Jump to content

Chilcot Report


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report

 

Like everybody else I expected a white wash and was pleasantly surprised. Next step is to get him officially branded a war criminal and for some sort of punishment to be handed out, though I know his loathsome acolytes will be sure to fight that as hard as possible. All those who called it right at the time are vindicated, I see for one Gorgeous George is over the moon (funny how both him and Nigel got their victories at around the same time...).

 

So what do people think? Some might see it a bit odd a former leader is given such treatment but Blair, outside his pathetic cadre who worship him as St Tony, is very much hated in Great Britain. Some would say it isn't exactly his actions (which are worse than the norm) but because unlike say Brown who keeps a low profile, Tony Blair seems to love the limelight and oozes corruption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A silly report really. It was irrelevant who was running shit at the time. London knows that it must remain tied to the global sea power. So when Washington goes to war London follows. Its a geopolitical thing not a "who knew what about WMD at what time thing".

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A silly report really. It was irrelevant who was running shit at the time. London knows that it must remain tied to the global sea power. So when Washington goes to war London follows. Its a geopolitical thing not a "who knew what about WMD at what time thing".

 

The report addresses that and says that the claim that if Britain wasn't America's poodle then they'd lose "influence" (quotes considering America then regularly ignored Britain anyway, as that is what you do with poodles) was incorrect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then the authors are retarded.

 

America went on to regularly ignore and demean Britain's "influence" so them refusing was unlikely to matter, that is certainly with hindsight. However many on both the left and right at the time correctly called it, which is Britain could have turned it down fine and that of course it was a terrible move. 

 

Ultimately Blair was a good little poodle who told Bush he'd be with him no matter what, so Blair perhaps believes what you think. However Blairite views have been proven to be bankrupt time and time again so... I don't put stock in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting and incorrect analysis. However, even if it were true - Britain retains the second closest ally of the US, reuarly exercises with her, retains close political and inteligence sharing. So yeah Britan retains the alliance system to completely secure herself from any possible attack across the ocean which is her #2 geopolitical goal. The price of this is being tied to Washington. Blair is of little intrest to me frankly. Any leader would have done roughly the same.

Edited by LordRahl2

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting and incorrect analysis. However, even if it were true - Britain retains the second closest ally of the US, reuarly exercises with her, retains close political and inteligence sharing. So yeah Britan retains the alliance system to completely secure herself from any possible attack across the ocean which is her #2 geopolitical goal. The price of this is being tied to Washington. Blair is of little intrest to me frankly. Any leader would have done roughly the same.

 

Considering the report states that Britain joining had essentially no effect on the matter, I'd say it's up to you to prove otherwise. If Britain hadn't gone in and not quite frankly embarrassed itself, what would have changed? Would France be the number 1 poodle? Obviously not so who?

 

Also your last statement is complete poppycock. Jeremy Corbyn for one would not have taken that direction Blair did, it'd have been vastly different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the report states that Britain joining had essentially no effect on the matter, I'd say it's up to you to prove otherwise. If Britain hadn't gone in and not quite frankly embarrassed itself, what would have changed? Would France be the number 1 poodle? Obviously not so who?

 

Also your last statement is complete poppycock. Jeremy Corbyn for one would not have taken that direction Blair did, it'd have been vastly different. 

 

Why is up to me to prove that something is the way it is?  Britain did join.  London decided to do so in order to ensure the maintenance of an alliance vital Britain.  Britain remains in that alliance. Really it is that basic of an equation mate.

 

You are asking me to prove that they are still a five-eye country and that their alliances with Washington remain?  They do - its that simple. 

 

Or are you asking me to prove a counterfactual?  That cannot be done for your information.  I don't mind discussing counterfactuals from time to time but it is impossible to prove them.  Do I think it possible that Washington would reduce its commitments to Britain if London did not follow it into war?  Sure, that would be easy to postulate and pretty easy to come up with a series of lowered commitments.  It is almost certain that intel sharing would be reduced even if military alliances remained mostly unchanged (although those would over time).

 

Again as to your last.  Counterfactual statement again but I will bite a bit.  Person who you named, along with any other you come up with, would lead a State with the same capabilities as limitations as it had.  It is overwhelmingly probable that whatever slight variation in flavor existed at the top has little to do with the fundamentals facing the regime in London.  People and parties simply do not matter that much in such things.  (They do matter a bit more in domestic policies fwiw)

Frankly people that would not defend the core interests of a country with the overall stability of Britain simply do not become leaders of those States.

