Keep it shut Donald! Please!!!

[Reginald]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2838593.stm

And just what has this achieved??

All those opposed to any action by the UK in Iraq have grabbed this and are going to beat Blair around the head with it.

They will argue that the US don't NEED the UK involvement and that its the ideal oppotunity to pull out.

Some people in the UK are fighting tooth and nail to do what we see as right, this dosn't help Don!!!

Grrr :mad:

Where would backing out leave the UK?

IMHO with no cred what so ever. We are not French, German or Russian, we are British and sometimes we make unpopular decisions but history has proven that we are generally right to make them.

We could have said about the Falklands..."Oh it's a long way off, let's let this one go". But we didn't, no matter how much I disliked Thatch, I admired her stand and more importantly supported our troops in that action.

I had a grandfather in WW1, who lost a leg at gallipoli, crawled 8 miles for aid.

My Father Joined the Royal Navy at 15 and served for the duration of WW2.

My Mother was Bombed every night for months.

None of these people thought "Oh let's give this up as a bad lot".

I see gangs of silly young boys and girls walking along shouting anti-Bush/Blair slogans (Never one saying Saddam kills his own people, shoots 6 yr olds in front of their parents) and I think to myself "What the H*ll do you know?". The closest these people have come to suffering is the angst at waiting 20 mins for their boyfriend to reply to the text they just sent on thier mobile phone.

What has happened to this country? To the people of this country? The cr*p we have had thrown at us for years and we defiantly stood our ground while those around us have folded and quit.

To think that we may now fold and quit, fills me with a sense of shame.

I know this is a rant and I will understand it if this thread is Borbed.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Reginald
[url]I see gangs of silly young boys and girls walking along shouting anti-Bush/Blair slogans (Never one saying Saddam kills his own people, shoots 6 yr olds in front of their parents) and I think to myself "What the H*ll do you know?". The closest these people have come to suffering is the angst at waiting 20 mins for their boyfriend to reply to the text they just sent on thier mobile phone.
Reg,

This is the crux of the problem as I see it. Loads of people say Saddam is a bad man who is nasty to his people, so we need to sort him out. If that is the case there are lots of nasty people out there, some with closer links to Britain such as Mugabe. We are not about to bomb Zimbabwe however.

We are (officially) going after Saddam because he holds ‘illegal firearms’ when the international community has withdrawn his licence.
I have problems with this in that there are in my opinion other states whose possession of weapons is just as bad who are not about to be bombed.
If we have a rule we must apply it consistently.

What really bugs me however is America saying we don’t care what the rest of the world thinks we are going to bomb hell out of any country we want, (with or without anyone else’s help) .

America wants a regime change. This goes way beyond any UN resolution and is totally unacceptable. By all means take away weapons, have fair elections but if Iraq in fair elections wants Saddam what then ?

We, as I see it, have two choices a World Democracy or a World Dictatorship. Bush wants the later I prefer the former. That is why I oppose war without international approval. I would prefer no war at all and for this to be resolved peacefully, however I would not object if the international community following their rules agreed to take action. I believe my opinion mirrors the vast majority of Britons.

[richardm]

Perhaps America has seen that Blair has been unable to bring the country on-side, and has decided that they'd rather keep Britain stable to help them diplomatically later? In the event that another resolution isn't forthcoming, that is...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Lothian
If that is the case there are lots of nasty people out there, some with closer links to Britain such as Mugabe. We are not about to bomb Zimbabwe however.


The west should have done something about Mugabe a long time ago.

Unfortunately, we cannot get support to go after every abominable regime on earth. And teaching these men that there is no room in this new millenium for their kind of leadership costs money.

We have to pick a good target who most of the world realizes should be sacked just to get whatever assistance we can. In this case, its Saddam. North Korea is helping make its own good case for forcible interventon without our leaders having to go blue at the mouth. Hopefully, that region's responsible leaders can resolve that themselves without the help of the west.

REg :

I was just thinking on my way to work about starting a thread called "Thanks Donnie!." :D


And just what has this achieved??


