Thursday, 1 February, 2007
- 1 Feb 07, 05:15 PM
News that Tony Blair has again been questioned by detectives in the cash for honours investigation suggests to many in Westminster that we are already in the twilight of the Blair era. We’ll be considering the enormous political fall-out.
Also: BAE-Saudi royal family financial links claims; and Gen Richards' battle against the Taleban.
Comment on here.
Comments Post your comment
The News Blackout on the questioning of Blair last Friday reportedly tested the leaks(also to prevent Lord Levi knowing?they say). No 10 has proved the leaks are not coming out of that hallowed establisment.. BUT does it not also prove the leaks were not coming from Police sources.So where is the seepage..a rumoured mole perhaps! Whatever, sources suggest that Lord Levi may walk the plank on behalf of his master... thats true fiendship(sic).
Allegedly the others must feel very vulnerable!! altogether now ...ahh!
Complain about this post
What a week and its only Thursday. One thing after another - events dear boy events, how true ! Get the feeling something big is round the corner. Blair has conspired to prevent the course of honesty to the UK public for too long. His biggest crime being his own weapons of mass delusion.
Complain about this post
Though Mr. Esler refers it in the e-mail blog intro this afternoon, I'm guessing guessing Mr. Paxman wrote it yesterday, and this seems the only place to offer an opinion, if not answer, to his question:
"Imagine my surprise this morning opening my copy of The Times to read that my esteemed colleague Jeremy Paxman has offered a devastating critique of the ±«Óãtv's failures to be Green enough...etc
Great stuff, I thought. Then imagine my surprise because in the ±«Óãtv office Jeremy and I share with Kirsty and Emily, the computer and monitor (which we also share) were left switched on all night. The culprit? Hmmm. Who could it possibly be wasting all that electricity? Well, the last log-in that I could discover was "Paxmanj." Any ideas?
The biter bit? Next thing we'll be hearing people are dropping folk in it for fines by leaving stuff with their names on in bins. Imagine if the nanny state figured that was enough to convict?
As a slight attempt to help JP in mitigation should he be 'guilty', there is the notion that some hi-tec PCs need continual updates. Another is that the hardware decay from shutting down and rebooting is actually worse eco-wise than spinning. I'm still deciding, but err on monitor and printer off, CPU on standby... for now.
It's all about being green. Not always black and white.
Still, it agains proves a point I often try to make. One knocks, and the comeback is often a bigger 'two wrongs make a good knock' back. Doesn't help the planet much, though, does it?
Complain about this post
Today's story is that the PM wsa questioned again for possibly perverting the course of justice, arising from an enquiry that may or may not find that honours were being sold for donations and loans. There is a sense amongst the media that they are onto something, and this could well be the tip required to force Mr Blair from office.
Shame if this is indeed the straw that broke the camel's back. Mr Blair deserves to see out the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is his concrete positive achievement. However, he should alknowledge that the war in Iraq represented his moment of test, and he failed it.
Thousands travelling today are being mugged for Gorgon Brown's extra green airport tax, which is illegal, as that part of the finance bill containing it has not been passed by parliament as yet. That is an issue on which Mr Blair has failed to act. Though the ±«Óãtv Office daily digest of errors and failings are dumped on the lap of Reid, where was the PM to lead the country out of the mess?
Tony, take a few weeks, finsh what you started in Northern Ireland, and go quietly into the night. Let Brown and the other power hungry messengers take over. Let them become fully accountable for once.
Complain about this post
After watching Hazel Blears tonight I have to confess that I shall dealy miss the comedy of seeing cabinet ministers pretend they know what 'the public' want -----better than even the public know themselves!! I laugh my socks off now as they come out in denial about how they have dragged politics in this country to the lowest gutter level of all time, and yet sit in their interview seats, wriggling and squirming with carved smirk, whilst rattling off some pre rehearsed Blarney that only a true Blairite would ever believe to be credible.
Hazel, I am a member of a huge amount of public opinion that, contrary to your ridiculous assertion and mal assumption, the arrest of Blair is more important than anything else you imagine you are doing with politics or government, and adds to our disgust that you and your party still pretend you have the confidence of the voting public. The interviewer was far too nice to you and failed to elicit the answer to the question 'when did you first learn of the police questioning of Blair'
I wanted to know and probably so did the rest of the country.