Edited by LordRahl2

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is up to me to prove that something is the way it is?  Britain did join.  London decided to do so in order to ensure the maintenance of an alliance vital Britain.  Britain remains in that alliance. Really it is that basic of an equation mate.

 

You are asking me to prove that they are still a five-eye country and that their alliances with Washington remain?  They do - its that simple. 

 

Or are you asking me to prove a counterfactual?  That cannot be done for your information.  I don't mind discussing counterfactuals from time to time but it is impossible to prove them.  Do I think it possible that Washington would reduce its commitments to Britain if London did not follow it into war?  Sure, that would be easy to postulate and pretty easy to come up with a series of lowered commitments.  It is almost certain that intel sharing would be reduced even if military alliances remained mostly unchanged (although those would over time).

 

Again as to your last.  Counterfactual statement again but I will bite a bit.  Person who you named, along with any other you come up with, would lead a State with the same capabilities as limitations as it had.  It is overwhelmingly probable that whatever slight variation in flavor existed at the top has little to do with the fundamentals facing the regime in London.  People and parties simply do not matter that much in such things.  (They do matter a bit more in domestic policies fwiw)

Frankly people that would not defend the core interests of a country with the overall stability of Britain simply do not become leaders of those States.

 

A lot of faffing about when it can be better be put more bluntly I think. 

 

What I asked yes was to prove if they hadn't done it what effect it would have, or rather for you present what exactly would change. Reduced intel sharing being a possibility certainly but... what else and would that have changed Britain's status as the "#1", and secondly how long would such a thing last especially if a terror attack later happened in Europe/Britain? Ultimately America would want to cooperate for their benefit then to hold some petty grudge, perhaps you disagree. 

 

I'm not seeing it. What you've essentially said is your statement is correct as anyone who'd do counter to what you've said would never be leader. It's all a bit weak I'd say. The likes of Corbyn and others have been enhanced not degraded for their refusal of what you've said, the supporting of so called "core interests" by bombing some forsaken place the Americans, the French, or whoever else decided needed to go.

Anyway he's ultimately is one of two people who'll be the next prime minister off a general election, he has good odds I'd say (if certain things are sorted anyway). I have no doubt were he in Blair's position he would have refused, perhaps even to the point of denouncing them, if that is America even bothered considering their "special relationship" would likely be in tatters beforehand anyway.

 

Also as we're talking personal views as you've dismissed the report in essence, I don't believe Blair did any such thing for the interest of the country. I'd go so far as to say considering the slime that oozes from his every pore he did it simply for his own future benefit, perhaps underestimating the backlash he would receive. However he's still made a fortune and I'm not sure if his damaged legacy matters to him much, he certainly had no problem damaging Socialism catastrophically and reducing Britain to a joke after all. At the very least also he still has his pathetic disciples who worship him as the second coming so I'm sure he's feeling dandy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of faffing about when it can be better be put more bluntly I think.

 

 

O.K.  I will put it bluntly.  London did precisely what London had to do.  London was constrained by its second geopolitical imperative - defending itself from attack from the sea.  London cannot guarantee that the world will remain as it is today with limited threats so must make or maintain an alliance with a State that can (or a series of States).  There is one and only one contender for that.  Given that London cannot take risk to such a core interest it didn't.  If any human was leading Britain he/she would face the exact same constraint.  Whatever that human  thought would be best is basically irrelevant.

 

Is that "faffing" or did I break it down enough?

 

As to the rest:

 

What I asked yes was to prove if they hadn't done it what effect it would have, or rather for you present what exactly would change. Reduced intel sharing being a possibility certainly but... what else and would that have changed Britain's status as the "#1", and secondly how long would such a thing last especially if a terror attack later happened in Europe/Britain? Ultimately America would want to cooperate for their benefit then to hold some petty grudge, perhaps you disagree. 

 

I'm not seeing it. What you've essentially said is your statement is correct as anyone who'd do counter to what you've said would never be leader. It's all a bit weak I'd say. The likes of Corbyn and others have been enhanced not degraded for their refusal of what you've said, the supporting of so called "core interests" by bombing some forsaken place the Americans, the French, or whoever else decided needed to go.

Anyway he's ultimately is one of two people who'll be the next prime minister off a general election, he has good odds I'd say (if certain things are sorted anyway). I have no doubt were he in Blair's position he would have refused, perhaps even to the point of denouncing them, if that is America even bothered considering their "special relationship" would likely be in tatters beforehand anyway.

