War within weeks, it seems...

[mrph]

Guardian story here.

So, anyone in the UK feel like doing their bit towards bringing down the government? It's possible that Bush & co will reveal some crucial evidence that'll change everything - but if they don't then I'd really like to see Blair pay for this with his job.

After all, a lot of other people are going to pay for it with their lives.

Comments

[inulro.livejournal.com]

I should do. But my usual reaction to these things is to threaten to leave the country (because I can). Between the war and ID cards, I'm definitely ready to be off.

That, and is there a credible alternative to New Labour? Personally, I like the Lib Dems, but as with everything politically, I'm in a minority.

[sogoth.livejournal.com]

I'm with you in the Lib Dem thing. At least until Lee Chaos gets to be a slightly larger figure in politics ;)

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Not that much of a minority. Although they're not the official opposition, they do now seem to be neck-and-neck with the Tories.

They're also the only mainstream party (at least in England...) that's not clinging to GWB for dear life, so if this does all go horribly wrong, they're likely to attract more disillusioned labour voters than the Tories...

IMHO, of course.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Foregone conclusion really.
There are a couple of ex-servicemen I painball with who reckon Monday is kicking-off-day.
I would imagine though that the conflict will be mostly airborne, with ground troops sent in to clean up the remaining pockets - it seems the most viable, cost-efficient way (in terms of armed forces casualties)
I am concerned about the countries who are not backing the US/Bush/Blair campaign - not that I'm for the 'agression pact' you understand, but it has traces of the events that have gone before now :/ Maybe I'm just imagining it.

Still I guess we could always stage a coup in downtown london while the troops are away.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

But that's the problem = once you've bombed the place, what do you do? If you maintain that there are a load of WMDs hidden in there somewhere, you can't just leave them.

And, unlike Afghanistan, this is an industrial country - once Saddam's gone, who is in charge?

The Americans are talking about installing a US military government for a year or so (headed by Tommy Franks). That means putting troops on the ground to act as police and peacekeepers, and might make Northern Ireland look like a happy fluffy place...

France/Germany/Russia/China are being quite reasonable, as far as I'm concerned - we've got weapons inspectors in place, they're doing the job GWB insisted they be allowed in to do in the first place, they're not being obstructed and they're turning up bits of information. Far better - and cheaper - to keep them there and clear up as much as possible that way, surely?

If that system breaks down, then it's time to talk about military force. If countries start backing off then, that's a little more dubious - but right now I think they've got more sense than we have.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Look I'm not arguing with you. I totally agree, even more so after some of the harrowing things I've read during my dissertation research - which, possibly are worse than the things that could happen these days...but not something I want find out.

It's a foregone conclusion that GWB is going in, and Lapdog will follow.
I think They've made it pretty clear they dont give a shit what the UN say, they're just bloodthirsty.
I think the other countries are probably right too.
Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I am seeing far too many re-runs of past conflicts happening here - and it's not the same bad movie GW is watching (I have more taste ;))

When I spoke of the airwar, I meant that there will be fewr 'Allied' casualties because it will be an almost contactless/bloodless assault (this is part of what I am looking at at the moment with the combat photographers...ie: there weren't many images shown of troops on the ground in the GW1 because there wasn't that much ground action in comparison to say Vietnam.)
The war will be relatively bloodless on the 'allied' side and that is what they're looking for...that is why they prefer the 'hit and run' tactics because it means that fewer servicemen are killed.
I guess thats what they are counting on, but I think it's going to blow up very badly in their face going on the information on previous 'war games' and past American conflicts.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Yep, agreed.

Fewer allied casualties even if the US pilots are all fired up on amphetamines again... at least in the short term. I'm just afraid that this is opening a very big can o' worms. :(

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

"Fatigue, not speed, kills!"...apparently.
I dont even want to contemplate another war.
So far as it looks to me, the West is doing all the pushing. Iraq is sitting there 'playing'[1] innocent. I doubt they will be the first to fire, better hope they haven't got anything big and nasty lurking somewhere :/

[1] maybe not the right word, but I'm sure you know what I mean, they're not provoking (and even that isn't quite true I guess) anyone.
I'm afraid that bush/blair are like a dog with a stick...once they got hold of something, they wont let go.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Saddam is nasty, but not stupid... whereas Bush was foolish enough to tell the UN he wanted one thing (inspectors back in Iraq) when we all he actually wanted another (Saddam RIP), and is now struggling to move goalposts and wrap it all up before summer.

I think Blair must be nervous as hell right now. He can't step away from GWB without serious consequences, he can't stay with GWB withut serious consequences, and (as there are no other "big name" allies to prove that this is the "international community" acting against Saddam) he can't easily fade into the background...

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Good, maybe it'll teach him to ask us what we think instead of telling us what we want :)
Unless all along he's been using the Royal we.
'Excuse me, need a hand digging that hole...?'
;)

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking he's looking for a reaction similar to the one Thatcher got after the Falklands. I wouldn;t be at all surprised if it works. Remember the Falklands? And everyone saying it was a pointless waste of time? And so on...

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

well, I dont know about that. That was slightly different, and before my time really, though the way I understand it is that there were british people on the Falklands, who wanted to stay british, and sending in the troops was fairly justified.
This whole IRaqi thing isn't about British people being threatened in Iraq (in the same context)despite being constantly told about the threats they pose to us etc etc - I feel that it is mostly scare mongering to keep Joe public under Blair's tag line of 'Threat to the World'
Though it doesn't matter which way, war is a horrible thing and many innocents are going to get hurt, some in more ways than others.
:/

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Agreeed. However much the Falklands was "other side fo the world" and "a few mad farmers", it was British people and British territory. And it was clear what was meant by victory - "kick Argentina out, resume life as normal".

There were no worries about whether the people of Port Stanley would greet troops with cheers or with sullen resentment, no real likelihood that they'd have lost friends and family to British bombing, or that the soldiers we'd killed were their sons. There was no need for a long-term military presence within the communities, no risk of terrorism or agitators. No need to restructure the local government, or install a new leader chosen by the army. Invading the Falklands swiftly returned it to "normal", whereas Iraq is a long-term commitment.

The other factor, of course, is that Maggie (bless 'er) did her best war leader act and told us we had to 'rescue our own'. The buck stopped with her. Time for plucky little Britain to save the day, by jingo! Whereas Blair is just following Bush and has told us that he can 'see no circumstances' in which we wouldn't join America in a war. We're not even needed, as a military force - we're there solely to show that they're not acting alone, that their allies agree with them.

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

you're probably right. I was, um, 4 or 5 at the time of the Falklands, and my dad was in the army - the lasting impression I got was that it was a useless excersize in vote-building, and Everyone was *very* annoyed at the whole thing, was the main impression I got (along, of with relief that my daddy was considered unfit for active service, but that's another story) I tend to forget about the British people there. Hmm.

I still think he's hoping for some voter support over the war, because otherwise, what's the point?

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

Tony Blair = Brain...a mad mouse hell bent on taking over the world, one way or another...even if it means being lapdog to GWB. Well, at least we know what to get him for christmas this year .... a collar ;)

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

God, yes. But then, you've met me, I'm a hand-knit bread wearing, tree hugging pseudo-socialist idealist, what do you expect?

I'm a card-carrying LibDem, to, fwliw.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

I didn't actually notice any actual tree-hugging, but yep, figures.