Complain about this post
I've just watched tonight's programme, and the misguided loyalty, to the Prime Minister, by Hazel Blears,(chairman of the Labour Party) Is unbelievable and immoral. This woman simply cannot give a straight answer to one single question. She, and others like her in the Party are very deluded if they think this type of behaviour will go down with the British people any longer. We have all become very 'accustomed to Labours particular type of spin!'
Complain about this post
Just to say:(got the message about Lord Levy and the slippery thing on his head).
Complain about this post
Regarding your report on Afghanistan;
What laughable propoganda! I expect soviet TV broadcast such rubbish
during their similarly doomed occupation;What made their intervention bad and ours so good?
Because you the media say so!Thats all!
At least the soviets attempted to offer genuine infrastructual improvements instead of building shopping malls for western occupiers while large areas of the country are still rubble;The final scene of your report,with your "Hero" general being awarded a medal by US Puppet
"president" Karzai made me laugh out loud;
10 years from now,the taliban will be back in power and the succesors to Bush and Blair will be signing pipe line deals with them and shaking hands.This war is purely about securing western energy /geopolitical interests,certainly not human rights,except the "right" of US imerialism to rape and pillage the globe.
You are such a group of establishment flunkies;Yet in your own deluded minds you probably believe you are offering Genuinely
unbiased reporting;Bet you won't print this;Informed dissent is too dangerous after all.........
Complain about this post
Regarding your report on Afghanistan;
What laughable propoganda! I expect soviet TV broadcast such rubbish
during their similarly doomed occupation;What made their intervention bad and ours so good?
Because you the media say so!Thats all!
At least the soviets attempted to offer genuine infrastructual improvements instead of building shopping malls for western occupiers while large areas of the country are still rubble;The final scene of your report,with your "Hero" general being awarded a medal by US Puppet
"president" Karzai made me laugh out loud;
10 years from now,the taliban will be back in power and the succesors to Bush and Blair will be signing pipe line deals with them and shaking hands.This war is purely about securing western energy /geopolitical interests,certainly not human rights,except the "right" of US imerialism to rape and pillage the globe.
You are such a group of establishment flunkies;Yet in your own deluded minds you probably believe you are offering Genuinely
unbiased reporting;Bet you won't print this;Informed dissent is too dangerous after all.........
Complain about this post
Regarding your report on Afghanistan;
What laughable propoganda! I expect soviet TV broadcast such rubbish
during their similarly doomed occupation;What made their intervention bad and ours so good?
Because you the media say so!Thats all!
At least the soviets attempted to offer genuine infrastructual improvements instead of building shopping malls for western occupiers while large areas of the country are still rubble;The final scene of your report,with your "Hero" general being awarded a medal by US Puppet
"president" Karzai made me laugh out loud;
10 years from now,the taliban will be back in power and the succesors to Bush and Blair will be signing pipe line deals with them and shaking hands.This war is purely about securing western energy /geopolitical interests,certainly not human rights,except the "right" of US imerialism to rape and pillage the globe.
You are such a group of establishment flunkies;Yet in your own deluded minds you probably believe you are offering Genuinely
unbiased reporting;Bet you won't print this;Informed dissent is too dangerous after all.........
Complain about this post
Your report on Afghanistan was laughable propoganda;No doubt Soviet TV broadcast such rubbish during their similarly futile occupation, (at least they didn't build shopping malls in kabul full of Gucci and similar expensive consumer trash whilst the rest of the country was rubble)
Whats the difference between the soviet"Bad" Invasion and our western "Good" Invasion? The fact that the right wing corporate media say so!
Ten years from now the Taliban will be back in power and the succesor to Bush will be shaking hands with them over a pipeline deal.
Complain about this post
Hazel Blears,always the minister who is put into the front line when the government has to deflect difficult questions.Her ability to waffle and not answer a direct question is becoming almost entertaining for the viewer.Hazel Blears reminds me of the typical deputy headmistress of a small primary school,not smart enough to gain the headmistress position but loyal enough to take the flak.She seems willing to do the unpleasant tasks for her boss,but stupid enough not to know thats she is being used as a buffer.Her slow but steady rise to prominence in govt has clearly gone to her head,and seems willing to take bullets.Hazel is so well practiced at this,she is getting quite good and has took prevarication to a level i have not yet witnessed before. One must ask the question though,how is it mediocre hacks thrive and prosper in high office such as in the running of a country?,hazel is living proof that you can be a no talent dufus and still get on. A bit like that Michael portillo (political pundit of no particular significance) and Diane "i am a hypocrite" abbott (send your kids to state schools,unless of course,your a labour MP and can pay for private education for yor child) and get paid by the beeb rather handsomely ..to talk nonsense.I for some reason watch this with bemusement.
