Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 02:54:45 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Blair's new tack: WMDs invisible 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Blair's new tack: WMDs invisible  (Read 15729 times)
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #35 on: July 07, 2004, 08:14:11 AM

Quote from: Mesozoic
Quote
had they been able to get ahold of something that they could have attacked our mainland with, they would have.


But THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM.  Thank you.


AND WE GOT THEM BEFORE WE DID!  THANK YOU!  Now you may actually have a clue as to how we play this game.

Waiting until AFTER they have a nuclear weapon they can deliver to New York is TOO LATE.

Quote

And post-invasion approval of an invasion is simply paperwork.


Ahh yes, France was motivated by great moral principles to STOP the war, but now they view it as simply paperwork?  If that's the case then I don't think their objection was serious in the first place.

And need I bring up that the "final solution" was simply paperwork?

Quote

And please...terrorism?  Find either bin Laden or WMD first pls kthx.  We said Iraq was a threat.  Others disagreed.  We invaded anyway.  Now we see no evidence of a threat, and we want those who didn't want an invasion to help us.  How sad for us.  And how sad for those of us still unable to grasp the magnitude of the mistake.


But we did find WMD, and a lot of us do see evidence of a threat.  It's just not evidence YOU think is sufficient for a threat.  But then, a lot of Americans didn't think Germany and Japan were a threat before WW2.  How sad for them, and how sad for you for making the same mistake.

Bruce
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #36 on: July 07, 2004, 08:32:13 AM

Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Mesozoic
Quote
had they been able to get ahold of something that they could have attacked our mainland with, they would have.


But THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM.  Thank you.


AND WE GOT THEM BEFORE WE DID!

By that line of reasoning, we could be invading any country.  Whatever happened to clear and present danger?
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #37 on: July 07, 2004, 08:34:55 AM

Quote from: Alkiera
With France being on the security council, with the ability to just say 'No' to anything, nothing to interrupt the flow of cash to France was gonna happen from the UN's point.  Once Baghdad had fallen, and Saddam captured, there was no reason to fight for the big players, as the 'agreements' they were getting money from were not going to be upheld under the new government, in all likelyhood.


Let's please not forget that Syria and Russia are on the Security Council and ALSO voted against taking military action in Iraq. You expect Syria to, since they run the Jihad Hotel for all the fashionable monkeyfuckcrazy bombers. Russia just happened to be making the mad cash from the Oil for Food as well.

Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #38 on: July 07, 2004, 08:48:26 AM

Quote
I know that another 100,000+ troops sure would help, but they're not available.


Do we really know that to be true?  Before we went to war with iraq we didn't have those 100,000 men looking for bin laden.  The general doing the search (name escapes me) has stated multiple times that more military manpower would not help the search.  Our intelligence service is needed to catch bin laden.  The military force needed to do it once we find him is tiny.

Besides, what will catching or killing bin laden do?  How hard is it to plan a terrorist attack?  It aint rocket science folks.  If we catch or kill him the terrorist activities don't magically stop.  Capture him and the kidnappings and beheading get worse as they all try for his release.  Great excuse for it.  Kill him and you have a martyr.  We are probably better off with him alive and on the run.  As long as he is actually on the run.  I don't know if he is or not.
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999


WWW
Reply #39 on: July 07, 2004, 08:48:33 AM

Quote
At any rate the point of this post was that Blair's statement is yet another step towards getting people to forget about the WMDs that were supposed to be the reason for the invasion in the first place. That way the reason for war can be re-cast after the fact as some other justification. Probably something abstract like "freedom." That way they can tell some human interest piece about a happy Iraqi they found somewhere, and call anti-war people and governments unfeeling.


Quite a selective memory you have there. To refresh your memory here is a link to Bush's speech outlining his case:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Seems he made a few points. All of which you are now ignoring. Want to try and refute some other points?

1.) Repression and human rights violations
2.) Return prisoners of war from Kuwait
3.) Renounce all involvement with terrorism and not allow terrorist cells to operate in Iraq.
4.) Destroy existing WMD
5.) Stop development of WMD
6.) Abandon attempts to acquire WMD
7.) Oil sanctions lifted for food only
8.) Provide inspectors unrestricted access


Your entire argument is baseless and I've shown it time and again with actual facts to back up my arguements. Do you want to continue?
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #40 on: July 07, 2004, 08:53:56 AM

Quote
His soldiers regulary fired on US/UN aircraft that patrolled the no fly zone.


