Hoon: Britain lost the argument with the US over Iraq

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Dec 9, 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. 1. Do we really believe Hoon? Did the UK really fight that hard, or simply say "Yes Mr President" and roll over?

    2. If the UK did dissent to a significant degree, why didn't Hoon or Straw resign? This is not simply a matter of a minor disagreement that could be ignored.

    In either case, the rottenness at the heart of UK decision-making is exposed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/09/wirq109.xml

     
  2. What argument? More bloody lies.

    The following were dismissed as "The Camel Corps" and "Arabists" and smeared hard from the Daily Telegraph , to the Jerusalem Post. They were smeared especially hard out of Washington , Tel Aviv, and by journalists and publications with strong pro-Israel leanings.

    Instead of listening to what they actually had to say , they immediately seized on the message as anti-semetic , and evidence that the FO has historically been anti-semetic.

    Interesting that the Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post took their arguments as evidence of anti-Israeli sentiment, instead of actually looking at what they had to say.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/04/28/dl2801.xml

    Amazing , I also note there is no reporter attached to this piece, perhaps the Telegraph could tell us who did put it together? Or is being a journalist not his day job? Did he have any other pearls to share perhaps?

    The Financial Times on the other hand, which does have some sort of obligation not to feed the money men crap , said...

    BLAIR SHOULD LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS

    http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079420660764&p=1012571727269

    What arguments? Mr. Hoon , you are being I feel , economical with the truth , as your 'Legion of Merit'? gong proves, no?

    Have you noticed Jack "Listen Condi , you're talking out of your bottom" Straw hasn't got one?

    "Oh there are no definite plans to send the BW north" uh-huh.

    In fact YCH , you've done as much as you can , to facilitate the American way at every turn, including riding roughshod over intiatives by your own Commanders in the field , havent you.

    As for Blair - His lips are moving.
     
  3. Look back a few months. Was it for nothing he got the name 'TCH'?
     
  4. As always, Hoon is doing the obvious of covering his own rear by putting down smoke.

    But there is a danger here that history is being rewritten. So, maybe we should wonder if Hoon will be able to furnish evidence of this so-called 'argument', but no doubt that evidence will be locked up in the 'official archives' until we're all past it or dead.

    Is Hoon, or are any of them, a 'pretty straight sort of guy'?
     
  5. Just another lawyer...or, as Mr Berlussconi would pronounce it, "liar".
     
  6. From The Telegraph

    There was a strategy????
     
  7. Testing the water for a leadership campaign, maybe.

    :?
     
  8. Menzies Campbell, on the Politics Show Link, has just based an arguement on his belief in what Hoon said was true.

    If, with his understanding of the situation, takes the view that Hoon told the truth, how can any of us gain say him
     
  9. Sorry Sven - I disagree.

    My read is that - along with certain members of the Opposition - he was briefed on Privy Council terms and thus became part of the original deception.

    I don't wear a tin foil hat - just a realist.
     
  10. Point taken, but one might also note that it's going to be difficult for Ming to call Hoon a barefaced liar outside of parliamentary privilege. And it may be that he's in the business of detroying Hoon's official (public) position before going on to call him a liar.

    On the other hand he may not have a clue anyway...

    But most of us here would, I think, tend to believe that Hoon is totally untrustworthy even though what he says may actually be carved on tablets of stone.
     
  11. 1- Campbell didn't have to refer to Hoon at all

    2- He got a reputation when shadowing Defense as 'having a clue'

    3- On other things You might be right, but on this occasion....
     
  12. 1- Campbell didn't have to refer to Hoon at all

    2- He has got a reputation for 'having a clue'

    3- On other things You might be right, but on this occasion....
     
  13. What did Hoon actually say? He said they 'lost the argument', but has not said how or when this argument took place. I'd like to see some evidence of 'argument' before accepting Hoon's statements.

    Campbell did not actually say that he agreed with Hoon's observation, he merely used Hoon's intervention and some other evidence to highlight the ineffectual relationship with the Yanks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6211460.stm

    You may be right about Campbell's reputation, but that does not mean that everything Campbell says is correct. In this case he is - I think wisely - using these various interventions (one by a former Minister directly involved with events and the other by an analyst in the State Department - who therefore 'should' have been in the know) to support his position.

    It follows that if Hoon is proved to be misleading, Campbell's stance is weakened, not necessarily destroyed, but he then has a golden opportunity to attack Hoon for dissimulation. Either way he wins.

    I doubt we'll hear much more from Hoon on the detail of these 'failed' arguments.