Newsnight...Question time....This week..its a busy nights viewing on Thursdays.
Complain about this post
Ref Duncan 3 same posts:
#8. At 01:50 AM on 02 Feb 2007, Duncan wrote:
#9. At 01:53 AM on 02 Feb 2007, Duncan wrote:
#10. At 01:55 AM on 02 Feb 2007, Duncan wrote:
Patience dear lefty.
This is not Guardian Unlimited Talk Board, where posts get published there & then [1]
Its takes a while for posts to be reviewed before they are published on NN threads, hence your 3 posts back to back within 5 mins
Made similar initial basic error in posting myself.
That said ….
- Duncan "Regarding your report on Afghanistan; What laughable propoganda! I expect soviet TV broadcast such rubbish
during their similarly doomed occupation;What made their intervention bad and ours so good? …."
… history old chap
General Richards [2] is a rather competent British General who led a very effective NATO campagin, esp given limited resources & a determined enemy.
Don't let your hate & bias blind you too actual accomplishments ….. when they do happen :)
'Green Light On' ….Every Man An Emperor [3]
Live & Learn [4]
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Complain about this post
Ref: vikingar
Or... it might be the system is not working too well.
Calm down, dear, it's only a cock-up.
Usually after posting you get an immediate return to the board with an acknowledgement. These days 2 out 3 I have tried (I used to and still do make the same mistake) either result in half an hour of the spinning pizza of death (I have a Mac - maybe the cause?) and/or eventually a failure sign.
So you retry later. Well, YOU don't, but some of us do because we don't know if it has been received or not. It has and is happening all over the board.
That said...
As it is moderated one wonders why the moderator can't just lop out the duplicates?
And I agree that of all major media I appreciate most the immediacy, reassurance and openness of the Guardian system. Though I have seen a few folk complain they have been removed with no good reason (must take something pretty egregious). The Telegraph is very good - or bad, depending on your view - at moderating out stuff it doesn't fancy, which in a free press is editing that can rather make one doubt their commitment to balanced debate. Despite the ±«Óãtv’s rather unique status this one is pretty good, but again I have seen folk complain they are not being heard and can only wonder why. Maybe that's why Duncan editted down to repost later?
ps: I'm a MORON - that's Middle Of the Road, Outside Nomenclature – and proud of it. I find political labels (or any mild pejorative, such as 'denier' or 'mentalist' in the enviro debate) to be often inaccurate and lead to further name-calling. A view is a view and you can span the political spectrum without slavishly adhering to one doctrine.
Complain about this post
I'm blogging this story and various other bits and bobs, please drop bye and pay me a visit.
Sorry for the short comment, the bed calls for my weary body.
Complain about this post
AN ACCUMULATION OF NORMALITY?
±«Óãtv Newsnight last night led on the growing number of investigations afflicting the government. As such, though, it represented a classic pattern of proving guilt by innuendo.
It is not clear why the police are taking so long to close the investigation on the peerages for honours. What does seem to be the case is that desperation is closing in for the police, with the investigation switching to conspiracy to pervert; surely the last refuge of police harassment – white lies as crimes. Now, a police ‘leak’ suggests that the police simply want to show they have been thorough when they clear the politicians – having, in the meantime, destroyed reputations by a year of leaks and innuendo. This ‘bullying’ by the police, whose inspired leaks cannot be challenged, is scarcely British justice at its finest.
The second ‘accusation’, related to Gordon Brown’s closeness to his favourite thinktank: the Smith Institute. It is true that such thinktanks are in an equivocal position with regard to the laws on charitable status; and Gordon Brown’s closeness to his own favourite has pushed the limits on this. But, by the very nature of things, on the one hand such thinktanks are only really effective if they build such close relationships with those in power. On the other hand, the experts they employ come from the ‘great and good’ who move in both worlds. It is therefore inevitable that close links are a feature of the world they both inhabit.
Finally, the BAe ‘scandal’ has surfaced now but arose 20 years ago; under a previous administration. I know – from personal involvement - that the then administration, at least in the form of its intelligence services, was not just aware of what was going on but was deeply involved in the BAe activities. The current government’s position has come about simply because it is the one left with the unraveled package at the end of a game of pass the parcel.