If I ran a country, and some other, bigger country banned the flying of military aircraft in my own country, I'd take every opportunity to take shots at them that I thought I could get away with, too.  Not saying the no-fly zone was inappropriate, but you won't find many sovereign leaders who like being told what to do.

Quote
He also harbored and funded terrorists resonsible for killing American citizens.


Funny how ununiformed solders on the enemy side are termed terrorists, and those on our side are termed black ops or similar.  In the late 18th century, people like that in the soon-to-be US were called revolutionaries, and are our present-day heros.  Look, calling people you don't like terrorists is spin; great for politicians to toss around, but gets you nowhere when talking realism.  Until about 30 years ago, civilians were still marginally acceptable military targets for the west.  Illegal, but we still did it.  Prior to that, civillian targets were fair game for... about all of human existance.  

Again, if I were running a country and another, bigger country moved in and told me what I could and couldn't do, I'd be looking for every opportunity to get them out.  The US is democratic; targetting public oppinion is a fantastic way to change policy (but be careful - public oppinion is a fickle beast).  If getting some stupidiots to take out civiies will do the job, fine.

Not that I approve, but that's how war and power work; it's an ugly world, and we play it just as much as they do.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999


WWW
Reply #41 on: July 07, 2004, 09:05:18 AM

Roac:

You do realize that Iraq lost a war and were subject to UN sanctions right? What you are really saying is that the UN is a crock of shit and every country in the world should tell the UN to go fuck itself and shove it's rules and sanctions up its' ass.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I wasn't referring to the general Iraqi soldier as a terrorist. I was referring to people such as the members of Al Qaeda and Abdul Rahman Yasin who helped with the '93 World Trade Center attack as terrorists. Again correct me if you still feel that they are not terrorists and then maybe we can discuss what a terrorist actually is.
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #42 on: July 07, 2004, 09:47:29 AM

Quote
I remember exactly zero alternative suggestions being offered before the war.


Exactly.  Who would have offered those other options?  Probably the Chief Executive - its not like Daschle was going to step up and set foreign policy.  But Bush's response was simply "kill."  It was his call and he wasn't exactly open to other ideas.  For their part, the Dems weakly succumbed to the pressure.  

A more even-handed Administration would have entertained such options, assuming that such a government even felt that Iraq posed such an imminent threat.  More likey, a government not fixated on Iraq would have deployed more troops to Afghanistan, fostered further cooperation with all of our allies against terrorism, stood ready to counter North Korea if necessary, and spent more time and effort on securing our borders and dealing with domestic issues.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #43 on: July 07, 2004, 09:49:47 AM

Quote
Waiting until AFTER they have a nuclear weapon they can deliver to New York is TOO LATE.


Bush said they had them.  Not intent, not hope, not rusting 15-year old shells in the desert.  The means and the motive to attack America.  


But now the WMD are not there, and its still OK?  Wow.  ANY military action is OK by your reasoning.  CANADA could be plotting.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #44 on: July 07, 2004, 09:59:01 AM

Quote from: UD_Delt


1.) Repression and human rights violations
2.) Return prisoners of war from Kuwait
3.) Renounce all involvement with terrorism and not allow terrorist cells to operate in Iraq.
4.) Destroy existing WMD
5.) Stop development of WMD
6.) Abandon attempts to acquire WMD
7.) Oil sanctions lifted for food only
8.) Provide inspectors unrestricted access


1) happening across large portions of Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere.  
2) a joke
3) Iraq's involvement with terrorism was laughable compared to others in the ME.  Secular country.  S-e-c-u-l-a-r.
4) he didnt have them
5) theres no evidence off WMD production
6) if that was happening he was failing.  Compare this to North Korea.
7)  say again?  is this related to #1?
8) Access to what?  We have TROOPS standing around all over the country.  The inspectors said they didn't have total access but didn't think there were WMD to be found.  THe 130,000 troops havent found anything except - again - 15-year old shells in the desert, certainly not ready to be deployed against anything.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999


WWW
Reply #45 on: July 07, 2004, 10:03:23 AM

Mesozoic:

Seriously, you do realize this is a thread right? My last post had relation to previous posts. If you can't keep up let me know and I'll summarize. Or if you are picking and choosing posts to reply to because you are incapable of replying to certain of my posts let me know that as well.

