances for this second scenario are 30-40 per cent."

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/24/wmd.shtml

"Iraq WMD’s Could Fall into Al Qaeda Hands — Russian Diplomat" --- Created: 24.06.2004 14:32 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:39 MSK

“It is hard to claim that the former Iraqi regime had relations with al-Qaida,” Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov was quoted as saying. “At the same time, it is obvious that now Iraq has really become a magnet for terrorists of all stripes, and al-Qaida feels absolutely comfortable in Iraq. Therefore there is a high threat that components and materials that have possibly remained in Iraq could fall into the hands of international terrorists.”

So Russia still thought that there may be WMD material in Iraq even after the war.

Bill Clinton

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

"Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for."

CITIZEN

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
HMG believed Saddam had WMD. You won't find anything in the memos that says otherwise.

Well of course they did. They still had the receipts.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.

RUE

Friday, June 2, 2006 5:02 AM

Geezer2,

"... fact is that the British government, US government, Russian government, hell even Hans Blix all thought Saddam had WMD." (And due to unanimous urgency, war was justified.)

Actually, that's not completely true. Going more or less backwards though the list:

Blix The quote you selected was from 2002. But further information from 2003 is that "Mr Blix's doubts (about the existence of WMDs) set in when they returned to Iraq ... They inspected suspicious sites, acting on tip-offs from the intelligence agencies, but they found no credible evidence of WMD. " I said, 'If this is the best, what is the rest?'" In fact, he adds: "Considering how misleading much of the intelligence given us eventually proved to be, perhaps it was a blessing we did not get more."

Russian government This is from Putin - 'Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."'

Germany I thought I'd throw in Germany, since I had it "The German intelligence officials responsible say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated Curveball's claims... Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND said they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so. According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons."

Britain I scrapped the original to specifically reply to your link. I read the "Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction". What I got out of it was that 1998 - 2003 intelligence was concerned about Hussein's acne - 'break out' capability - but there was NO intelligence of WMD stores. And it did much foot-shuffling about why the public was accidentally led so astray. (mumble, mumble ... should have been more careful ... shuffle, mumle ... forgot to say worst case scenario ... mumble ... didn't caveat limits of intelligence .... mumble, shuffles, slides toward the door)
But when it came to the best on-the ground intelligence available - Blix's inspection reports immediately before the attack, it says:

Quote:
In total, UNMOVIC carried out, in a little under four months, 731 inspections, covering 411 sites, 88 of which had not been inspected before. It found and, where relevant, supervised the destruction of:
a. The illegally-imported Volga engines, and historic documents on the Iraqi nuclear programme, described above, flowing from leads given by the British Government.
b. Over 70 illegal Al-Samoud 2 missiles and over 50 warheads. When UNMOVIC’s operations were suspended in mid-March 2003, 25 more missiles and nearly 40 warheads remained to be destroyed. (As noted above, British intelligence had led to the discovery of the engines for the missiles.)
c. Two propellant casting chambers capable of producing rocket motors for missiles with ranges greater than 150km.
d. A small number of unfilled chemical munitions (all old).
e. 244.6 kg of declared but expired growth media and 40 vials of expired ‘toxin standards’.
We are surprised that neither policy-makers nor the intelligence community, as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became increasingly apparent, conducted a formal re-evaluation of the quality of the intelligence and hence of the assessments made on it.
We also noted the limited time given to evaluation of the Iraqi declaration of 7 December. ... work on the declaration was captured in a JIC paper on 18 December, properly described as “An Initial Assessment of Iraq’s WMD Declaration”

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

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 3, 2006 4:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer2,

"... fact is that the British government, US government, Russian government, hell even Hans Blix all thought Saddam had WMD." (And due to unanimous urgency, war was justified.)

Stop putting words in my mouth Barbie.

Quote:

Actually, that's not completely true. Going more or less backwards though the list:

Blix The quote you selected was from 2002.

Actually it was from a book published in March 2004. In any case what people thought BEFORE the war was the point wasn't it?

Quote:

But further information from 2003 is that "Mr Blix's doubts (about the existence of WMDs) set in when they returned to Iraq ... They inspected suspicious sites, acting on tip-offs from the intelligence agencies, but they found no credible evidence of WMD. " I said, 'If this is the best, what is the rest?'" In fact, he adds: "Considering how misleading much of the intelligence given us eventually proved to be, perhaps it was a blessing we did not get more."

Your quote is from a NYT magazine article from 2004 when Blix was promoting his book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/magazine/28QUESTIONS.html?ex=1395810
000&en=2ec340da06ea7e08&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

The whole passage reads.

"NYT: You yourself initially believed there were weapons! Only later did you change your mind.

Blix: Yes, I, too, believed there were weapons. I began to be skeptical when we went to sites that were given to us by U.S. intelligence and we found nothing. They said this is the best intelligence we have, and I said, if this is the best, what is the rest?"

He "began to be skeptical" which is not the same as believing absolutely there were no weapons.

Quote:

Russian government This is from Putin - 'Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."'

Nice Barbie except in the same Guardian article goes on to say.

"Mr Putin also appeared to be leaving himself room for manoeuvre in the weeks ahead. "We have apprehensions that such weapons might exist in Iraq. That is why we want to see the inspectors travel there."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,810611,00.html

Quote:

Britain I scrapped the original to specifically reply to your link. I read the "Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction". What I got out of it was that 1998 - 2003 intelligence was concerned about Hussein's acne - 'break out' capability - but there was NO intelligence of WMD stores. And it did much foot-shuffling about why the public was accidentally led so astray. (mumble, mumble ... should have been more careful ... shuffle, mumle ... forgot to say worst case scenario ... mumble ... didn't caveat limits of intelligence .... mumble, shuffles, slides toward the door)
But when it came to the best on-the ground intelligence available - Blix's inspection reports immediately before the attack, it says:
Quote:
In total, UNMOVIC carried out, in a little under four months, 731 inspections, covering 411 sites, 88 of which had not been inspected before. It found and, where relevant, supervised the destruction of:
a. The illegally-imported Volga engines, and historic documents on the Iraqi nuclear programme, described above, flowing from leads given by the British Government.
b. Over 70 illegal Al-Samoud 2 missiles and over 50 warheads. When UNMOVIC’s operations were suspended in mid-March 2003, 25 more missiles and nearly 40 warheads remained to be destroyed. (As noted above, British intelligence had led to the discovery of the engines for the missiles.)
c. Two propellant casting chambers capable of produc

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 3, 2006 5:26 AM

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.

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 3, 2006 8:18 AM

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.

DALLASFIREFLY

Saturday, June 3, 2006 9:23 AM

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!

FLETCH2

Saturday, June 3, 2006 9:54 AM

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.

RUE

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 2:34 AM

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.

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 6:28 AM

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.

RHODRI

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 2:36 PM

You want Labour?
Vote Prescott!

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

RUE

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 7:21 PM

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 htt

FLETCH2

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 7:50 PM

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.

RUE

Wednesday, June 7, 2006 8:05 PM

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.

FLETCH2

Thursday, June 8, 2006 12:37 AM

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

Sorry.

RUE

Thursday, June 8, 2006 7:12 PM

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.