The tripartite failure of standards, highlighted by ±«Óãtv Newsnight, is therefore an accumulation of activities which can – and should – be seen as close to normal for any legitimate UK government. By media innuendo, though, they are being used to criminalize Tony Blair – even though it is likely to be almost all innuendo at best, and even then none of this ‘evidence’ points to him personally.
Complain about this post
Ref Peter #14
NEWSNIGHT BLOG
I concure, definitely been noticing a lot of errors (esp late night untill early monring) & now during the day (preview takes ages)
Post/Submissions when they do go through take ages, but usually leads to error message.
NN please investigate errors .. two message I get 501 or 502 *
* "502 Service not available.Unfortunately a server error occured whilst trying to retrieve this page: /cgi-perl/mt/mt-comments.cgi We are currently working to correct this"
THE GUARDIAN:
Agreed ref GU
Wish NN would enable user generated threads (limited) to enable robust debates ** as ±«Óãtv ….. HAVE YOUR SAY is too tame/tepid other than for generalist posting.
** even just a 'BREAKING NEWS' facility/thread for things happening outside of NN hours.
guardian unlimited is a successful talk board model, I have always liked it, though it has problems.
Being a liberal conservative (centre right) enjoyed the robust exchanges. Having brought the paper (unlike many who post) for 30+ years, but have noticed that given the demise of too many centric journalists The Guardian leans far too left & anything that imbalanced will just go around in circles. Still enough value in The Guardian for it be worth a key read, though on certain topics bypass commentary, its just too imbalanced & too Right On / PC to be of any real worth/influence.
However, the GU moderator policy (abdicating responsibility for admin/review too passionate users) means debates & users get abused far too often, with moderator imposing a personal criteria on posts & discussions.
The flip side ref users are the ever prowling GU Cabals out there to ambush new users who do not adhere too the party line.
My favourite illogical GU ban was on the use of the word 'islamofascism' & 'islamofascist' in 2005
Now given every major newssheet at the time was using it, many politicians & even The Guardian itself [1] the moderators banned the use of the word … ? … ban the lexicon of debate .. ludicrous :(
Thought such contravene the very core of The Guardians principles. An early & success editor, CP Scott outlined those principals in a much-quoted article written to celebrate the centenary of the paper:
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred... The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard." [2]
How the GU expects it maintain its principles by banning the use of words of debate, that politicians, media & population are using is beyond me :(
A really bad example of talk board gone made, was FT, stop using it myself, cluttered, too many changes, poor design / HCI. Though did have the 'honour' of having a journalist acquire a story from a contribution I had posted, literally lifted & then top & tailed with their own words.
btw - been banned myself from GU so know of what I speaketh of.
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
[2]
Complain about this post
Vikingar - on the 31st I mentioned that the timing of the terror raids was used as a distraction from the cash-for-cronies debacle and whaddya know the very same evening (or perhaps the next morning) the news blackout is lifted on that story!
If we are capable of being misled into war due to manipulated "intelligence" I don't how see how it won't occasionally be used for other purposes too.
And for those who cry "conspiracy theorist", I guess that makes Scotland Yard the same seeing as they are investigating a "a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice".
Complain about this post
I think the real issue at task is being avoided with all this fancy speech and what not, that being said, let's get down to it..PRINCE CHARRRLLLESSSSSSS, be the slogan, and, IM HUNGRRRYYYYYYYY be the issue. I sure like food, I normally eat the horses that die in front of my house. I never come out and fart alot, so the gas sort've hovers, it's to a point, anything that walks by the house will either die or soon be dying. So I collect small birds and stuff and eat away, nummy yummy!
Complain about this post
IGNORING THE BACK-HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
Last night ±«Óãtv Newsnight echoed the prevailing view of military strategy in this cursed country. Quite correctly, they commended General Richards for his military success during his timer there; and, not least, commended his emphasis on matching action with diplomacy. Just as correctly, the programme wondered how any military leader could solve the problems in just 9 months.
The explanation of the British ‘inkblot?’ approach, which was so successful in winning last century’s war against the guerrillas in Malaya, was also fascinating. But is this strategy relevant to modern Afghanistan?
The programme reflected the widespread view that the war against the Taliban was won several years ago and the only problem left is that is mopping the few pesky guerillas hiding in the mountains. Of course, this is a wildly optimistic view of an intransigent problem.
The history, which is ignored in this panglossian approach, includes:
1. The Afghans have literally centuries of experience of throwing off the yoke of foreign oppression.
2. Even the Soviets, who poured enormous resources into quite successfully pacifying the country for a time, were soon forced out by the American supported Taliban.
