What the heck is wrong with you Brits?

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Jimbo
I'm so sorry snap-it, you were doing so well there for a moment.

And on that note I shall once again dismiss your opinion as irrelevant.

Please continue on about such deep philosophies that a mere American could not even begin to understand and why we don't listen to your point of view on most things.

Yes we were, right up until you said Czar pissed in the well and dismissed him for providing a link that goes against your opinion....

Please stop the sarcasm, i did nothing in this thread to deserve that, my opinion differs from yours, accept that and maybe we could discuss...

 

[Jimbo]

Yes, Czar confused you with facts, i understand that you aren't used to that...

Then what is that? A Swedish hello?

I'm outa here, have fun.

 

[Mill]

Goddamnit. This thread is not going to head into a flame war. Cut it out people.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: shortalias
Therein lays the difference between the UK and USA, isn't it great that we have a country that instead of shouting "we have freedom of speech" like you Americans do, we REALLY do have freedom to say and act the way we feel, with no need to shout about it! We have the right to tell our prime minister he is wrong, and not just blindly accept what he says, unlike America, who blindy goes alon with everything your president says! Respect is earnt, not just freely given. Blair, Bush, any prime minister or president is simply a person, not a god or hero and over here if we think he is wrong, we don't just accept and walk away and bitch about it, we tell him to his face! TRUE democracy!!
In these pages I am often seeing people saying things like "oh Britain is nothing, we tell them what to do and they jump" and that is what was being said in the interview to Blair's face and the people were showing that they did not like it!! It was not an attack on the USA, much more the fact that everytime USA or Bush says something, Blair seems to blindly follow, and many British think this is dangerous and that we should make our own decisions, irrelevant of ANY other countries wish. People all over the world are angry that Bush seems hell-bent on rushing into war on what seems flimsy excuses and every time Bush says something, a couple of hours later, Blair repeats and that makes British people so mad at him!!

In that interview, Blair was NOT answering questions in a direct way and was side-stepping questions or being vague, the moderator or interviever as we call him, was not being anti anyone, he was trying to push Blair into a corner and make him answer the questions in a direct way. We the public voted him in and we the public deserve to know answers to any of our questions. Blair was not answering and so he was given a rough ride!! Plus there were obviously people who vote for other political parties there in the audience and they will automatically attack anything that they feel he says or does wrong!

Whereas in USA you seem in awe of a guy just because he is a president, over here we just see people for the way they are, just an elected guy who better do his or her job correcly and if not he or she will get booted out of office. People here are valued for what they do and what they acheive, not for some position they hold. However, at the end of the day, if a decision is taken to go to war (as if USA hasn't already decided) then Britain will come together as one nation and play our part in getting the job done.

Being blindly patriotic as so many seem to be on this sight, is a feature that demonstrates perfectly how you all let the wool be pulled over your eyes and follow your leader and not have the balls to tell him to his face, "You are wrong!!" and that is so dangerous! I like Blair and have nothing aainst USA, but even the best of friends sometimes do not agree or fall out at times, but it doesn't mean you hate them, just you are human! No, of course the Brits don't hate America!!

I am not in awe of our president nor do I blindly follow. I am not saying you are accusing me of that, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that before I kept talking. I definitely see where you are coming from in the respect that you feel Blair is blindly following Bush. Let me ask you this one question though. If Bush was right and Blair saw intelligence to confirm this why would he not follow? If George Bush was telling the truth and all the information he gave was verified by UK intelligence why would Blair not follow? Now of course, the information could be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone with evidence that it is yet(other than the "cut and paste" document that has gotten so much press from the anti-war crowd).

So we reach a point in which we have evidence and we wish to pursue a new resolution. If that resolution passes it seems a majority of the UK would be willing to support Blair. Without it, it seems the majority does not want war. Now is that because they feel without a resolution they would be following the US into a war blindly or because they have that much faith in the UN to do the proper thing(even if it was vetoed by someone such as China or Russia)?

You will have to answer that for me because I do not live in the UK and I am not fully aware of where the anti-war sentiment comes from.

I don't live in the UK either, but i think it is safe to say that the rest of the world has more faith in the UN than the US does...

But if a second resolution is not passed doesn't that undermine the UN a good bit? I mean they told Saddam to disarm, passed resolutions, said he would have consequences, etc. Now if nothing is done it makes the UN look like it has no authority or power to make a country follow its resolution! I would like to see how someone thinks this would not undermine the UN.

Well, if the US does go to war without the UN it will undermine it even more and suddenly you do not have to have an ok from the UN to go to war preemptively (sp?) based on evidence not verified, i think this will create a very dangerous situation...