 

Also as we're talking personal views as you've dismissed the report in essence, I don't believe Blair did any such thing for the interest of the country. I'd go so far as to say considering the slime that oozes from his every pore he did it simply for his own future benefit, perhaps underestimating the backlash he would receive. However he's still made a fortune and I'm not sure if his damaged legacy matters to him much, he certainly had no problem damaging Socialism catastrophically and reducing Britain to a joke after all. At the very least also he still has his pathetic disciples who worship him as the second coming so I'm sure he's feeling dandy. 

 

Yes you asked for, demanded really, a counterfactual proof.  Such a thing is impossible.  Is that clear?  Do you know what a counterfactual is?

That being said I provided two things that could have changed - current intel and possibly the alliance structure.  London can sacrifice the first.  It cannot risk the second.

 

Geopolitics trumps politics every single time.  You care very much about your "horse" and dislike the other politicians.  That is sorta like sports teams.  There is no rational reason to prefer one over the other most of the time.  People get really worked up about it though.  That analogy is a stretch I suppose - as I said politics has some impact on domestic policy within a narrow band.

 

Since when were "we" discussing personal views.  You certainly are.  I get it.  You like your guys and dislike the other guys.  That is interesting - well not really.  What it is is irrelevant.

 

As to competent people in stable States raising to leadership positions?  Yeah that happens as close to 100% of the time as to make it factual.  If your dude was in power he would have behaved so closely to the other dude as to the same as to make the outcome identical.  Actually, individuals are even less important to the debate as they operate within systems that put checks and balances on their behavior.

Sorry you don't believe it as it is not conductive to your team winning - that does not change the way these things actually work.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.K.  I will put it bluntly.  London did precisely what London had to do.  London was constrained by its second geopolitical imperative - defending itself from attack from the sea.  London cannot guarantee that the world will remain as it is today with limited threats so must make or maintain an alliance with a State that can (or a series of States).  There is one and only one contender for that.  Given that London cannot take risk to such a core interest it didn't.  If any human was leading Britain he/she would face the exact same constraint.  Whatever that human  thought would be best is basically irrelevant.

 

Is that "faffing" or did I break it down enough?

 

As to the rest:

 

 

Yes you asked for, demanded really, a counterfactual proof.  Such a thing is impossible.  Is that clear?  Do you know what a counterfactual is?

That being said I provided two things that could have changed - current intel and possibly the alliance structure.  London can sacrifice the first.  It cannot risk the second.

 

Geopolitics trumps politics every single time.  You care very much about your "horse" and dislike the other politicians.  That is sorta like sports teams.  There is no rational reason to prefer one over the other most of the time.  People get really worked up about it though.  That analogy is a stretch I suppose - as I said politics has some impact on domestic policy within a narrow band.

 

Since when were "we" discussing personal views.  You certainly are.  I get it.  You like your guys and dislike the other guys.  That is interesting - well not really.  What it is is irrelevant.

 

As to competent people in stable States raising to leadership positions?  Yeah that happens as close to 100% of the time as to make it factual.  If your dude was in power he would have behaved so closely to the other dude as to the same as to make the outcome identical.  Actually, individuals are even less important to the debate as they operate within systems that put checks and balances on their behavior.

Sorry you don't believe it as it is not conductive to your team winning - that does not change the way these things actually work.

 

That implies all such humans would see the situation like that and also have the exact same priorities. As anyone will tell you, they don't, but you seem to think otherwise.

 

Proof was perhaps the wrong word, but regardless considering the report has said your viewpoint is simply wrong I'd say it's in your court to defend your view and state how exactly Britain denying America would have changed things.

 

I want Labour annihilated, despise the Tories, and there are no words for the LibDems so no luv, it's not tribal politics with me. 

 

You've dismissed the report and are now repeating your own views as having some sort of higher authority or something to that effect. Fine if you can back it up meaningfully, but I do not think you have, I'm sure you disagree. 

 

Right. Which is why for Syria he was against it when the Tories and most of Labour was for it? I'm not sure what to call it, but there is some odd sort of nihilism or despair to your posting on the matter. Were we referring to a similar politician then I'd understand, take for example Cameron, he'd do exactly the same as Blair and everybody knows that, fine. So would Brown, so would Clegg, so would so on from a long list. However not everyone of which the mentioned example is one. Lets indulge a bit as you've done so by imagining he was leader, or rather indulging me by allowing that. Lets say George Galloway was Prime Minister instead, does he do the same also?