3. The Taliban, created jointly by the CIA and Pakistan, then successfully ruled the country until the US once more decided it wanted a more amenable client government. It is true that (much the same as Saddam Hussein), in Western eyes, the Taliban embraced an unacceptable form of Islamic government. But they were recognizably based on local culture and were accepted by the people. Moreover, they brought, at a price (especially for women), peace; and even stopped the production of opium.
4. To remove the Taliban the US deployed tactics which were even more ruthless than those used in Iraq; including widespread bombing by B52s, atrocities perpetrated against civilians and, of course, illegal treatment of prisoners (where Guantanamo Bay still exists if many politicians like to forget it). Above all, the US brought back the warlords who had impoverished the country – and, through newly planted poppy crops, the rest of the world – and used them to impose its preferred puppet government.
5. For its own reasons, Pakistan – or at least large sections of it just across the border – still support the Taliban; and offer it a safe haven just a few miles from where the action is.
So, is it feasible to forget all this back-history (and the much more I have glossed over) to see this as a minor set of military actions against largely ‘defeated’ guerrillas?
Complain about this post
IGNORING THE BACK-HISTORY OF AFGHANISTAN
Last night ±«Óãtv Newsnight echoed the prevailing view of military strategy in this cursed country. Quite correctly, they commended General Richards for his military success during his timer there; and, not least, commended his emphasis on matching action with diplomacy. Just as correctly, the programme wondered how any military leader could solve the problems in just 9 months.
The explanation of the British ‘inkblot?’ approach, which was so successful in winning last century’s war against the guerrillas in Malaya, was also fascinating. But is this strategy relevant to modern Afghanistan?
The programme reflected the widespread view that the war against the Taliban was won several years ago and the only problem left is that is mopping the few pesky guerillas hiding in the mountains. Of course, this is a wildly optimistic view of an intransigent problem.
The history, which is ignored in this panglossian approach, includes:
1. The Afghans have literally centuries of experience of throwing off the yoke of foreign oppression.
2. Even the Soviets, who poured enormous resources into quite successfully pacifying the country for a time, were soon forced out by the American supported Taliban.
3. The Taliban, created jointly by the CIA and Pakistan, then successfully ruled the country until the US once more decided it wanted a more amenable client government. It is true that (much the same as Saddam Hussein), in Western eyes, the Taliban embraced an unacceptable form of Islamic government. But they were recognizably based on local culture and were accepted by the people. Moreover, they brought, at a price (especially for women), peace; and even stopped the production of opium.
4. To remove the Taliban the US deployed tactics which were even more ruthless than those used in Iraq; including widespread bombing by B52s, atrocities perpetrated against civilians and, of course, illegal treatment of prisoners (where Guantanamo Bay still exists if many politicians like to forget it). Above all, the US brought back the warlords who had impoverished the country – and, through newly planted poppy crops, the rest of the world – and used them to impose its preferred puppet government.
5. For its own reasons, Pakistan – or at least large sections of it just across the border – still support the Taliban; and offer it a safe haven just a few miles from where the action is.
So, is it feasible to forget all this back-history (and the much more I have glossed over) to see this as a minor set of military actions against largely ‘defeated’ guerrillas?
Complain about this post
David Mercer - very good post, except please note that Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist not an islamist.
Complain about this post
If the general was so good, why isn't he allowed to stay, especially if each nine-month tenure brings different methods. Does NATO always operate like that, or is it special for the Afghans?
Perhaps Michael Crick is being misled by his chatty contacts in the Palace of Westminster. When he reports that they say nothng is being done, nothing is happening, a precious opportunity to rule as Labour is being wasted, he shouldn't be taking them literally. There is a great deal the government is doing that he, or some other political reporter should be reporting, watchng, investigating. Instead Newsnight recently concentrates on nothing but the infighting, back-stabbing, and gossip-mongering.
Complain about this post
Ref David Mercer #21
Ref my #13 .... 'its history'
.... I like aspects of your expanded version of 'history' in your #21
MISSING ELEMENT:
Something perhaps missing.
In ousting the Soviets, the mujahadeen DID NOT do it all by themselves & Arab Islamists did certainly DID NOT do it.
The mujahadeen had the support of a Global Super Power (US) & a regional power (Pakistan)
Therefore, the current breed of Islamic Terrorist e.g. Taliban, Al Quaeda can only succeed if they have sufficient support of state/s (super or otherwise) behind them.
