Panorama

[Addie]

Did anyone watch this programme last night? It was quite terrifying to learn of the tactics employed by Tony Blair, Bush and their acolytes.

 

If you didn't see the programme, as a taster, there's a link here to some of the detail.

 

 

August 2002

 

In August there are hints from the Bush administration that they are counting on British support for regime change:

 

... let there be no mistake... our policy... insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered whether the inspectors go in or not... we are content that at the appropriate moment we will have the requisite degree of international support.

 

[Question from John Humphries] "But if you don't have it, and all the indications are that at the moment you won't, then what?"

 

We will have it Mr Humphries.

 

US Under Secretary of State, John Bolton on the BBC's Today programme, 3 August 2002

 

 

 

Our European allies are just not relevant to this. And the one of some importance, the United Kingdom, is, I believe, going to be with us.

 

Richard Perle, US Defence Policy Board. ABC "This Week", 18 August 2002

 

The Foreign Secretary flew to America to interrupt the holiday of the US Secretary of State Colin Powell. We understand Jack Straw complained: "You've outed us." He said the British government had yet to prepare public opinion.

[The Old Git]

Bliars teflon coating should be just about worn out after that. I did watch it and wasn't that surprised at the tricks and tactics they used to rush to war, Here's hoping the father of the military policeman killed in Iraq can give him a scare when he stands against him in Sedgefield

[P.K.]

His reason for standing against Blair is unltimately because his son volunteered for the services. Not exactly Blair's fault that one, now is it? So the government put his son in harms way. That's what the army is for.

 

There was the other incident where an RTR Sergeant was shot dead and it was found he didn't have the plates in his body armour. We are then treated to the un-edifying spectacle of the poor man's widow being paraded around the media by the Daily Mail who are baying for the Defence Secretary's blood. A little supply clerk somewhere makes the inevitable mistake and according to The Rail it is all Geoff Hoon's fault and he should resign. Pathetic.

 

I have never known the UK media to have sunk to such depths as we are seeing at the moment. They are desperate for anything to diss Blair and Labour. Probably because for the second time prior to an election the economy, the traditional bete noir of election platforms, is healthy and stable. Last week the figures showed a large increase in the number of public servants - the vast majority in the Health and Education services. The immigration row and controls, let's just forget for the moment the millions of EU citizens who can stroll in here and get a job any time they like. The almost racial hatred for Gipsies. It's all getting very nasty.

 

As to hints from the Bush Administration it's not exactly earth-shattering stuff. This article and the links are interesting though:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html

 

I get The Grauniad and compared to most of the UK media it's quite balanced. Mind you, last Saturday they ran an article on buying an apartment in Douglas with views of the Atlantic! It was a snip at £99,995 for one bedroom on the fourth floor, communal garden and no parking - I don't think so.

 

-

[Addie]

His reason for standing against Blair is unltimately because his son volunteered for the services. Not exactly Blair's fault that one, now is it? So the government put his son in harms way. That's what the army is for.

 

The army is not simply there to be put in harms way! It's obvious that on occasions they will enter dangerous situations ans areas. However …

 

There was the other incident where an RTR Sergeant was shot dead and it was found he didn't have the plates in his body armour. We are then treated to the un-edifying spectacle of the poor man's widow being paraded around the media by the Daily Mail who are baying for the Defence Secretary's blood. A little supply clerk somewhere makes the inevitable mistake and according to The Rail it is all Geoff Hoon's fault and he should resign. Pathetic.

 

It is disgraceful if these service pesonnel are not provided with the best, correct, suitable, and importantly, working equipment. I would not wish one soldier to face an enemy without enough bullets in his gun or protection on his body. And most especially not on my behalf, thank you.

 

I have never known the UK media to have sunk to such depths as we are seeing at the moment. They are desperate for anything to diss Blair and Labour. Probably because for the second time prior to an election the economy, the traditional bete noir of election platforms, is healthy and stable.

 

You can't blame the investigative media for investigating. To quote you, it's what they are for. How else can we discover what on earth is going on? Some of it will be accurate, some not. The same applies to Blair & Bush et al. Some of what they say is accurate and some is certainly not. But there is deepening concern that this UK government has been the most deceitful ever known.

 

Last week the figures showed a large increase in the number of public servants - the vast majority in the Health and Education services.

 

The immigration row and controls, let's just forget for the moment the millions of EU citizens who can stroll in here and get a job any time they like. The almost racial hatred for Gipsies. It's all getting very nasty.

