La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Let me help you here. Those of us living in Reality Land know that there are times when those in The Cabinet have to make very difficult decisions to get hard, ugly things done. Not because they want to, but because they have to - otherwise nothing changes. Decisions like that get impossibly difficult if you have a monkey on your back hence Grieve's backing Jack Straw - which must have really hurt him - hahahaha! I really don't understand how you believe the Iraq War was the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think the decision not to release the Cabinet Papers is the right thing to do. I also think getting rid of that extremely nasty regime was the right thing to do as well about which there threads on here that go on and on and on and zzzzzz..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think the decision not to release the Cabinet Papers is the right thing to do. I also think getting rid of that extremely nasty regime was the right thing to do as well about which there threads on here that go on and on and on and zzzzzz..... nasty regime had to go is maybe right, but it wasn't upto us to get rid, it was upto all the cowards who were happy to take US and EU dick up their arses and came forth to get their bit of power after we got rid of sadam.. there are nasty regimes all over the place, but we are not interested in getting rid of them cos they don't have oil on their doorsteps. if there was oil in zimbabwe do you think that mugabe would still be alive?? maybe if he did as told by the bigger powers of the world.if not, just like iraq we would get rid in the name of human rights and would have appointed a 'new' government that should have been?, from the relevant 'yes men' that would tow the line for our economic needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't want to turn this thread into yet another vehicle for the poor little Blair Bashers after their minor setback yesterday. Suffice to say the likes of Mugabe and Than Shwe haven't destabilised their parts of the world by invading two of their neighbours with WMD. Well, not yet anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I hear your argument that it is only oil that made the US/UK intervene - but there's no oil in Bosnia or Serbia, nor any in Sierra Leone and we fought warsto get rid of their various unpleasantnesses. There isn't even oil in Afghanistan either (and Mr Michael Moore's pipeline is very very overdone). There are more reasons for intervention than just oil. I don't think I agree that we should have no involvement in getting rid of thugs who kill and terrorize their own population and export instability elsewhere - yes Saddam through oil had a lot of ability to sow his instability while Mugabe hasn't, but the main reason Zim hasn't become an international military incident can be summed up in one word - Mbeki. He was in charge of the local hegemon and he refused to up the ante. At least there has been some sort of flawed constitutional settlement - with Zuma likely taking over its not impossible a robust response will result. I think few people would totally discount the probability of South African Peace Keepers entering Zim in the next 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Agree about Mbeki. Why he and his government have let Mugabe get away with so much for so long is surprising. It's not as though Zimbabwe is a threat in any way shape or form to SA so why let it wither on the vine? Also the longer it goes on the bigger the mess SA will eventually have to be involved in. It doesn't make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I reluctantly agree with the decision - cabinet minutes should remain sealed until well after the event. Why is that? I don't think I understand your and other posters points of view on this. In effect the UK still has cabinet government (although some would argue that we are shifting towards prime ministerial government), with cabinet members taking collective responsibility for the decisions made by the cabinet. It is fundamental to the success of that mode of government that members of the cabinet feel free to express their views candidly in cabinet meetings: if they were aware that such discussions may be examined in minute detail by all and sundry, they would be far less candid and the cabinet's decision-making capabilities would be intolerably impaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't want to turn this thread into yet another vehicle for the poor little Blair Bashers after their minor setback yesterday. Suffice to say the likes of Mugabe and Than Shwe haven't destabilised their parts of the world by invading two of their neighbours with WMD. Well, not yet anyway. I don't see why Iraq is so special. Israel and Iran have been destabilising the regime for quiet some time, though not in respect of oil. And governments don't waste their time and effort in invading countries because some inconsequential foreigners got gassed in a war they supported and a lot of Kurds was massacred. Not even a problem for the West. I do wonder what an inquiry will achieve and I mean that. What exactly needs proving? Is it simply that it was illegal to go to war? It is fundamental to the success of that mode of government that members of the cabinet feel free to express their views candidly in cabinet meetings: if they were aware that such discussions may be examined in minute detail by all and sundry, they would be far less candid and the cabinet's decision-making capabilities would be intolerably impaired. Thanks Pragmatopian. What I am not understanding though is why a cabinet would behave differently if information was made public and what sort of information the public should not be privy to for a cabinet to function. The lack of honesty over decisionmaking seems to make nonsense of democratic principles. Maybe I am not seeing something you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I hear your argument that it is only oil that made the US/UK intervene - but there's no oil