Hence the importance too both sides of Pakistan (geographic position, demographic make-up, politics, military forces, nuke weapons, motivations)
As far as we know, 'state support' consists of mainly of rogue/unofficial/covert support from elements within Pakistan, Iran, … anywhere else?
Overt & official state support from like … Sudan (Islamic Courts until recently)... anywhere else?
Also individual Muslims responding as a clarion call too Islamic Terrorist Franchise (local level) & also to those who travel out to main conflict areas. As well as fiscal, logistical & basic support networks emanating from Muslim communities elsewhere in the world.
SUMMARY:
Previously, foreign forces in Afghanistan have been defeated by (broad summary):
- Pre 19th Century, local/national? Afghan forces
- Post 19th Century, mujahadeen + overt states support (a super power + local power)
Now, can the myriad of support, from various low level sources, in total match the above?
The issue will centre around tenacity & staying power & ultimately there is no moral equivalence.
Scenario [1] as long as NATO, UN etc in for the long haul (10+ years) very good opportunity for success / 'victory'
Scenario [2] the myriad of support is colourful & more passionate (ideology) but has the capacity to run out of puff, esp given they way they use volunteers *
* crucially, unlike the soviet invasion, there is not the moral/political international support for these Islamic Terrorists - there is no moral equivalence.
vikingar
Complain about this post
From Saturday's Guardian:
"Police investigating the alleged plot to abduct and behead a Muslim soldier expressed growing anger yesterday at a series of leaks and briefings which they say are hampering their inquiry.
Whitehall officials briefed journalists early on Wednesday before all of the suspects had been found, with the result that lurid details of the alleged plot were broadcast while one suspect remained at large. At least one tabloid newspaper had even been tipped off the night before the dawn raids, and its reporters put on standby to race to Birmingham.
Police sources in the West Midlands said yesterday they suspected the anonymous briefings may have been intended to deflect attention from the prisons crisis and the cash for honours inquiry, while counter-terrorism officials in London told the Guardian there was concern that the speculation generated is interfering with the investigation by the newly formed Midlands Counter-Terrorism Unit."
I rest my case.
Complain about this post
Ref Ric B #25
An alternative view, also from the weekend Guardian / Observer Sunday 4th February 2007 ref Birmingham investigations ...
… revealing links to former Guantanamo Bay inmate Moazzam Begg (anti war - cause célèbre) [1]
btw - don't you really think too much intense 'peacetime' navel gazing gives succour to an enemy in wartime.
Q. what next according to your Conspiracy Theory criteria & rhetoric?
Logically speaking the Turkey Cull / H5N1 Bird Flu outbreak must also be misinformation / intentional contamination !!!!
… Wag The Turkey?
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
Complain about this post
Well, Vikingar, if we really are in "wartime" (and not simply occupying other countries) then let's get the country on a war footing - tighten our belts, perhaps bring in conscription and if you are young enough and healthy I suggest you get hold of some enrolment papers and head off to your nearest army recruiting office. I always respect someone who acts on their principles.
Complain about this post
Ref Rick B #27
... hhhmmmm
Then you will be happy to know that as an ex Brit Airborne Warrior already done my bit for God, Queen & Country (a cold war warrior) & paid rather a heavy price.
fyi - anyone who has served in British Armed Forces abhors the notion of conscription into a professional volunteer army.
Now you sound a like lively opinionated lad, who reads like you have been on a protest or 100, so looking forward to hearing about your visit to Baghdad, embracing the very factions et al you have been apologising for since 2003.
btw - we are occupying Iraq, always have been, but last couple years under UN Mandate & by permission of the first democratically government they have since mid 20th Century (better than nothing).
Still it could all go to pot & it ain't looking good, the Iraqis seem to want to turn on each other more than fight the coalition (aided in Islamic Fratricide by all those foreign Muslims, brotherhood my foot) nor wish to rebuild their society.
- Anti war brigade success is when Allied Coalition fails & when Islamic Fratricide gets even bloodier
- Allied Coalition success is when warring parties turn to politics to settle their differences.
Still rather ironic (but predictable) all those liberal lefties * who …..:
- defended the right of a fascist dictator to remain in power
- still even now wish to appease & kow-tow too Islamofascism (so much for human rights)
…. what a turn up for the books :)
* Great Article from Nick Cohen, writing in the Observer …. ' Don't you know your left from your right?' [1]
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
Complain about this post