 

Of course you are attempting to take away the individual factor and trying to argue the "checks and balances" matter so best I address that. In reality Blair spat in the face of that, had already promised involvement, did not allow his cabinet to argue against the matter (purposely), got his media buddies to support him, politicians who attacked him were labeled mad/bad and sidelined/expelled, and then when he met resistance in large protests he simply ignored them. Ultimately nothing prevented Blair from carrying out what he wanted, thats not to say they don't exist, they do, but their existence doesn't not mean they're actually worth a damn all the time. Now are you saying if it were someone else, against the war, something would actually force him to go to war...? Would a million people march on the streets demanding Britain declare war on Iraq? What'd happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That implies all such humans would see the situation like that and also have the exact same priorities. As anyone will tell you, they don't, but you seem to think otherwise.

 

Proof was perhaps the wrong word, but regardless considering the report has said your viewpoint is simply wrong I'd say it's in your court to defend your view and state how exactly Britain denying America would have changed things.

 

I want Labour annihilated, despise the Tories, and there are no words for the LibDems so no luv, it's not tribal politics with me. 

 

You've dismissed the report and are now repeating your own views as having some sort of higher authority or something to that effect. Fine if you can back it up meaningfully, but I do not think you have, I'm sure you disagree. 

 

Right. Which is why for Syria he was against it when the Tories and most of Labour was for it? I'm not sure what to call it, but there is some odd sort of nihilism or despair to your posting on the matter. Were we referring to a similar politician then I'd understand, take for example Cameron, he'd do exactly the same as Blair and everybody knows that, fine. So would Brown, so would Clegg, so would so on from a long list. However not everyone of which the mentioned example is one. Lets indulge a bit as you've done so by imagining he was leader, or rather indulging me by allowing that. Lets say George Galloway was Prime Minister instead, does he do the same also?

 

Of course you are attempting to take away the individual factor and trying to argue the "checks and balances" matter so best I address that. In reality Blair spat in the face of that, had already promised involvement, did not allow his cabinet to argue against the matter (purposely), got his media buddies to support him, politicians who attacked him were labeled mad/bad and sidelined/expelled, and then when he met resistance in large protests he simply ignored them. Ultimately nothing prevented Blair from carrying out what he wanted, thats not to say they don't exist, they do, but their existence doesn't not mean they're actually worth a damn all the time. Now are you saying if it were someone else, against the war, something would actually force him to go to war...? Would a million people march on the streets demanding Britain declare war on Iraq? What'd happen?

 

Humans are not the actors here.  States are - regimes if you must.  And yeah they have the priorities that they have.

 

If "the report" only says that my retort is wrong then why do I have to "prove it".  Sounds like a strawman to me.  Tell the authors of the report to write better reports with more justification.

 

So you dislike all the sports teams.  Cool.

 

I provided my facts, which by the way comport with what ACTUALLY happened.  You dislike that my analysis disagrees with some report and think I have a moral obligation to do what?  Walk you through an entire course of instruction on International Relations, Geography, etc?  Or what?  I disagree that I have failed to explain my position -yes. 

 

What are you going on about irt Syria?  Despair or nihilism - that makes no sense as is.  Explain?  I am a realist.  I really do not care about politicians so I skipped to the end.  Would X do the same as Y given the same constants?  Yes.

 

As to regimes, what you call checks and balances, keep States actions rational?  Yes -they do.  It is their function.  They do so in a variety of ways but they do so.  Generally they don't take extreme actions because the constraints and requirements are known things.  What individuals do most often is provide advice in some form or another.  But if a leader was to threaten core interests then something would happen.

 

You want Leaders to matter more for some reason.  Really it is better that they do not as one thing that could be disastrous is a true rouge actor.  I cannot think of any in this category so it all good.  So there is my optimism.  If the world really was as chaotic as you seem to think we would be !@#$ed probably.

Edited by LordRahl2

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are not the actors here.  States are - regimes if you must.  And yeah they have the priorities that they have.

 

If "the report" only says that my retort is wrong then why do I have to "prove it".  Sounds like a strawman to me.  Tell the authors of the report to write better reports with more justification.

 

So you dislike all the sports teams.  Cool.

 

I provided my facts, which by the way comport with what ACTUALLY happened.  You dislike that my analysis disagrees with some report and think I have a moral obligation to do what?  Walk you through an entire course of instruction on International Relations, Geography, etc?  Or what?  I disagree that I have failed to explain my position -yes. 

 

What are you going on about irt Syria?  Despair or nihilism - that makes no sense as is.  Explain?  I am a realist.  I really do not care about politicians so I skipped to the end.  Would X do the same as Y given the same constants?  Yes.

 

As to do regimes, what you call checks and balances, keep States actions rational?  Yes -they do.  It is their function.  They do so in a variety of ways but they do so.  Generally they don't take extreme actions because the constraints and requirements are known things.  What individuals do most often is provide advice in some form or another.  But if a leader was to threaten core interests then something would happen.

 

You want Leaders to matter more for some reason.  Really it is better that they do not as one thing that could be disastrous is a true rouge actor.  I cannot think of any in this category so it all good.  So there is my optimism.  If the world really was as chaotic as you seem to think we would be !@#$ed probably.

 

It's evidence I can point to on the matter so I do, additionally considering it's the thread subject it has some added importance and including it keeps things on topic. 

 

Again, Blair imposed his will and the nation did as he wanted. 

 

So tell me, is there any right answer there? Being tribal means I'm bad. Not being tribal means I'm bad also it seems. As you're seemingly above it all please share your knowledge.

 

I have asked you quite simply to state what would occur in the case of a refusal and if that would remove Britain's "#1 position", it really is that simple. You always over-complicate things purposely perhaps believing complexity improves your posts or something. We've been through your talk here before, I understand, it's mostly irrelevant, just plainly answer the questions please.

 

I mentioned Nihilism/despair as your comment there had the smell of "it doesn't matter who the people in charge are, they're all the same/don't matter". As for Syria that was just me presenting a situation where he went against the "norm" and opposed it, however were he prime minster going by what you've said thus far he'd have done the same as Cameron...?

 

You've simply repeated yourself. Again, they were worthless in the face of Blair and if they were to Blair then they would to someone with views counter to Blair also as Blair had to deceptively do his business lets not forget.

 

... ? What I or you for that matter think on the mattering end, be it right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is reality. Reality is Blair imposed his will, something you have been stating is impossible as leaders don't matter apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It, the report, is not evidence unless it contains, ya know, evidence.  So yeah I have given up on it.

 

X imposed his will on an democratic society.  Hogwash as you would say.  If it was NK you would at least have an argument.

 

Thinking that "tribes" matter is the problem you are struggling with.

 

You asked.  I answered.  It really is not over complicated or complicated at all.  Here it is again if you would like to actually argue with my core argument:

London did precisely what London had to do.  London was constrained by its second geopolitical imperative - defending itself from attack from the sea.  London cannot guarantee that the world will remain as it is today with limited threats so must make or maintain an alliance with a State that can (or a series of States).  There is one and only one contender for that.  Given that London cannot take risk to such a core interest it didn't.  If any human was leading Britain he/she would face the exact same constraint.  Whatever that human  thought would be best is basically irrelevant.

 

The above is an argument.  It has facts and analysis.  Rather than say "complicated" and "make a simple argument" over and over again please read the above vastly simplified easy to understand argument.

Before you say "you have repeated yourself" - yes I have.  As have you over and over again and I am replying to you repeating yourself.  If you want to move forward then really reply to the above.

 

Nihilism/despair does not enter into it.  I desire to understand how shit actually works and pulling out all the hot air really helps.  I am actually pretty hopeful for the future based on my analysis of it - although there is suffering.  But there always is.  Less than in the past though.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It, the report, is not evidence unless it contains, ya know, evidence.  So yeah I have given up on it.

 

X imposed his will on an democratic society.  Hogwash as you would say.  If it was NK you would at least have an argument.

 

Thinking that "tribes" matter is the problem you are struggling with.

 

You asked.  I answered.  It really is not over complicated or complicated at all.  Here it is again if you would like to actually argue with my core argument:

London did precisely what London had to do.  London was constrained by its second geopolitical imperative - defending itself from attack from the sea.  London cannot guarantee that the world will remain as it is today with limited threats so must make or maintain an alliance with a State that can (or a series of States).  There is one and only one contender for that.  Given that London cannot take risk to such a core interest it didn't.  If any human was leading Britain he/she would face the exact same constraint.  Whatever that human  thought would be best is basically irrelevant.

 

The above is an argument.  It has facts and analysis.  Rather than say "complicated" and "make a simple argument" over and over again please read the above vastly simplified easy to understand argument.

Before you say "you have repeated yourself" - yes I have.  As have you over and over again and I am replying to you repeating yourself.  If you want to move forward then really reply to the above.

