|
Take a read of the Attorney General's advise It will make me sick to see him voted into power, he has deceived Parliment and the country. But most people will still vote Labour because either they don't want the Conservatives or because they've always voted for them. Anyway regardless of who people vote for (I'm not anti-labour I'd be alright with them being voted in again just not with Blair as PM), Blair must surely go down for this! Edited by Hurleybird at 13:37:35 28-04-2005 |
Surely Blair has to resign or be impeached
-
Hurleybird 1,381 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years ago -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agoHe'll get in again. Voter apathy will ensure this. Which means he'll probably do something even worse this term round.
Still, at least it'll be his last.
Peej -
Look at how government acts before shouting off that the PM needs to be impeached or resign. And secondly, bitch on about Blair but would you really want Howard running the country? -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agoandrewfromdoncaster wrote:
And secondly, bitch on about Blair but would you really want Howard running the country?
Christ no!
Tactical vote a hung parliament. That'd be fucking funny to see.
Peej -
Tabasco 5,869 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoPity we can't lock all the fuckers in a room and have a last man(wo..) standing situation. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoI don't really care about this issue of was it legal or not. To make it legal they basically needed France and Russia to change their minds. What sort of legality is based on the whim of a couple of countries?
I'm more concerned that the reasons he used to try and convince the parliament (successfully) and the people (less so) were false. And judging by the conclusions of the Butler report (I think it was) it was clear that pressure had been applied to alter the emphasis on the dossier. Not quite 'sexed up' but about as close as you can get.
In short, if Blair didn't know that he was publishing falsehoods in the WMD dossier, he at least knew that he was on extremely shakey ground.
And beyond that, as I said at the time, absolutely nothing in the dossier explained why action should be taken now. In my opinion, action should have been taken long ago, but considering that we'd held off for so long, I could see no reason for not waiting another few months to try to get international agreement. No reason that is, apart from trying to brown-nose G.W.Bush.
I don't think Blair should be impeached for that, though he is on extremely dodgy ground. I do believe that the electorate is duty bound to give him a kick in the teeth at the upcoming election though. -
Decoded 4,426 posts
Registered 18 years agopjmaybe wrote:
He'll get in again. Voter apathy will ensure this.
Actually I believe voter apathy will work against Labour. Polls indicate that a higher percentage of Tory supporters will definitely be voting.
Back to the Attorney General's advice issue; I was watching Sky News last night and the commentators seemed to suggest that the document let Blair "off the hook". -
Sid-Nice 15,848 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 18 years agoWhere did you get this propaganda from? -
BlackJedi 388 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI've just read the summary paragraphs, and a quick scan seems to say "Dunno, Tony, it could go either way. You've got a case to proceed without another resolution, but it would be safer to get another resolution. If we can't get one, we'll have a look at the situation again."
Efforts to get a second resolution failed. The Attorney General looked at the situation again (now that a second resolution wasn't an option), and decided this time that it would be OK. The original advice was very wishy-washy, and this time he got off the fence and stated a clear opinion.
There are no contradictions, no lies.
However... I still think the decision to invade Iraq was taken for the wrong reasons. I don't think the legality is the issue - it's the morality that's at question. -
Hurleybird 1,381 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoWhy couldn't the US and UK wait before acting?
There was no imminent threat from Iraq. It was because when the US saw that the rest of the world would find out they'd been lying through their teeth about the WMD (and therefore the necessary "breech" of resolution 678 required by 1441) they needed to cover up and so therefore cooked up reasons why no second resolution was necessary.
This is blatantly evident in this advise!! It is absolutely scandalous, and carries the gravest implications for Blair as PM! -
Hurleybird 1,381 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI agree with BlackJedi that the legal case is less important than the moral one. However I would disagree that there were no lies from Blair.
Let me quote the final paragraph:
"That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq."
(one might ask disarmament of what)
"But regime change cannot be the objective of milary action."
