• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

UK State of Emergency Announced

Actually no, the blood will be on the hands of Shrub senior, who ordered the advance on Baghdad to stop. It will be on the hands of the CIA who allowed and encouraged Saddam Hussein to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. It will be on the hands of politicians from other countries as well, of course, because they ignored or helped the sale of machinery and materials to a particularly nasty dictator.

Next, Britain is not pacifist. Never has been, even at the heights of appeasement (1936 - 38). Check out which country has given the least critical and most actual help to the States. Don't mistake democracy for weakness.

Oh, and the crusades were the Popes doing.
 
Blagarse Yank said:
Last time we had to raise an army to stop his desire for all-out war but were stopped from targeting him by the do-gooders.

I'm sorry I do not want a flamer but:

That was a mistake-he will do it again. And when he does the blood is solely on the hands of the moralisers
Click to expand...

In your haste to lay the blame for all the world’s ills at the feet of woolly-minded liberals I think you’ve rather misread this particular situation.

As in the present conflict in Afghanistan events on the ground unfolded far quicker than the politicians, military and media expected. Everyone, if you recall that period or have read any of the literature on the conflict, was geared up for a long war with high casualties. The stalling of allied forces had much more to do with military and political ill-preparedness for the rapid course of events than it did with any liberal outcry against a drive to Baghdad.

Neither the US president or the UK prime minister of the period could be classed as liberal and yet it was down to the decision making of them and their advisers that Saddam still sits in Baghdad.

The allies were rightly concerned about creating a huge political vacuum in that very volatile area of the Middle East. There was also the general feeling that military action would inspire armed popular uprisings in Iraq against the regime - which of course it did. Although this might appear to have been in the allies favour it should be pointed out that they were very suspicious of many of the opposition groups in Iraq because of their close ties with Iran.

Saddam is still alive because Bush senior, his allies and advisers let him off the hook. I don't think you can blame the liberals, do-gooders and moralisers for that one.
 
dot23 said:
MK I don't understand this conviction that saddam is after nukes, or OBL for that matter.
Click to expand...

This is all amazingly complicated, with many shades of grey, but:

a) Saddam Hussein was known to be developing nuke technology. This was confirmed by the UN inspectors.

b) UBL has publicly stated that it is his duty to acquire nuclear weapons.
 
If I remember correctly,it was against the U.N. charter to march on Baghdad and depose Saddam.It would have caused complications with the Moslem backers of the coalition.
 
Yes, and even if the allies had chosen to ignore this they would have known that supporting, or appearing to support, the Kurdish uprising would alienate Turkey and supporting the Shia uprisings would appear to give succour to Iran.

For what it's worth, as a wishy-washy, wooly-minded liberal I think we should have supported both elements, marched on Baghdad, liquidated their government and saved ourselves all the bother of killing old people, the sick and babies with pointless sanctions.
 
Agreed, Spook. Tho I thought the UN directed that Kuwait was to be returned to it's lawful rulers and steps taken to ensure it's security. I don't think they limited how far into Iraq the forces were allowed to go. I'm open to correction on that.
 
Another point,we're not killing people with the sanctions.Instead of using the money they do get from oil sales on the maintenance of his nation and the welfare of his people,Saddam and his cronies use it for more weaponry and to build themselves palaces and monuments.
 
Agreed we're not killing people with sanctions. Lets face it Saddam is a nasty piece of work. I personally think that Banking rule should allow the UN to remove money from rulers, but somehow I don't see that happening.
 
I guess some people have very short memories.

The military wanted to press on and get the job done. They were stopped by the liberalist's. It was election time soon for several Politicians, so the war was a good thing-but only to a point. Bush Snr & Major have both said publicly since that they felt that it was the wrong decision to stop-but political considerations forced them to stay their hand.

It is more then likely that at some stage the free world will have to tackle Saddam again. And that will be a very sad day.

And if you are now saying that Britain is not a pacifist-I suggest you speak to your honorable leader Prime Minister Blair-or is it soon to be president? He was about to sell off the English Army into an European Force not two years ago because he said that modern warfare was a thing of the past, and that the UK would never have need for more then just a small rapid force.

opps.

What was it that the Queen said recently. "Good men need just do nothing"

Well Good men did nothing before 09/11/01 - but now they are.

Regards

Blagger
 
I guess some people have very short memories.
Click to expand...

Guess all you want!

Who exactly are these liberalists you keep banging on about - and what the hell is a “liberalist” anyway?

