Excuse me, Mr President (non sailing)

[FlyingSpud]

Re: Gloves off again ..

Do you honestly think the Americans, with us dragging along, are not going to attack?

Blair tried to justify this war on philosophical terms. I would love to ask him this philosophical question (though, in a way it is a question asked of the parents of everyone in the forces).

‘If Saddam were to propose his own suicide, after having handed over the reigns of power to a US backed executive and handing over all of his own personal files, but in return only asked one thing, the life of Blair’s eldest son, would this be agreeable?’

If it is not, then the removal of Saddam is not worth one life – if it is, well, would you believe he meant it? And what would you answer if it were one of your children?

Mind you, on this basis no leader would ever go to war, and wouldn’t that be a terrible thing


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

To add to sailbad's point:

>>you have to grade them according to likelyhood (sic)>>

and then decide whether, how and to what extent it is necessary or desirable or possible to deal with those other potential threats. But none of the other states mentioned has, to the same extent as Iraq, a history of aggression outside its borders.



<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Observer on 07/03/2003 17:10 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Observer]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

Tony

No I'm not a lawyer but I do have a considerable occupational involvement in negotiating and drafting commercial contracts, so I am used to expressing my thoughts in writing in a "lawyerly" way (at least I like to think so) and in analysing circumstances to identify and evaluate risk.

As I'm not a lawyer and have no professional pride to stand on, I'm interested to know whether I should infer a pejorative sub-text from your question or the reverse. You could be kind and enlighten me as to which (if either) was intended (or not). Alternatively you could be kind and stay silent (or not). Hmmm - an interesting set of possibilities?

I do like a paradox.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: lawyer or wot

Sounds very very lawyerish to me! BUT none of Observrs posts have included little phrases such as "for my usual fee, plus disbursements" or "for whom I would be happy to advise, at the normal rates" and so I beleive that he isn't a lawyer.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

>>I thought this was a sailing forum, not a political stage>>

I did say I didn't start it. It's just I can't resist an argument.

BTW - glad you agree.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: lawyer or wot

Hmmm. I clearly have to be more subtle (or is that weaselly?) where you're concerned. I try to be a bit mysterious and find that I'm actually totally transparent.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

That statement presumably excludes the US

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ohdrat]

it's beyond me Ken.. I just din'na ken it at all (sorry couldn't resist the pun)

I can think of several other states that I would have thought were far more of a threat than Ayrack.. and then there are the international groups such as Al Quieda

But what do you expect from the States.. their foreign policy stinks at the best of times (and I'm not condoning the UK's Frances or for that matter Russia's and Germany's) and this aint the best of times by my reckoning!

What reeeeeeeeeeeally bothers me is the way Tony Blair has attempted to align the UK soooooooo closely with the biggest bully on the block

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

I was wondering ..

when you would join in.

I'm not willing to expand into the wider geopolitical debate implicit in your remark. Suffice to say I don't accept the premise that the position of the US on Iraq (which is a logical extension of the UN position and therefore an internationally agreed position) requires to be justified by the entirety of current or past US foreign policy on any other matter, even though that may be entirely open to debate as a separate issue or issues.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bob_tyler]

Iraq is, I believe, a member of the UN.

In the event of a war without a specific Security Council resolution, Iraq will surely have the right to call on the UN to assist its defence.

Being the suckers that we are, will we send the remainder of our UK forces to assist in Iraq's defence?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Gloves off again ..

I don't "honestly think" the US/UK will attack or will not attack. I cannot divine the intentions of Saddam Hussein.

I do honestly believe that the international community, acting through the UN and, specifically (because it is mandated for that purpose) the Security Council, must summon the resolve to enforce its will as expressed in resolutions it has passed, in order to further its mandated primary purpose of bringing about peace and security for all countries. If it fails to do so, it will be shown to be (dangerously for global security) ineffective and irrelevant. If the UN does not meet the challenge, it is necessary, in my view, that the US/UK and others should do so.