Now the argument goes that ok so the "intelligence" was wrong (read: made up) but the world is a safer place without Saddam in power. Now what is that if it's not regime change?! -
Hurleybird 1,381 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoFruit_Salad wrote:
I really don't mean to make this a party political thing. It could be argued that Labour have done a good job, this is about Tony Blair.
Labour are the way to go. I mean, compared to the competition. -
silver-jon 1,518 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agoHmm let's see now. There's a lot in the news about sustainable energy sources and whether we need to invest a huge amount more into Nuclear power.
The astonishing rise of industrialisation in CHina and India has placed enormous pressure on the supply of oil.
Shell recently admitted that their known reserves were about 1/3rd less than they'd always said.
And then we go to war in Iraq - a country isolated from officially trading oil - to oust the dictator on the basis of his threat to world stability (presumably a more believable reason to mainstream American voters than to British).
COuld it be (shock horror) that Mr Blair is aware that the oil is running out and in 10-20 years time it will have horrendous implications on global economies ? And that one of our most hated enemies would be sitting on one of the world's largest oilfields, effectively holding the world to ransom ?
I think he had a justified reason in taking us to war.
But I think he cannot say the real reason was oil because the implications of admitting it would wreak havoc on stock markets, etc.
And sure, you could say "Well so what?" but beari nmind your pension - or your parents' pensions are invested in those stock markets.
Just a thought.
/lights blue touch-paper and runs. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoHurleybird wrote:
Hey, am I on ignore or something?
I agree with BlackJedi that the legal case is less important than the moral one.
-
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agosilver jon wrote:
I don't follow you there.
But I think he cannot say the real reason was oil because the implications of admitting it would wreak havoc on stock markets, etc.
Mind you, I don't understand half of the reasons for the movements of the markets. -
Hurleybird 1,381 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoNo mal, you were right as well! .gif)
-
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago\o/ -
rev9of8 66 posts
Seen 14 years ago
Registered 17 years agomal wrote:
I don't really care about this issue of was it legal or not. To make it legal they basically needed France and Russia to change their minds. What sort of legality is based on the whim of a couple of countries?
Whim? Not agreeing with someone and utilising the mechanisms which exist to allow you to indicate that disagreement is a whim? What the hell are you smoking?
And, for the record, Blair lied to Parliament four times about the content of Chirac's interview on French television in which he indicated that he (Chirac) would veto a second resolution. Four times, Blair lied and claimed that Chirac had said he would veto under any circumstances. Minor problem, he didn't. He said that based upon what was known at that point in time France would veto any attempt to get a second resolution.
Based upon what was known at the time i.e. no weapons of mass destruction had been found, both UNMOVIC and the IAEA were generally pleased with the co-operation they were getting (although they felt there was some room for improvement), inspections were refuting intelligence claims etc etc. how was the Russian or French position (or the Chinese position for that matter) a whim?
I'm more concerned that the reasons he used to try and convince the parliament (successfully) and the people (less so) were false. And judging by the conclusions of the Butler report (I think it was) it was clear that pressure had been applied to alter the emphasis on the dossier. Not quite 'sexed up' but about as close as you can get.
In short, if Blair didn't know that he was publishing falsehoods in the WMD dossier, he at least knew that he was on extremely shakey ground.
You're the sort of person this government absolutely loves - you're blindly following the agenda they set. There were two dossiers not one. The one from September of 2002 was the sexed up one of the 45 minute claim, but the focus on that dossier allows the government to avoid the small matter of the second dossier of February 2003 being a hoax. Whilst the first dossier contained errors, mis-stated the quality of intelligence and was lacking in much needed caveats and background information, it was at least drawn in a legitimate manner.