 

I agree that it's getting nasty and will undoubtedly get much worse before the election. The various departments of dirty tricks will no doubt be working 24/7 to discredit the other side. They seem oblivious to the mood in the country. They seem not to have noticed that people don't actually belive any of them anymore. That is the most dangerous and unforgivable fact of all.

 

Doesn't anyone else find "Jack Straw complained: "You've outed us." He said the British government had yet to prepare public opinion" absolutely chilling?

[P.K.]

The army is not simply there to be put in harms way! It's obvious that on occasions they will enter dangerous situations ans areas. However …

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's exactly what it is there for. The only way to end wars is to have them.

 

It is disgraceful if  these service pesonnel are not provided with the best, correct, suitable, and importantly, working equipment. I would not wish one soldier to face an enemy without enough bullets in his gun or protection on his body. And most especially not on my behalf, thank you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Welcome to the British army! Probably the best bunch of legalised lunatics in the world. There are always going to be cock-ups and therefore kit in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's just the way it is. In any event if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.

 

 

I have never known the UK media to have sunk to such depths as we are seeing at the moment. They are desperate for anything to diss Blair and Labour. Probably because for the second time prior to an election the economy, the traditional bete noir of election platforms, is healthy and stable.

You can't blame the investigative media for investigating. To quote you, it's what they are for. How else can we discover what on earth is going on? Some of it will be accurate, some not. The same applies to Blair & Bush et al. Some of what they say is accurate and some is certainly not. But there is deepening concern that this UK government has been the most deceitful ever known.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Errr, or perhaps it isn't. If you read the Daily Mail then you would probably think they are deceitful, but then if you read the Daily Mail what is your opinion actually worth? It is difficult enough as it is getting to the facts without the UK media spouting out the most appalling rumour, innuendo and downright lies all portrayed as facts in order to influence voters. Do you want Associated Newspapers choosing the government of the day? If so you deserve it.

 

I agree that it's getting nasty and will undoubtedly get much worse before the election. The various departments of dirty tricks will no doubt be working 24/7  to discredit the other side. They seem oblivious to the mood in the country. They seem not to have noticed that people don't actually belive any of them anymore. That is the most dangerous and unforgivable fact of all.

Doesn't anyone else find "Jack Straw complained: "You've outed us." He said the British government had yet to prepare public opinion" absolutely chilling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. If it was true and quoted in context then it could be disturbing. But was it? That's a major problem of today. We get our news from the telly and opinion from the "newspapers" (and the odd Panorama if we're not down the pub) most of which are simply complete and utter rubbish. Unfortunately they spout it day after day and some of it is believed.

 

As to war in Iraq I am not totally certain it was legal however I am 100% certain that it is worth it. Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait and destabilised the whole area providing a constant threat to our "western" values. Because of Iraq's use of WMD on the Iranians and the Kurds Tehran now wants it's own nuclear capability and who can blame them? But all that gets forgotten when it comes down to a supply clerk sending body armour to the wrong place or quoting Jack Straw out of context, now doesn't it?.

 

Edited for poor grammar. Tsk tsk.

[Paul H]

Having visited the U.S. it is obvious that as a nation they have little realisation that what they see on television and read about in the newspapers is actually real. The same now appears, like most American things, to have leaped across the Atlantic and started to affect Britain.

 

In my opinion, 90% of the reasons for invading Iraq were bourn out of political and financial gain and 10% out of concern for the people of Iraq. Consider this; If there was any political or financial gain to be had out of invading The Sudan we would not be looking to charity to help thousands of starving people living in fear under a corrupt Government, would we?

 

The whole Iraq invasion has been based on trying to win the support and confidence of gullible Sun readers to help justify the Government’s real agenda.

 

Now we wait to see if the people of America and Great Britain will start to listen to the facts or if they want to continue living in their fantasy created by Bush/Blair.

[P.K.]

Claiming politics and finances make up 90% of the invasion justification is ludicrous. The Sudan also lacks oil, has not invaded two of it's neighbours on whom the West depends for oil nor used WMD against them.

 

But to claim Sun readers are gullible is the final straw!

 

I wont argue with idiots. They just bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

(With thanks to Paul H)

 

-

[Fatty Fatty Toad Boy]

Doesn't anyone else find "Jack Straw complained: "You've outed us." He said the British government had yet to prepare public opinion" absolutely chilling?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's certainly an interesting insight into how the UK's "special relationship" with the US works!

