BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM

"They all know it means war, they just don't want to say it in the resolution."

So I write you a cheque for ten pounds, and you take it and change it so that it says ten thousand pounds and cash it. "But I had to do it that way, because you would never have written a cheque for ten thousand pounds."

That seems very much the same kind of logic to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:56 PM

The point you are trying to make is impenetrable. Are you alluding to the prior discussions that regime change is outside of the U.N. charter?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Roughyed
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:32 PM

Surely the debt from lend-lease in the Second World War and the penetration and counter penetration of British and American capital since then results in America being easily able to send the British economy into a tailspin is the real point that has always meant that when America says "Jump" our political masters always say "How high?"

After all, Tony learned the power of the oil companies the hard way only a year or three away. (It makes you admire Wilson in a strange way for keeping us out of Vietnam).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

Yo T:

You must be in a hair-splittin mood. Yeah, so Blair lifts parts from a reserch paper that was written 12 years ago. Other than you, I don't think there was anyone else on the planet who thought I was saying it was written by a 12 year old!

Doesn't changed much. Your guy lifted stuff form a research paper that was written 12 years ago.

True or false?

That ought to make it simple enough for ya unless you find some dangling participle that you want to draw attention to so as to divert attention away from the facts.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM

Did you see where Rumsfeld indicated today that Great Britain 'may not participate in the combat phase of the war'? He backpedaled soon after, in response to a question, and said that the US expects that GB will be at our side. Curiouser and curiouser.

If Bush can't get the world to agree that war with Iraq is needed now, perhaps he should question his own conclusion.

When my daughter was little, she came home complaining that all of her friends claimed that she was 'bossy'. I asked her if it was possible that they were right?

Very often the majority is correct...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 09:03 PM

A great many countries have "weapons of mass destruction", specially if you consider that term to mean not just nuclear weapons, but various other weapons. It's not unusual to have them, nor is it a valid excuse for launching a first strike on anyone, no matter what his past political record.

There is no valid excuse for launching a first strike on another nation. A first strike is naked aggression and is contrary to international law. It is the act of a criminal.

It was because Saddam launched a first strike on Kuwait 13 years ago that an international coalition smashed up Iraq and threw them out of Kuwait. That was perfectly understandable, although it was in fact not necessary to smash up Iraq itself...the coalition could just as well have simply smashed the Iraqui forces in and near the borders of Kuwait, and driven them back into Iraqui territory. Such a battle would have effectively crippled and demoralized the Iraqui army, but would not have killed 100,000 Iraqui civilians immediately, and another million or so in the next 12 years through malnutrition, depleted uranium from American artillery shells, etc.

A future international coalition may yet smash up the USA (in 5 to 10 years from now, after they've had time to prepare properly for such an effort) if Mr Bush and his advisors do not come to their senses. Such a coalition could eventually include Russia, China, France, Germany, Pakistan, India, every Muslim nation in the world, most of Latin America, and much of Europe and Asia. The USA has about 1 real ally left out there...Israel. (Britain is under the control of a prime minister who is blatantly denying the will of his own population, and that is not likely to last forever.)

It depends entirely on just how much aggression the USA decides to unleash, and where and how they do it.

Stranger things have happened.

To return to "weapons of mass destruction", the crucial matter is not whether a country HAS them, but whether it USES them. (The same goes for guns in the hands of ordinary people.) Someone who uses them has openly committed a criminal (and self-defeating) act, and the general community will take action against him. He will find that the general community is stronger than he is in the end. Hitler discovered that. So did Mussolini.

The "community" on this planet is not defined as the American President and his government...it is defined as ALL the nations of the World, whose collective voice is the United Nations, and that community is by now utterly fed up to the gills with the foreign policy of the Bush administration.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:03 PM

I gotta agree with most of what you've said, LH. But when Bush gives the go ahead, the United Nations is history! This is two birds, so to speak, with one stone.