This simply wasn't the case with the second dossier despite the Prime Minister telling Parliament is was compiled using current intelligence information (yet another provable lie to Parliament by the way). It was a fantasy plagiarised from a twelve year old doctoral thesis and two articles from (IIRC) Janes and compiled by the No 10 Communications Unit. It was riddled with serious factual errors even on the factual, historical parts owing to a complete lack of understanding of the material on the part of Campbell et al. Language was deliberately altered to change its meaning in a highly misrepresentative manner in order to bolster the governments attempt to justify the war.
The real, truly dodgy dossier remains the one that the government hopes like hell you'll simply forget about.
I don't think Blair should be impeached for that, though he is on extremely dodgy ground.
Blair repeatedly, provably lied to Parliament in order to carry a war - an act for which he can be impeached. The last Prime Minister to do that was Antony Eden - he at least had the decency to resign. Blair refuses to do so and must be impeached.
However, it gets worse. By entering into a secret agreement with Bush to commit Britain to war (as he did at Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX) and engaging in deception in order to enact that war, Blair has not abused the power of his office he has actually suborned the power of the Crown and assumed unto himself powers reserved exclusively to the Crown. That is treason. -
silver-jon 1,518 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agomal wrote:
silver jon wrote:
I don't follow you there.
But I think he cannot say the real reason was oil because the implications of admitting it would wreak havoc on stock markets, etc.
Mind you, I don't understand half of the reasons for the movements of the markets.
Forgive the very basic economics (which I'm sure someone will put right). Oil has become expensive because demand far outstrips supply right now. When oil is expensive, it's not just prices at the petrol pumps that rise (though they're been at a solid 86p per litre for a while - remember 2 years ago when the truckers complained about tax on fuel because it was 82p per litre???). Anyway, it's the oil required for factories and power stations, etc that requires most consumption and has biggest implications.
If factories (etc) have to pay more for oil, then they have to raise prices. The chain of events leads to unsustainable inflation. Taken to its ultimate - but not impossible - conclusion, you'd end up with a situation similar to Russia in the early 90s where a loaf of bread cost more than people earned in a week.
Besides, if the balance of economic power shifted to the middle east - typically a politically unstable region - then all our commerce would be beholden to one single commodity: oil. Oil from countries that may seek to destroy our (G8) economies. Look at what happened in the mid 70s for the most recent example of chaos caused by oil shortages.
Hmmm, come to think of it, THAT was under a Labour gov't as well IIRC ! -
Hurleybird 1,381 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoSupremely put rev9of8! Just superb.
What did you make of today's published advice? -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agorev9of8 wrote:
mal wrote:
I don't really care about this issue of was it legal or not. To make it legal they basically needed France and Russia to change their minds. What sort of legality is based on the whim of a couple of countries?
Whim? Not agreeing with someone and utilising the mechanisms which exist to allow you to indicate that disagreement is a whim? What the hell are you smoking?
Fair call. I know that's how all laws are passed - it's the judgement of MPs, lords and judges in the case of national law, for example. It just seems to me that the judgements of countries seems to more based on who can scratch whose back, than solid idealogically based convictions. I can't, however, prove that (short of invoking the Eurovision Song Content), so I withdraw that comment.
And, for the record, Blair lied to Parliament four times about the content of Chirac's interview on French television in which he indicated that he (Chirac) would veto a second resolution. Four times, Blair lied and claimed that Chirac had said he would veto under any circumstances. Minor problem, he didn't. He said that based upon what was known at that point in time France would veto any attempt to get a second resolution.
Pfft! Standard disclaimer. I might say that I'll never vote Tory, but obviously that's based on what I know about them at the moment - that they're the same party that fucked up the country in the 80's.
Based upon what was known at the time i.e. no weapons of mass destruction had been found, both UNMOVIC and the IAEA were generally pleased with the co-operation they were getting (although they felt there was some room for improvement), inspections were refuting intelligence claims etc etc.
I agree entirely with that. The whole debacle over Saddam's detailed report on WMDs which the UK and US immediately dismissed was ridiculous. Personally I believe that the arguments should have been based on humanitarian grounds, rather than self-defence. I found those arguments far, far more convincing.