Finally did you actually go into the speech and read the detail of each of my points or are you replying to my abbreviated list first?
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #46 on: July 07, 2004, 10:05:04 AM

I could read 100 speeches and it wouldn't put WMD in Iraq.  And since I'm actually trying to work today, I only have the time to respond to your most egregious errors.  By all rights I should have stopped replying to you after you resorted to personal attacks in page 1 rather than play "political discussion" with the adults.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999


WWW
Reply #47 on: July 07, 2004, 10:06:22 AM

Gotcha, so I'm sitting here providing facts that you are conveniently ignoring.... For times sake.

Talk about pissing into the wind...

I'm done with you.
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #48 on: July 07, 2004, 10:09:00 AM

oh, and when my point was about recent comments by Blair, you responded with a Bush speech from 2002.  Whoops.  

EDIT:  The speech is a good example of the implied Al Queda-Iraq connection tho.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
Rasix
Moderator
Posts: 15024

I am the harbinger of your doom!


Reply #49 on: July 07, 2004, 10:13:12 AM

Ahh political threads, how they do get angsty. I think everyone needs to see a picture of my new kitten:



-Rasix
Riggswolfe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8024


Reply #50 on: July 07, 2004, 10:13:26 AM

Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Riggswolfe
The UN voted as they did for very obvious reasons. Bush invaded without their approval and faced little international repurcussions beyond hand wringing. The UN voted to make it all legit to save face. Pure and simple.


But Bush didn't NEED their approval, and he already had it in the first place, to boot.  And they voted it legit retroactively, so... stop saying the UN didn't support it, eh?


You just made my point. Yes, they made it legit retroactively. They did so so they'd appear to still be useful to the modern world. They were in danger of becoming obsolete and they knew it.

Quote

Quote

The blunt truth is that American and Britains were lied to about Iraq. You can make whatever claims you want but we were. I'll be sickened if Bush is reelected becuase it will only confirm my fears that the American people are a bunch of sheep these days.


Yeah, we don't want citizens to be sheep to their country's leaders!  We want the country's leaders to be sheep to the UN!

Bruce


Well, no good has ever come of the citizens of a country being sheep to their leaders. I won't use historical examples, but they are out there. It tends to be a sign that a civilization is in decline.

"We live in a country, where John Lennon takes six bullets in the chest, Yoko Ono was standing right next to him and not one fucking bullet! Explain that to me! Explain that to me, God! Explain it to me, God!" - Denis Leary summing up my feelings about the nature of the universe.
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #51 on: July 07, 2004, 10:15:46 AM

Quote from: Rasix
Ahh political threads, how they do get angsty. I think everyone needs to see a picture of my new kitten:




There are kittens in Iraq, you know.  With sarin-laced knives.  They are the enemies of freedom, and those who oppose their destruction will reap hell at an unspecified, future time.

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999


WWW
Reply #52 on: July 07, 2004, 10:17:48 AM

Wow... That's a stretch.

Your post was recent comments from Blair and the "Hawks" and "their" supposedly changing  justification of  the war on Iraq. The 2002 speech was Bush's justification for the war on Iraq.

How can you have an argument about someone changing their story if you don't know what the original story was? Fuck!


Edit: To clarify the "Fuck!" was just a general declaration of frustration and not me calling you a Fuck. After re-reading my post I felt it could have gone either way.
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #53 on: July 07, 2004, 10:19:39 AM

Because the Bush speech did not say "He has thiese things, but we will never find them, lets attack anyway."

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
UD_Delt
Terracotta Army
Posts: 999


WWW
Reply #54 on: July 07, 2004, 10:31:48 AM

Quote
Because the Bush speech did not say


This from the guy who already stated he didn't have time to even bother reading the Bush speech?
Mesozoic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1359


Reply #55 on: July 07, 2004, 10:47:21 AM

I humor you, and you complain?  :)

...any religion that rejects coffee worships a false god.
-Numtini
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #56 on: July 07, 2004, 07:54:51 PM

Quote from: daveNYC
Quote from: SirBruce
Quote from: Mesozoic
Quote
had they been able to get ahold of something that they could have attacked our mainland with, they would have.


But THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM.  Thank you.


AND WE GOT THEM BEFORE WE DID!

By that line of reasoning, we could be invading any country.  Whatever happened to clear and present danger?


We SHOULD be invading any country that:

1. Hates us
2. Is actively trying to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction
3. Engages in diplomacy and rhetoric that makes us think they want to attack us
4. (added) That we can actually defeat militarily without dragging the world into WW III.