I keep getting this image of portly blokes with beards wearing polyester trousers, scuffed shoes and ill-fitting tweed jackets with a rolled up copy of Steam Engine Enthusiast in the pocket holding up placards with STOP scrawled on them in red felt-tip in the middle of the desert.

I know from personal experience that troops on the ground were in general dismayed at the stalling of the advance but I say again that military and political considerations forced that situation. And before we start banging on again a political consideration is not necessarily a liberal one. I know it sounds bizarre but just occasionally politicians of all persuasions subscribe to political considerations- I believe it comes with the territory.

Bush Snr & Major have both said publicly since that they felt that it was thewrong decision to stop...
Click to expand...

Well of course they bloody would. Hindsight is the retired politicians greatest ally.

-but political considerations forced them to stay their hand.
Click to expand...

Correct - political considerations not liberalist pressure. Yes, there were elections coming up and they may have been concerned about the war’s effect on these but they were the concerns of a right-wing, ex-CIA, Republican and a middling to right-wing Conservative. Liberalists?

Britain pacifist? As we say in the UK - My Arse! The Falklands, Ulster, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra-Leone. If you mean that we are aware of what are armed forces are asked to do and occasionally question those actions required of them then I suppose we do - doesn't make us pacifist, just mildly intelligent.

What was it that the Queen said recently. "Good men need just do nothing"
Click to expand...

I want the source for this because it sounds like complete rubbish. This is a misquote of the phrase which goes something like - "All that is required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." If that is in fact what she did say then she was perfectly correct.

Oh and incidentally there is absolutely nothing wrong with my memory pal.

Physician heal thyself.
 
Spook, I've realised theres no point in arguing with Yank - he won't hear. All we can do is correct the mis-conceptions in his posts and in mine for that matter.

The problem starts with the difference between UK and American English. To him a Liberal is exactly equivalent to the 50's Commie. In fact given the hatred of "New York Liberals" by certain elements of the Right in the US. I suspect that if you offered them starvation or liberal helpings of food they'd starve.

The next is the demonisation of the EU as being a) a part of the NWO and b) a challenge to American hegemony. Any moves that make the EU more unified or larger are treated as a direct threat.

The bill of goods being sold to the American right is that:
America is the only free country;
all othe countries loathe this and will do anyting they can to destroy America;
American business needs protection from the cheating foreigners;
foreign busnesses and governments are protectionist;
only America protects human rights;
human rights laws weaken America's freedoms;

Now if you think I'm wrong people, come back at me.
 
Blagarse Yank said:
And if you are now saying that Britain is not a pacifist-I suggest you speak to your honorable leader Prime Minister Blair-or is it soon to be president? He was about to sell off the English Army into an European Force not two years ago because he said that modern warfare was a thing of the past, and that the UK would never have need for more then just a small rapid force.
Click to expand...

When exactly did he say that?

The whole point is that:

a) Most applications of military force these days are in response to breaking crises. In general, if you can get a smallish force in on the ground in a matter of a few days, then it means that you may not need to deploy a much larger force over a period of a few weeks when everything has gone to hell in a hand basket. This is a completely different concept to what was appropriate during the coldwar, and hence it is only reasonable, and sensible to create this capability now.

b) Europe, in general, lacks a heavy airlift capability. Note that this is a pre-requisite for a rapid-reaction force, otherwise how can you deploy a reasonable sized force in the time-scales required? This meant that deployment would have been difficult without the assistance of the US, which understandibly is fed up of being regarded as the global policeman. (Harranged when they act, and harranged when they don't act.) By working towards a joint European rapid reaction force, this should all come out in the wash.

If you really want to know what the UK position is, then I recommend that you look at the following page.

http://www.mod.uk/index.php3?page=2836#introduction

Lastly, when did we last have an "English army"?
:hmph:
 
Spook, I've realised theres no point in arguing with Yank - he won't hear. All we can do is correct the mis-conceptions in his posts and in mine for that matter.


Who's arguing??-Disagreement is a fundamental point of democracy-you have your view and I have mine. It's not me that is getting defensive after just a few posts.

As a matter of fact I agree with some of what you said. Well said it was too.

A lot of people will say that modern society is stronger and more moral now then it ever has been.

Sadly its my view that our society is a lot weaker then it was. By weaker I am talking about morally, not physically.

Wether it be technology that makes us more lazy, or Political Correctness that destroys common senses I don't know-all I know is that we have more and more bloodier wars, terrorist attacks, crimes and problems then EVER before.

I don't think the current philosphy of Goverment either in the US or the UK is right.