in Bosnia or Serbia, nor any in Sierra Leone and we fought warsto get rid of their various unpleasantnesses. There isn't even oil in Afghanistan either (and Mr Michael Moore's pipeline is very very overdone). No but there is a prime route for a fucking big pipeline for oil and gas through the first 2 and as for SL there is its high mineral wealth and an oil pipeline from some of the Upper Volta field to the coast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The only reason why British forces came to Sierra Leone was because they were so nearby, I think Invincible was in the area at the time, and they needed to evacuate British personnel from the country. But as the situation got worse and the UN wanted to send in a peacekeeping force the British forces already there helped out. Such peacekeeping just makes sure that Britain is seen to be a key player in the world and deserves a seat on the Security Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think there is a person in the UK who does not think that Government was manipulated by Blair and his cronies into going to war on very shaky legal and moral grounds. If democracy was a thing to celebrate in this decision then the minutes would be released. I think it is a real insult added to injury for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. So the vote in the House of Commons on the 18 th March 2003 which went: For - 412 Agin - 149 was all a smoke and mirrors job or like the mornings when I wake up next to a Cheerleader from the Dallas Cowboys?????? I would really like one of the long-haired, crusty, dope-smoking, tree-hugging, degenerate, god-damned commie pinko hippies on here to explain how it is that Dominic Grieve QC MP Conservative Shadow Attorney General and Shadow Home Secretary got up on his hind legs yesterday and said "We accept that the Secretary of State's decision is the right one". Let me help you here. Those of us living in Reality Land know that there are times when those in The Cabinet have to make very difficult decisions to get hard, ugly things done. Not because they want to, but because they have to - otherwise nothing changes. Decisions like that get impossibly difficult if you have a monkey on your back hence Grieve's backing Jack Straw - which must have really hurt him - hahahaha! The point is how the figures that you quote as being for and against were obtained, how can a democratic decision be reached on information which was patently incorrect and did not stand up to scrutiny and who out of the executive knew that information was wrong. BTW I have no problem with going to war and we should have bombed the shxt out of Afghanistan but if your son or daughter had paid the ultimate price for some political one upmanship in which Blair was engaged with regards to Iraq then maybe you would have a different opinion. How could it have been right to compromise UK democracy to remove a dictator and try to make his country democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 BTW I have no problem with going to war and we should have bombed the shxt out of Afghanistan How could it have been right to compromise UK democracy to remove a dictator and try to make his country democratic. Should have bombed Afghanistan? The bombing was a big mistake. It isn't right to compromise democracy, but from the US and British governments perspective the costs to democracy are far outweighed from the benefits of having a compliant regime in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 george bush senoir was pulling the strings for the iraq invasion for his billionaire backers ..thats arms and petroleum producers to you and i .. george bush junior couldnt tie his own bootstraps.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I don't think there is a person in the UK who does not think that Government was manipulated by Blair and his cronies into going to war on very shaky legal and moral grounds. If democracy was a thing to celebrate in this decision then the minutes would be released. I think it is a real insult added to injury for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. So the vote in the House of Commons on the 18 th March 2003 which went: For - 412 Agin - 149 was all a smoke and mirrors job or like the mornings when I wake up next to a Cheerleader from the Dallas Cowboys?????? The point is how the figures that you quote as being for and against were obtained, how can a democratic decision be reached on information which was patently incorrect and did not stand up to scrutiny and who out of the executive knew that information was wrong. "The point is how the figures that you quote as being for and against were obtained" - they have two "gateways" (for want of a better word) in the HOC. The "ayes" go through one portal and the "nays" go through the other and their passage is counted and delivered to the Speaker. "how can a democratic decision be reached on information which was patently incorrect and did not stand up to scrutiny" - the "information" was "intelligence". Any idiot who is so thick that they think "intelligence" = "factual" probably shouldn't be let out of their own front door unsupervised. But sometimes you just have to act on intel alone because not to act simply isn't an option due to the consequences of doing nothing. "who out of the executive knew that information was wrong" - none of them, because they knew it was intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 "how can a democratic decision be reached on information which was patently incorrect and did not stand up to scrutiny" - the "information" was "intelligence". Any idiot who is so thick that they think "intelligence" = "factual" probably shouldn't be let out of their own front door unsupervised. But sometimes you just have to act on intel alone because not to act simply isn't an option due to the consequences of doing nothing. and tony didnt want to miss out on the oil either.. after all he had several mortgages he was planning to pay off with his directorships.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.