So, no, this doesn't apply to ANY country.  UK and Canada, for example, are safe.  Iran and Iraq are not.  France, well, they are borderline.  North Korea, well, they are a pickle, because they already have a few nukes, and we aren't willing to risk an invasion yet because of the possible repercussions if they use them.

In addition, Iraq was:

1. Attacking us regularly in violation of previous cease-fire agreements.
2. In violation of UN resolutions requiring documentation of disarmament and so on.
3. Funding and harboring terrorism.
4. Run by a brutal dictator with a very poor human rights record.

All of thes are just icing on the cake.

Bruce
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #57 on: July 07, 2004, 09:48:48 PM

Quote from: SirBruce
2. Is actively trying to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction

Technically, by your earlier statement, this would include any country that we even suspect of trying to obtain WMDs (which really need to be defined BTW).  Since you can't prove a negative, this would probably involve a major invasion fest of many countries around the world.

And you forgot to mention Syria as a potential nuke posessing target.

Sadly, your four points make a basic sort of sense, the problem is that America is unpopular right now, so everyone hates us, WMD programs are hard to prove/disprove, talking shit about America a popular sport these days, and our military is having enough problems dealing with the two bumblefuck countries that we have invaded.  Other than that it's all good.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #58 on: July 07, 2004, 09:55:01 PM

Quote from: Mesozoic
There are kittens in Iraq, you know.  With sarin-laced knives.  They are the enemies of freedom, and those who oppose their destruction will reap hell at an unspecified, future time.


I've got a picture of one of the cats you're talking about.



Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542

Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.


Reply #59 on: July 07, 2004, 10:45:57 PM

Quote from: SirBruce
4. (added) That we can actually defeat militarily without dragging the world into WW III.


That's the only one that's important. If we can beat the living shit out of them, we should. Because they're not us, so they're a threat. That goes for any political party that's not "us" either. Fuck other opinions.

Quote
UK and Canada, for example, are safe.


Jolly decent of you, old chap, eh.

Quote

4. Run by a brutal dictator with a very poor human rights record.


Too bad that we're run by a brutal oligarch who is appointed by a democratically elected college of his peers, and who has a very poor human rights record. Too bad that we support dictatorships who kiss our ring, such as those ruling Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Haiti, Nepal and Uzbekistan.

What this thread comes down to is whether we had cause under article 51 of the UN Charter to attack and invade Iraq. However that only applies to countries whose territories have been attacked by a sovereign power. There have been lenient interpretations of the rule applied as per Webster's words: "It will be for that Government to show a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." Unfortunately for the apologists, even the most liberal interpretation of Article 51 does not afford our attack, and rarely has international law allowed for the removal of a head of state.

And for UD_Delt, it is not those objecting to the outrageous "crusade" (as Bush himself styled it) that are calling the UN a crock of shit, but the parties behind the invasion. This is in fact very much a parallel to the actions that led to the collapse of the League of Nations and the start of the second world war.

The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #60 on: July 08, 2004, 06:12:47 AM

Quote from: daveNYC
Quote from: SirBruce
2. Is actively trying to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction

Technically, by your earlier statement, this would include any country that we even suspect of trying to obtain WMDs (which really need to be defined BTW).  Since you can't prove a negative, this would probably involve a major invasion fest of many countries around the world.


Many countries, yes, but we're talking 6 - 12, not 100.  And invasion is only the option you want to resort to when other methods don't appear to be working.  As always, this is a judgement call... there are those who argue Iraq needed to be given more time, or that it was working with them.

Quote

And you forgot to mention Syria as a potential nuke posessing target.


I wasn't trying to create a complete list of possible rogue states.  I'm quite sure Syria is trying to get WMD, and not just nukes.

Quote

Sadly, your four points make a basic sort of sense, the problem is that America is unpopular right now, so everyone hates us, WMD programs are hard to prove/disprove, talking shit about America a popular sport these days, and our military is having enough problems dealing with the two bumblefuck countries that we have invaded.  Other than that it's all good.


Yes, international diplomacy is quite a tricky thing.  I certainly don't advocate immediately attacking all the countries in question.  But you do what you can, and you pick your battles.  I don't expect event a second term Bush administration to go after Syria or Iran militarily.  Somalia is a possibility.  The real wild card is North Korea, which we might have to go to war with if THEY try to start something.  And until we have missile defense up and running, I have plans to fleethe west coast if tensions on the Korean peninsula appear to be building rapidly.

