The war on terrorism

[david and julie]

Don't need to worry about a private prosecution, there is an action underway to impeach Bliar, and it will not make any difference if he stops being prime minister.

Oilman they have been talking about this for over 6 months that I know of and they don't seem to be making much progress. Love him or hate him, I can't see a couple of dozen disgruntled MP's and personalities being enough to bring him down.

Surely he must be in the last ditch saloon and is becomming a liability to Labour anyway. Gordon also appears to be coming into the limelight a bit more than he used to as well.

 

[Damocles]

Now there is a real state secret. Exactly why we went to war.

I believe the Americans wanted the war because they are the most powerful country in the world and mean to use their power. They have precious little regard for the rights of anyone who is not an American citizen. One year they bankroll a group of terrorists, the next they change their policy and fund a different lot. They wanted other countries to go with them because it made them look like champions of a cause, rather than invading empire builders. I believe we went because they asked. But I believe Mr Blair could square all this with his conscience because he felt that eventually the people in Iraq would have better lives.

Sadam was playing cat and mouse with the Americans. Hardly surprising, he was getting what revenge he could for being routed. He knew he did not have a chance against them and had in reality given up trying to build weapons. But he also knew it would be immensely costly for them to do much, so he reckoned he could carry on taunting them. He lost his bet, but so did America.

I have not seen anything the rest of the public has not seen if it cares to look. The heads of the BBC lost their jobs trying to show us the difference between the published brochure supporting the war and what the original security reports had said. The government's most senior civilian defense expert on Iraqi affairs thought the published report was rubbish. He ended up hounded to his death. There was endless public wrangling about who might have ordered/requested/suggested that the wording might be changed just a little here and there....until the meaning had been wholly altered. No way all that was an accident.

I CAN have it both ways about lying being part of the job for cabinet ministers and senior officials. Because that is exactly the invidious position they are in. They are not supposed to lie. But they are also required to carry out their jobs of furthering the interests of the crown. Sometimes this requires them not to tell the truth.

What is the interest of the Uk? Surely it must have a lot to do with the interest of the government. So lying to maintain support for the government IS virtually part of the job. Which is really why all countries need a government where power is very firmly split between different elements.

The first and so far only chief constable to be dismissed was sacked because the home secretary thought he was doing a bad job. But his local police authority thought he was doing a very good job and very strongly wanted to keep him. They were overruled because it is the home secretaries opinion which counts, nothing else. Do you imagine he will get another job as a senior police officer?

 

[david and julie]

Sadam was playing cat and mouse with the Americans.

Wrong, he was playing cat and mouse with the UN and the US were sick of there useless inaction.

I have not seen anything the rest of the public has not seen if it cares to look.

But you didn't say that did you?

He ended up hounded to his death. There was endless public wrangling about who might have ordered/requested/suggested that the wording might be changed just a little here and there....until the meaning had been wholly altered. No way all that was an accident.

No way what?, do you mean his death? are you again saying the police told lies?

So lying to maintain support for the government IS virtually part of the job.

Again I say you can't have it both ways, it is either part of the job or not, it is not virtually part of the job. Many politicians have resigned rather than lie, especially just to support a colleague who is clearly in the wrong.
Anyone lying to prop up Blair would be stupid because they are bound to be found out eventually. Your assumptions this time (although I am sure you are right about this happening sometimes)are therefore wrong.

The first and so far only chief constable to be dismissed was sacked because the home secretary thought he was doing a bad job. But his local police authority thought he was doing a very good job and very strongly wanted to keep him.

This chief constable was sacked for being in charge of the woefully bad checking of the records of Ian Huntley which ultimately, if correctly done, may of prevented the horrendous murders he commited.

Do you imagine he will get another job as a senior police officer?

I should hope not. But then I may put a bigger value on life than you.

 

[pipme]

........ The first and so far only chief constable to be dismissed was sacked because the home secretary thought he was doing a bad job. But his local police authority thought he was doing a very good job and very strongly wanted to keep him.......

Be interesting with reference to Nottingham PCC and his predicament wit hregard to murders.
We may have seen the Sunset kid at PMQTime on budget day, when pressed about the state of affairs, he turned to a 'report' relating how all was hunky dory ( I have a piece of paper here - came to mind ) There is to be an inquiry ... here we go again.
Take 'laughing boy' and his family and stick 'em in the thick of it at Nottingham, if there is a 'thick of it', perhaps we would hear a different story.

 

[Damocles]

We had a surprisingly democratic system for running police in this country, but the home secretary decided that locals were not competent to make their own decisions. Much like local council's powers to set their own budgets, really.