 

 

Claiming politics and finances make up 90% of the invasion justification is ludicrous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. Paul H forgot "finishing the job that Daddy started"

 

 

The Sudan also lacks oil...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it doesn't - Sudan Economy. It did, however, allow Muslim extremist training camps (including ones run by Al-Qaeda and bin Laden) to be based there. Oil, terrorists and small country - it's amazing that the US hasn't blanket-bombed them.

[P.K.]

Claiming politics and finances make up 90% of the invasion justification is ludicrous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. Paul H forgot "finishing the job that Daddy started"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're dead right. Once I saw the bridges going down on the first effort I knew they weren't going all the way. Unfortunately so did the opposition.

The Sudan also lacks oil...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it doesn't - Sudan Economy. It did, however, allow Muslim extremist training camps (including ones run by Al-Qaeda and bin Laden) to be based there. Oil, terrorists and small country - it's amazing that the US hasn't blanket-bombed them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops - skated over invading two neighbouring countries that supply the West with oil and WMD there. Never mind, I'll bet no-one even noticed. Not a mason are you?

 

-

[matty]

Claiming politics and finances make up 90% of the invasion justification is ludicrous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right. Paul H forgot "finishing the job that Daddy started"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're dead right. Once I saw the bridges going down on the first effort I knew they weren't going all the way. Unfortunately so did the opposition.

The Sudan also lacks oil...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it doesn't - Sudan Economy. It did, however, allow Muslim extremist training camps (including ones run by Al-Qaeda and bin Laden) to be based there. Oil, terrorists and small country - it's amazing that the US hasn't blanket-bombed them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops - skated over invading two neighbouring countries that supply the West with oil and WMD there. Never mind, I'll bet no-one even noticed. Not a mason are you?

 

-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where did the WMD go? (Wasn't this the lie that began this phoney war and sent many thousands of innocents to their deaths?)

 

Warring with one of those nations (Iran) using chemical weapons, with the blessings of the US, the precursors supplied by the US/Europe and also with financial aid and conventional weapons from the US before we forget!!

 

The invasion of Kuwait (another corrupt nation - but who happened to be selling cheap oil to the US) was mainly because of problems with oil prices in the region.

- No WMD were used in the invaision of Kuwait.

 

It's obvious the main reason for the Iraqi invasion was about oil, nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi citizens - if the US cared about the citizens of the world, rather than it's morally bankrupt economy, we would have seen them invading a few of the African nations, freeing Tibet from the Chinese occupation and many others too numerous to mention.

 

What about South American & Caribean countries (Nicaragua, El Salvador etc) that had managed their own free & fair elections and chose not to supply cheap goods to the US - the US helped destroy these democratically elected governments, installed their own puppet governments and trade for cheaply produced goods to the US began again.

 

PK don't even try to blind us with myths that the US cares for anything more than it's economy - you can learn quite a lot from history, if you care enough to do any research.

[P.K.]

Where did the WMD go? (Wasn't this the lie that began this phoney war and sent many thousands of innocents to their deaths?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who cares where it all went? They created some very advanced and deadly stuff. Sarin, powder mustard, all really awful. They used it on the Iranians and the Kurds. What, you think that in the meantime they had forgotton how to make it or lost the will to use it or something? Get real. PS - a little look in Syria probably wouldn't go amiss.

 

Warring with one of those nations (Iran) using chemical weapons, with the blessings of the US, the precursors supplied by the US/Europe and also with financial aid and conventional weapons from the US before we forget!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So invading Iran and using WMD on them was ok was it? Yeah right. I think you will also find the bulk of the Iraqi weaponry was supplied by Russia and France.

 

The invasion of Kuwait (another corrupt nation - but who happened to be selling cheap oil to the US) was mainly because of problems with oil prices in the region.

- No WMD were used in the invaision of Kuwait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So that invasion was OK as well then? Especially as they didn't use WMD. Just skate over all the planning stuff captured showing a readiness to deploy sarin on any amphibious landing. The looting of the hospitals, industrial plant etc etc just doesn't count either I suppose.

 

It's obvious the main reason for the Iraqi invasion was about oil, nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi citizens - if the US cared about the citizens of the world, rather than it's morally bankrupt economy, we would have seen them invading a few of the African nations, freeing Tibet from the Chinese occupation and many others too numerous to mention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

African nations and Tibet do not regularly threaten the western economies. Or have I missed something?

