quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Your point is not terribly clear to me Moonhead.

Are you saying that Haliburton is running the UK's so-called 'independent deterrent' system Trident? It's not beyond the realms of possibility but I'm going to need a bit of convincing that Trident isn't under direct Min. of Defence control.

If the answer is yes, do you have a link that offers full details? I would be shocked if it turns out to be the case that Haliburton, with its reputation, has access to nuclear weapons. Isn't the point of the so-called 'War on Terror' precisely to deny such access to non-State actors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

That isn't what I was arguing.
There's no question that Blair was a willing participant in this foolishness (as was most of his cabinet), but the fact that the contract to supply the Trident hardware was up for review in 2004 may well have had something to do with Blair's insistence that MI5 forge evidence to support Bush's claims. The fucker was obviously desperate to ingatiate himself to the chimp, even if he pissed off the whole of the EEC doing so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Your point is not terribly clear to me Moonhead.

Are you saying that Haliburton is running the UK's so-called 'independent deterrent' system Trident? It's not beyond the realms of possibility but I'm going to need a bit of convincing that Trident isn't under direct Min. of Defence control.

If the answer is yes, do you have a link that offers full details? I would be shocked if it turns out to be the case that Haliburton, with its reputation, has access to nuclear weapons. Isn't the point of the so-called 'War on Terror' precisely to deny such access to non-State actors?

There was quite a bit about this in the New Statesman at the time. I suggest you have a look at their website.

As for Haliburton, they run the drydock that maintains the Trident submarines, and assemble the missiles. No part of the Trident system is manufactured, or even assembled in the UK. Whatever FQ believes, that does give the Americans an unhealthy influence on UK foreign policy. It's definitely visible if you compare the turn that's taken since the adoption of Thatcher's "independent nuclear deterrent"to the slightly more independent stance Wilson and Heath took.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Your point is not terribly clear to me Moonhead.

Are you saying that Haliburton is running the UK's so-called 'independent deterrent' system Trident? It's not beyond the realms of possibility but I'm going to need a bit of convincing that Trident isn't under direct Min. of Defence control.

If the answer is yes, do you have a link that offers full details? I would be shocked if it turns out to be the case that Haliburton, with its reputation, has access to nuclear weapons. Isn't the point of the so-called 'War on Terror' precisely to deny such access to non-State actors?

There was quite a bit about this in the New Statesman at the time. I suggest you have a look at their website.

As for Haliburton, they run the drydock that maintains the Trident submarines, and assemble the missiles. No part of the Trident system is manufactured, or even assembled in the UK. Whatever FQ believes, that does give the Americans an unhealthy influence on UK foreign policy. It's definitely visible if you compare the turn that's taken since the adoption of Thatcher's "independent nuclear deterrent"to the slightly more independent stance Wilson and Heath took.

Thanks for the link. http://www.newstatesman.com/200603270008

I've just finished reading it. Eye-opening to say the least. It does open up the possibility of viewing Blair's supine acquiescence to Bush on Iraq II in a very different light.

Any defence system is only as good as the hands that control and direct it. Blair may have thought that in order for the UK to maintain any credibility as a world power (ie nuclear deterrence) he had to play along with GWB's Iraqi delusions. Or lose control of UK defence forever .....

While this perspective does have relevance, on Iraq, Blair didn't give the impression of a reluctant ally dragged along by forces he daren't oppose. His position of Iraq was whole hearted, enthusiastic even. To this day he hasn't recanted, not even an iota.

It's another piece in the jigsaw perhaps? Hows about this view:

Blair faced with an offer he couldn't refuse, decided to try to make the best of it and use it as a springboard to project himself into a position of leadership as the person holding the US-European alliance together? It seems to tick all the boxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

I think he is claiming Bush blackmailed Blair with cancellation of the Trident program, in order to show Blair was subservient to the United States in going to war in Iraq.

Much of UK is still in denial over their role in the Iraqi war, so have to paint Bush as controlling Blair, and Blair as the lone wolf who though some sort of magic then made the rubes in the UK government blindly follow the US into the war.

As the actual history of the thing is showing a materially different view of the matter then the UK pop culture and mythos does, and the ruling classes in the UK were as raring to go as their counterparts in the United States were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

I think he is claiming Bush blackmailed Blair with cancellation of the Trident program, in order to show Blair was subservient to the United States in going to war in Iraq.

Much of UK is still in denial over their role in the Iraqi war, so have to paint Bush as controlling Blair, and Blair as the lone wolf who though some sort of magic then made the rubes in the UK government blindly follow the US into the war.

As the actual history of the thing is showing a materially different view of the matter then the UK pop culture and mythos does, and the ruling classes in the UK were as raring to go as their counterparts in the United States were.

Your view is simplistic and omits the fact that Blair lied to Parliament and the people of the UK. The press were spoonfed stories to get the public onside. Hardly anyone in the UK was in favour of the Iraq war, not the people, not the press and certainly not Parliament. Blair may have had his own agenda, with the backing of some of his own officials, it wasnt then, and isnt now, the view held in the Country. Indeed there was an anti-war march in London of at least one million people, maybe even two million. I am unsure what evidence you have to back up your assertion, more so since you claim "actual history shows"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker
I think he is claiming Bush blackmailed Blair with cancellation of the Trident program, in order to show Blair was subservient to the United States in going to war in Iraq.

Much of UK is still in denial over their role in the Iraqi war, so have to paint Bush as controlling Blair, and Blair as the lone wolf who though some sort of magic then made the rubes in the UK government blindly follow the US into the war.

As the actual history of the thing is showing a materially different view of the matter then the UK pop culture and mythos does, and the ruling classes in the UK were as raring to go as their counterparts in the United States were.

Your view is simplistic and omits the fact that Blair lied to Parliament and the people of the UK. The press were spoonfed stories to get the public onside. Hardly anyone in the UK was in favour of the Iraq war, not the people, not the press and certainly not Parliament. Blair may have had his own agenda, with the backing of some of his own officials, it wasnt then, and isnt now, the view held in the Country. Indeed there was an anti-war march in London of at least one million people, maybe even two million. I am unsure what evidence you have to back up your assertion, more so since you claim "actual history shows"

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

Do you really think the MOD and MI6 were unaware of the duplicity? And yes I can stand by the fact that your ruling class was supportive of the deal. The press was controlled by who again? More of Murdoch's handiwork doubtless. The Seven Sisters were licking their lips, with the dwindling oil reserves in non-governmental hands world wide, having a free shot at the mother lode in Iraq was all the incentive the multinationals based in London needed.

As I noted, Parliament was entertaining war authorizations motions regarding Iraq back in the 1998-99 years. And the final vote was -

"Mr Blair suffered the greatest parliamentary revolt of his premiership when 139 of his party colleagues voted for an amendment saying the case for war was not yet proven.

But the government still managed to beat the rebel amendment and see its own motion supporting the use of UK forces in Iraq passed by a large majority - 412 to 149. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2862749.stm

Sure a million marched in the UK. More marched in the United States. But to make this as how the hapless British public was dragged kicking and screaming into the war simply was not the case. We had Brits logging onto the CBC and telling us we were cowards and everything else for not getting into it ourselves.

So no, painting the UK's entry into Iraq as the work of Blair and a couple officials overpowering everyone else in the UK is not realistic. Lying to everyone and having his government and the mandarins in the Civil Service in chahoots, with the aid and complicity of the press and corporate leadership might be a better description.

But this picture of the browbeaten poor little Tony cracking the whip and while having a revolt in his own party still getting itt through Parliament while the press and government beamed on all due to the sinister manipulations done by the crafty Bush the Younger is ludicrous. If the British are that big a bunch of naive wimps, you have other problems.

Sure, Labour got you into it with complicity from the Crown, the opposition, the corporate press, and oligarchs. And the lot did not do it to merely to please Bush and the neocons, they did so for their own reasons.

The UK should looking at who planned this, who implemented it, and who profited from it, instead of pity mongering. And Blair seems to be the one dancing off into the sunset.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker

Do you really think the MOD and MI6 were unaware of the duplicity? And yes I can stand by the fact that your ruling class was supportive of the deal. The press was controlled by who again? More of Murdoch's handiwork doubtless. The Seven Sisters were licking their lips, with the dwindling oil reserves in non-governmental hands world wide, having a free shot at the mother lode in Iraq was all the incentive the multinationals based in London needed.

As I noted, Parliament was entertaining war authorizations motions regarding Iraq back in the 1998-99 years. And the final vote was -

"Mr Blair suffered the greatest parliamentary revolt of his premiership when 139 of his party colleagues voted for an amendment saying the case for war was not yet proven.

But the government still managed to beat the rebel amendment and see its own motion supporting the use of UK forces in Iraq passed by a large majority - 412 to 149. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2862749.stm

Sure a million marched in the UK. More marched in the United States. But to make this as how the hapless British public was dragged kicking and screaming into the war simply was not the case. We had Brits logging onto the CBC and telling us we were cowards and everything else for not getting into it ourselves.

So no, painting the UK's entry into Iraq as the work of Blair and a couple officials overpowering everyone else in the UK is not realistic. Lying to everyone and having his government and the mandarins in the Civil Service in chahoots, with the aid and complicity of the press and corporate leadership might be a better description.

But this picture of the browbeaten poor little Tony cracking the whip and while having a revolt in his own party still getting itt through Parliament while the press and government beamed on all due to the sinister manipulations done by the crafty Bush the Younger is ludicrous. If the British are that big a bunch of naive wimps, you have other problems.

Sure, Labour got you into it with complicity from the Crown, the opposition, the corporate press, and oligarchs. And the lot did not do it to merely to please Bush and the neocons, they did so for their own reasons.

The UK should looking at who planned this, who implemented it, and who profited from it, instead of pity mongering. And Blair seems to be the one dancing off into the sunset.

There was no complicity from the Crown (I take it you are on about the civil service and not the Royals). They (Civil service) only have the power to advise Parliament, as do the MOD. Ultimately the ONLY people capable of taking us to war are the Paliamentarians. I dont wish to sound overly antogonistic but you are wide of the mark in your assertions, or at least in your view of what was going on in the UK at the time. Again, and any UK poster will tell you, there was no clamour for war. The only reason the press, and indeed most MPs got onside was due to spin on behalf of the Labour party. A few posts on the net by a handful of Brits doesnt equate to the reality in the streets.

We are almost at the end of an Inquiry into the Iraq war and I have seen no mention of influence put on Blair by either the press or business leaders. Sure the intelligence services knew the info was at best suspect and at worst a lie. They have told the inquiry openly that Blair was informed of this. I have made no sceret of my scant regard for Blair or brown on these fora, so I cant be accused of defending them. One other point, I wouldnt read too much into David Shaylers uncorroborated claim that Blair was ever in MI5, I only wish it were true, since I could then dislike him some more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker
You seriously underestimate Tony Blair.

As I noted earlier, he is the only one coming out atop the thing. Bush is hiding in Texas, Howard has been given the political equivalent of the retiring major's last post, while Blair is a shoein for the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

And Blair is no slouch at premeditatedly  sticking a knife in his associates back for his own benefit either. For instance, he joined the Labour party as an MI5 informer whose role was to report on the doings of certain Labour groups. But then he is a tw00 believer too, look at his talk about crusades, and other things he said.  In short the kind of man who once he believes in something, thinks it's ends justify any means.

I think he could have cared less about any missiles, not that the United States would not fork more over for a fee . . .

The man was a paladin on a mission.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker
You seriously underestimate Tony Blair.

As I noted earlier, he is the only one coming out atop the thing. Bush is hiding in Texas, Howard has been given the political equivalent of the retiring major's last post, while Blair is a shoein for the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

And Blair is no slouch at premeditatedly  sticking a knife in his associates back for his own benefit either. For instance, he joined the Labour party as an MI5 informer whose role was to report on the doings of certain Labour groups. But then he is a tw00 believer too, look at his talk about crusades, and other things he said.  In short the kind of man who once he believes in something, thinks it's ends justify any means.

I think he could have cared less about any missiles, not that the United States would not fork more over for a fee . . .

The man was a paladin on a mission.

We'll have to agree to differ on this, I feel.
If Blair came out of the invasion of Iraq better than the chimp did, why does no UK company have any rights to exploit the Iraqi oil fields? Do you really feel he's happier in his 'roving middle east cheerleader for Israel" diplomatic role than he would have been in the EU president position that his public perception as the chimp's bitch guaranteed he would never have a chance of getting?
He dragged his country into a war that it's got fuck all out of besides a few bombings and a weapon expert committing suicide. If we were getting anything out of the arrangement, I could buy your argument that Blair's done better out of it than the companies that are actually getting the oil, but as things stand, it doesn't really come across as a big win for Blair or his country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirstQuaker
Yes I was referring to the Civil List mandarins and their peers as the Crown.

But that none of them came forward and advised Parliament is itself funny and not in a humorous way. The fools come out of the woodwork ever time something else happens,or the current the government does they don't like, usually going to the oppositions favorite press with it  too. Look at the ongoing whinging over the defense cuts and the review for instance, and everyone form the Archie down has been on about education's supposed downfall under the Tory rule.

As for Blair and Shayler, note Blair did not deny anything, merely D-listed the trial proceedings and testimony. There is othe rmaterial along those lines on some of your conspiracy theorist's blogs also. But presumably Shayler woudl face a perjury charge if it was a false accusation.