Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2842353.stm

quote:

---

On Tuesday US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sparked diplomatic confusion by suggesting the US had alternative plans if there was no second UN resolution and the UK decided not to go to war with Iraq.

The remarks - later retracted - caused shock and surprise in Downing Street, which chose to focus on continuing efforts to secure a new United Nations resolution.

---

Last edited by philjit on 03-12-2003 at 11:24 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Claire's not there, and Iain Ducnan Smith just scored a fucking lovely hit on the Prime Minister for the first time that I can recall. Fucking hilarious and fucking beautiful.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

Way to fucking go Rumsfeld.

If he really said that, he couldn't have timed fucking Blair up any better; this could give further encouragement to the people in the Labour party looking for Blair's head, and it will hearten France and Germany and Russia who are opposing speedy military action against Iraq.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

reuters


"I think until we know what the (U.N.) resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be," Rumsfeld said.

"And to the extent they are able to participate -- in the event that the president decides to use force -- that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are work-arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase..."

"That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume," he said in comments that one U.S. defense official said later caused "a firestorm" of reaction from British officials.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

Note that he did in fact retract the remark and clarify what he was saying.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

That doesn't really matter. He must know that this has weakened Blair's position; the simplest explanations are that either he did it deliberately and he is a conniving backstabbing bastard (or whoever told him to is one) or he fucked up with damaging consequences, in which case he should keep his mouth shut in general. Life isn't looking so good for Blair (unless maybe this is some cunning plan of his with purposes that I can't discern).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

oh I agree smug. Just wanted to point out that he did clarify his statement. He's a diplomatic headache without a doubt.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10150

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
... the simplest explanations are that either he did it deliberately and he is a conniving backstabbing bastard (or whoever told him to is one)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

I've decided that i'm fully for this war and I hope the Labour party gets the shit kicked out of it at the next election. The war is going to happen whether we are there or not. What is happening in the labour party at the moment is short sighted and does not take into account the full strategic consequences not only for the gulf but also for Europe and new emerging power blocs. They are pandering to the lowest common denominator of public sentiment when they should be thinking about Britain's role in this world over the next 50-100 years and how it sees itself. Tony blair states that he wanted Britain to be a force for good. The way the labour party is sticking the boot in, and the way that the Lib Dems have seized any opportunity to ally themselves to sentiment is despicable. Claire short has taken a calculated gamble and put herself in a position erarly, from which she can garner the support of a majority of Lab MP's and Trades Union officials when she runs for leadership. Stupid bitch. This sort of fucking around at this time is dangerous. If you are going to cross a road in heavy traffic you pick your moment and run. You dont sprint halfway and then stop dead in the middle, waiting to get marmalised.

Oh, and get ready for a chemical/biological attack at some point in the next year. Thats official.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by MstrG
I think there's an even simpler explanation, by lopping off the second statement in your first theory above. Given events over the past couple days, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if this fits into an overall strategy to make things as confusing as possible for Saddam and heighten his (and his military's) anxiety level. We have multiple "move" dates being thrown about at the UN, anywhere from March 17 to some time in April. We have the testing of the MOAB and the immediate release of said video footage to the media. We have the attacks on Blix. Lots of things are happening that don't have to happen, but end up obscuring Hussein's view of reality.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35656

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkyrooster
Oh, and get ready for a chemical/biological attack at some point in the next year. Thats official.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkyrooster
What is happening in the labour party at the moment is short sighted and does not take into account the full strategic consequences not only for the gulf but also for Europe and new emerging power blocs. They are pandering to the lowest common denominator of public sentiment when they should be thinking about Britain's role in this world over the next 50-100 years and how it sees itself.

---

Last edited by philjit on 03-12-2003 at 03:17 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2002
Location: Just to the right of the moon
Posts: 3141

This morning I attended a lecture by Prof Paul Rodgers, an authority on global terrorism. His audience was myself and 350 senior military officers from across the globe and from all three services ranging in rank from Major to Air Vice Marshal (Lt General). He had a few things to say

1) With regards to international terrorism, we are about 15 years into a 50 year cycle
2) He state that he met with heads/ex-heads of the security services of the US, Britian and some Western European powers behind closed doors a few weeks ago. Chatham house rules apply so he couldn't say much, but he said that the concensus was definite, and it foresaw with certainty a major attack within the next year or so. Four attacks have already been intercepted in the UK alone
3) that the audience would spend the rest of its careers combating this menace and thinking of new ways to do this

He also went into a lot of the general global-strategic stuff pursued by the present US administration and what this means for the gulf

Interesting stuff but a bit of a downer when you've only just had your breakfast.

Anyway, like I say, the Labour Party should get up off its fat arse and realise that its a dangerous world out there and we need to be proactive about it

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged