General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
Enough already! Give a hearing to the defence. This media harangue, ignored by voters in US/UK Nov/04, May/05, presumes a Lie: the Lie is the Lie. There was none.
Each leader in the Coalition of the Willing gave a lead cause for taking him down:Howard in Oz made a link to Bali, Bush to 9/11. Lord knows what the Ukrainian said, or the Pole, Spaniard, Italian. Of the causes presented to UK Parliament,one included a potential Threat to RAF Akrotiri if he chose to spool up his Scuds - which is a 45min. exercise from positioning them at desired launch site. We were also told that he had gassed his own people. Where's the Lie here? We were told that we did not know how far he had progresssed in extending that capability. Lie? That maybe he had NBC capable of reaching beyond his borders. Lie?
Yes, it was worth the bones of our Grenadiers to stop him at a time and place of our choosing. Yes it's all to do with oil - try living - or blogging - without it. It's not price, or profit, it's straight market availability. Who here remembers being Dutch in 1973 when our sane friend the Shah told Netherlands that regretfully they must shiver and expire for he would not sell his oil to a Govt. of whose Foreign Policy he disapproved. If at any one time supply were cut from Iran+Iraq+Saudi, we would all be hostage. That's what al-Qaida is all about.
Each leader in the Coalition of the Willing gave a lead cause for taking him down:Howard in Oz made a link to Bali, Bush to 9/11. Lord knows what the Ukrainian said, or the Pole, Spaniard, Italian. Of the causes presented to UK Parliament,one included a potential Threat to RAF Akrotiri if he chose to spool up his Scuds - which is a 45min. exercise from positioning them at desired launch site. We were also told that he had gassed his own people. Where's the Lie here? We were told that we did not know how far he had progresssed in extending that capability. Lie? That maybe he had NBC capable of reaching beyond his borders. Lie?
Yes, it was worth the bones of our Grenadiers to stop him at a time and place of our choosing. Yes it's all to do with oil - try living - or blogging - without it. It's not price, or profit, it's straight market availability. Who here remembers being Dutch in 1973 when our sane friend the Shah told Netherlands that regretfully they must shiver and expire for he would not sell his oil to a Govt. of whose Foreign Policy he disapproved. If at any one time supply were cut from Iran+Iraq+Saudi, we would all be hostage. That's what al-Qaida is all about.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
The threat to Cyprus was risible. I recall sitting in the feeder at Strike and laughing over this dossier claim with colleagues, particularly later when the word was put about that NBC kit was being withdrawn from Cyprus in the runup to operations.
Anyone with even a basic grasp of the SCUD missile and the Iraqi attempts to upgrade it would spot that the Cyprus claim was absolute nonsense.
It all points back to Bliar, who decided (on the basis of divine insight presumably) that there was a WMD threat and told the attorney general to write the legal opinion accordingly. Likewise, the Chiefs of Staff are fireproof as are the head spooks (with the exception of the JIC boss), as are the legal staff of the Foreign Office (including Elizabeth Wilmshurst who resigned).
Bliar can be impeached, although under current circumstances it is unlikely as it depends upon a Commons majority to proceed to the Lords. Another possible avenue is maladministration - failure to disclose the full advice of the attorney general to Cabinet, etc...
I doubt anything will happen at the moment. If pressure mounts on Iran, then things will get interesting. There is no conceivable way that Bliar will be trusted if he promotes military action - watch for many resignations among the services, and in government and public life and a massive public backlash.
Anyone with even a basic grasp of the SCUD missile and the Iraqi attempts to upgrade it would spot that the Cyprus claim was absolute nonsense.
If anyone wants to take down the PM on this then they would have to take down the Cabinet, the Chiefs of the Defence Staff, the leader of the opposition, the heads of the Security services and the top legal bods in the Gov't, do you REALLY think that is in the least bit practicable or is actually going to happen?
Bliar can be impeached, although under current circumstances it is unlikely as it depends upon a Commons majority to proceed to the Lords. Another possible avenue is maladministration - failure to disclose the full advice of the attorney general to Cabinet, etc...