It's demonstrated UK involvement is a political fig-leaf which is militarily unneccesary.


All those opposed to any action by the UK in Iraq have grabbed this and are going to beat Blair around the head with it.


KABOOM! :)


They will argue that the US don't NEED the UK involvement and that its the ideal oppotunity to pull out.


The US don't NEED UK involvement and its the ideal opportunity to avoid illegal action.


Grrr


Purrrrr.....


Where would backing out leave the UK?


As part of Europe instead of the 51st state of the USA?


IMHO with no cred what so ever. We are not French, German or Russian, we are British and sometimes we make unpopular decisions but history has proven that we are generally right to make them.


And right now the vast majority don't want this war.


We could have said about the Falklands..


(During which America SAT ON THE FENCE........


I know this is a rant and I will understand it if this thread is Borbed.


Zip-a-de-do-dah Zip-a-de-day my-oh-my what a wondeful day.... :D

[Reginald]

I have always maintained that my own personal support for this pending action is what is happening to the peoples of Iraq. I know thats not the official line, nor indeed the sanctioned line. But it's my line, if you like I'm "cashing in" on the whole Iraq/WMD thing, hoping that Saddam will go. I admit that wholeheartedly.

Now as for needing world support, or should we say security council support, let's spare a few mins to look at the Credentials of the people that we "need" moral approval from before the action starts....... Some Jury this!!

Cameroon

http://web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/F35E1A1CF03E80F7802569A50071815B?Open&Highlight=2,cameroon


Fundamental human rights are persistently violated in Cameroon. In many cases these violations occur when the law is deliberately ignored or contravened by the authorities. There is little accountability for human rights violations and the perpetrators generally act with impunity.Hundreds of critics and opponents of the government, in particular members and supporters of opposition political parties, journalists, human rights activists and students, have been harassed and assaulted, arrested and imprisoned. Torture and ill-treatment by the security forces of both political detainees and common-law prisoners is routine. Some victims have died as a result of injuries inflicted while in custody. Others have been killed when the security forces have used what appeared to be excessive lethal force. Conditions in Cameroon's prisons amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and result in a high mortality rate. More than one hundred prisoners are reported to be under sentence of death; the first execution since 1988 was reported to have taken place in January 1997.



Cameroon is also one of the most corrupt countries in the world.....(source Transparency.org)....however its not as corrupt as

Angola

Now the UN have been doing a good job here.......

http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/sep/ang1310.htm

"The U.N.'s involvement in Angola has basically been a disaster," said Peter Takirambudde, the executive director for Africa at Human Rights Watch. "During the Lusaka peace process the U.N. spent $1.5 billion, most of it down the drain."


And here's a connection...who would have thought it??

Arms and corruption with Angola: President Chirac and President dos Santos have lots of explaining to do.

http://www.peace.ca/afarmscorruption.htm

And here's a little more...

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/544536

Turning in hope to.....

Guinea

They don't care much for the Human rights of refugees....

http://www.hrw.org/africa/guinea.php

OK how about Pakistan ??

Where it's OK to kill women to protect the "honour" of your family......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2567077.stm

Chile

Chile is unique among Latin American democracies in considering "contempt of authority" to be a crime against state security, meriting up to five years' imprisonment.

:(

These guys say it's OK then it must be!!

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Reginald:
I see gangs of silly young boys and girls walking along shouting anti-Bush/Blair slogans (Never one saying Saddam kills his own people, shoots 6 yr olds in front of their parents) and I think to myself "What the H*ll do you know?". The closest these people have come to suffering is the angst at waiting 20 mins for their boyfriend to reply to the text they just sent on thier mobile phone.

Be grateful for small mercies. What's been going on across the Irish Sea is a lot worse.