Oh yeah, it will still be there but it will can't surivive as a body of international law with the one super power on the planet being a renegade, unilateralist nation...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM

LH - Maybe you should have added to your last paragraph "with the notable exception of those 'leaders' whose style of governing seems to involve a lot of kissing Mr. Bush's butt".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:11 AM

Bobert: why are you so intent in saving the U. N.? For what purpose? If that body is to having any meaning at all, so far as enforcement of rules is concerned, it must see that the rules it sets forth are obeyed! Otherwise, my make any rules at all?

I think Bush is anxious to have the Security Council vote on the the new resolution for one purpose only. The wheat will be separated from the chaff. If the U. N. does not vote to enforce it's own resolution, the U. N. is, in fact, history, and it will be of it's own doing, not Bush's or Blair's.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 04:13 AM

Bobert:

"Your guy lifted stuff form a research paper that was written 12 years ago.

True or false?"

True. And what is also true is that the statement made by the author of that paper that its contents (of his paper) were accurate at the time of writing and still remain accurate and relevant when applied to the status in Iraq today.

CarolC:

"Some of the first batch of UN inspectors have said that something like 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed when the inspectors were there before. So the argument that Saddam has had 12 years of non-compliance is specious."

Your first sentence reference to Iraq's existing stock of WMD is irrelevant - you cannot un-invert science or knowledge - what you can do is establish that the capability, and desire, to go back into production is removed. Your contention in the second sentence has been dis-proven, to the satisfaction of the entire UN Security Council, otherwise why did they pass Resolution 1441 - Iraq has been in non-compliance with ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of "Desert Storm", that is a fact. It is even now in non-compliance with Resolution 1441.

Hi there Little Hawk,

Nice to see you back - hope you enjoyed your holiday down in the Carribean.

"It was because Saddam launched a first strike on Kuwait 13 years ago that an international coalition smashed up Iraq and threw them out of Kuwait. That was perfectly understandable, although it was in fact not necessary to smash up Iraq itself...the coalition could just as well have simply smashed the Iraqui forces in and near the borders of Kuwait, and driven them back into Iraqui territory."

If memory serves me correctly, during "Desert Storm" Iraq was lobbing Scud missiles at various targets around the region - these were not being fired from areas in and near the Kuwaiti border - something had to be done to stop that - or don't you agree - but it was effectively stopped.

Casualty figures for "Desert Storm" were 20,000 Iraqi military personnel and 2,300 civilians. The figure (which varies upwards from 85,000) you give of 100,000 was an estimate which was later corrected.

I'm with MGOH on the resolution - the wording of which should read something to the effect that if total, unconditional and pro-active co-operation is not reported to the UN Security Council by the heads of the UN Weapons Inspectors by such and such a date, the UN Security Council will authorise the use of military force to disarm Iraq.

I also agree with Doug when he says that a new resolution will sort the wheat from the chaff. It will put down the firm marker that the UN means business.

If on the other hand the situation is allowed to drift - as is the standard practice exercised within the UN - one thing that could happen is that British and American forces are recalled.

In taking this step the US and its current allies should make it abundantly clear to the UN that any future problems regarding Iraq within that region must be dealt with by the UN without assistance from the US and its allies.

The US and its current allies should also make it abundantly clear to both the UN and to Iraq that any attack, direct or indirect against Kuwait or Israel will be regarded as a direct attack on the US itself and will be responded to as such, immediately and without recourse to the UN.

Now, why do I suggest the above? For two reasons:

1. Following defeat of any new resolution, due to France's, Russia's and China's use of the veto, the UN sanctions on Iraq must be removed. That in effect opens the flood gates for Saddam Hussein to to import, unrestricted, anything he deems he requires - Iraq's oil revenues will permit him to do that, the proven impotence of the UN will permit him to do that. His major providers of military hard-wear including the areas of WMD are, France, Russia and China.