 

Nihilism/despair does not enter into it.  I desire to understand how shit actually works and pulling out all the hot air really helps.  I am actually pretty hopeful for the future based on my analysis of it - although there is suffering.  But there always is.  Less than in the past though.

 

7 years and millions in investigation is uh, well it was just a fun romp. I'll keep that in mind next time you post evidence on something. 

 

I've already laid out how he did it. He had the goal set out, intervention no matter what and no matter what came he achieved it. 

 

Blair told Bush he was with him whatever, that is not him acting in the interest of the country but sucking up to put it all common like, I'm sure you have a more valorous name for it. 

Iraq was no threat to Britain even with the information at the time and Blair massively exaggerated it, something in the report. 

 

Oh dear. Can you fly sir? How did you get so high up? I'll be the first to admit, there are groups I detest, that doesn't make you better than me. You try and maintain this aloof and detached view which you think makes you better than everyone else, though I'm sure you will deny it to again, be aloof and detached. It's twaddle, you're no better. 

 

You as usual are never satisfied with the question and thus I have to constantly repeat it in a more acceptable manner hoping you will actually one day get round to addressing it instead of presenting this needlessly droll guff. There is little point of course so I shalt not bother further on this, you shall never answer after all.

 

Would have more standing if you didn't constantly keep saying things discredited in the report, which FYI has been widely accepted in Britain. Blair could not drive (or impose his will as I put it in dramatic fashion) things according to you, the report says otherwise. Britain was threatened and had to take action, the report says that was nonsense even at the time with the information on hand. You say it would endanger the "special relationship", the report says thats nonsense and while you've gone round and round you've never given the simple answer to if Britain would drop out of that vaulted "#1 spot" or not and if so who'd be the replacement. 

 

I have a piece here which you disagree with, fine, you're free to and can argue against it. However your aloof "I'm so above it all and clever" responses are not evidence of any kind nor any strong argument for that matter. For someone who has the world all figured out why can you not answer plainly such simple questions? Why is it such a trek? Why is it you can dismiss what discredits your views, but you get to scorn others for doing the same as I've seen you do over how many months it's been? 

In short you can't accept that your world view that you believe you have all figured out is wrong on the matter. I'd have expected you to be able to be able to figure it out though perhaps your complexity addiction is tripping you up I don't know. I'm sure you'll figure it out eventually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Evidence" goes beyond "The report addresses that and says that the claim that if Britain wasn't America's poodle then they'd lose "influence" was incorrect"  I retort that they either did not say that, how you phrase it is incorrect or you left something out, or that there is simply no evidence in the report's statement.  If that is all they said than that is not evidence.

 

"He" acting as part of the London regime did plan to support Washington.  Again...as rational actors operating in support of Brian's vital interests -that is not valorous or otherwise.  It simply is.  Iraq was no threat to Britain -fine, however, losing Washington as an ally is a threat to Britain. Even a lessening of support is a threat to Britain.

 

I did not say I am superior or otherwise.  Why are you projecting that?  You asked, I answered.

 

Either you do not get my core analysis or you choose to ignore it.  If the former, what parts confuses you?

-The fact that the report disagrees with me is not evidence it is an appeal to authority fallacy.  Yet you cannot even outline why the authors reach that conclusion.

-The idea, true or not, that it is widely accepted is also a fallacy.  That a majority of people think something does not make it true or anything else really.

 

I have told you precisely why I disagree.  You asked for simplification/clarification and I provided it.  It is clinical(ish) analysis and if you feel that is too "aloof" and "clever" then fine.  I am unsure how tone impacts my argument.  Maybe I am dense - what question am I not answering?  Do you not feel that my series of statements of fact and supporting analysis are answering your question?

Let me try recapping the argument so far:

Me: It was irrelevant who was running shit at the time. London knows that it must remain tied to the global sea power. So when Washington goes to war London follows.

You: The report addresses that and says that it was incorrect.

Me: Silly.

You: Why?

Me: London did precisely what London had to do.  London was constrained by its second geopolitical imperative - defending itself from attack from the sea.  London cannot guarantee that the world will remain as it is today with limited threats so must make or maintain an alliance with a State that can (or a series of States).  There is one and only one contender for that.  Given that London cannot take risk to such a core interest it didn't.  If any human was leading Britain he/she would face the exact same constraint.  Whatever that human  thought would be best is basically irrelevant.

You: But the report disagrees. (nothing elucidating there)

 

That is about it really.  You are off saying that I am being too academic in what is really an academic debate.  Fine - sorry.