[snip]
Oh tits. I was being careful as well.
I'm more concerned that the reasons he used to try and convince the parliament (successfully) and the people (less so) were false. And judging by the conclusions of the Butler report (I think it was) it was clear that pressure had been applied to alter the emphasis on the dossier. Not quite 'sexed up' but about as close as you can get.
In short, if Blair didn't know that he was publishing falsehoods in the WMD dossier, he at least knew that he was on extremely shakey ground.
You're the sort of person this government absolutely loves - you're blindly following the agenda they set. There were two dossiers not one. The one from September of 2002 was the sexed up one of the 45 minute claim, but the focus on that dossier allows the government to avoid the small matter of the second dossier of February 2003 being a hoax. Whilst the first dossier contained errors, mis-stated the quality of intelligence and was lacking in much needed caveats and background information, it was at least drawn in a legitimate manner.
That's the one I was talking about. Granted, I was wrong to refer to the 'sexing up' allegations if they were concerning the first dossier.
This simply wasn't the case with the second dossier despite the Prime Minister telling Parliament is was compiled using current intelligence information (yet another provable lie to Parliament by the way). It was a fantasy plagiarised from a twelve year old doctoral thesis and two articles from (IIRC) Janes and compiled by the No 10 Communications Unit. It was riddled with serious factual errors even on the factual, historical parts owing to a complete lack of understanding of the material on the part of Campbell et al. Language was deliberately altered to change its meaning in a highly misrepresentative manner in order to bolster the governments attempt to justify the war.
The real, truly dodgy dossier remains the one that the government hopes like hell you'll simply forget about.
That's a matter of legality. Personally I believe that he could have convinced Parliament to go to war without using that evidence (though probably not in the same timescale). You impeach him if you want.
I don't think Blair should be impeached for that, though he is on extremely dodgy ground.
Blair repeatedly, provably lied to Parliament in order to carry a war - an act for which he can be impeached. The last Prime Minister to do that was Antony Eden - he at least had the decency to resign. Blair refuses to do so and must be impeached.
However, it gets worse. By entering into a secret agreement with Bush to commit Britain to war (as he did at Bush's ranch in Crawford, TX) and engaging in deception in order to enact that war, Blair has not abused the power of his office he has actually suborned the power of the Crown and assumed unto himself powers reserved exclusively to the Crown. That is treason.
I have seen no evidence (other than circumstancial) for that. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agosilver jon wrote:
You're forgetting OPEC. OPEC know this, so if they see the price of oil rising in a manner which would cause significant instability to those customers of their oil, they act to reduce the price (usually by increasing supply). They're not just pumping oil out of the ground as fast as they can - those countries under OPEC are controlling supply in a very careful manner (well, at least in theory they are).
Forgive the very basic economics (which I'm sure someone will put right). Oil has become expensive because demand far outstrips supply right now. When oil is expensive, it's not just prices at the petrol pumps that rise (though they're been at a solid 86p per litre for a while - remember 2 years ago when the truckers complained about tax on fuel because it was 82p per litre???). Anyway, it's the oil required for factories and power stations, etc that requires most consumption and has biggest implications.
If factories (etc) have to pay more for oil, then they have to raise prices. The chain of events leads to unsustainable inflation.
Besides, if the balance of economic power shifted to the middle east - typically a politically unstable region - then all our commerce would be beholden to one single commodity: oil. Oil from countries that may seek to destroy our (G8) economies.
That, I think, is one of the reasons why western governments don't like OPEC, apart from the fact that they don't like anything that has power over them. But like I said above, why would a country that makes a lot of money from selling oil to America want to destroy it?
Look at what happened in the mid 70s for the most recent example of chaos caused by oil shortages.
Actually, the mid 70s shortage was caused by OPEC refusing to supply countries which supported certain wars, as far as I can tell, so you've got an argument there.
