War / Not a good day for GWB
Mar. 26th, 2003 11:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrphSo, what have we had today?
A Baghdad marketplace gets bombed, and the first response from the USA is basically "don't look at us, we're not admitting any responsibility, we didn't drop any bombs there". The second, rather confused, response is "there were some missile launchers hidden next to civilian buildings". What they're pointedly not saying is "OK, we may have screwed up and killed innocent civilians". Unfortunately, their changing story just makes them look spin-driven and shifty...
Still no telegenic crowds of liberated Iraqis. But the military has now described the snipers "in civilian clothing" as "terrorist style attackers". Definitely not civilians who think they're defending their country, then?
The WTO ruled that GWB's steel tariffs are illegal.
We seem to have bombed a TV station. On purpose. The US and UK are telling different stories as to why - I'm tempted to think that it's not about "dual use" transmitters or secret coded messages, it's so that we don't see any more awkward pictures of coalition POWs.
Bush's massive tax cuts are meeting serious political opposition.
Very small print in a couple of newspapers acknowledges that the "scuds" fired at Kuwait weren't scuds, and were actually short range missiles, allowed under the UN resolutions.
The US and UK are still not seeing eye to eye on post-Saddam Iraq. This could be yet more political strife for Blair...
Political people are seriously talking about "re-evaluating" our relationship with the USA after this war. Given the political fall-out so far, following a war-hungry Bush administration into Iran or North Korea could be disastrous - I can see the British government trying to tactfully step away when they get a chance...
Finally, as ever, the US armed forces are still killing more UK troops than the Iraqi armed forces are. This is nothing new - it was the largest cause of UK casualties in the last Gulf war, too, and the UK has never forgotten that.
A Baghdad marketplace gets bombed, and the first response from the USA is basically "don't look at us, we're not admitting any responsibility, we didn't drop any bombs there". The second, rather confused, response is "there were some missile launchers hidden next to civilian buildings". What they're pointedly not saying is "OK, we may have screwed up and killed innocent civilians". Unfortunately, their changing story just makes them look spin-driven and shifty...
Still no telegenic crowds of liberated Iraqis. But the military has now described the snipers "in civilian clothing" as "terrorist style attackers". Definitely not civilians who think they're defending their country, then?
The WTO ruled that GWB's steel tariffs are illegal.
We seem to have bombed a TV station. On purpose. The US and UK are telling different stories as to why - I'm tempted to think that it's not about "dual use" transmitters or secret coded messages, it's so that we don't see any more awkward pictures of coalition POWs.
Bush's massive tax cuts are meeting serious political opposition.
Very small print in a couple of newspapers acknowledges that the "scuds" fired at Kuwait weren't scuds, and were actually short range missiles, allowed under the UN resolutions.
The US and UK are still not seeing eye to eye on post-Saddam Iraq. This could be yet more political strife for Blair...
Political people are seriously talking about "re-evaluating" our relationship with the USA after this war. Given the political fall-out so far, following a war-hungry Bush administration into Iran or North Korea could be disastrous - I can see the British government trying to tactfully step away when they get a chance...
Finally, as ever, the US armed forces are still killing more UK troops than the Iraqi armed forces are. This is nothing new - it was the largest cause of UK casualties in the last Gulf war, too, and the UK has never forgotten that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-27 02:32 am (UTC)From various reports on the radio this morning it would appear that the 'regime change' is going to involve US military administration of the country, followed (eventually) by a US supervised civilian government, whilst US companies rebuild the infrastructure (the contracts for which have already been negotiated). Slightly one sided perhaps? Not at all - the UN is going to be allowed to pay for it all, apparently, provided they don't try to interfere. So that's all right then.