But what I won't accept - is that the attacks on September 11th are America's fault. They are the fault of the morally corrupt and bankrupt politicians and leaders that were in charge of the Country-and other Countries around the world. In the case of America Bush Jr inherited problems many English people may not be aware off.-I understand that.

A "liberalist attitude" has swept over The US and the UK over the last ten-or fifteen years which has destroyed the morals anyone 30yrs+ has ever learnt to value.

Criminals rewarded for crime, whilst the victims suffer.
Creation of domineering "Human Rights" which have destroyed family values.
Financial destruction of National resources -(A good example for you would be the British NHS-but a black hole of beds Dr's and Nurses year on year) (or your British Rail, or Steel Industry) for Governmental financial gain.

When I talk about liberalist's I'm talking about anyone who's idea of equality is for one particular group of people to have more rights then others. For fanatics to bomb or shoot people because of their views on animal welfare for example, but historic animal sports to become imorral or illegal.

Now I'm willing to let go all of my views-which you may think of as biggoted, or wrong, or rude, or stupid, or whatever -if this liberilisation works.

Fact is it dosen't -the situation just gets worse and worse. And that's using these people's own distorted "Official Figures"!!!!

And it won't begin to get better untill we all start smelling what these people are shovelling and stop them!

So please-tells us all where my views are so wrong-and explain to me why things just get worse not better. -We are all waiting to hear your divine guidance on the matter.

If not -STOP PREACHING AND COMPLAINING and sit back down.

And please-call me Blag, or Blagger-but not Yank.
 
Blag,

Having read you're missive several times, I am moved to actually state that, by and large, I agree. For too long sucessive governments have wrapped themselves in the cloth of righteousness and shafted us up our collective asses for their own gain. Our privatised industires in the UK are a prime example. For donkey's years we paid for steel, rail, coal et al. Then suddenly, the stuff that could be asset stripped was sold to us (steel, rail, eletricity, gas, phone company, water), which was hard when it was effectively 'ours' anyway, and anything unpopular (with the encumbant governent at that time) was driven into the ground with a level of venom that beggared beleif, in spite of good economic reasons for keeping the industry (coal). The NHS has been a punch ball by all UK governments since the 60s, since healthcare is not a profit business, its internal humanitarian aid, but no-one actually says that. There are trimes that i feel that the only real freedom modern democracy gives us is the freedom to strave and the freedom to die. What I am doing now is touted as a freedom. It actually isnt. Its an indulgance. THey can allow it because, in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter. I pay their salary, I even vote, sometimes. As long as our rulers have their jobs, they really don't give a damn about one man's thoughts.


In some cases our broader, collective morality has improved. Live Aid would not have happened in any other century. We had the technology, to see what was happening as it happened, and the individual self determination that this wasn't some Victorian 'God's Will' thing, but a mammoth injustice. Certain of those involved in that still fight the manifest injustice of Third World Debt. Long may they continue. Individual morality in precisely that, up to the individual.

Governmental or media led morality leads to the sprectre of political correctness which mean we have to think or do things in a certain way, and if you don't you're deviant. It claims to be 'liberalism' but its quite the reverse. We have a culture now where punishing a naughty child is a 'denial of human rights', where ambulance chasing insurance companies live off other's misery, backed by fast track legislation that allows them to. (Note - when I was in a car accident years ago, there was no problem with getting compensation for injury. No court, no non-recoverable disbursements, just sorted - God bless Eagle Star!!!)

We get an esatz 'caring' society that feeds off its own most vulnerable, while lining the pockets of big business and paying a largely non-elected, largely corrupt, 'elite' who claim its for our own good, from local council to international level. These people claim to be our sevants. As a question, since when were servants ever so wholy independent of their 'masters'?

I'm not sure I'd call this liberalisation though, other than as a label. Put it this way, I don't feel that much 'liberty', nor do I see it anywhere else.

Just my twopennoth

8¬)
 
POSTSCRIPTUM

I have just broken one of my cardinal rules; Never air your politics in public

Ah well...

8¬)
 
Blagarse Yank said:
A "liberalist attitude" has swept over The US and the UK over the last ten-or fifteen years which has destroyed the morals anyone 30yrs+ has ever learnt to value.

Stuff deleted

Financial destruction of National resources -(A good example for you would be the British NHS-but a black hole of beds Dr's and Nurses year on year) (or your British Rail, or Steel Industry) for Governmental financial gain.
Click to expand...

I assume that here you are referring to those arch liberals, the Conservative party under M. Thatcher?