2. If the US and its current allies withdraw under the terms I have mentioned above - it should be apparent to the UN and its permamnent security council members that if Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, does go back to its old ways and known territorial ambitions - It will be up to France, Germany, Russia and China to lead any UN action against him - That might, it just might, caution them with regard to what they sell him.

Should Saddam revert to his former policies and the UN is forced to take action under such circumstances. The consequences for Iraq and its people will be devastating, because those leading the UN coalition will be incapable of doing the job swiftly and with the minimum of civilian casualties - they lack the equipment, training and expertise.

If you doubt that consider that France has been operating, by and large, in a military vacuum since 1966, they have never operated in close co-operation with any of their potential coalition partners.

Russia's capabilities in this sort of action have been shown in Afghanistan (when Russia was a great deal more of a military force than it is now) and in Chechnya. The prospects for the Iraqi people would not be viewed as favourable.

MGOH:

In response to Gareth's post you commented:

<< ""I'm a great believer in the words of the late Carwyn James "Get your retalition in first."

So was Bin Laden it appears.">>

I take it that your reference to Bin Laden is not referring to the September 11th attack on the World trade Centre - Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda campaign against the US started a long time before that. Terrorist organisations always have the convenience of not having to resort to the UN debating chamber - they do not have to worry about any international court.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,ohaste
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 06:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:32 AM

Well, lets face it. Historians, should there be any in the future, will argue the "containment v, war" question far off into the future but those of us who are content with "containment" won't get the oppoortunity to prove it is the right course of action because Bush is going to have *his war* no matter who cares.

But what the historians won't have any trouble with is the fact that the B & B Brothers both *lied* to the world in trying to gain world support. Also, what won't be argued is that the world pretty much saw thru these lies. The evidence lies very much in this anti-war movement, which has no precedence...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Gareth
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 07:44 AM

Bobert,

You have constantly alledged in this and other threads that Blair and Bush have lied over Iraq. The only "evidence" that you have provided are bland ascertations, paranoia and "conspiracy" theories.

I rather suspect that history will provide a different viewpoint.

What a pity that this history will be written in the blood of inocents slaughtered in a war of Saddam Hussains making.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST, herc
Date: 12 Mar 03 - 01:15 PM

>>I'm with MGOH on the resolution - the wording of which should read something to the effect that if total, unconditional and pro-active co-operation is not reported to the UN Security Council by the heads of the UN Weapons Inspectors by such and such a date, the UN Security Council will authorise the use of military force to disarm Iraq.<<

Ha! MGOH: Do you adopt that position as your own?

Thanks for the food for thought terribus. I wish I had time to lay this out properly, but I think MG's complaint about using vague UN resolutions as justification for flat out war, and LH's complaints about preemptive war, show a problem of miscommunication on a global scale, which the Bush administration should have lessened, even if it could not eliminate the problem.

In short, it seems the UN can only authorize disarmament enforcement, then turn a blind eye to the consequences of enforcement, i.e. regime change. That may be a part of the miscommunication that is simply unavoidable.

Second, after all this time, I am still confused, and I suspect a good percentage of the world's population is, on whether the goals should be expressed in terms of enforcement of UN resolutions, or in terms of "preemptive war." It seems, at least on the surface, that allowing that latter concept to be expressed is what has so badly damaged the hopes for alliance and legitimacy.

I don't agree that preemptive war could "never" be justified, but the bar necessarily requires a very, very high showing of justification. The Bush people should have let that subject alone, it seems. Or delivered the message with a lot more skill.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,MOLJ
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 09:18 AM

YES >>>>BUT WHATS NEW>

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:36 AM

YES AND SO ARE THE REST OF THE POLITICITONS ALL OVER THE WORLD.

ESEPICALLY BLAIR AND BUSH AND HOWARD

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:46 AM

I don't know if this will help
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0097)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 11:50 AM

I'll try again http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0097)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 01:05 PM

"Some of the first batch of UN inspectors have said that something like 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed when the inspectors were there before. So the argument that Saddam has had 12 years of non-compliance is specious."