 

/////

 

Britain, btw, does not and did not have the closest alliance relationship with the US since you seem to care about the #1 thing.  Australia does and did. <---this is not really related to the debate at hand.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France and Germany gave the flip to Washington on the Irak thing, and remain key allies of the USA. Britain was under no imperative to follow the US in the attack of Irak, specially since she was under no pressure from any exterior threat of invasion whatsoever.

Edited by Ivan the Red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Evidence" goes beyond "The report addresses that and says that the claim that if Britain wasn't America's poodle then they'd lose "influence" was incorrect"  I retort that they either did not say that, how you phrase it is incorrect or you left something out, or that there is simply no evidence in the report's statement.  If that is all they said than that is not evidence.

 

"He" acting as part of the London regime did plan to support Washington.  Again...as rational actors operating in support of Brian's vital interests -that is not valorous or otherwise.  It simply is.  Iraq was no threat to Britain -fine, however, losing Washington as an ally is a threat to Britain. Even a lessening of support is a threat to Britain.

 

I did not say I am superior or otherwise.  Why are you projecting that?  You asked, I answered.

 

Either you do not get my core analysis or you choose to ignore it.  If the former, what parts confuses you?

-The fact that the report disagrees with me is not evidence it is an appeal to authority fallacy.  Yet you cannot even outline why the authors reach that conclusion.

-The idea, true or not, that it is widely accepted is also a fallacy.  That a majority of people think something does not make it true or anything else really.

 

I have told you precisely why I disagree.  You asked for simplification/clarification and I provided it.  It is clinical(ish) analysis and if you feel that is too "aloof" and "clever" then fine.  I am unsure how tone impacts my argument.  Maybe I am dense - what question am I not answering?  Do you not feel that my series of statements of fact and supporting analysis are answering your question?

Let me try recapping the argument so far:

Me: It was irrelevant who was running shit at the time. London knows that it must remain tied to the global sea power. So when Washington goes to war London follows.

You: The report addresses that and says that it was incorrect.

Me: Silly.

You: Why?

Me: London did precisely what London had to do.  London was constrained by its second geopolitical imperative - defending itself from attack from the sea.  London cannot guarantee that the world will remain as it is today with limited threats so must make or maintain an alliance with a State that can (or a series of States).  There is one and only one contender for that.  Given that London cannot take risk to such a core interest it didn't.  If any human was leading Britain he/she would face the exact same constraint.  Whatever that human  thought would be best is basically irrelevant.

You: But the report disagrees. (nothing elucidating there)

 

That is about it really.  You are off saying that I am being too academic in what is really an academic debate.  Fine - sorry.

 

/////

 

Britain, btw, does not and did not have the closest alliance relationship with the US since you seem to care about the #1 thing.  Australia does and did. <---this is not really related to the debate at hand.

 

Obviously they didn't say those exact words, I usually use more aggressive language and you know this, but the nature of what they said is obvious and I've directly said it several times in a standard manner. The report addresses that as nonsense and the reason I kept asking is because I was fully aware there was not a single country in Europe who could "replace" Britain in their spot. Still you maintain that they'd have lost it or was too important to risk when the report again states there was no danger of that. What is stated exactly is no fundamental or long lasting change would result from it, which does leave the door open for a short term change of course but America would get over it. If we were to change that from history would America today maintain a negative diplomatic stance with Britain. No doubt you'd say answering such a thing is impossible, but thats really ducking the very simple answer which is of course not. 

 

It's not a matter of being academic, often times thats how best to reach the answer. However you keep using it to hide from directly answering some very simple and easily reached conclusions. You're talking about geopolitical matters that have been judged irrelevant and still persist and pepper in some snide comments for me dismissing them. You use "London" to take the human element out, the Blair factor which has been deemed very important in the matter and have even said were it someone else it'd have been the same. Something I've seen you do over Syria for one which is fine when we don't know enough about the matter and ultimately we're talking personal views, though you see your analysis as somehow finer because you use certain terms. In this there has been the investigation and sad to say my more simple views on the reasons and the failings is correct. No machine in London carefully weighed everything and judged war was the option to take. A man in London decided he was going in for certain, bulldozed past the checks (some would say a murder occurred in this but lets leave that out), used obviously faulty data, made grandiose claims such as hyping up Iraq's capability when Iran, Libya, and North Korea were all bigger threats, and all the rest. "London" did not carefully weigh up matters which is exactly the issue, that problem you state of one man being a "rogue actor" is what occurred. One of the changes in response to the war was to involve many more people in the matter (politicians, attorney general, so on) and give them permission to speak up on the matter so this type of thing Blair did can't happen again.