I doubt anything will happen at the moment. If pressure mounts on Iran, then things will get interesting. There is no conceivable way that Bliar will be trusted if he promotes military action - watch for many resignations among the services, and in government and public life and a massive public backlash.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
Folks,
This is an interesting debate which seems to reflect pretty well both sides British public opinion.
However, General Rose obliquely highlights another interesting point - that of the poor sods tasked by the Goverment to carry out the dirty deed itself. As a Flight Commander of a Sqn in the war, I carried out, on a completely informal basis, my own survey of the opinions of the crews and support personnel I was deployed with. I ended up with the impression that, while everyone thought the moustachio'd monster deserved a kicking and should be dealt with, only about 30% of us thought that we should be there to do that job, at that time, with those justifications and with no exit-strategy whatsoever. Most were deeply sceptical about the given reasons for risking our lives and most believed, rightly as it turned out, that we were opening a can of worms.
I had major doubts about the legal basis for the war, and thought long and hard about it. I tried to discuss the matter with my Sqn Boss, who more or less avoided the issue, I suspect because he agreed with me at least in part. I was left with the dilemma of deciding whether to carry out orders based on a false premise, which i doubted myself, would leave me a war criminal. I realise this sounds dramatic, but i guess war is to those who think about it. Three years on next March 19th, I still don't know if I'm a war criminal and literally loathe the PM for putting me and my troops in that position. I went and did the job for the next couple of months, thoroughly enjoyed it and found it the most rewarding experience of my career professionally. However, I'm still not sure that the award I received in recognition of my actions are not a wee bit tainted by the stain of illegitimacy.
Awesome fun though, invading somewhere!
Trotts
This is an interesting debate which seems to reflect pretty well both sides British public opinion.
However, General Rose obliquely highlights another interesting point - that of the poor sods tasked by the Goverment to carry out the dirty deed itself. As a Flight Commander of a Sqn in the war, I carried out, on a completely informal basis, my own survey of the opinions of the crews and support personnel I was deployed with. I ended up with the impression that, while everyone thought the moustachio'd monster deserved a kicking and should be dealt with, only about 30% of us thought that we should be there to do that job, at that time, with those justifications and with no exit-strategy whatsoever. Most were deeply sceptical about the given reasons for risking our lives and most believed, rightly as it turned out, that we were opening a can of worms.
I had major doubts about the legal basis for the war, and thought long and hard about it. I tried to discuss the matter with my Sqn Boss, who more or less avoided the issue, I suspect because he agreed with me at least in part. I was left with the dilemma of deciding whether to carry out orders based on a false premise, which i doubted myself, would leave me a war criminal. I realise this sounds dramatic, but i guess war is to those who think about it. Three years on next March 19th, I still don't know if I'm a war criminal and literally loathe the PM for putting me and my troops in that position. I went and did the job for the next couple of months, thoroughly enjoyed it and found it the most rewarding experience of my career professionally. However, I'm still not sure that the award I received in recognition of my actions are not a wee bit tainted by the stain of illegitimacy.
Awesome fun though, invading somewhere!
Trotts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
trotts
Frankly an amazing post. The fact that you considered and undertook a poll of people's thoughts as to the legality of the whole thing is incredible and shows that you held, and probably still hold, the same concerns as the General.
I hope the rest of your flight all got back safely.
Thanks
EM
Frankly an amazing post. The fact that you considered and undertook a poll of people's thoughts as to the legality of the whole thing is incredible and shows that you held, and probably still hold, the same concerns as the General.
I hope the rest of your flight all got back safely.
Thanks
EM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: peripatetic
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
More comments on Iraq, specifically the US performance, from a serving one star.... UK officer slams US Iraq tactics (BBC)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
Epsilon Minus
It seems that I may not be quite so cynical as you suggest; nor am I alone in holding the vapourings of retired Generals in something less than awe. It also appears that the recent demand by Sir Michael Rose for Blair’s impeachment has not shaken the Establishment sufficiently to excite a D Notice. I quote verbatim yesterday’s (Thursday’s) “Thunderer” column in The Times.