Your first sentence reference to Iraq's existing stock of WMD is irrelevant - you cannot un-invert science or knowledge - what you can do is establish that the capability, and desire, to go back into production is removed. Your contention in the second sentence has been dis-proven, to the satisfaction of the entire UN Security Council, otherwise why did they pass Resolution 1441 - Iraq has been in non-compliance with ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of "Desert Storm", that is a fact. It is even now in non-compliance with Resolution 1441.

No, my contention is that saying Iraq has had 12 years of non-compliance is a specious argument. Let's start the countdown from the time that the last batch of inspectors left Iraq (at which time, according to them, about 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed). When was that, 1998? If so, that would be five years of non-compliance.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 08:51 PM

Gareth:

You apparently are getting all your information from the Rush Limbaigh's of the world.

The "lies" that I have spoke of have even been reported in the *mainstream" media.

Blair used a 12 year old reserch paper written by a college kid!

Been reported in the Washinton Post and New York Times and countless other newspspers. Has been on CBS, NBC and ABC.

Bush used forged documents!

Been reported in both the Washington Post and the New York Times and countless other newspapers. Also been on at least CBS and NBC.

So you may not like that "fact" that your guys *lie* to sell their war.

We have that in common...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 04:17 AM

Bobert - Since when was the research paper a lie ?? I Ask you and the other "usefull idiots" again, where has Blair lied. What evidence have you ??

Gareth " Yes - In My Name "

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 06:16 AM

Gareth,

You are the 'Usfull idiot' for wanting this war, along with you warmaongering pals.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 06:20 AM

P.S

So you want the troops on both sides to get killed 'in your name'.

And have their blood on your hands.

how can you live with yourself, I couldn't.

Unlike you I want peace in this world.

Make Love not War

NOT IN MY NAME.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM

No body wants war, but yes my conscience is clear.

I am not the one supporting defacto, a mass murdering tyrant.

Lets get his back to music - The Tune ? The Rochester Fusilier, also known as Waltzing Matilda.

" A company of Protesters,
was marching down through London Town,
Saying "No War in that far Country!
And they sang as the marched through the peacfull streets of London town,
Who'l join the protest with Saddam and me.

Who'l Join the Protest,
Who'l join the Protest,
Who'l join the Protest,
With Saddam and me,
And they sang as they marched through the peacfull streets of London Town,
Who'l join the protest with Saddam and me.

Not I, said the Kurd,
Coughing from the poison gas,
You'll not make a friend of Saddam out of me,
My friends and my fammily, murdered by Saddams men,
I'll no support Saddam in my country once free!

Not I, said the Marsh Arab,
a refugee from genocide,
We rose more than once, to set Basra free,
My friends and my fammily, murdered by Saddams men,
I'll no support Saddam in my country once free!

Not I said the conscipt,
forced into the old front line,
My relations are hostages, in case I flee,
My friends and my fammily, murdered by Saddams men,
I'll no support Saddam in my country once free!

Not I, said the T A Man,
called up from Cardiff town,
I leave my wife in a free country,
And Your support of Hussain makes war so very likely,
Your no friends of peace in a far country.

Not I, said the office clerk,
in a lowly paid and thankless job,
in a building in a far country,
Saddams men control our thoughts, and food and lives,
Your no friends of peace in a far country."

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM

"Nobody wants war."

I'll tell you one body who I am absolutely certain wants this war (leaving aside Bush and his cronies, who would probably prefer to have regime change and occupation of Iraq without actually having a war) - Bin Laden and those who planned September 11th.

For them this is an enormous victory. They have succeeeded, with the help of Bush and Co, in tearing the world in two. And while Washington has the military might, the overwhelming majority of the world population is alienated from America.