Bruce
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #61 on: July 08, 2004, 06:29:10 AM

Quote from: SirBruce
Somalia is a possibility.

Didn't we already retreat from Somalia?  Anyway, Somalia barely has functioning dirt, I can't see them being a threat to the United States.  A breeding ground for those who are, but not a place where you can really organize anything, it's just too damn chaotic.
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #62 on: July 08, 2004, 06:30:17 AM

Quote from: Righ

Quote

4. Run by a brutal dictator with a very poor human rights record.


Too bad that we're run by a brutal oligarch who is appointed by a democratically elected college of his peers, and who has a very poor human rights record.


I don't believe you really beleive this.  If you do, you should flee the country and start funding a military opposition.  This is not to say you can't attempt, of course, change via the democratic process... but if you can do so so easily, well, it probably isn't as bad as you say.

If things WERE that bad, I'd WANT the UK, France, etc. to come in, liberate us, and let the government get back to where it was before... don't you?  Even if the UN didn't agree.

Quote

Too bad that we support dictatorships who kiss our ring, such as those ruling Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Haiti, Nepal and Uzbekistan.


We advocate democratic reforms in those countries.  Invading every little country that's a dicatorship isn't feasible at the moment.  Our "support" of them is more or less proportional to their record.  You also have to except the fact we did otherwise during the Cold War, since that's the way it was fought; we are slowly moving away from that to a more ENLIGHTENED political reality.  Don't be too critical just because the government can't turn on a dime and correct past mistakes overnight.

Quote

What this thread comes down to is whether we had cause under article 51 of the UN Charter to attack and invade Iraq. However that only applies to countries whose territories have been attacked by a sovereign power.


Er, no, that's not true.  Have you even read Article 51?  IANAL, but:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Nothing there about the attack having to be on a member's own territories.

I also don't think that's the claim we're making; e.g.  "We are a UN nation, who was attacked, so we have a right under the UN to defend ourselves in absence of specific UN resolutions, under UN law."

Rather, I think we are saying that, "1441 and preceeding resolutions are plenty enough to constitute UN authorization of force to punish Iraq for those countries who want to do so, per Article 48."  And in any case, UN has approved it after the fact, so it is a moot point.

Bruce
SirBruce
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2551


WWW
Reply #63 on: July 08, 2004, 06:35:49 AM

Quote from: daveNYC
Quote from: SirBruce
Somalia is a possibility.

Didn't we already retreat from Somalia?  Anyway, Somalia barely has functioning dirt, I can't see them being a threat to the United States.  A breeding ground for those who are, but not a place where you can really organize anything, it's just too damn chaotic.


Yes, a previous chickenhawk administration did retreat from Somalia.  (Cheap shot, I know.)

You don't seem to understand that by a country that's "against us" we also mean countries that are a breeding ground for that sort of thing, if they aren't doing enough to stop it.  The whole harboring terrorists thing.  So to say we'd be invading Somalia wouldn't be so much because the national army is trying to attack us as that they've got a bunch of terrorists there who are trying to attack us that they aren't stopping.  Yes, I know this could also apply to other countries too, like Saudi Arabia, and I certainly don't think Saudi Arabia should be left off the hook.  But invading Suadi Arabia is probably not necessary at this stage, and would be even more politically costly than our invasion of Iraq.  We can give them 10-40 years to reform and then revisit the issue if they're still breeding terrorists like rabbits.

Bruce
daveNYC
Terracotta Army
Posts: 722


Reply #64 on: July 08, 2004, 06:55:54 AM

Somalia has a national army?  They've improved.

The problem I have with your view on world security is that it could lead to the use of military force against a huge number of countries, and our military is having troubles enough with Afghanistan and Iraq.

Shit, there aren't more than ten countries in Africa who have enough control over their internal space that they could prevent terrorists from setting up some sort of training camps (that's assuming that a decent proportion of terrorists are stupid enough to think that camps are necessary).  Your position overestimates the capabilities of the US military and, worse, holds that terrorism is a problem that can be solved with military force.

I feel that terrorism is best dealt with as a policing problem.
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #65 on: July 08, 2004, 06:58:51 AM

Bruce would it not be simplier just to make a list of countires you don't want to invade?  Am I missing a joke somewhere and you aren't really being serious, is this all a WWIIOL expansion pack?  