0 ROSE, THOU ART SICK
“General Sir Michael Rose, former commander of the UN protection force in Bosnia, is an angry man. In The Guardian, and a Channel 4 documentary made by the former war correspondent Martin Bell, he calls for Tony Blair's impeachment over the Iraq war. Sir Michael believes this "would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war". Had he still been a serving officer, he would "certainly'* have resigned his commission, to try to persuade MPs to "think twice about what they were doing".
Perhaps Mr Bell recalls his 1996 judgment of Sir Michael's service in Bosnia: "By the time he left, there was little muscular or robust about the force he led, or his leadership of it”. Sir Michael's performance caused the greatest rift in transatlantic relations since Suez. That record does not invalidate his criticisms now. But Sir Michael's judgment of the impact of his hypothetical resignation indicates a rare confidence in the way others see him.
Sir Michael argues, conventionally, that the Government misled the Commons over Iraq's WMD. He also practises a conventional omission. Nowhere does he refer to 9/11. Those attacks inevitably changed policymakers' perception of strategic risk. The foundations of postwar security policy — deterrence and containment — had been undermined in a morning.
Sir Michael holds Mr Blair responsible for not testing flawed intelligence. He gives no advice on how to do that beyond waiting till the intelligence is confirmed or refuted. That was the route Sir Michael chose in 1994 when he disastrously played down reports that Gorazde was about to fall. No prime minister can afford to be so mistaken.
Saddam welcomed 9/11 and sought a WMD capability in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Intelligence about current capabilities was wrong, but Iraq did possess dual-use facilities that, according to Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, could quickly have produced chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism, and remained the most likely route by which Islamist groups could obtain WMD. How to weigh those factors was a political judgment, not a perfidious wangle.
The military mind in politics, from Cromwell to Douglas MacArthur and beyond, is notoriously insensitive to uncertainty. His advice should be treated with the respect due to him.”
Oliver Kamm, “Thunderer”, The Times 12 January 2006.
I do not go all the way with Mr Kamm in the exculpation of Blair. I believe that the Butler Report, in the parts I read either in the press or online (and making allowance for Lord Butler’s “Mandarinese”), whilst clearing the PM of outright lying, showed that the “Dodgy Dossier” was deliberately intended to deceive Parliament and the public. The report included damning comparisons between the original intelligence assessments by WMD experts and the wording of the final published “dossier”. The latter certainly deceived me into supporting the war initially, but I doubt whether the evidence would be sufficiently compelling to support impeachment proceedings (were these legally available).
It seems that I may not be quite so cynical as you suggest; nor am I alone in holding the vapourings of retired Generals in something less than awe. It also appears that the recent demand by Sir Michael Rose for Blair’s impeachment has not shaken the Establishment sufficiently to excite a D Notice. I quote verbatim yesterday’s (Thursday’s) “Thunderer” column in The Times.
0 ROSE, THOU ART SICK
“General Sir Michael Rose, former commander of the UN protection force in Bosnia, is an angry man. In The Guardian, and a Channel 4 documentary made by the former war correspondent Martin Bell, he calls for Tony Blair's impeachment over the Iraq war. Sir Michael believes this "would prevent politicians treating quite so carelessly the subject of taking a country into war". Had he still been a serving officer, he would "certainly'* have resigned his commission, to try to persuade MPs to "think twice about what they were doing".
Perhaps Mr Bell recalls his 1996 judgment of Sir Michael's service in Bosnia: "By the time he left, there was little muscular or robust about the force he led, or his leadership of it”. Sir Michael's performance caused the greatest rift in transatlantic relations since Suez. That record does not invalidate his criticisms now. But Sir Michael's judgment of the impact of his hypothetical resignation indicates a rare confidence in the way others see him.
Sir Michael argues, conventionally, that the Government misled the Commons over Iraq's WMD. He also practises a conventional omission. Nowhere does he refer to 9/11. Those attacks inevitably changed policymakers' perception of strategic risk. The foundations of postwar security policy — deterrence and containment — had been undermined in a morning.
Sir Michael holds Mr Blair responsible for not testing flawed intelligence. He gives no advice on how to do that beyond waiting till the intelligence is confirmed or refuted. That was the route Sir Michael chose in 1994 when he disastrously played down reports that Gorazde was about to fall. No prime minister can afford to be so mistaken.