This would have seemed inconceivable in the immediate aftermath of September 11th.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: toadfrog
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 04:46 PM

Well, McGrath, I sure can't argue with that. That is a pretty compelling point. And as far as "lies" go, maybe the worst lies are not the small factual misrepresentations which can be pinned down, or which someone will pin down five or ten years from now and be ignored by the press. Worse are the really big lies, which any fool can plainly see are lies, but which get believed anyway. Like the repeated claims that there is a connection between the Iraqui government and Al Quaeda. Which is entirely baseless, but appeals to mass fears.

I think what is most embarassing to me, as an American, is not jingoism or arrogance, for those are universal phenomena. It is the craven fearfulness which is so easily played on, the plastic and duct-tape. The ease with which Bin Laden succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:05 PM

Saltscoat: Insulting Gareth is not a reasonable substitution for answering his question.

Bobert, I thought Teribus set you straight on that college kid theory in another thread. You saying you don't accept the truth of his post?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM

From Bobert:

Blair used a 12 year old reserch paper written by a college kid

From DougR:

Bobert, I thought Teribus set you straight on that college kid theory in another thread. You saying you don't accept the truth of his post?

The research paper was 12 years old. It was written by a post graduate student (whose age I don't know), and was plagiarized by the British government. Bobert's right except for the "kid" part. That might be a bit of poetic license.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM

Thanks fir setting Doug right, CarolC. He's not keeping up too well. Maybe it's spring fever, I don't know?

These guys don't want to believe that *King George* or *Tony Balony* are liars, and ya' can't blame them. For once they cross that line, it's like crossing the Rubicon. Ain't no going back...

I'm mean Bush isn't even a good liar. He been cought so many times that people just expect it anymore.

And McGrath: You are absolutley correct in your assesment of the Bin Laden victory here. He has hit the lottery. Does make you wonder about all the Bush/Bin Laden family connections, doesn't you? Hmmmm?

Yeah, whoever said it, Bush must go! He is the most dangerous man in the world. He's strating to make Saddam look like a Boy Scout. I am ashmaed to have him as the President. I didn't like Reagan, or Clinton, or Nixon, of LBJ, or Ford, but I was never ashamed to have them as presidents. These are very sad times and the partisans love their guy so much that they can't see that, indeed, he is wearing no pants...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 06:51 PM

Oooooh dear.

Question One

Are the facts marshalled in that research paper accurate or not ?

Yes or No ?

Question Two

Bobert I am still awaiting some back up on you allegations that Tony Blair is a liar - All that you and the other "Usefull Idiots" can do is hurl abuse - Lets have some facts please !

BTW - UK/Welsh Politics. The Ron Davies Affair - If Ron had not resigned, I was schedualled to move a motion of no confidence in him as Nation Assembly Candidate on the grounds of breach of trust at 1905 hours on the Monday at a Caerphilly Labour Party Hengoed Branch meeting. It was not neccessary to do so, and instead I had the honour of moving a vote of thanks for Ron's past services.

That same meeting the question arose regarding Tony Blairs position on Iraq. Approval was carried with "aclaim" - But then there is a difference between Hampstead and Hengoed,

The appropriate letters were sent, signed by myself as Hon Secretary.

Gareth

Hmmmmm ! Now that 7th Division - "The Desert Rats", are back in the Middle East, do we have to revise "Lil Marlene" ???

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 03:36 AM

Carol C., Bobert, I don't believe I posted anything OTHER than the fact that Teribus had set Bobert straight on the "college kids" paper. As Gareth pointed out, neither of you have shown any evidence that the "college kid" was wrong. You can both use this opportunity to do so now, if you can, before the invasion.

Bobert, you need help!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:20 AM

CarolC,

"No, my contention is that saying Iraq has had 12 years of non-compliance is a specious argument. Let's start the countdown from the time that the last batch of inspectors left Iraq (at which time, according to them, about 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed). When was that, 1998? If so, that would be five years of non-compliance."