There was an anti-war protest in Dublin a few weeks ago, attended by 20,000 to 100,000 people, depending on who you believe. The usual suspects (Greens, loonie left, student politicians) were out in force waving the usual placards (Bush=Hitler, Israel+Nazi Germany), but there was also a uniquely Irish component in the form of Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein? Surely not the mouth piece for the IRA murder gang Sinn Fein? Surely not the apologists for the IRA's failure to decommision their own WMD? Surely not the Sinn Fein that wouldn't urge people to cooperate with Police to apprehend the people responsible for the Omagh bombing?

No, it was that Sinn Fein, and yes it was supposed to be an anti-war march.

Just to put things into perspective the IRA embarked on a campaign of terror for a quarter of a century in the name of Ireland and it's people. Civilians were deliberately targeted with the aim of causing as great a loss of life as possible. Did the anti-war crowd ever muster to demonstrate against this? There was a march in Dublin in the aftermath of the Warrington bombing in 1993. 10,000 people turned out.

10,000 v 100,000 a few weeks ago.

You're worried about the way your country is going Reginald? There's worse places to be, believe me. :(

[Reginald]

Posted by UCE

During which America SAT ON THE FENCE........

And from that fence they kindly handed us 100 or so advanced a2a missiles that could possibly have changed the course of the conflict...oh and let us not forget the intelligence that came from the US...ah and logistics help at Ascension island.

As part of Europe instead of the 51st state of the USA?

You think that our EU "Buddies" are that perfect?
And why when there is a lack of reasoned arguement do people like yourself fall back on this additional state of the US thing? It's We can agree without being lackies, in the same way as we can dissagree without being enemies, or is that a little too lateral for you?

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Zip-a-de-do-dah Zip-a-de-day my-oh-my what a wondeful day.... :D

I wouldn't be too cock-a-hoop, UCE. It's not too hard to imagine that the knock-on effect of this would be to say that trying to continue diplomacy is now too damaging for Blair, and that the correct course of action is to attack sooner rather than later.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by richardm


I wouldn't be too cock-a-hoop, UCE. It's not too hard to imagine that the knock-on effect of this would be to say that trying to continue diplomacy is now too damaging for Blair, and that the correct course of action is to attack sooner rather than later.

A view shared by analysts over at the BBC.

Originally posted By Shane Costello

You're worried about the way your country is going Reginald? There's worse places to be, believe me.

And indeed worse places than that! I understand what you say.

But that's ok, lies, torture, mass murder, what are these trivial things when the important issue of the day for some is seeing the PM of the UK made to feel uncomfortable.


Who has a twisted sense of priority here??

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Reginald




.....in the same way as we can dissagree without being enemies, or is that a little too lateral for you?

A little too lateral for George W - you're either with him or against him....

[richardm]

Originally posted by Reginald


A view shared by analysts over at the BBC.


Indeed. They also point out that the French attitude of "We will veto the resolution no matter what's in it" is the very model of the "Unreasonable veto" that Blair was talking about weeks ago.

And they add that nobody in Westminster thinks we're not going to be at war within a week.

[mindless]

what I think will happen is this...

America goes in, all guns blazing, big bombs a dropin out'a the sky, total destruction, Death everywhere, then they leave.

UK gets left behind to clean up the mess and pay off the repair bill.

And what is Blairs motivation for al this, just a pat on the head, a tummy rub and a little chew toy from his master

[Mike B.]

Rummy should everyday plant a big kiss on the backsides of Blair, Straw, and Clwyd.

They are making the most sense about why the war is necessary.

He would do better just to be quiet.

I think being in the House of Commons sharpens debating skills or something. You know all those tough questions all the time...

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Diezel
We have to pick a good target who most of the world realizes should be sacked just to get whatever assistance we can.

Indeed. I see most of the world is cooperating. And the current regime in the US will almost certainly be driven from office within two years.

[LillyThePink]

*ahem* I don't think that quote belongs to Diezel....

[Reginald]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
*ahem* I don't think that quote belongs to Diezel....

Maybe we should make Diezel say it and save the need for an ammendent!



:D

[Tony]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Indeed. I see most of the world is cooperating. And the current regime in the US will almost certainly be driven from office within two years.

