0
   

The UN, US and Iraq IV

 
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 05:41 am
Bill Safire has a name for the dust-up about leaks: Intimigate.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 06:23 am
You said it Hobit! No wonder he felt so welcomed by the Bushi'tes.


Meanwhile we have had the Labour party conference here. Blair got off quite lightly over Iraq, mainly because most labour mps are in no danger of losing their seats to a pathetic Conservative opposition party, and because the conference was staged managed to give prominence to people like mp Ann Clwyd who blubbed at the microphone remembering seeing all the dead bodies during her visit to Iraq. Crying or Very sad [not that I'm decryin de cryin if you see what I mean]

But immediately after conference, Robin Cook (former Sec of State at the Foreign Office) had his diary extracts published in the Sunday Times in which he states catagorically that Blair KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq on the eve of war, and that he was not even too concerned about battlefield chemical weapons because intelligence reports indicated they were so well buried they could not easily be used against invading forces.

Cook has previously said (most notably in his resignation speech just befor the war) that Blair made an honest mistake, and that we went to war in the mistaken belief that WMD were pointing at London. (Its easily done, there's a guy in the Solomon Islands with a sharp stick, and sometimes he waves it in this direction....time for pre emptive self defense some say). But now Cook is saying Blair deliberately lied about what he knew to be the true state of affairs on WMD, and what he told the public, or shall we say "allowed to be disseminated" to the public in the media. e.g. Evening Standard headlines 45 MINUTES FROM DOOMSDAY.

What a good job conference had just finished on Thursday with a rousing speech by Blair sending away the troops (metaphorical, military and otherwise) home to fight the good fight on the doorsteps of Britain.

Although I have great respect for TB (honestly I have) I think the titan Blair is now SS Titanic Blair, holed with 4/7 compartments flooding, and not enough bilge pump capacity.

Now its the Conservatives turn to have a day or so out at the Seaside. Lead by the human dynamo Iain Duncan-Smith (the political equivalent to the Austin Allegro estate car of the 1970s), they are bursting with new and dynamic policies designed to appeal to the movers and shakers amongst the old age pensioner groups. (e.g. £7 a week more, but over 4 years).

Of course the Tories are enamored of the American neo Cons even more so than TB himself (not possible! I hear you shout) and supported the war even before the war was thought of. So they find it difficult to criticise Government action they supported at the time. But hey get real you Conservatives. Its in Britain you are trying to curry favour, not Washington DC. All they have to do to take 10% off Labour is say "Yes of course we supported the war, we had to, and we still support our troops, but like everyone else we were CONNED into by Blair". Punish Tony and vote Tory!

But will they do this? Will they ****. Probably more exploits of daring do Iain Mainwaring Smith and his trout fishing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 06:47 am
Thanks for that commend, Steve! Better (and more honest because 'souled') than most of the professional ones in the papers!
('Bravo Zulu', so-to-say!)
However, 4/7 compartments flooded and not enough bilge pump capapcity - there must be worked hard with those 3/7 left and ... "all crew to the hand-pumps"!http://www.bigblueball.com/im/msn/images/thumbs_up.gif
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 07:40 am
Hobitbob wrote:

Quote:
We here at A2K are something of a minority (a very moral minority, if I may say so! :wink:)


Oh dear.....what a tough label to live up to, Hobitbob! Not sure I can measure up all the time, but I'm trying. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 09:11 am
Thanks Walter Laughing Laughing

You mean there are some professionals who could do better Shocked ?

And your new avatar, has that been approved by the Labour Party?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 09:19 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

You mean there are some professionals who could do better Shocked ?

Well, I didn't find any ... so far :wink:


Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

And your new avatar, has that been approved by the Labour Party?

No, but by the SPD Laughing
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 10:39 am
Here we go Turkey takes Iraq troops decision
The Turkish Government has decided to send troops to Iraq, in response to a request by the United States.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 10:49 am
nimh wrote:
I should bloody well hope so! Iraq's already a country, a state . . .


I would like to take issue with that, without necessarily disagreeing with your thesis in regard to the E.U.

Arthur Balfour and Winston Churchill created Iraq in 1922. When Churchill became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, he immediately began to work closely with Jackie Fisher, the former First Sea Lord. Winston came up with a new "superdreadnought" for the 1912 Queen Elizabeth class, 15" guns, 13 1/2" steel armor plate, and high speed engines using oil-fired boilers. There was an outcry among naval conservatives, largely about the difficulty of providing an adequate reserve. Churchill got Parliament to approve ten and a half million pounds sterling for storage facilities, and two and a half to buy a controlling interest in the Anglo-Persian oil company. He eventually succeeded in providing a large reserve of oil for the Royal Navy.

When he and Balfour began to carve up the middle east after Dubya-Dubya One, they had the go-ahead from Clemenceau to make any map they wished, so long as France got a heafty chunk of territory. It is noteworthy that France didn't get one square foot of ground under which oil was known or believed to be present. Iraq itself is a social, religious and political nightmare, but it combined the largest oil reserves then known in the middle east which were not already under control of the Persians, or in Arabia.

Iraq is country to about the same extent that Europe is a union.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 11:04 am
The haphazard mixing of peoples is a valid point but the big difference is that each won;t have their own government. That will, indeed, make a big difference.

Saying that Iraq is as much of a country as the EU is valid so long as you are talking about that fricticious and fractured culture, but the big difference is that those peoples are at least expected to work together under the same government whil the EU is comprised of already established givernments and constitutions.

It's comparable in diversity of interest but not so in the structure through which those interests will be resolved.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 11:16 am
Mr. Hinteler:

May I respectfully request that you give a source regarding the news about the Turkish Troops going into Iraq at the US request?

I have searched in the last hour but can find no source which would corroborate the great news.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 11:52 am
ANKARA, Turkey -- Turkey's government on Monday voted to ask Parliament to send soldiers to Iraq, a move that could ease the burden of U.S. operations there and help mend frayed relations with Washington.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-turkey-us-iraq,0,7366966.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:00 pm
Italgato wrote:
Mr. Hinteler:

May I respectfully request that you give a source regarding the news about the Turkish Troops going into Iraq at the US request?

I have searched in the last hour but can find no source which would corroborate the great news.


You can see it, Iatlgato, when you click on the link, I gave in my response.

You can find more, when you look at http://news.google.com and type e.g. 'Turkey' in the open 'place' there.

If you don't rely to these sources, you'll certainly can watch any tv program, listen to the news on radio or wait for the printed papers.

(In Europe, we have since more than a dozen years 'videotext' on tv, which I unfortunately can't suggest for you, besides, you read it online on the various tv-websites.)
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:17 pm
Mr. Hinteler:

Sir:
Thank you for your link but I am not any closer to the answer than I was before you gave me the link.

I believe that you said:

"The Turkish government has decided to send troops to Iraq"
Is that not correct?

Well, Mr. Hinteler, the link that I had already found said no such thing.

It said that the government was referring its request to the Turkish Parliament.

When the Parliament RATIFIES the request, then the troops will be sent.

Not before.

The reason I am skeptical( I hope that you will pardon me) is that before the Iraqi liberation began the USA asked the government of Turkey for access to Iraq from the North. To the best of my recollection, the government said that they would back the request but THE PARLIAMENT DISAPPROVED IT.

When the Parliament approves the request, then I will be assured that Turkish troops will be sent.

In the light of past disagreements between the executive branch and the legislative branch in Turkey. I hope that you will understand why I am skeptical.

I do, of course, hope that the Parliament will approve the request to send Turkish troops into Iraq, but I will not take it as a sure thing until the request is ratified by the Turkish legislature.

I do hope that you understand.
And, thank you very much for taking the time to answer me.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:20 pm
And may I thank you Dyslexia for giving such good news. I am sure that Turkish( Moslem) troops will lend a hand in the liberation and democratization of Iraq.