No Carol - for your contention to be correct it would mean that from 1991 until 1998 Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Regime in power in Iraq had complied - the international community know that that was not the case as reported to them by the IAEA and UNSCOM inspectors - Saddam Hussein has been in non-compliance with UN Resolutions since 1991 - Fact, fully accepted by the UN Security Council when it unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:04 AM

I'm sure Blair's not consciously lying, but I wouldn't mind betting that he's being economical with the truth.
For example, even though most of the Arab desks at the FCO and inside GCHQ and MI6 pour scorn on any notion of links between the Ba'ath regime and Al Queda, Blair has said nothing to counter the absurd and unfounded claims of Rumsfeld et al that there is a clear link (claims which have led some people to believe that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks!).
The 'dossier' of which the post-graduate paper formed a part is another example. Yes, Glen Rangwala's student stands by his 1992 paper, but he does not believe that it justifies a pre-emptive attack on Iraq without the backing of the UN. The chunks that were lifted straight from public-domain material published by Jane's are also agreed by most analysts. What few will accept, however, are the conclusions drawn from the 'evidence' in the dossier.
I believe Blair to be utterly sincere in his belief that Saddam is a bloodthristy despot who is prepared to bleed his own country white and to trample on human rights.
He may also believe that Saddam could pose a danger to neighbouring states at some time in the future, and that he may be tempted to furnish terrorist organisations with weapons of mass destruction at some point in the future. All of which, Blair believes, should be nipped in the bud with firm action on an international basis, backed by the legal and moral authority of the United Nations.
I do not believe, however, that he believes in the Project for the New American Century - the ideological basis for the forthcoming attack on Iraq - or that he supports the Rumsfeld/Cheney doctrine of side-ining the UN and ensuring that Europe does not develop its own security arrangements.
The trouble is, the poor sod has hitched his star to Bush's, and I fear has learned too late that this entails swallowing the fundamentalist Christian right-wing lunacy that seems to epitomise the current US administration.
Like most British leaders since WWII (with the exception of Wilson), Blair seems to place a pathetic faith in what we on this side of the Atlantic call the 'special relationship' (interesting that, in the past year, the leaders of Spain, Russia, Mexico and Pakistan have all been encouraged to believe that they have a unique and special relationship with the USA). That 'special relationship' was shown to be specious at the time of Suez, and has been a joke ever since, yet Blair honestly believes that his 'good friend' George Bush is acting out of altruism to make the world a better place for all of us (except, maybe, British steel-workers).
So, Blair probably isn't a lying sack of shit - but it's a fair bet that he's shitting himself and wondering how the hell he got so out on a limb with the current US administration. Sad really, given that he has apparently tried genuinely to make a legitimate case for action against Saddam via the UN only to find out that his views are completely irrelevant.
Thus, if one wants to bandy around terms like 'useful idiot', Blair would seem to be a prime candidate.

I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient cheese-eating surrender monkey!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,viet vet '67
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:50 PM

'Tis sad to say, but the easiest way to tell if ANY politician is lying (and this is universal) is to see if his lips are moving. If they are, then yes, he is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:03 PM

No Carol - for your contention to be correct it would mean that from 1991 until 1998 Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Regime in power in Iraq had complied - the international community know that that was not the case as reported to them by the IAEA and UNSCOM inspectors - Saddam Hussein has been in non-compliance with UN Resolutions since 1991 - Fact, fully accepted by the UN Security Council when it unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

Please provide documentation to support this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 06:34 AM

from today's Guardian:

Support for attack jumps but opposition still in majority

First sentence: Public opinion has shifted dramatically towards military action against Iraq, with the anti-war lead in the Guardian/ICM opinion poll narrowing from 23 to only six points in the past month.

Ratings for Blair much higher too than last month.

Since it was in The Guardian some won't believe it, I know,...


Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 07:22 AM

CarolC,

Refer to First Paragraph, page 3, Document reference S/RES/1441 (2002), Document title United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.

Which states:

"1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gervase
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:19 AM

Wouldn't surprise me if the ICM poll was spot-on (they're usually prettty accurate). But that doesn't make me any more inclined to support Blair's action. The British newspapers have been largely pro-war (with the exception of the tabloid Mirror and the broadsheet Guardian and Independent on Sunday), and most people in the UK care little for politics with a large or a small 'p' (just look at the title of this thread if you have any doubt). Thus they'll grumble and gripe, but generally go along with what they're told is good for them.
Let's face it, for all the vitriol and huffing and puffing these days, enough people once voted for Thatcher to get her into power. Heck, even I once voted for her!
That aside, can someone please explain what Teribus is blathering on about? Has h/she actually fallen for the blandishments of this bunch (and check the names at the bottom)?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:30 AM

Certainly G:

Answering CarolC's request for documentation to support the fact that, as far as the entire UNSC is concerned, Iraq has not been in compliance with existing UNSC Resolutions since 1991.

Fail to see the connection between a reference and quotation from United Nations Resolution 1441 and your Gervase.

Heard anything about French troops bound for Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gervase
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:43 AM

Why should French troops be bound for Iraq? Or any troops, come to that? Given the number of posts on this and other threads, I think it's fair to say that there's some ambiguity about the case for immediate military action against Iraq (as opposed to, say any other country that has been in material breach of UN resolutions or which has developed weapons of mass destruction).
Just because the biggest kid on the block decides to throw his weight around doesn't validate his actions. Furthermore, the biggest kid seems to have decided that the UN is irrelevant, so our arguments about the interpretation of Resolution 1441 are pretty Aquinean!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations..."

This passage doesn't support what you state, ie that it has been is breach for the whole 12 years. It merely states that it became in breach at some point and that it remains in breach at the time of writing of the resolution.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:24 AM

Gervase:

"PARIS, FRANCE - It was announced today that France would be deploying two elite units of French troops to Iraq in the event
of war. Five hundred crack troops from the 2nd Groupement d'Instruction en Abandonment are mobilizing to assist the Iraqi Army in the finer points of military surrender.

"The immediate capitulation of an armed force is a delicate and intricate tactic in which we French have much experience." said Defense Ministry spokesperson General de Armee Francois-Phillippe Hommes de Petit-Pommes. "There is a certain protocol in laying down your arms or fleeing the battlefield. To wave the white flag while remaining arrogant, pompous and insufferable requires experience and training. The French Army believes it is second to none in the fine art of surrendering quickly. The record of our armed forces in that area speaks for itself. The Iraqi performance in giving up
without a fight during the last Gulf War was commendable but slip-shod. We hope to improve their level of surrender execution for the next war."

General Hommes de Petit-Pommes further announced that 1000 advisors
from the Regiment de Collaborateurs Francais will also be dispatched to Iraq to assist the Iraqi people in collaborating effectively with any occupation force. "It is more important to protect their art treasures than to defend their honour," the General pointed out.

The General also expressed the hope that Baghdad has some tree-lined
boulevards. "It was our experience that the Germans liked to march in
the shade, and we feel the Americans and the British might like that
same measure of comfort in Iraq-especially as warm weather settles
in this spring."

As to the relevance of the UN - that particular organisation has done more to prove its own irrelevance - than could be proven externally, by anyone.

Bagpuss:

You could read through the UN Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1441. You could read the reports from UNSCOM and IAEA covering the period. You could then split hairs until the cows come home - None of which would alter the fact that as far as the entire United Nations Security Council was concerned their reading of the situation was that Iraq was in material breach of all existing UN Resolutions relating to Iraq up until the passing of 1441 - that was why they passed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:31 AM

I wasn't quibbling whether or not 1441 said they were in breach or not. Of course it says that, I was offering evidence in your dspute with CarolC about whether they have been in breach for the whole time since 1991. You stated that 1441 showed that it was, I pointed out that it didn't. I wasn't arguing over whether they have actually been in breach since 1991, just about whther 1441 proved it as you asserted.