I serously doubt that. Not because President Bush is unbeatable, but because the democrats dont have a good candidate or a good message.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by LillyThePink
*ahem* I don't think that quote belongs to Diezel....

What do I know? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=359163#post359163)

[Frank Newgent]

OK, sorry. I just figured the **** out by myself...

[DrBenway]

I think this "Blair is a lapdog to GWB" is obvious nonsense. Surely the fact that he is able to champion unpopular causes which may put him out of office indicates that he has a mind of his own and a spine.

I have difficulty imagining GWB dominating Blair in any meaningful way. Blair lives and dies politically and in the history books, by the respect of his own country.

When reporters ask people in the military if they can or can't do something, the military invariably puts on a brave face. Showing weakness or self-doubt to the enemy is bad form. "Sure, we can fight a 3-front war if necessary." But clearly, a 3-front or a 2-front war will cost more American lives and is less likely to be successful than a 1-front war.

War is chaotic and the outcome is only easy to predict in hindsight. Who would have expected what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan, or the US in Vietnam, Lebanon, or Somalia?

British forces are some of the best in the world. I've no doubt that any military intervention in Iraq would significantly benefit from Britain's involvement.

More importantly, Britain's support helps to establish the legal basis for intervention in Iraq. The world won't tolerate major U.S. military action without a certain amount of international support, either via the U.N. Security Council, or via a coalition of other free, educated, secular states. If Britain backs out, it will effectively be declaring the U.S. action as illegal to the rest of the world.

Over and over and over again, this administration displays its complete ineptitude at handling foreign affairs. How many situations does this make where one of the Cowboy White House staff lets their testosterone get the best of them and says something that only serves to vastly complicate things?

I'm still convinced that when Bush talked about leading a "crusade" in the Middle East, he had no idea of the history of the word.

[richardm]

Originally posted by DrBenway
More importantly, Britain's support helps to establish the legal basis for intervention in Iraq. The world won't tolerate major U.S. military action without a certain amount of international support, either via the U.N. Security Council, or via a coalition of other free, educated, secular states. If Britain backs out, it will effectively be declaring the U.S. action as illegal to the rest of the world.

I think that the UK could support the US - i.e. argue for them, and vote with them in the UN - without actually sending troops into Iraq. That would support them legally, without making life too hot for Blair (perhaps).

At any rate, it won't happen, I don't think - we'll be off to war shortly, by the look of things.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Reginald


And from that fence they kindly handed us 100 or so advanced a2a missiles that could possibly have changed the course of the conflict...oh and let us not forget the intelligence that came from the US...ah and logistics help at Ascension island.


Reg,

The US also disregarded their obligations under an OAS treaty which required the US to come to the Argie's aid if attacked.
What does this mean? I suppose it means that the US/UK relationship transcends other lesser international relationships such as the OAS...or even the UN.

-zilla

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by richardm

I think that the UK could support the US - i.e. argue for them, and vote with them in the UN - without actually sending troops into Iraq. That would support them legally, without making life too hot for Blair (perhaps).

"Actions speak louder than words," as they say. People would reconcile the contradiction between Britain's verbal support for military action and it's pull out of troops as evidence that while the people of Britain oppose war, Britain's leaders are somehow in the pocket of the U.S.

At any rate, it won't happen, I don't think - we'll be off to war shortly, by the look of things.
Athough initially against the war for a number of reasons, I've gradually come to believe that removal of Saddam and an effort to introduce democratic reforms would benfit the Iraqi people.

The world's become a much smaller place these past few years. Here I am communicating instantly with people on the other side of the globe. This broad freedom to share ideas inspires my hope for the more horrible corners of the world.

Imagine a free press within Iraq. Imagine Internet access without government censorship. Even Saudi Arabia doesn't have that yet.