 

What about South American & Caribean countries (Nicaragua, El Salvador etc) that had managed their own free & fair elections and chose not to supply cheap goods to the US - the US helped destroy these democratically elected governments, installed their own puppet governments and trade for cheaply produced goods to the US began again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, I fail to see any connection between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Iran and general globalisation. Basically, what about them?

 

PK don't even try to blind us with myths that the US cares for anything more than it's economy - you can learn quite a lot from history, if you care enough to do any research.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where have I claimed that the US cares for anything more than it's economy? I work for a US firm and 9-11 blew the bullocks out of our stock price. As to research, you clearly didn't bother reading this and associated links that I provided on 21/3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html . If you bother to go there you will realise just what a stupid remark you have made.

 

-

[Rog]

It's obvious the main reason for the Iraqi invasion was about oil,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I’m not the sharpest knife in the draw and I’m always ready to learn and so what I’d like to understand is precisely HOW it’s ‘All About Oil’.

 

Y’see it’s not as if the US are shipping the stuff out of Iraq without paying for it and it’s not as if the US government didn’t realise that any action in the region wouldn’t result in the world market price for oil escalating, and it’s not as if the US ACTUALLY needs oil – it’s opening the Alaska oil fields could even make it a net exporter, so just how is it ‘all about oil’?

 

Where’s the oil benefit to the US in taking action against Iraq? I certainly can’t see one. In fact just the opposite.

 

There would have been FAR more to gain if it HAD been ‘all about oil’ by promoting the withdrawal of sanctions against Iraq in the UN and furthermore there would have been FAR lest cost to the US economy not to mention cost to the Republican party to have taken actions that would have allowed the oil price to fall with the increased sales of Iraqi oil on the world market following relaxation of sanctions against the saddam regime.

 

All about oil? I think that’s just a classic piece of propaganda put about by those who wanted to wrong foot the US by presenting an apparent reason to divert attention from the REAL reason which was simply to take out a terrible threat to world peace.

[Fatty Fatty Toad Boy]

Warring with one of those nations (Iran) using chemical weapons, with the blessings of the US, the precursors supplied by the US/Europe and also with financial aid and conventional weapons from the US before we forget!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So invading Iran and using WMD on them was ok was it? Yeah right. I think you will also find the bulk of the Iraqi weaponry was supplied by Russia and France.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The bulk of the conventional weaponary may have been provided by the Soviet Union and France, but thay all (including the US and UK) mucked in to help Iraq develop its biological and chemical techonology - Iraq-Iran War

 

 

It's obvious the main reason for the Iraqi invasion was about oil, nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi citizens - if the US cared about the citizens of the world, rather than it's morally bankrupt economy, we would have seen them invading a few of the African nations, freeing Tibet from the Chinese occupation and many others too numerous to mention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

African nations and Tibet do not regularly threaten the western economies. Or have I missed something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, China.

[P.K.]

The bulk of the conventional weaponary may have been provided by the Soviet Union and France, but thay all (including the US and UK) mucked in to help Iraq develop its biological and chemical techonology - Iraq-Iran War

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So only the bulk of the weaponry was provided by Russia and France - that's all right then! Had a look at the URL. It's dull. A lot of pre-cursor stuff could be provided with other uses declared. Producing chlorine legally is not very far from producing mustard gas illegally. As far as I know only a Dutchman is to be prosecuted for knowingly providing Iraq with the means to produce WMD.

 

It's obvious the main reason for the Iraqi invasion was about oil, nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi citizens - if the US cared about the citizens of the world, rather than it's morally bankrupt economy, we would have seen them invading a few of the African nations, freeing Tibet from the Chinese occupation and many others too numerous to mention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

African nations and Tibet do not regularly threaten the western economies. Or have I missed something?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, China.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that the big bit to the West of Korea?

 

So tell me, China threatens the West(?) and the Western response is to invade Iraq?

 

Something is not quite right here....

 

-

[matty]

China!

 

Thanks FFTB! - You spotted that obvious one!

 

Rog - HALIBURTON, - are they not making an absolute fortune from Iraq regarding oil??

- having to recreate the infrastructure that the US bombed to hell (strategically of course!!!!).

 

Y'see for the Iraqi's to now ship any of their oil out of their own country, - (they might technically "own" some of their oil) - Haliburton & the US are earning loads from the "privelidge" they've "awarded" to the Iraqis for them to be able to ship it cheaply to the US??

 

How can the US possibly keep it's economy running with those big phat SUV's so their lovely mom's can drop off their 2.4 kids in a vehicle big enough to carry half a local farm without the oil.