Saddam welcomed 9/11 and sought a WMD capability in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions. Intelligence about current capabilities was wrong, but Iraq did possess dual-use facilities that, according to Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, could quickly have produced chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism, and remained the most likely route by which Islamist groups could obtain WMD. How to weigh those factors was a political judgment, not a perfidious wangle.
The military mind in politics, from Cromwell to Douglas MacArthur and beyond, is notoriously insensitive to uncertainty. His advice should be treated with the respect due to him.”
Oliver Kamm, “Thunderer”, The Times 12 January 2006.
I do not go all the way with Mr Kamm in the exculpation of Blair. I believe that the Butler Report, in the parts I read either in the press or online (and making allowance for Lord Butler’s “Mandarinese”), whilst clearing the PM of outright lying, showed that the “Dodgy Dossier” was deliberately intended to deceive Parliament and the public. The report included damning comparisons between the original intelligence assessments by WMD experts and the wording of the final published “dossier”. The latter certainly deceived me into supporting the war initially, but I doubt whether the evidence would be sufficiently compelling to support impeachment proceedings (were these legally available).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
Flatus Veteranus
You said:
It didn't convince me. Nor did the phoney claims that war was being contemplated to save the Iraqi people - what a load of nonsense that turned out to be -
It was the sad death of Dr Kelly - no mention of him, to date , in this thread -hounded to his death by the MOD, that indicated to me that there was and is a smoking gun hidden at 10 downing street. I want the person that pulled the trigger exposed and dealt with either by the law or more probably the media. The families of lost British service men and women are owed the truth.
EM
Ephesians chap. 6 v.12
You said:
The latter certainly deceived me into supporting the war initially
It was the sad death of Dr Kelly - no mention of him, to date , in this thread -hounded to his death by the MOD, that indicated to me that there was and is a smoking gun hidden at 10 downing street. I want the person that pulled the trigger exposed and dealt with either by the law or more probably the media. The families of lost British service men and women are owed the truth.
EM
we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
I ran a discussion on the morality, legality and national interest of the Iraq War in summer 2003 as part of the MoI course at Halton.
The split at the time was roughly 60%/40% for and against military action, and most of the class were both well-informed and cynical about WMD and the US stance.
The reason for the majority in favour was, I believe, because quite a few of the class had served in the Balkans and had seen the end results of inaction.
I suspect the split is now reversed, particularly post Hutton and Butler, and the abject failure of the occupation.
The split at the time was roughly 60%/40% for and against military action, and most of the class were both well-informed and cynical about WMD and the US stance.
The reason for the majority in favour was, I believe, because quite a few of the class had served in the Balkans and had seen the end results of inaction.
I suspect the split is now reversed, particularly post Hutton and Butler, and the abject failure of the occupation.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: General Sir Michael Rose calls for Tony Blair's Impeachment
Epsilon Minus
The death of Dr Kelly was indeed sad. But I confess that, at the time, I was shocked that an Intelligence Officer should be having cosy lunches with "the Media" and briefing them without authority. But I was more shocked by the antics of senior officials in MOD who, from the emails revealed by Hutton/Butler, were attempting to muzzle their own desk-level experts who were most sceptical about the "Dodgy Dossier".
I agree that the "45 minute" WMD threat was risible, but I gave much weight (call me credulous if you like) to the theat of Iraqi stocks of chemical and biological agents which could leak to existing delivery systems - ie, suicidal terrorists either linked to Al Q'aida or of similar persuasion. The UN inspectors never ruled them out. In retrospect (from my viewpoint) we should have given them more time. Cheers!
The death of Dr Kelly was indeed sad. But I confess that, at the time, I was shocked that an Intelligence Officer should be having cosy lunches with "the Media" and briefing them without authority. But I was more shocked by the antics of senior officials in MOD who, from the emails revealed by Hutton/Butler, were attempting to muzzle their own desk-level experts who were most sceptical about the "Dodgy Dossier".
I agree that the "45 minute" WMD threat was risible, but I gave much weight (call me credulous if you like) to the theat of Iraqi stocks of chemical and biological agents which could leak to existing delivery systems - ie, suicidal terrorists either linked to Al Q'aida or of similar persuasion. The UN inspectors never ruled them out. In retrospect (from my viewpoint) we should have given them more time. Cheers!