Yet in spite of my support for military action now, if Britain pulled out, I would hope the U.S. would stand down any invasion plans. If our strongest ally determines war isn't justified, the tide of world opinion will turn against us emphatically. World opinion is a dangerous weapon that potentially can kill a lot of Americans for many, many years to come.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrBenway

More importantly, Britain's support helps to establish the legal basis for intervention in Iraq. The world won't tolerate major U.S. military action without a certain amount of international support, either via the U.N. Security Council, or via a coalition of other free, educated, secular states. If Britain backs out, it will effectively be declaring the U.S. action as illegal to the rest of the world. [/B]

Illegal?? :D Fine, I can accept that. Put 17 resolutions on our ass, and give us 12 years of leeway to do as we bloody well please. In the meantime,...while the "world" sits at the UN and gripes we can be unfettered in waging, and winning the WOT.

You guys can thank us later.

-zilla

[mbp]

Originally posted by rikzilla

The US also disregarded their obligations under an OAS treaty which required the US to come to the Argie's aid if attacked.

There was a treaty that obliged the US to come to the aid of Argentina in the event of Argentinian aggression?

[Shane Costello]

Once the dust settles on the Iraq question how will Britain's relationship to Europe have changed? Will Tony Blair still be as much of a Europhile as he has been following the machinations of the French? Will the Europeans forgive Blair for being so supportive of the US and making a mockery of a unified EU foreign policy?

Will "New Europe" become more assertive and how will "Old Europe" react if they do?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by mbp

There was a treaty that obliged the US to come to the aid of Argentina in the event of Argentinian aggression?

What Argie aggression? :confused: Those guys told us they were attempting to defend the Islas Malvinas from British aggression!

;)

The question is not who is the aggressor....the real question is who's POV is more valid to you. All war is subjective. Hell, go ask Saddam Hussein who won the Gulf war! He ain't shy...he'll tell ya.

-z

[aerocontrols]

From here (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03112003_t0311sd.html).


Q: Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Would the United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initial assault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily or every- other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago. Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in a post- Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to the extent they're able to participate in the event the President decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.

Q: We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that the President will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.

It doesn't seem like a "they missed a good opportunity to shut up" moment to me. It seems like a reasonable direct response to a rather speculative question asked.

Please don't shut up, Sec. Rumsfeld.

MattJ

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Reginald


My Mother was Bombed every night for months.



AA might've helped her.


Sorry, sorry, terrible joke, I know...
This is a serious topic; I'll shut up now.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Kiri


AA might've helped her.


How messed up am I?

I took exactly the converse of your meaning. When I saw your post, I thought he meant an alcohol problem and that your pun was as if he meant actual bombing. "AA" in that formulation becomes "Anti-Aircraft" fire.

:confused:

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Kiri


AA might've helped her.


Sorry, sorry, terrible joke, I know...
This is a serious topic; I'll shut up now.

Yeah might well have done, mind you while she was bombed she couldn't hear the V-1s.

;)

[Kiri]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


How messed up am I?

I took exactly the converse of your meaning. When I saw you're post, I thought he meant an alcohol problem and that your pun was as if he meant actual bombing. "AA" in that formulation becomes "Anti-Aircraft" fire.

:confused:

Oddly enough, "blitzed" ALSO means "drunk" in American idiom.
I'm confused, too! ACK! ACK!

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Reginald


Yeah might well have done, mind you while she was bombed she couldn't hear the V-1s.

;)

I'd treat you to Tom Lehrer's "Werner Von Braun" song, but the V1 wasn't his baby.

[Rockon]

Originally posted by Kiri


I'd treat you to Tom Lehrer's "Werner Von Braun" song, but the V1 wasn't his baby.
"'Once the rockets go up,
who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Werner Von Braun."
-Tom Leher from "That Was the Year that Was"

An outstanding satire.

Speaking as a relatively moderate American, I think Rumsfeld would do well to button his lip more frequently. Also speaking as a moderate American, if it comes to war (kind of a forgone conclusion at this point, I guess.) I hope the Brits are with us.

Tim

[Kiri]

"Some have harsh words for this man of renown,
but some say our attitude should be one of gratitude,
like the widows and cripples of old London town,
who owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun!"

Yeah, bless the Brits. They're good friends, right or wrong. I love 'em.