Blair flies to Bushs side to mount strong defence of Iraq i

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, May 22, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article549821.ece


    Read the rest of the article for some serious (if truly as reported) WTF moments.....
     
  2. He left out the part about how the Saddam Hussein government had the means to obliterate London in forty-five minutes.

    He also forgot to mention this:

    SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

    DAVID MANNING
    From: Matthew Rycroft
    Date: 23 July 2002
    S 195 /02

    cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

    IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

    Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    ....

    The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

    The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_1,00.html

    WTF indeed.
     
  3. I still can't get used to the idea of "Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett".

    Why can't the b@stard just be honest and subsume the Foreign Secretary's portfolio into his own? Who does he think he's kidding? Everyone knows that foreign policy has been run from No.10 since 1997. You have to marvel at the man's megalomania when a nonentity like Jack Straw is considered too much a of an obstacle.

    Jesus Tapdancing Christ. I need to go and lie down.
     
  4. What ungrateful wretches the Iraqis are proving to be after being showered, at great expense, with all this "humanitarian interventionism."

    In the latest indication of the crushing hardships weighing on the lives of Iraqis, increasing portions of the middle class seem to be doing everything they can to leave the country. In the last 10 months, the state has issued new passports to 1.85 million Iraqis, 7 percent of the population and a quarter of the country's estimated middle class.

    "As Death Stalks Iraq, Middle-Class Exodus Begins"
    By SABRINA TAVERNISE
    Published: May 19, 2006
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/world/middleeast/19migration.html?hp&ex=1148097600&en=27cafcfc5a99f506&ei=5094&partner=homepage
     
  5. Damn, I though that Bliar and Dubya were off to the armoury en route to Iraq! Oh well, at least they will still look like complete clowns.
     
  6. Could have sworn the BEEB just said Tone had just arrived in Bagdahd.
    john
    They have Onest.
     
  7. They've developed bunker mentality. They're both despised at home, though somehow Billy Liar is still respected in the US (why?!) and are desperate to prop up their own administrations by means of mutual back-slapping. They've surrounded themselves with "Yes" men who tell them that their legacies are salvageable, but I wonder: late at night when they're trying to sleep, do they really think that their respective electorates are so stupid that they'll be suckered in by yet more spin?
     
  8. The horror of it all is that no doubt Tone will get a PR shoot with our boys (and of course girls). They will all be happy and smiling, no one will behave badly (unlike the Nurses or little old women and voters). Tone will get another front page photo, look how brave he is in Bagdad, not even the Black Watch wanted to go there.

    Sick perverted PR crap that tells us that the press are more stupid than we think (know) and that the public are as gullible as ever.
     
  9. Not even a mention about all the WMD
     
  10. george bush had a little lamb, Tony Blaaaaaaair. Baaaaaa
     
  11. from cnn:

    The senior British official told PA he hoped that at least one of the four of Iraq's 18 provinces currently controlled by UK forces would be able to transfer to civilian control soon.

    He said: "The UK has four provinces. I would certainly hope that at least one of our provinces would be able to transfer during the course of the summer."

    That would almost certainly be al Muthana or Maysan, the two most stable of the provinces -- the others being Basra and Dhi Kar, PA said.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/22/iraq.blair/index.html
     
  12. There you are GunDog , so no need for WMD's , or Colin Powell's UN farce. It was an activist approach. Have we found the WMD's in Bosnia, Kosovo or Sierra Leone yet?

    Does this new interventionist and activist approach mean that Black Bob had better start packing?

    In other news....

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5003684.stm

    Interesting this use of the phrase "New beginning" as far as Iraq is concerned. It's been used in these reports too...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,929934,00.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6946-2004Jun25.html

    http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2004/fa092_04.html

    So , let's hope it's the final 'new beginning' hey?
     
  13. Oh yeah because they helped out in Rwanda and are currently about to send troops into Darfur, pull the other one Bliar you cnut. He has never used the Humanatarian arguement properly before because it is against International Law. Hence why they relied on Security Council Resolutions from GW1 to justify their use of force here.

    Wasn't it the US and the UK that called for all UN Peace keepers to be called out of Rwanda just as the genocide started. The reason the UN doesn't work is because the 5 permanent members of the Security Council use their votes politically. Unless you remove their veto nothing will change. Surely Fuhrer Blair won't want to lose that. A big reform of the UN could mean the Uk losing its permanent place as it is no longer one of the worlds super powers and their are much bigger countries who could justify having that place more.

    I was for the Iraq war on Humanitarian grounds, in the vain hope it would spur on more interventions to countries that really needed it. I now realise it was a war for oil and they still don't care about the African countries such as Darfur and Rwanda which is set to go off again pretty soon. How this man can stand there now and justify this on Humanitarian grounds beats me.

    Crawl back in your hole Bliar, we're not that stupid any more.