When I talk about liberalist's I'm talking about anyone who's idea of equality is for one particular group of people to have more rights then others. For fanatics to bomb or shoot people because of their views on animal welfare for example, but historic animal sports to become imorral or illegal.
Click to expand...


I assume that under this definition, the Nazi party of 1930's Germany would count as dangerous "liberalists"?

As far as I can make out, you don't just say that "liberalism is bad", but that "if something is bad then it is because of liberals".

I have to admit that I find this less than convincing.
 
Is it just me or is anyone else now completely confused?

In response to Blag I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with your idea that everything is worse than it was. Five minutes with a history book will tell you that we do not have
more and more bloodier wars
Click to expand...
War between 1914 and 1945 took an unimaginable number of civilian and military lives. Add Korea and Vietnam and the internal conflicts of Russia and China from the inception of their revolutions and to put it bluntly the combined casualty list for the Troubles in Ulster, September 11 and the Falklands conflict are a quiet afternoon on the Western Front. One estimate for the number of people killed by the Soviet regime in the 70 years after 1917 is 61, 911, 000. Beat that.

Adolf Hitler’s regime was obsessed with promoting "family values" and at the same time murdered millions of disabled, Jewish, mentally ill, gay, gypsy and otherwise non-conformist people. Many of these groups incidentally are the same ones modern right-wingers complain have too many human rights.

The idea that minorities asserting their own human rights is somehow oppressing the rest of us always astounds me (I am a six foot two, 14 stone, white anglo-saxon, protestant with a skinhead and I haven’t noticed anyone trying to oppress me lately) and it’s the same sickening whining that came from the mouths of Afrikaners in South Africa, Protestants in Ulster and white bigots in the southern States of the US during integration. If these people had treated others as human beings in the first place there would never have been a need for assertion.

My major complaint about modern society is the almost universal individual lack of willingness to take responsibility for our own actions. But I would argue that this is down to us as individuals. In blaming politicians for every ill in the world we are pandering to that reluctance to shoulder the burdens of our own responsibilities. I am not saying you are completely wrong and to a certain extent it’s a healthy and unavoidable conclusion but it also allows us to deny any blame for what is going on in the world and our lives. I find it offensive that we can sit here moaning about our lack of freedom and how “they” control our lives when another look at those history books proves that we are freer now than we have ever been. And I’m sure that some peoples paranoid little minds have just gone into spasm but when you’ve recovered do me a favour - READ A F***ING HISTORY BOOK. I’m not saying for one moment that things are perfect but they have been far worse and, incidentally, it might be a complete revelation to some people but, hold on to your seats... POLITICIANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ARSEHOLES!

Ahh, that’s better. I’m tired now can someone please call the nurse.

Harlequin I can’t really disagree with much in your post but the political regime you are talking about was about as liberal as Goebbels with a migraine so I’m not exactly sure how it backs up Blaggers argument.
 
I made the assumption that what Blag was complaining about was 'libertarian' policies, otherwise his argument makes no sense. Basically, I'm using the word 'libertarian' in the sense that it was used by the right wing Conservatives and Federation of Conservative Students in the early 80's, before the purgesof the latter organisation.

Privatisation and de-regulation were the more socially acceptable face of libertarian Conservatism (a glorious oxymoron, no?). There was some really distubing ideas mentioned in libertarian literature at that time, which now, in retrospect, I could almost believe are misremembered. Since I am no longer sure if I am recalling thses things correctly, I won't quote it in detail, but sufficed to say, morality wasn't a huge ideal. Nor was tolerance of others. As I said in my previous post, the freedom to starve, the freedom to die.

I agree with your comments about lack of shouldering responsibility. We twitch, we whine, but in the end, we have engendered a system that really disenfranchises us form any real impact on our rulers. The faces change, but the song remains the same. We are convinced of our own smallness and weakness, but its comfortable.



8¬)
 
I'm sure that Blag is better able to describe what he means than I, but from the tone of the postings, I think that he is talking about liberalism rather than libertarianism. This, I think, is demonstrated by the comment about animal rights where I assume that he is supporting hunting. This is also, I believe, a libertarian view, though not necessarily a liberal view.

:confused:
 
Anybody know if Blagarse Yank (there's a great double-entendre in there somewhere) has posted on any other threads here? Is he actually interested in discussing Fortean subjects, or does he just want to be annoying?
 
As someone who considers himself,for the most part,a right-winger I'm going to attempt to decipher some of this.

Firstly,to the average American conservative,Liberal=Socialist.I prefer the classical definition myself.I call the left wing of the Democratic party socialist because that's what they are,but they won't admit it publicly.To do so would be political suicide in most constituencies.