I hope you get my point here, but yes, i agree with you, i just hope that there will be more time for the inspectors, and to be honest, i hope they DO find something, then this would not be an issue anymore and the tension would go away....

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Jimbo
You know, I was really enjoying this thread until Czar had to piss in the well.

I would like to see some more thoughtful political discussions with some of the more enlightened European users on this BBS, albeit without the name calling.
We just might learn something.

Want to know why it is related?
Blair is trying to decieve the public and the public saw through it, thats why they are angry. And that is why it is related.

But I do agree with you, the name calling is getting out of hand, has been for well over a year.

Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.

Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!

weird, the article has been changed since I read it, in the old one said that I think pages 6-16 were direct copies from the student's report and to show an example of the "cosmetic changes" the new report changed the wording of how Iraq supported Palestinians, and the changes well could be called propaganda.

edt. and to support my words

Ten of the nineteen pages from Britains latest Iraq dossier were copied word-for-word from an article written by a postgraduate. Typos and 12 year old information included

the headline from fark where I found it

also the quotes by a professor about the grammar and spelling errors in both the documents are exactly the same are gone

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Jimbo
Yes, Czar confused you with facts, i understand that you aren't used to that...

Then what is that? A Swedish hello?

I'm outa here, have fun.

No, that was because you dismissed Czar, all he did was to provide a link, a link that could be discussed in a civil manner also...

If i were to say hello in Swedish, i would say hej or goddag....

 

[Phuz]

I'm going to have to agree with much of what shortalias said.
I think Blair is stepping up because the UK is one of the few heavy hitters, and they will be required in what the world community has ALMOST accepted as a necessary cause. I don't believe in a full out war on Iraq... the bottom line is, Saddam needs to be knocked off his stool, and he's already on probation so the sooner the better.

I do tend to think that there are more 'free-thinking' individuals in the UK who have been exposed to a larger variety of culture..., and really do question the motives of their government, and as shortalias said, it is more or less a true democracy.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.

Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!

Actually, the worrying things about this report (According to a channel 4 news piece last night) are that
a) the government intelligence report *massages* the source text to make the picture it gives more extreme
b) presented it as current data on the current state of Iraq,
and c) presented it as being compiled from UK Intelligence report, thus giving it an inherant degree of respectability (or not, depending on your view of intelligence services, and the use of them for political ends)

The news report quoted the two papers side by side, showing a few disturbing discrepancies. However, all of this shouldn't discredit the report completely, although it should have been presented in a more honest light.

(edit) Oh yes, and to return to the original point of the thread - Millenium, you are right. Having read the full transcript, Blair got an especially hard time. We have a tradition here of, erm, *robust* debate with politicians, but the tone of that surprised me.

 

[Migroo]

To be perfectly honest I dont know who to believe any more.

Its Blair's job to evaluate any threats to the country and keep us safe - thats why I trust him. I just wish he would make it look as if he was making his own decision instead of following Bush. Sure, if they agree then we can cooperate, but at the moment Blair doesnt seem to be making a lot of his own decisions, thats all.

Its good to discuss this in a rational manner with people from the US - I've always wondered what youre stance was (not your governments - thats obvious)

Regards

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Millennium

Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.

Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!

Actually, the worrying things about this report (According to a channel 4 news piece last night) are that
a) the government intelligence report *massages* the source text to make the picture it gives more extreme
b) presented it as current data on the current state of Iraq,
and c) presented it as being compiled from UK Intelligence report, thus giving it an inherant degree of respectability (or not, depending on your view of intelligence services, and the use of them for political ends)

The news report quoted the two papers side by side, showing a few disturbing discrepancies. However, all of this shouldn't discredit the report completely, although it should have been presented in a more honest light.

In that case it most certainly should have been presented in a better way. You yourself see, however, that these things do not change the overall soundness of the arguments it is trying to make.

I don't understand why you would release a report without verifying data and sources. Seems almost pointless to release something and then have its credibility damaged in a short time period.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Millennium

Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.

Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!

Actually, the worrying things about this report (According to a channel 4 news piece last night) are that
a) the government intelligence report *massages* the source text to make the picture it gives more extreme
b) presented it as current data on the current state of Iraq,
and c) presented it as being compiled from UK Intelligence report, thus giving it an inherant degree of respectability (or not, depending on your view of intelligence services, and the use of them for political ends)

The news report quoted the two papers side by side, showing a few disturbing discrepancies. However, all of this shouldn't discredit the report completely, although it should have been presented in a more honest light.

In that case it most certainly should have been presented in a better way. You yourself see, however, that these things do not change the overall soundness of the arguments it is trying to make.