Your hypothetical question to Tony Blair does not deserve to be dignified by a serious response. Have you stopped beating your wife?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[nicho]

Bush needs to finish off Daddy's unfinished business, and open up the Iraqi oil stocks as well. Blair fancies a skirmish to put him on a par with Maggie, except hers was a lot more clear cut in it's objectives. Blair also wants to be the President of the EU, and it seems that as he cannot deliver a UK vote to join the Euro, pushing through a war (on a pretty dodgy premise), will raise his political standing. If he could be honest with the citizens of the UK Plc about exactly why the war is necessary instead of constantly shifting the goal posts as each of his "reasons" is shot down in flames, he may be in a better position. It's time he was thrown out of office - the man is a total menace.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Totally agree, much of the mess in the Middle East and the anti American sentiment has been engendered by the crassly arrogant US foreign policy, I fear that this current situation can only excarbate that situation and at the same time align the UK and the US in the minds of those in the Middle East thus making the world much more dangerous in general and in particular for citizens of the UK.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Re: I was wondering ..

Er - I'll take that as a no then

I think

Actually too busy to enter debate this time + under pressure from SWMBO on mole problem

Cheers

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

Mr O.Would you care to give an indication of just how many more people will have to die in that part of the world to prevent people being possibly killed in this part.
Round numbers will suffice.I will take a guess that like me you are also unlikely to be called on to go and fight for all that oil.However if you are keen to see your actions carried out I suspect flights to Bagdad are still available./forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Oooh look its still not dark and its nearly 5pm

 

[hlb]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

I can see both sides of the arguement, but I would have alot more sympathy with UK/USA if something had been done about the Isriali's being in breach of UN Res. for years. I dont blame the Arabs for being angry and not at all surprising for some of them to blow them selves up for there cause, or the extreemist's to fly planes into tower blocks. It is after all the only weapons they can find. How else would you like to fight the USA. Not agreeing with them. It's not my fight and I'm not a Palastinian. But I would be a little pissed off if I was.

<hr width=100% size=1> <font color=blue> Haydn

 

[TrailerSailer]

This has not got a lot to do with the seriousness of the situation facing us over the next few days, but if you want a laugh and a more than slightly true reflection of the Bush/Blair relationship download this movie.

http://www.wiredvideo.com/av/#readmylips

Sorry, but it's 3.2Mb in size. That said it really did brighten up a bad day!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

Fred,

Tim will do. I'm not hiding behind a nom de plume.

In relation to your first question, I can't answer that as I'm sure you know. I hope none (is that a round enough number?) and I do not believe that any of the leaders on this side WANT to see lives lost (on either side - with the possible exception of Saddam himself) either.

On your second point, this is really not about oil (how many times does it have to be said?) and it is not "my actions".

You are right that I do not expect to be called up to fight. However, if I had signed up for the armed forces (not compulsory remember), I would have accepted that I could be called upon to put my life at risk. It is not just "part of the job" - it is THE job. I would also have accepted that it is necessary - no, fundamental - to the proper operation of armed forces that there is a chain of command - from political masters down to privates. There is no room for selective obedience to orders (subject to over-riding humanitarian principles). So, whether I agreed with them or not, I would have expected to follow orders.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[FlyingSpud]

Re: Gloves off again ..

Enlighten me as to how it is backing the UN to ignore the Security Council, which is what Blair is now proposing.

Why is my philosophical question not worth answering? Some less charitable than I am, may think it could be because you do not know how to.

Finally, I am a lawyer, and I specialise in domestic violence cases founding the first Injunction network in the country some years ago, helping the setting up some of the first women’s refuge and so on (my CV on this front is quite long), so I do not take kindly to your comment about beating wives. I assume you will agree it was a cheap shot that you wish you had not made and would want to withdraw it?


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Strange how America began this line of action just after Eye-Rak started to trade in Euro's for her oil, this action immeadiatly devalued the oil-dollar and those countries which rely on it, oh, the USA.

Coincidence maybe.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=blue> Julian </font color=blue>

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ukstaffords.com>http://www.ukstaffords.com</A>