When Blarg complains about the Animal Rights movement,he is justified.Over here they have burnt stockyards and laboratories,killed livestock and hunting dogs,and are generally a nuisance.I've even had trouble with them myself,as a hog farmer.For the most part they're city and suburban fools whose idea of nature is the film"Bambi".

I think when he refers to Human Rights he is attempting to convey the fear of many Americans that international human rights considerations are detrimental to national sovereignty and individual rights,at least in their eyes.

Political correctness,I think we can all agree,is a plague on intellectual discourse that MUST be crushed.It has run rampant in A merican universities and the culture in general for years in the

I must admit to being puzzled about portions of his postings myself.Also,I'm getting sick of talking politics.
 
People over here were all worried over suspension of civil liberties.I believe Europe is getting more paranoid than we are.
 
Tell you a little story. I worked once for the British Library. This is on the fringes of the Civil Service. My first duty on joining was to sign the Official Secrets Act. This is a peice of paper that says you have read the OSA and understand the penalties for breaking it. The trouble is you cannot read the OSA in full until you have signed because the full OSA is, guess what, an official secret.

Next, Britain has no written Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights can be derogated and, sometime next month, it will be possible for us to be imprisoned without trial if we are suspected of terrorist offenses.

You bet we're paranoid.
 
First and formost -Spook:

Agree with some of your posts-especially the one about marching on Baghdad-for the same reasons! But your statement about Hitler's "Family Values" only underlines my argument-not yours!

Secondly:

Harlequin-I too broke my own cardinal rule-but then if you don't express it-it isn't worth too much in the scheme of things!

Thirdly:

Annoying? Probably-but it's one of my better traits.

Fourthly:

No-one responded to my previous challenge-some agreed(well sort of) some disagreed. But no-one has answered the question. That says all I need to know.

Fithly:

This post has indeed wandered all over the place: The point was did you think that it was right for the UK to enact emergency powers??? And to arrest and detain without trial Muslims?/suspects

My view-it is properly better to arrest and detain longer then normal people whom can be shown to have a clear, or firm link with terrorist organisations. But a time limit of detention must be adhered to-And charges must be brought.

It is NOT right for open ended laws to be brought in-that IS a loss of civil liberties and if allowed-just lets innocent people have fewer defenses in an already powerful Government (US & UK)


No doubt you will have (differing) views.....

Blagger
 
intaglio said:
Tell you a little story. I worked once for the British Library. This is on the fringes of the Civil Service. My first duty on joining was to sign the Official Secrets Act. This is a peice of paper that says you have read the OSA and understand the penalties for breaking it. The trouble is you cannot read the OSA in full until you have signed because the full OSA is, guess what, an official secret.
Click to expand...

I believe that this is a common misconception. The OSA actualy applies to every UK citizen regardless of whether or not they have "signed" it. (Which means that it should lurk somewhere on the statute books, and hence be available to all on request. Otherwise it would have no legal force. How can you break a law that you aren't allowed to know about?) All that signing it really does is make sure that you can't plead ignorance if you break it. (The other aspect, of course, is that if you work within the civil service, you are a lot more likely to come into contact with the type of material covered.)

I'm not sure whether or not that will make people less, or more, concerned.
:)
 
Sorry didn't want to include the full speil. When I signed it was back in 1972 and they have changed the rules a little. At the time the location of any government building was an Official Secret, including Buckingham Palace, the British Museum and the Houses of Parliament. That was ammended by the Major government. Also any government paper, marked secret or not, was covered and I think that was changed as well so documents intended for publication were not covered.

What I signed was a paper under section 4 (the lowest grade of the OSA signification). Certain parts of the OSA contain details about national defense that may not be published.

Lastly, as a barrister I once knew explained, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". It can be a put in mitigation but not as a reason for innocence.
 
There was some really distubing ideas mentioned in libertarian literature at that time, which now, in retrospect, I could almost believe are misremembered.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the Libertarian movement is still going strong in the US - the Libertarian Party is the largest third party, I've heard (still tiny though). There are hundreds of libertarian sites and rabid libertarians mouthing off on discussion forums all over the net. And yes, it's pretty much "freedom to starve", "freedom to own property" and "freedom to be racist and sexist" (although they don't like to make such a big thing of that last one). There are, fortunately, big splits within the movement, mainly over abortion and over intellectual property. And, although the Republicrats and Demopublicans have increasingly headed in a more libertarian-like direction, the Libertarians are still viewed as complete nutters by many USAians. See, there are some politically sane people in the US! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top