I don't understand why you would release a report without verifying data and sources. Seems almost pointless to release something and then have its credibility damaged in a short time period.

Yes, but that has happened before, remember the aluminum cylinders...

It's thinks like that that makes everyone question the quality of US-UK intelligence....

 

[dpm]

Indeed, the presentation of the report was a huge mistake. Sadly, though, in todays polital, media (and forum) culture, it seems that you only have to discredit/ bring up an answer to one part of a report, or paper, or opinion, or *whatever* for the whole thing to be seen to be discredited. Its an old political trick to answer one of your opponants questions and then to give the impression that you have answered all of them...

So these, relatively minor, issues have destroyed the credibility of the report in the eyes of the public

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Millennium

Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.

Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!

Actually, the worrying things about this report (According to a channel 4 news piece last night) are that
a) the government intelligence report *massages* the source text to make the picture it gives more extreme
b) presented it as current data on the current state of Iraq,
and c) presented it as being compiled from UK Intelligence report, thus giving it an inherant degree of respectability (or not, depending on your view of intelligence services, and the use of them for political ends)

The news report quoted the two papers side by side, showing a few disturbing discrepancies. However, all of this shouldn't discredit the report completely, although it should have been presented in a more honest light.

In that case it most certainly should have been presented in a better way. You yourself see, however, that these things do not change the overall soundness of the arguments it is trying to make.

I don't understand why you would release a report without verifying data and sources. Seems almost pointless to release something and then have its credibility damaged in a short time period.

Yes, but that has happened before, remember the aluminum cylinders...

It's thinks like that that makes everyone question the quality of US-UK intelligence....

Aluminium cylinders? I recall reading about that but I wasn't sure what the problem was. Anyways I will check back with this thread later own. It is 6:30 AM here and I have school at 2PM.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A little FYI

Politics in other parts of the world is practiced differently than the US. If you look, you will see one side of the British house separated by a distance. This was done to discourage spontaneous duels with opponents, so I am told. Was a lively old England. Although they do not run each other through with swords, they do get carried away by US standards. Always has been that way

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: Millennium

Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.

Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!

Actually, the worrying things about this report (According to a channel 4 news piece last night) are that
a) the government intelligence report *massages* the source text to make the picture it gives more extreme
b) presented it as current data on the current state of Iraq,
and c) presented it as being compiled from UK Intelligence report, thus giving it an inherant degree of respectability (or not, depending on your view of intelligence services, and the use of them for political ends)

The news report quoted the two papers side by side, showing a few disturbing discrepancies. However, all of this shouldn't discredit the report completely, although it should have been presented in a more honest light.

In that case it most certainly should have been presented in a better way. You yourself see, however, that these things do not change the overall soundness of the arguments it is trying to make.

I don't understand why you would release a report without verifying data and sources. Seems almost pointless to release something and then have its credibility damaged in a short time period.

Yes, but that has happened before, remember the aluminum cylinders...

It's thinks like that that makes everyone question the quality of US-UK intelligence....

Aluminium cylinders? I recall reading about that but I wasn't sure what the problem was. Anyways I will check back with this thread later own. It is 6:30 AM here and I have school at 2PM.

The problem was that Bush went to the UN to present hard evidence, aluminum cylinders who were ordered for uranium enrichment. They were ordered with specific measurements that was not suitable for uranium enrichment... The UN and their experts ripped his evidence to shreds, dismissing every claim he made...

That makes you think, if the US-UK intelligence is good, then why did they not know that? Or did Bush know that and just hoped that the UN wouldn't notice? Or did he know it and expected the UN to swallow it anyway?

In a bundle of lies it is hard to know what is the truth...

 

[Migroo]

Guys FYI:

Main Iraq Link to the FT site with a whole host of articles : Here

 

[SnapIT]

More lies from powell... Thank you Czar

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Millennium
I am watching CSPAN and they are showing a BBC round-table meeting between Blair, reporters, and concerned citizens. He answers their questions but a majority of the time is spent calling him the Vice President of the US, Vice President of the man from Texas North, or the US foreign minister. In fact they are openly disrespectful to him and dismiss anything he tries to say. This goes not only for the crowd but for the moderator. I understand he should be asked tough questions, but do you all not have any respect for the man? It just seems weird to me that people wish to disrespect him rather than debate. People are being assholes to him. I would have walked out and told them to suck eggs.

I'd make fun of him too if I was Brit. I'm American though, so I'm happy he kisses our a55.

But seriously, can he give any more head to Georgy? I doubt it. Good thing the Brits have teeth falling out, less chance for a snag.