The local chief constable stood up for himself and refused to carry the can for doing his best with what he had been given. His police authority agreed with him, but the home secretary had to put the blame on someone apart from the man who set the inadequate budget (essentially himself).

What happened was the home secretary set the budget and the chief constable spent it the most effective way he could. Which was not how the home seccretary would have done it. Difference of opinion. But as the home secretary gets to decide who was wrong, he decided that it was not himself. It is a cardinal sin fora government appointee to disagree with his boss. Virtually part of his job to agree.

As to supporting Blair, the war was agreed to by cabinet. Of course they could all now turn round and say it was a terrible mistake and they were misled, but what sort of fools does that make them look? It is one of those case where if you do not hang together, then assuredly you will hang separately.

 

[Damocles]

I missed it, but did I just hear that 'panorama' had broadcast evidence that the security services had told Blair all this stuff about Iraq was rubbish?

 

[masona]

Didn't see it but read it in the newspaper, a security services member got fed up with the lies (I won't name him) who challenge Blair to read out the report to the nation that was given to him in September 2002, so far nothing happen. Blair didn't really wanted go to war for the fear of upsetting the Americans.

 

[Damocles]

Seems another 300,000 people just got genocided in Sudan. No one done anything about it. Obviously wasn't terrorists who were responsible or the Americans would have done something. Wouldn't they?

 

[david and julie]

Seems another 300,000 people just got genocided in Sudan. No one done anything about it. Obviously wasn't terrorists who were responsible or the Americans would have done something. Wouldn't they?

Perhaps they are giving the EU a chance to act like a leading world power?

 

[Freddie]

Perhaps if they were in the EU it would stop people from bossing them around

 

[Big_Spark]

Banging on about Sudan is pointless...there is no oil there...look at Myanmar (Burma). The Illegal Government have been violently eradicating the Northern tribes for the last 40 years and what has the West done about it...Oh bugger all, despite in excess of 1 million being killed if estimates are even close to accurate.

The there is Nepal and China, not to mention countless other places in the world.

The real cause of International Terrorism is Political indifference, interference and Ignorance. Until the West, as a whole, stops trying to influence events in other countries, stops treating nations differently and tries to actually Help without interference, with no political price, then not much will change.

I know the above is simplistic, and the desire somewhat nieve, and the cynic in me knows it will not occur in my lifetime, but it would be nice.

 

[Damocles]

Just wait for F,D and J to ask you for proof, engineer. Did you count them yourself?

Yep fredie, If they ever got to be civilised we might let them in. Unfortunately D&J, as the EU is not a state, is unlikely to become one for a very long time if ever and does not in any event have an army, probably it can not help. But most of all it is an organisation which helps its own memmbers, not people who do not belong to it.

 

[david and julie]

Damocles Said.

Unfortunately D&J, as the EU is not a state,

And I know it isn't yet and I didn't say it was either.

Perhaps they are giving the EU a chance to act like a leading world power?

It is indeed disgusting all these people needlessly dying, somehow though I reckon you are more concerned with scoring political points against the US.

Seems another 300,000 people just got genocided in Sudan. No one done anything about it. Obviously wasn't terrorists who were responsible or the Americans would have done something. Wouldn't they?

This comment is even more disgusting because you put yourself over as intelligent when in reality you are clearly an ignorant barsteward.

Get a life Damocles, you transparent little to**er.

 

[Damocles]

Please, no allusions to the man responsible for building regulations.

About a million people will die in this country this year. Each case will undoubtedly cause grief but we accept this as perfectly normal. there is no outcry about it. Why then are you suddenly shocked by the knowledge of a similar quantity of deaths from abroad? You did not know those people any more than you knew those who died here in the last year.

The normal and proper human reaction to something of this sort is to make jokes. There is a serious side, but there is also an acceptance of the situation. We may understand what has happened to these people from our own experience, but it is not our own experience. We can not treat it the same as if it was. We most certainly can set out to do something to prevent it happening again. Those most able to do something to prevent it will probably denounce it and resolve to act. Very probably they will nonetheless do nothing.

It is not disgusting to express cynicism about world leaders who claim to act for humanitarian reasons but repeatedly prove only to act for much more pragmatic ones. In fact it is the duty of anyone truly concerned about this sort of slaughter to be very clear about the motives of our own politicians. It may be that realistically nothing can be done. If that is so then they should say so and explain why. Everyone should be quite clear about the course of action chosen on our behalf.

 

[kendor]

The Feudal lords are still alive and kicking!