Invading Iraq will probably cost Blair his job, he said there was WMD that could strike the UK in 45 mins, there aren't and weren't except for the ones we sold them in the past, there is zero chance of the UK invading anywhere else anytime soon unless something really drastic happens.
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11839


Reply #66 on: July 08, 2004, 07:39:07 AM

Quote from: Arthur_Parker
Invading Iraq will probably cost Blair his job,


Rot.

Invading Iraq will cost Blair a couple of seats to the lib dems, and probably an amount of political capital required with his own backbenchers to do anything useful in terms of public sector reform.

If that.

The demographics don't support anything other than a Labour victory (short of the Conservatives hitting 43%, which is more than Labour scored in '97 - oh, and they supported and still support the war) at the next election, and there is no realistic prospect of Blair being forced from office by his own party on the basis of iraq alone. The Labour party just doesn't dump leaders mid stream, and certainly not without evidence that simply doesn't exist of the leader being a liability.

Plus the fact that the majority of britons polled supported the war at the time, and the majority only started thinking it was 'a mistake' about a year after the fact. It remains to be seen if the majority will stay so configured if the transfer of power is successful.

Blair will eventually lose his job for wasting assloads of money on non-functional public services which employ more people than the fricking red army but somehow fail to provide services as effectively as a soviet bloc state.

Iraq, is, in electoral terms, a far off country about whose people we know little.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
Alluvian
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1205


WWW
Reply #67 on: July 08, 2004, 08:01:02 AM

I am just scanning through looking for more kitten pictures.  Please continue to supply them.  Thank you.
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #68 on: July 08, 2004, 08:12:13 AM

Quote from: eldaec
Quote from: Arthur_Parker
Invading Iraq will probably cost Blair his job,


Rot.

Invading Iraq will cost Blair a couple of seats to the lib dems, and probably an amount of political capital required with his own backbenchers to do anything useful in terms of public sector reform.

If that.

The demographics don't support anything other than a Labour victory (short of the Conservatives hitting 43%, which is more than Labour scored in '97 - oh, and they supported and still support the war) at the next election, and there is no realistic prospect of Blair being forced from office by his own party on the basis of iraq alone. The Labour party just doesn't dump leaders mid stream, and certainly not without evidence that simply doesn't exist of the leader being a liability.

Plus the fact that the majority of britons polled supported the war at the time, and the majority only started thinking it was 'a mistake' about a year after the fact. It remains to be seen if the majority will stay so configured if the transfer of power is successful.

Blair will eventually lose his job for wasting assloads of money on non-functional public services which employ more people than the fricking red army but somehow fail to provide services as effectively as a soviet bloc state.

Iraq, is, in electoral terms, a far off country about whose people we know little.


I never said it would be the sole reason for him resigning, I also never said labour would not win the next election, lets face it who else is electable?

He is in trouble though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1253929,00.html

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/200407/9c163422-fbd0-4add-b275-981fcdc05445.htm

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1240693,00.html

Quote
In Britain, 2,500 miles from the killings, kidnappings and torture, Iraq naturally doesn't register as much of a political concern in people's daily lives. But it does continue to shape the political environment, is by far the most important factor in the collapse of confidence in the prime minister and amplifies hostility to New Labour across the political spectrum.


http://www.politics.co.uk/1/domesticpolicy/chancellor_downplays_imminent_leadership_bid_6014535.htm
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #69 on: July 08, 2004, 08:16:14 AM

Quote from: SirBruce

2. Is actively trying to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction


snip...

3. Funding and harboring terrorism.


I realize I'm an America-hating terrorist-loving bastard for actually disagreeing with what our President has said, but this is plain wrong.

There has NEVER BEEN any CONCLUSIVE evidence that Saddam Hussein funded OR harbored the terrorists who have attacked us directly. NEVER. The closest thing to funding terrorism that could ever be pinned on Hussein was his payment to the families of PALESTINIAN suicide bombers, who have never attacked American possessions directly. I am in no way condoning the Palestinian suicde bomber fucknuts, but get your fucking facts straight.

Secondly, in regards to #2, Saddam's own people who would have been in charge of developing said WMD's have ALL stated that there WAS no chemical weapons program in place in Iraq after 1996, except for the one Saddam imagined in his head. Hussein was being actively misled by his people, and again, there was and is no conclusive evidence that such a weapons program EVER had anything approachable actionable materials after 1996.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: Blair's new tack: WMDs invisible  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC