Category: News and Views
The Black Watch 1 of Scotland's finest regiments are to be deplyed in Iraq to help the beleagured americans,1 realises of course in the light of bush's refusal to deploy any more american soldiers in the run up to the election,that this move is nothing more than blair interfering in american politics,its true that the yanks are outnumbered,and stretched to capacity in fallujah BUT,why should that be our concern when so many of our fine young men have died fighting in what is after all a predominately american war.
you can bet that the Black Watch who have an illustrous record in war will be sidelined its ludicrous to expect T.B.W officers to stand back and while these crack troops are ordered about by americans and lets not forget the very real threat of friendly fire incendents involving T.B.W regiment when you give an american soldier a rifle everyone becomes a target.
Goblin, I absolutely agree with you, and I am mortified at the way that the Black watch is to be sold down the river by this deceitful, fraudulent government, not only be deploying them to Iraq when their leave is long overdue, but by stripping them of the name and the history of which they are so rightfully proud. aS for the American problem, I'm very sorry to have to say this, but it is of their own making to a great extent. One only has to look at the head of their forces who, on the capture of Saddam Hussein, opened his statement with the remark: 'Ladies and gentlemen, we got him!' I felt like throwing something at him, it was as if he was auditioning for an action film or something! America's president, basically, appoints gunho commanders to suit his own ideology, and these commanders are unable to empathise with the locals, and the result is contempt and disorder. So, Mr Bush, I say you should do without our help this time, we need to properly defend Basra for a start, and that includes providing reserves in case things get nasty. Nicholas Sones, the Shadow defence secretary, is quite right when he says that deploying extra troups to Iraq would leave Basra vulnerable. And finally, a word on the old line that America stood by us in the blitz which I'm sure will make an appearance soon: the answer to this is that they didn't, pure and simple. They sold us second-hand equipment which we could hardly afford whilstt in Britain, pilots were being shot down faster than they could be trained. Blair would once again be betraying the nation for the sake of the republican presidential nominee if Black Watch were to be deployed to Iraq.
Lawlord you hit the probervial nail right on the head. T.B.W have not only been betrayed by blair but now face an enemy they will be lucky to defeat,i cannot understand the thinking of blair and bush the deployment of T.B.W will only exacerbate the desperate situation in fallujah,and i cant help feeling that those lads have been sent to their deaths.
And i agree totally with what you said concerning America's childish view of Iraq,they stumbled blindly into a war with that reckless john wayne attitude and with no understanding of the enemy yet again its turned into another vietnam,
yet the gullible raised on violence and lies American public, seem more interested in following the pathetic election faisco than venting their disgust at the rising death toll among USA & Allied soldiers.
This war is an indictment on the USA and Britain and i for 1 feel nothing but contempt for the behaviour of both leaders
{i use that word in its broadest possible sense}.
Indeed yes, they are even beneath contempt I think now, and I notice today that Michael Howard forced Tony Blair to admit that there were mixed signals from his senior cabinet ministers over the decision on deployment. Apparently, Jack straw, best friend of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, said that a decision had already been taken as to deployment, whereas other cabinet members say that it hasn't. Michael howard made another cracking point today when he asked why, with 130000 American soldiers already there, the deployment of 650 further troops was so crucial. why indeed? The prime minister didn't tell us! I should also give credit to Charles Kennedy who's normally about as useful as a barbershop on the steps of the guillotine in prime minister's question time, for exposing the shocking truth that families of Black Watch members have already been emailed about deployment, these emails stating that their sons have been ordered back to Iraq! The fact is that nobody trusts the prime minister anymore, and the sooner he goes, and takes Bush with him, the better.
Yeah that's it, dump all over Tony Blair who is doing the best job he can in very difficult circumstances. If he does go, who will take his place? You can't seriously think that Michael the drip Howard would be a better candidate to run the country, I've never heard him make anything resembling a 'cracking point' you must have been dreaming....
Freya
Freya, all nonsense I'm afraid. Tony Blair holds the office he holds and must do his job, whatever the circumstances. I'd agree that he were doing the best job he could in the circumstances had he not acquiesced in every demand the Whitehouse makes; I'd agree that he were doing the best job he could if he'd been straight with parliament over the dodgy dossier; I'd agree he were doing the best job he could if he actually answered questions, not from the Tories, but from his own backbenchers. However, he falls short in all these areas, ergo, he's not doing the best job he could in difficult circumstances! he recklessly, if not knowingly, misled parliament; he now will not answer straightforward questions that were put to him today, quite legitimately; He treads roughshod all over his military advisors. Freya, I'm afraid you are very naive if you think that the decision is left to the military and the military alone. what happens is this: Tony makes a decision, then the civil servants have to fit their advice around it. that's what happened with the joint intelligence committee, and that's what's happening now. A senior official at Whitehall who recently left his post has described it as the 'tony wants' syndrome. Furthermore, isn't the fact that all you're saying is we shouldn't criticise him because he's doing a bloody difficult job in difficult circumstances indicative of the fact that he's incompetent, you know he is and you're deciding to give us this difficult circumstances idea as a last resort get-out clause? after all, that's what John Major said, and in fact many people throughout history have tried to mittigate their total lack of leadership by playing the difficult circumstances card once all other lines of escape have been exhausted. finally, a word about Michael Howard: you obviously closed your eyes to the Conservative party conference two weeks ago, where Michael Howard's speech was acknowledged as the most genuine, honest, moving speech of all the party leaders, by virtually all commentators across the entire political spectrum. Michael Howard is not all front and bluster, and if you go to the Conservative party website you will see that we are the only party that has set out coherently, week by week, what we will do if we win the next election. Now, what do you prefer? Do you prefer the silly mantrers that are Copyright Blair's Chronies Ltd, but no action? Or, do you want honest policies, not promising what we can't deliver? If you are going to indict Michael Howard, stick to the policies and then maybe we can have a discussion. but I'm wandering rather from the point, so just to recap: the fact that the circumstances are difficult is no excuse whatsoever for breathtaking incompetence, still less for recklessness or plain fraud.
One further point that I forgot to mention: Freya, you mention that I 'must have been dreaming' when I said that Michael Howard made a cracking point about the Iraq situation this morning. I can only conclude that you forgot what I had said in the entire passage from which you quote me: I explain, in that passage, why it was a cracking point - and you fail to rebut my observations in your condemnation of Michael Howard. I also mention that charles Kennedy raised concerns about emails received by Black Watch family-members which seem to substantiate, rather than refute, allegations of fraud or recklessness on the prime minister's part. again, let me suggest to you that this further undermines your already questionable defence of Tony blair.
There is no way on earth that Michael Howard will win the next election and as for moving speeches, there's only one way I'd be moving when he speaks. Tony Blair is an excellent speaker, he was in a difficult position and I defy Michael Howard to have done any different. He said at his conference that he could only do what he believed was right and he was glad he had rid the world of a cruel tyrant in Saddam, for that he should be applauded.
Freya
Freya, would that you were running our foreign policy, we might after all have an ethical one, and we'd doubtless spend all our time removing regimes that we don't like. however, you and I know, and more importantly, the prime minister knows, that regime change is not an excuse for war, it is not sufficient reason for a war to be prosecuted. You mention Tony Blair's conference speech: interesting, isn't it, that Tony blair's advisors thought he should say sorry, Tony Blair's ministers thought he should say sorry, but Tony blair removed all occurrences of the word 'sorry' from his speech? All he said was, 'I could apologise' and that was the last we heard of it! AS for his pious exhortation that he thought it was right to rid the world of a tyrant and he still thinks it is the right thing to do, all I can say, Freya, is that if you're still taken in by all that soft soap then you're among precious few in the country who are. What about Zimbabwe? Is turning a blind eye to one of our commonwealth friends and former colonies the right thing to do? is Jack straw shaking hands with the leader of a regime that we all despise the right thing to do? don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we declare war on Zimbabwe now, but the key point is that if Tony Blair has changed his position, as you state he has, to one of going to war purely to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, then that is far from satisfactory and we should deplore rather than welcome it. Moreover, So what if he believed it was right? Many people in his own party, yes, his own party, didn't believe it was right, and the outcome of the vote was questionable. so what does he do? He gets the dodgy dossier sexed up so that he can be more certain of a victory in the vote. Moreover, he keeps assuring MP's that no decision has been taken over the deployment of Black Watch soldiers, but at the same time emails are being received by their families. i notice that once again you respond to none of the points I make about the Black Watch, nor do you make any constructive attempt to explain to me why I am wrong about Tony, and wrong to trust Michael Howard. all you do is blindly and without any supporting evidence assert that Michael Howard will never win the next election, followed by some facile nonsense about there only being one way you'd move at his conference speech. There is no comment on the substance, no comment on the issues raised by this discussion, but instead, convenient tabloid-style skirting around the issues for the sake of convenience. I repeat, if you want to rebut the observations of those of us opposed to you in this debate, you really must make your criticism more focused and constructive, then perhaps you might get some concessions to the effect that Blair is doing better than we all supposed.
Lawlord
yet again i agree
I was stunned to hear last nigfht that the deployment was agreed upon last week! And what a callous and cowardly way to inform the families of T.B.W soldiers that their men were expected in Iraq to help the Americans,{who seem incapable of making any headway at all in any conflict they see fit to start}learning of their fate thru Email is beyond comprehension even a meeting with Geoff Hoon would have been better,if unproductive.
The crazy thing is The Black Watch among others, are under threat here from government cut backs in certain regiments they may after bailing out the yanks find themselves extinct on the whim of this corrupt and frankly frightening government.
Wake up and smell the coffee Lawlord! Of course Michael Howard won't win the next election....and if you are going to accuse me of writing 'facile nonsense' then I shall say the same to you. Nothing I write is 'tabloid style' but I'm sure you get hours of fun out of reading The Sun.
Freya
Blair faces a 45% revold against T.B.W being deployed in Iraq if he loses this vote it could mean the decision is revoked and he will have to come up or rather his forelock tugging cowards laughably called the cabinet will need to arrange some viable excuse for yet another massive embarrassment,i wonder how those cowards sleep at night.
Dont get me wrong in NO tory but Lawlord you talk sense and i admire someone with the courage of their convictions.
Freya, I do not read The Sun. Sorry to disappoint you. Yet again, however, you've given us the Freya treatment we're all beginning to know, but not necessarily love. You keep telling me that Michael Howard won't win the next election, but you won't say why! I repeat, you won't say why! You won't say what's wrong with his policies or anything of that sort, but your best shot is accusing a loyal Telegraph reader like myself of reading The sun? But hey, that's for another discussion and in any case I'm sure your response will be simply to assert that Michael Howard won't win the election without any reference to content. goblin, I agree with you about the disgraceful way that the Black Watch is being sold down the river by this government. I think we might differ as to whether a vote on troop deployment is required though. I Personally would not agree with your call to have a vote, if that is what it is, because I don't think that parliament should vote on strategic troop deployments which, after all, take place every day. I can well understand the disquiet though, and if you were to say that this is an exceptional case where there really should be a vote even though normally there isn't one, due to the fact that there is a climate of mefiance surrounding this whole affair, I would find it very difficult to disagree with that and would probably have to concede the point. I certainly think it is amazing and extraordinary that, out of the 130000 American troops in Iraq, only a third are fit for combat! Only a third fir for combat? Do the rest make the coffee or something? that's a good one! hehehehehe! Also, did you notice that Geoff Hoom refused to detail this afternoon who would be deployed in place of the Black Watch at Christmas? He doesn't have a clue about their replacement, ergo I think that the prime minister's rather rash promise yesterday that black Watch would be home by Christmas, which incidentally is what Asquith said in 1914 at the start of the first world war, will be another broken promise from this broken government.
Lawlord, Michael Howard won't win the next election because no-one except you will vote for him yes? Seriously though, you can't tell me that MH will stick to every one of his promises/policies if and when he did get elected? Also I believe he would have done just the same as Blair if he was PM when the war broke out, I'm sure he would be toadying up to Bush in just the same way eh....? I can't believe you read the Telegraph, that's even worse than the Sun!! How about a decent paper with some intelligent articles in it like ...The Guardian for instance?
Frey.
Lawlord i almost choked on my espresso {made by our Italian coffee machine and not my unemployed gun shy yankee soldier}when i heard that ridiculous promise it shows blair's reckless and frivilous attitude towards T.B.W,maybe the deployment rankles because he knows this decision among many may well cost him the election and if any of T.B.W are killed either by Iraqi forces or god forbid the americans, will his answer be "thats an acceptable level of collateral damage?"
I too find it inconcievable that a large proportion of american troops are unable to fight,what do they do to these mummys boys before sending them to war,"love your rifle it will keep you alive and here's a cuddle son NOW! your mom's watching so give her something to be proud of boy!" .
Freya, why oh why do you persist in this belief that Michael howard won't keep to his promises? If he doesn't, you can vote him out! There's a timetable for action up there, week by week, telling you what is going to happen, that's more than any other party has done! And as for the war, Howard already has a record of standing up to George W bush. Only a few weeks ago when the fat oaf of a president tried to intervene in british politics, it was not the prime minister who told him to sod off, but the leader of Her Majesty's official opposotion, Michael Howard. As for the reference to 'mummy's boys' Goblin, you are quite right. The Americans don't understand what 'peace-keeping force' means. No, for Bush they're still destroying the terrorists with their evil plan.
A few things: first, I do know how to spell opposition before anyone points that out! second, when I referred to 'evil plan' earlier on I was of course paraphrasing Mr Bush, who talked of the terrorists' evil plan on the television. This really does prompt a few questions though, doesn't it? I mean, surely the phrase 'evil plan' is more appropriate in kids programmes, not in a speech to congress! Can we really trust a leader whose intelligence and vocabulary are so limited to know what he's doing with our most respected and historic Black Watch?
He Referred to the Iraqi people as and i quote "A bunch of folks"
Alex picks himself up off the floor and tries to catch his breath...ohh my aching sides.
MY brother and you should hear him on this subject,wouldnt trust bush to amuse his 19 month old son Louis!.
It must be clear to everyone by now when Colin Powell removes his hand from the glove puppet's arse the damned thing falls apart.
Hi Lawlord and Goblin, I couldn't agree more with what you say about this war, althugh I am not and never will support conservatives due to my own personal opinions/believes doesn't, of course, mean that I can't agree with what you say. I think the way T.B.w situation was handled was disgracefull, just like anything else was regarding this war and our government. And yes, I totally agree that calling something evil plans as Bush referes is really so uninteligent for a president. I also never ever agreed with all this so called war on teorisam. As discussed in another topic, it's amaizing how only certain countries/military forces are regarded as terorists, yet others who apply same if not worse strategies are not simply because they get support of american government. Besides, how the hell do you win a war against teorisam, terorisam is not a country. How do you know when this war is won? And don't give me answer "when we defete alcaida and Binladin" because he and his network are not only terorists in the world. Till recently IRA was regarded as a terorist organisation, is this war aimed at them too? I don't want to get in to discussion of IRA's manifesto and if it's wright or wrong, it's totally different subject and everyone have thier own opinions about it, but the fact is, they were terorists. This term of war against terorisam is so loos and vage and it's just an excuse for Bush to go around the world and fight his wars in the name of Israel.