Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
- T. Willy Rye
- Spinner of crazy fuck-ass shit
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 21:41
- Location: Fogertyland
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
If my recrimination was not so bitter and posted in the wrong place would you still read it?
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=99746&start=60
No? Then fuck you.
viewtopic.php?f=43&t=99746&start=60
No? Then fuck you.
- Loki
- The Goddess of Mischief
- Posts: 16204
- Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 06:34
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
whodathunkit wrote: Somewhere it's always 1972.
-
- Posts: 6625
- Joined: 28 May 2008, 13:40
- Loki
- The Goddess of Mischief
- Posts: 16204
- Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 06:34
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
martha wrote:Today may be my day for the recrimination to finally bubble to the surface. I'm genuinely feeling pissy.
It doesn't show.
whodathunkit wrote: Somewhere it's always 1972.
- MP3PO
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: 30 Jan 2004, 00:00
- Location: Oops....wrong planet
- Jeff K
- The Original K
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:08
- Location: Pennsylvania USA
- Contact:
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Clint Planet wrote:Sometimes I think I'm so out of step with the good brethren of this board that I wonder how the hell I ever won this stupid competition. Tonight I'm embarrassed that I ever won it. I mean, what does that say about me, eh?
You and me, both. In fact, I'm going to ask that my Cup title be stripped because I don't want it anymore. Who was the runner up the first year? SBA? Well, he can have my crown. Congratulations, SBA.
(I believe I voted against you too, Andy )
the science eel experiment wrote:Jesus Christ can't save BCB, i believe i can.
- Jeff K
- The Original K
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:08
- Location: Pennsylvania USA
- Contact:
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Clint Planet wrote:(that's okay, Jeff, I voted against you, as well)
I think we just didn't want to face each other in the final round because we knew our lists are so much superior to everybody else's so we sought to eliminate each other before it got that far. At least that was my strategy. Unfortunately, the plan back-fired since we're both out.
the science eel experiment wrote:Jesus Christ can't save BCB, i believe i can.
- Jeff K
- The Original K
- Posts: 32699
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:08
- Location: Pennsylvania USA
- Contact:
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Clint Planet wrote:Yeah, we seriously need to rethink this one, Jeff.
I purposely vote for bad lists figuring that if they win, they'll be easier to beat when I have to face them in the later rounds. That's another reason why I didn't vote for you.
the science eel experiment wrote:Jesus Christ can't save BCB, i believe i can.
- fange
- 100% fangetastic
- Posts: 14171
- Joined: 20 Jan 2010, 11:30
- Location: 香港
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Oh well, ousted in round 3 - not too bad i guess, considering i got past Penk's fine list and that every track i picked is one close to my heart.
But i guess i'm lucky, i dig almost every style of music at least a little, so making a playlist just came down to throwing out a wide net in the direction of my albums and itunes, taking stock of what got landed, and then putting them into some kind of entertaining and thoughful order.
I would have liked to have put more jazz on my list, but that would've simply been a Cup deathwish - and as several have said before, it's the competition side of the Cup which gives it its special appeal for me, trying to choose songs you like that will strike a chord with others too.
Cheers for all those who voted for me, it's good to know i entertained at least some of you, and it's comforting - at least in a small fucking way - to know that the people who voted against me didn't seem to passionately hate too much of what was on there, but just seemed to like the other list/lists better. Or at least i'll take it that way.
WARNING - SOUR GRAPES
But, that said, it's still fucking annoying that i get beaten by a list that ends with Young's Albuquerque, Talking Heads' Heaven and The Pretenders' Message of Love. I mean, for fuck's sake people - sure, they're good songs, i like them ok too, though all three artists did better tunes - but after all the times you've heard them, endlessly replayed as the aural wallpaper of your long gone salad days, and on radio stations and stereos across the world ad nauseum to this day, did you really have to clutch at them so desperately above the lesser known delights i offered you...?
No, no you didn't... but fair play, and to the victor go the spoils; my opponent's list was pretty good except for that tepid triumvirate at the end, so sail on sailor, and may the sun's warm rays and fair weather greet you wherever you may voyage.
And in that spirit, here's a Message of Love to you, your list, and all who chose to sail on her...
But i guess i'm lucky, i dig almost every style of music at least a little, so making a playlist just came down to throwing out a wide net in the direction of my albums and itunes, taking stock of what got landed, and then putting them into some kind of entertaining and thoughful order.
I would have liked to have put more jazz on my list, but that would've simply been a Cup deathwish - and as several have said before, it's the competition side of the Cup which gives it its special appeal for me, trying to choose songs you like that will strike a chord with others too.
Cheers for all those who voted for me, it's good to know i entertained at least some of you, and it's comforting - at least in a small fucking way - to know that the people who voted against me didn't seem to passionately hate too much of what was on there, but just seemed to like the other list/lists better. Or at least i'll take it that way.
WARNING - SOUR GRAPES
But, that said, it's still fucking annoying that i get beaten by a list that ends with Young's Albuquerque, Talking Heads' Heaven and The Pretenders' Message of Love. I mean, for fuck's sake people - sure, they're good songs, i like them ok too, though all three artists did better tunes - but after all the times you've heard them, endlessly replayed as the aural wallpaper of your long gone salad days, and on radio stations and stereos across the world ad nauseum to this day, did you really have to clutch at them so desperately above the lesser known delights i offered you...?
No, no you didn't... but fair play, and to the victor go the spoils; my opponent's list was pretty good except for that tepid triumvirate at the end, so sail on sailor, and may the sun's warm rays and fair weather greet you wherever you may voyage.
And in that spirit, here's a Message of Love to you, your list, and all who chose to sail on her...
Jonny Spencer wrote:fange wrote:I've got my quad pants on and i'm ready for some Cock.
By CHRIST you're a man after my own sideways sausage, Ange!
- T. Willy Rye
- Spinner of crazy fuck-ass shit
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 21:41
- Location: Fogertyland
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
You're too kind Ange. This is what those no taste sailing motherfuckers deserve:
- Insouciant Western People
- Posts: 24653
- Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
- Location: The pit of propaganda
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
It's starting to look like I may soon be vacating this ridiculous charade.
And if I do, you fuckers are going to rue the day you provoked the wrath of twee.
And if I do, you fuckers are going to rue the day you provoked the wrath of twee.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.
- The Fish
- Beer Battered
- Posts: 13066
- Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 20:04
- Location: Sunny?Worthing
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
The Idiot wrote: you fuckers are going to rue the day you provoked the wrath of twee.
STEP AWAY FROM THE BUTTERFLY NET
We're way past rhubarb
- never/ever
- Posts: 26478
- Joined: 27 Jun 2008, 14:21
- Location: Journeying through a burning brain
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Fuck me. Is this all you lot can come up with after my fucking epic of a tirade?
You deserve to lose then.
You deserve to lose then.
kath wrote:i do not wanna buy the world a fucquin gotdamn coke.
- Loki
- The Goddess of Mischief
- Posts: 16204
- Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 06:34
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Jeff K wrote:Clint Planet wrote:Yeah, we seriously need to rethink this one, Jeff.
I purposely vote for bad lists figuring that if they win, they'll be easier to beat when I have to face them in the later rounds.
Me too.
AHA! Now we know why some of us are out already.
whodathunkit wrote: Somewhere it's always 1972.
- Diamond Dog
- "Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
- Posts: 69577
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
- Location: High On Poachers Hill
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
Backing Blair
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
French intransigence?
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.
It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
'Heavy price'
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
Public doubts
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.
I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Threat questioned
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Israeli breaches
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.
I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
Presidential differences
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
Backing Blair
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
French intransigence?
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.
It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
'Heavy price'
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
Public doubts
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.
I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Threat questioned
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Israeli breaches
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.
I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
Presidential differences
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine
Cocaine
- KeithPratt
- Arsehole all Erect
- Posts: 23901
- Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
- Contact:
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
B O R I N G
- Diamond Dog
- "Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
- Posts: 69577
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
- Location: High On Poachers Hill
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Who the fuck said it was supposed to be entertaining?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine
Cocaine
-
- Hippy Replacement
- Posts: 2535
- Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 08:58
- Location: At work
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Diamond Dog wrote:Who the fuck said it was supposed to be entertaining?
Are you talking about about your list?
He's an idiot savant. Without the savant.
- Loki
- The Goddess of Mischief
- Posts: 16204
- Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 06:34
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Diamond Dog wrote:This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.
I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.
None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.
On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.
I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.
Backing Blair
The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.
I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.
I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.
I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.
But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.
French intransigence?
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.
It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
'Heavy price'
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.
Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.
I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.
It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.
It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
Public doubts
The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
The threshold for war should always be high.
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.
I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Threat questioned
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
Israeli breaches
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.
I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
Presidential differences
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.
It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.
Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.
I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
tl;dr
whodathunkit wrote: Somewhere it's always 1972.
- Diamond Dog
- "Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
- Posts: 69577
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
- Location: High On Poachers Hill
Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn
Loki wrote:tl;dr
And this is supposed to concern me?
Nicotine, valium, vicadin, marijuana, ecstasy, and alcohol -
Cocaine
Cocaine