Thread re `Impeachment 4 Tony`
- Bring the troops (lads & lassies) back from Iraq without delay
- Then if we must have our armed forces deployed somewhere in the world, let them go to Zimbabwe & sort out (no holds barred) that nasty little ****e Mugabe.
- Then if we must have our armed forces deployed somewhere in the world, let them go to Zimbabwe & sort out (no holds barred) that nasty little ****e Mugabe.
kaikohe76,
Yeah right, real sensible!
Your first proposal would be impractical and totally irresponsible
Your second proposal would be impractical, irresponsible and totally illegal.
Yeah right, real sensible!
Your first proposal would be impractical and totally irresponsible
Your second proposal would be impractical, irresponsible and totally illegal.
BEagle,
True, true..................................
True, true..................................
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proone
Illegal yes, but very welcome respite from all those suffering at the hands of this pocket Hitler. Racist of us in the extreme to take no action, presumably on the basis that this is how we expect Sub saharan African leaders and their people to behave ?
As for the clamour to impeach Blair, well I wonder what the motivation is - another book in the offing mayhaps ? Not that Blair is my best example of a perfect politician, but he is better than, say, Mugabe ?
Illegal yes, but very welcome respite from all those suffering at the hands of this pocket Hitler. Racist of us in the extreme to take no action, presumably on the basis that this is how we expect Sub saharan African leaders and their people to behave ?
As for the clamour to impeach Blair, well I wonder what the motivation is - another book in the offing mayhaps ? Not that Blair is my best example of a perfect politician, but he is better than, say, Mugabe ?
Stafford,
Welcome? By whom? Have you learnt NOTHING from the invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein was far worse than Mugabe yet just look at what the invasion to “liberate” his oppressed population has led to? Do you think Zimbabwe would be any different? Topple Mugabe by intervention of foreign military action and how do you think the various tribal factions in country will react, how do you think the dozens of African nations would react?
Racist? Really, how do you work that out? There are oppressed and suppressed populations all over the world, why are you not clammering for a British military invasion of Burma, or Cuba, or China?
Welcome? By whom? Have you learnt NOTHING from the invasion of Iraq? Saddam Hussein was far worse than Mugabe yet just look at what the invasion to “liberate” his oppressed population has led to? Do you think Zimbabwe would be any different? Topple Mugabe by intervention of foreign military action and how do you think the various tribal factions in country will react, how do you think the dozens of African nations would react?
Racist? Really, how do you work that out? There are oppressed and suppressed populations all over the world, why are you not clammering for a British military invasion of Burma, or Cuba, or China?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear, the usual Proone pontificating lecture !
Racist in the sense that we seem to accept rampant corruption and tyrannical behaviour from them since that is "basically their culture" ??
Can you honestly believe that the Zimbabwean people would not love to see the back of him ?
Apparently, he can get away with murder on the basis that it would be meddlesome of us to intervene. Why does South Africa not step in to get rid of him ? Perhaps because they are just as bad ?
Anyway, do you not agree that the sight of Saddam in the dock is a welcome one and an example to be followed wherever possible ?
Racist in the sense that we seem to accept rampant corruption and tyrannical behaviour from them since that is "basically their culture" ??
Can you honestly believe that the Zimbabwean people would not love to see the back of him ?
Apparently, he can get away with murder on the basis that it would be meddlesome of us to intervene. Why does South Africa not step in to get rid of him ? Perhaps because they are just as bad ?
Anyway, do you not agree that the sight of Saddam in the dock is a welcome one and an example to be followed wherever possible ?
Rose V Blair
Everyone please be assured,I had no wish at all to `stir up` emotions, with my earlier post re the our troops in Iraq & their theoretical deployment to Zimbabwe. My comments were & remain, my own personal opinion only, `prOOne` please have the courtesy to take note of this, thanks old chap!
I am of the opinion & always have been, that our servicemen & women are undertaking a very difficult task in Iraq & conducting themselves superbly under the arduous conditions out there. I would still venture to suggest however, at some stage Mugabe will still have to be dealt with& who do you really think in the end will be given this most unpleasant task?