I'm more interested in the fact that none of the resolutions allow for an automatic route to war, with the decision taken by a member of the security council rather than the council as a whole. The last resolution of authorise "all necessary means " was the one which authorised action regarding Kuwait. And those means were limited to force necessary to get Iraq ro withdraw from Kuwait. Subsequent resolutions have not authorised force.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM

As Bagpuss points out, your source doesn't back up your assertion of 12 years, Teribus. It might seem like splitting hairs to you, but it looks like evidence of propaganda to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:09 PM

Bagpuss,

I agree to disagree. Basis for which is in the preamble to 1441

"Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS TO UPHOLD AND IMPLEMENT its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO Resolution 660 (1990) and TO RESTORE INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE AREA,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,"

The point raised with regard to "area" - as the bulk of these resolutions relate to the disarmament of Iraq, the contention that the "area" referred to as being Kuwait may hold good for 660 and 678, but not for ALL RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO 660, the area they refer to is Iraq in its entirety. And authorisation to use all necessary means is given to uphold and implement 660 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to 660 to restore international peace and security in the area - otherwise why say all subsequent resolutions.

1. The Iraqi Declaration:
Iraq did not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991)in 1991 and therefore have been in breach since 1991.

2. Iraqi Co-operation:
Iraq failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991) and has been in breach since 1991.

3. Iraqi Support for Terrorist Organisations:
The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism. That commitment was made in 1991 the wording of the preamble to 1441 clearly states that they have failed to comply therefore Iraq has been in breach since 1991.

4. Human Rights:
The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, since 1991 and has therefore been in breach since 1991.

5. Those Wrongfully Detained & Kuwaiti Property:
The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, since 1991 and has therefore been in breach since 1991.

Iraq has been in breach of UN Security Council Resolutions since 1991.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:23 PM

Ah Wolfgang, play nice now! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 03:28 PM

"All that you and the other "Useful Idiots" can do is hurl abuse"

There seems something a bit odd about that sentence of Gareth. He seems to imply that hurling abuse at people we disagree with is not a good thing to do (and I quite agree - and I think the heading of the thread is a mistake and a distraction), but at the same time he proceeds to do precisely that. And I know it's a quote, but that doesn't amount to a relevant difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 06:36 PM

Kevin,

Not an insult - I use Lenin's words as an accurate description.

There are those, who are sincere on thier views, but have made a bloody war in Iraq more likely.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 06:46 PM

Hmmmmm? Please elavorate, Gareth, on your supposition that "there are those, who are sincere on their views, but have made a bloody war in Iraq more likely". When I read that, the folks that immediately come to mind are folks like Bush, Cheney, Rumsy, Wolfzy and Rice, fir starters.

Just seems to be a real curious statement to make if it is directed at folks who do not hold those folks views.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 07:04 PM

"There are those, who are sincere on their views, but have made a bloody war in Iraq more likely."

I wholly agree with you there, Gareth. But I think we disagree as to who these people are, and what their views are on this matter.

The sneer - and a sneer is an insult, and was when Lenin made the remark - can always be applied to anyone who appears naive. It can be applied just as well to those who believe in the good faith as it can to those who believe in the ability of Blix to successfully complete his task in accordance with his expectations, or in the advisability of holding fire until this process had been allowed the time he requested.

And I am also in agreement that throwing abuse at opponents is not a good idea.

Here's a quote from a Welshman, albeit a fictional one, and I've quoted it before recently in another thread, because I came across it the other day, and I think it is highly releavnt to Mudcat discussions which sometimes get over-frenetic,not to say discourteous:

"The simplest and most temperate words are the best for expressing complex and intemperate feelings." (Brother Cadfael)