If the Turks can have a parliamentary system and bona-fide elections, there is no reason why the Iraqis can not.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:22 pm
I think the Turkish Parliament is going to have great difficulty approving troops for Iraq, because of the "Kurdish problem." If they should approve sending the troops, they would need to be stationed in Southerin Iraq = IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:35 pm
Italgato wrote:
Mr. Hinteler:

Sir:
Thank you for your link but I am not any closer to the answer than I was before you gave me the link.

I believe that you said:

"The Turkish government has decided to send troops to Iraq"
Is that not correct?

Well, Mr. Hinteler, the link that I had already found said no such thing.

It said that the government was referring its request to the Turkish Parliament.

When the Parliament RATIFIES the request, then the troops will be sent.

Not before.

The reason I am skeptical( I hope that you will pardon me) is that before the Iraqi liberation began the USA asked the government of Turkey for access to Iraq from the North. To the best of my recollection, the government said that they would back the request but THE PARLIAMENT DISAPPROVED IT.

When the Parliament approves the request, then I will be assured that Turkish troops will be sent.

In the light of past disagreements between the executive branch and the legislative branch in Turkey. I hope that you will understand why I am skeptical.

I do, of course, hope that the Parliament will approve the request to send Turkish troops into Iraq, but I will not take it as a sure thing until the request is ratified by the Turkish legislature.

I do hope that you understand.
And, thank you very much for taking the time to answer me.





I gave a link and quoted the headline, given originally by BBC-online.

It was and is marked as a link, here to the BBC-website, and has nothing at all to do with neither my opinion, belief, religion, education, academic degrees and/or how many houses I own or don't own.

It's another point, when you ask me about the differences between a governmental decission and an agreement by parliament (btw. you are obviously an expert in Turkish Parliamentary and Public Law!).

Here's my opinion (and I just have rudimentary knowledge to the Turkish Public Law) that a government, any government, can decide nearly everything. The laws and the constitution of that country/state regulate, if and how these governmental decisions are or are not fulfilled.

But as I said above, I've just rudimentary knowledge in the Turkish Law.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:49 pm
"A government can decide nearly everything" says Walter Hinteler.

That depends. If by govemment you mean the executive branch alone, you are very much mistaken( at least with regard to the USA).

If you mean the executive branch and the legislative branch together, I would agree with you given the caveat that in the USA, at least, decisions by the "government" are subject to review by the USSC.

It's called "checks and balances"

Again, Mr. Hinteler. Formally, a decision by the executive branch to push for a law is NOT FORMALLY APPROVED UNTIL THE PARLIAMENT RATIFIES IT.

It requires no special knowledge of Turkish Law to understand that.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 12:57 pm
a) Turkey isn't the USA until now.
b) in most countries/states we find, what is called "Cabinet". This usually equates with 'government'. (Before you ask for my reputation: yes, I've studied Political Sciences).

Quote:
"A government can decide nearly everything" says Walter Hinteler.

That depends.


That's what I said:
Quote:

Here's my opinion (and I just have rudimentary knowledge to the Turkish Public Law) that a government, any government, can decide nearly everything. The laws and the constitution of that country/state regulate, if and how these governmental decisions are or are not fulfilled.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 02:46 pm
Italgato

As I think Mr Hinterler was trying to explain to you, perhaps your knowledge of Turkish law is not complete

Quote:
In line with the concept of nationalism and the reforms and principles introduced by the founder of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk, the immortal leader and the unrivalled hero, this Constitution, which affirms the eternal existence of the Turkish nation and motherland and the indivisible unity of the Turkish state, embodies;

The determination to safeguard the everlasting existence, prosperity and material and spiritual well-being of the Republic of Turkey, and to attain the standards of contemporary civilization as an honourable member with equal rights of the family of world nations;

Not withstanding any of the aformentioned;

Our noble and true son of Ataturk, Hinteler also Walter of Attourkay, is hereby and shall be deemed Guardian of Truth and arbiter of all dispute in Turkish matters, on the BBC, a2k or anywhere else for the purposes of this constitution.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2003 04:38 pm
Steve, I knew Walter was a highly esteemed person, but I didn't realize until now how high. Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/27/2025 at 08:44:35