I appreciate that this overall subject, includes people with very strongly held views from all corners of the arguement, who, unlike myself have been directly involved with military action under fire. My own military service for HMQ of 13 years, was spent in the air & despite the odd `hairy` moment, I would freely admit I got off rather lightly throughout.
At least Sir Michael Rose, as a very senior military officer is speaking out openly, perhaps it would help if a few more of his colleagues started to follow his lead & publicly said what they really think.
Thank you
I am of the opinion & always have been, that our servicemen & women are undertaking a very difficult task in Iraq & conducting themselves superbly under the arduous conditions out there. I would still venture to suggest however, at some stage Mugabe will still have to be dealt with& who do you really think in the end will be given this most unpleasant task?
I appreciate that this overall subject, includes people with very strongly held views from all corners of the arguement, who, unlike myself have been directly involved with military action under fire. My own military service for HMQ of 13 years, was spent in the air & despite the odd `hairy` moment, I would freely admit I got off rather lightly throughout.
At least Sir Michael Rose, as a very senior military officer is speaking out openly, perhaps it would help if a few more of his colleagues started to follow his lead & publicly said what they really think.
Thank you
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily Telegraph Wednesday February 01 2006
Front Page: Sacrifice (re death of Cpl Gordon Pritchard) 100 British serviceman to be killed in Iraq
Page 4 (full page) Iraq
Page 5 (Full page) Iraq
Page 6 (Full page) Iraq
Page 16 Roll call of the Fallen
Page 17 Roll Call of the Fallen
Page 20 More on Iraq
Page 21 Editorial Iraq
So will the big guns of the press force Blair to be held accountable and establish if our entry into this war was illegal?
Also rather co-incidental that on the day of bad news for the government that Jack Straw comes out with this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4669046.stm
Front Page: Sacrifice (re death of Cpl Gordon Pritchard) 100 British serviceman to be killed in Iraq
Page 4 (full page) Iraq
Page 5 (Full page) Iraq
Page 6 (Full page) Iraq
Page 16 Roll call of the Fallen
Page 17 Roll Call of the Fallen
Page 20 More on Iraq
Page 21 Editorial Iraq
So will the big guns of the press force Blair to be held accountable and establish if our entry into this war was illegal?
Also rather co-incidental that on the day of bad news for the government that Jack Straw comes out with this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4669046.stm
Last edited by Epsilon minus; 1st Feb 2006 at 11:37.
The only people who can hold Bliar to account is the House of Commons. Not a realistic proposition is it. Just like the Crown Prosecution Service verdict of not having a realistic probility of conviction.
Would anybody expect turkeys to vote for Christmas, no didn't think so.
One day the War Crimes tribunal in the Hague may charge him with war crimes, something on the lines of Waging Agressive War as happened at Nurmeberg in 1945-6.
Would anybody expect turkeys to vote for Christmas, no didn't think so.
One day the War Crimes tribunal in the Hague may charge him with war crimes, something on the lines of Waging Agressive War as happened at Nurmeberg in 1945-6.
Kaik...and others suggesting going to Zimbabwe...
What is different about Mad Bob/Zimbabwe and Saddam Hussein/Iraq?
If one cannot support Coalition actions in Iraq then I fail to see how any action in Zimbabwe can be justified at all.
The British Government opposed the Smith Regime and UDI...enforced sanctions and thus set in motion what has happened. I want you to point out to me the differences between what some of you see as the UK having some sort of "right" to interfere in Mad Bob's turf now?
You seem to have loads of agro about going into Iraq ....what is different here pray tell.
(Mind you ....I would be willing to take a posting to do just that if given an opportunity!)
What is different about Mad Bob/Zimbabwe and Saddam Hussein/Iraq?
If one cannot support Coalition actions in Iraq then I fail to see how any action in Zimbabwe can be justified at all.
The British Government opposed the Smith Regime and UDI...enforced sanctions and thus set in motion what has happened. I want you to point out to me the differences between what some of you see as the UK having some sort of "right" to interfere in Mad Bob's turf now?
You seem to have loads of agro about going into Iraq ....what is different here pray tell.
(Mind you ....I would be willing to take a posting to do just that if given an opportunity!)