Hmmm, come to think of it, THAT was under a Labour gov't as well IIRC !
I don't know, I could see it going two ways. Certainly OPEC could raise prices to the UK enough to topple Blair and Brown if they wanted. -
Pompeybear 455 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoBlair must go, I lost 6 mates in the seaking crash, as I was serving on HMS Illustrious. If Blairs kids where in the forces do you think he would have sent us out there then? I don't think so. He does not give a toss about the forces and just uses us a way to brown nose with the americans. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoBlair loves going to war. It's what he does. The least he could do though, I would have thought, it get support from the international community, and to make sure he's fighting a 'just' war in the eyes of the people he's invading.
Sorry to hear about your mates. -
Pompeybear 455 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agonp .gif)
Blair loves going to war, it does not bother me either as its my job BUT I can tell you this, everyone of my mates say the same. We didn't believe we should be half way round the world fighting because of bits of paper but like I said its my job and I take the queens money for it. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoWell when you vote Blair back in you must do two things. One, stop slagging Americans for voting Bush back into power and two, accept responsibility for your actions if Blair and Bush take the unsurprising view that the electorate either approves of their methods and/or doesn’t really give a shit about anything past the end of their nose and head off to war again.
Blair should have gone long ago. If a minister can resign for making bad judgement about who he talks to on Clapham Common at night then surely - surely - wrong judgements which lead to the deaths of thousands of people deserve a little censure as well?
It’s often said that nations get what they deserve in their political leaders. Blair wining again says things about Britain that are frankly too depressing to dwell on. -
It's still staggering me that the Tories are trying to make capital on the Iraq war.
Y'know. The one they were 100% behind?
Yes. That one.
O_o -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agoRetroid wrote:
It's still staggering me that the Tories are trying to make capital on the Iraq war.
Y'know. The one they were 100% behind?
Yes. That one.
O_o
Hear hear.
YET aside from a very cursory mention here and there, Lib Dems aren't making it a focal point that they didn't back the war. Not as much as they could've anyway.
Peej -
silver-jon 1,518 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agomal wrote:
That, I think, is one of the reasons why western governments don't like OPEC, apart from the fact that they don't like anything that has power over them. But like I said above, why would a country that makes a lot of money from selling oil to America want to destroy it?
Look at what happened in the mid 70s for the most recent example of chaos caused by oil shortages.
Actually, the mid 70s shortage was caused by OPEC refusing to supply countries which supported certain wars, as far as I can tell, so you've got an argument there.
Hmmm, come to think of it, THAT was under a Labour gov't as well IIRC !
I don't know, I could see it going two ways. Certainly OPEC could raise prices to the UK enough to topple Blair and Brown if they wanted.
And in this week's news, 2 stories:
1/ Bush presses the Saudis to increase oil production.
2/ Bush looks to new technologies to provide future energy supplies.
OPEC or no OPEC, if the oil won't be there in 20 years time and we don't act NOW to change sources (and that includes "liberating" Iraq then we were screwed. But like I said, there's no way on Earth Tony Blair - or ANY responsible leader could openly admit that.
This is going to be one of those issues that people are unlikely to waver from their original position. I can see why people with strong principles would value honesty to the voting public so highly. But at the same time, I can understand why we only see certain aspects of the truth.
("You can't handle the truth !").
Edit: spelling
Edited by silver jon at 16:11:00 28-04-2005 -
Thats the problem, who do you vote in? I wouldn't trust any of them.
In defence of the tories they went on what Blair had said about WMD being in Iraq. And I would have accepted that but of course there wern't any. So out came the stuff about freeing the country etc. bad things happen all over the world but we are not sorting everything else out are we. Blair had to save his reputation some how
.gif)
.gif)
Blair loves going to war, it does not bother me either as its my job BUT I can tell you this, everyone of my mates say the same. We didn't believe we should be half way round the world fighting because of bits of paper but like I said its my job and I take the queens money for it. Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
