Ok its official

[jimi]

There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Parliament and the people have been misled.

So waht do we do now .. find Saddam and give it back , charge the Iraqis for looking after them or get the hell out?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Re: Accountability

If I as a director, mislead anyone regarding finances, I am held to account. If I as a director or manager am connected with any responsibility for injury or loss of life, I am held to account. (Criminally). If I don't keep certain records, (list growing daily), I am held to account. If I don't dot all the I's and cross the T's regarding "CE", I am held to account. The list goes on. In fact for virtually anyone in the real world.

What will happen here? You got it..................

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chas]

But nobody said that there were any, did they? I thought that we are just about to learn that it was all a plot by the BBC.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jimmy20V]

Well, I haven't got any (WMD's) either. But I am abit worried The US/UK Alliance will invade my office or flat.....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Accountability

Absolutely .. but can't you just smell the biggest whitewash in history coming up? The fascist state rolls nearer, no opposition, media silenced, upper house packed ... is this democracy?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

Not in Iraq? Then ...

... they must be in Iran.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[DeeGee]

Well, I don't give a toss. It would be nice if TB could grovel a bit on telly and smile and get all the mums back on side (c'mon, you know they are the only ones with the vote, whatever we guys think).

The problem was that the UN charter didn't allow for regime change, no matter how dispicable the regime - so they had to find some other genuine reason.. hence WMD. It has turned out badly for them, but I still think in the long-term historical view, they will be seen to be right.

Am I alone?



<hr width=100% size=1>Black Sugar - the sweetest of all

 

[AndrewJ]

Marvelous politics.
Well having awakened my sense of morality, here goes, As one newspaper columinist stated, Iraq was "done" because it could be. Bush wanted a war that he could win rapidly, so he "conned" TB into it. It's good for the economy, not to mention OIL.
Frankly, I don;t care if Sadam WAS a tyrant, some people need a tyrant to ensure stability. (witness the situation today, so many factions trying to fill the void, and who says the next leader will not be another Sadam)
Why didn't the world just sell (or give) the dissenters guns and let them go at it.
I do NOT think the whole country of Iraq worth my sons life.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: regime change - solution

yes, long term it will be a good thing that George Bush and Tony Blair get chucked out.

And, seeing as how we've busted his country, we should have Saddam in charge here. All the dodgy illegals will rush off, and we'll have some decent public building instead of a poxy Millenium tent. No chance of any bombs being let off by Arabs either. Also, he is very keen on boats, and would be very good at orgainsing games of charades etc with the kids.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Ok I'll take the bait!

1) Probably not a bad idea to get rid of Saddam .. probably I say because until we find out what happens in the long term we've no idea if its good or bad.
2)At the expense of democracy in the UK . No!
3)At the expense of marginalising the UN.. No!
4)At the expense of making the world a more dangerous place .. No!
5)At the expense of deliberately misleading parliament ... No!
6)At the expense of deliberately misleading the pblic ... No!

I find it hard to accept that there was any reason for the UK to go to war other than TB's personal motives. That is not acceptable in a modern democracy and points the finger urgently and firmly at the need for constitutional reform. IE an elected second chamber, separation of the executive from the legislature, proper constitional checks and balances and a complete eradication of the fiction that the monarchy has any constitutional role.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Neraida]

Agree. Have an uneasy feeling that the 'warning' earlier this week from the UN secretary general has fallen on deaf ears and it will only be a matter of time before it all starts again, somewhere else, regardless of who is in the White House at the time.

What about Mugabe? Nobody seems to be interested in him, even though he is a vicious, evil dictator. Zimbabwe is not considered to be a haven for terrorists intent on attacking the US so they'll leave them alone?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Of course there never were any Weapons of Mass Destruction. US/UK would never have dared invade if there had been.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

It is really difficult to see who has benefitted from the war.

Yes in some ways Iraq is a safer place - but on the other hand the people there are much worse off now than they were before at least in the short term. It is difficult to see how things can improve there in the short term - so the most likely outcome is either a period of great instability or an extreme government of some kind.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chas]

Regime change

"The problem was that the UN charter didn't allow for regime change, no matter how dispicable the regime"

I suppose it would be difficult for it to do so, as the "regimes that need changing" would all be voting! Who would be on the list - Zimbabwe, N Korea, Solomans, France....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Re: Accountability

Problem is also, that after the Hutton enquiry, (slightly different subject but connected) we'll all just forget it and let them carry on.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BalmainBug]

Jimi\'s new graphic

Nothing to do with the thread, but if your real boat makes that much leeway, you're in trouble.......

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Jimi\'s new graphic

Well when it was out the water last year I found a large bit of iron at the botton of the boat, the buiders had obviously left it on by mistake so I unbolted it to help reduce the wetted area ,which I beleive is important for speed. The boat now goes a lot faster downwind but does have a tendency to mahe a lot of leeway. I do'nt really want to sail to windward anyway so it does'nt really matter.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Jimi\'s new graphic

Ah you had one of those!

If you had bought a Bavaria you would have found they came off of their own accord.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Ok I'll set the line!

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

1) Probably not a bad idea to get rid of Saddam .. probably I say because until we find out what happens in the long term we've no idea if its good or bad.

<hr></blockquote>

So on balance (I infer from "probably") you agree it was a good thing. Tough call huh? Good job you didn't have to make it.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

2)At the expense of democracy in the UK . No!

<hr></blockquote>

So "democracy" requires a single issue referendum on everything? I can't remember the exact quote but consider: "the greatest betrayal of the people is for their elected representatives to be slaves to public opinion"

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

3)At the expense of marginalising the UN.. No!

<hr></blockquote>

The UN was in a mess anyway. What relevance a mutual security organisation whose MANDATORY resolutions had been repeatedly defied for 12 years.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

4)At the expense of making the world a more dangerous place .. No!

<hr></blockquote>

Unsubstantiated opinion. Security didn't look too good anyway

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

5)At the expense of deliberately misleading parliament ... No!

<hr></blockquote>

Unsubstantiated. Let's wait for Hutton's report

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

6)At the expense of deliberately misleading the pblic ... No!

<hr></blockquote>

Unsubstantiated. Let's wait for Hutton's report.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

I find it hard to accept that there was any reason for the UK to go to war other than TB's personal motives.

<hr></blockquote>

What personal motivation, exactly. Personal conviction reagrdless of a weight of public opinion against him? Wish we had more politicians of conviction.




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlanPound]

People don't keep their jobs simply on the basis of their good intentions. They keep them for being *right* (and I think the game is up on that one...)

<hr width=100% size=1>