 

Alright sure, I could not care less if America has a more favoured lackey. Not sure how that supports your position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously they didn't say those exact words, I usually use more aggressive language and you know this, but the nature of what they said is obvious and I've directly said it several times in a standard manner. The report addresses that as nonsense and the reason I kept asking is because I was fully aware there was not a single country in Europe who could "replace" Britain in their spot. Still you maintain that they'd have lost it or was too important to risk when the report again states there was no danger of that. What is stated exactly is no fundamental or long lasting change would result from it, which does leave the door open for a short term change of course but America would get over it. If we were to change that from history would America today maintain a negative diplomatic stance with Britain. No doubt you'd say answering such a thing is impossible, but thats really ducking the very simple answer which is of course not.

I agree. In fact, a lot of examples can be provided that discredit the idea that Britain had no option but to blindy follow Bush out of fear of losing protection from America:

 

1) When France refused to support the invasion of Irak, a lot of anti-french sentiment rose in the USA, and the republicans even renamed "french fries" as "feedom fries". In the end, that sentiment faded away, french fries are still called french fries, and when the french interests in Mali got threatened by islamic insurgents the US supported the french operation in Mali.

 

2) The spanish government initially supported the war on Irak. But when the spaniards voted that government out and the new administration pulled Spain out of Irak, I didn't see the US breaking ties with Spain or supporting Morocco's claim on the Canary Islands (or even Parsley Island) as reprisal.

 

...

 

Fact is, the american position in Irak was the diplomatically weak one. The UK could have taken the diplomatically strong option of the moment: reject the war like most of the NATO countries did. And the americans couldn't have afforded to break their relationship with UK, like they did not break with any of the many NATO countries who refused to get involved in that war.

Edited by Ivan the Red
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

France and Germany gave the flip to Washington on the Irak thing, and remain key allies of the USA. Britain was under no imperative to follow the US in the attack of Irak, specially since she was under no pressure from any exterior threat of invasion whatsoever.

Actually....with NATO moving toward disbanding I would argue that thwy do not.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously they didn't say those exact words, I usually use more aggressive language and you know this, but the nature of what they said is obvious and I've directly said it several times in a standard manner. The report addresses that as nonsense and the reason I kept asking is because I was fully aware there was not a single country in Europe who could "replace" Britain in their spot. Still you maintain that they'd have lost it or was too important to risk when the report again states there was no danger of that. What is stated exactly is no fundamental or long lasting change would result from it, which does leave the door open for a short term change of course but America would get over it. If we were to change that from history would America today maintain a negative diplomatic stance with Britain. No doubt you'd say answering such a thing is impossible, but thats really ducking the very simple answer which is of course not. 

 

It's not a matter of being academic, often times thats how best to reach the answer. However you keep using it to hide from directly answering some very simple and easily reached conclusions. You're talking about geopolitical matters that have been judged irrelevant and still persist and pepper in some snide comments for me dismissing them. You use "London" to take the human element out, the Blair factor which has been deemed very important in the matter and have even said were it someone else it'd have been the same. Something I've seen you do over Syria for one which is fine when we don't know enough about the matter and ultimately we're talking personal views, though you see your analysis as somehow finer because you use certain terms. In this there has been the investigation and sad to say my more simple views on the reasons and the failings is correct. No machine in London carefully weighed everything and judged war was the option to take. A man in London decided he was going in for certain, bulldozed past the checks (some would say a murder occurred in this but lets leave that out), used obviously faulty data, made grandiose claims such as hyping up Iraq's capability when Iran, Libya, and North Korea were all bigger threats, and all the rest. "London" did not carefully weigh up matters which is exactly the issue, that problem you state of one man being a "rogue actor" is what occurred. One of the changes in response to the war was to involve many more people in the matter (politicians, attorney general, so on) and give them permission to speak up on the matter so this type of thing Blair did can't happen again.

 

Alright sure, I could not care less if America has a more favoured lackey. Not sure how that supports your position. 

 

My goodness that is a lot of words.  Do you know what evidence is?

 

If I write a report and say "The sky is always orange."  and leave it at that then there is no evidence.  You cannot then use my report as evidence or support for an argument because it would be garbage.

 

If I write a report and say "The sky is always orange."  and take a picture of a sunset then the picture is evidence to support my claim. 

 

So....what evidence did the report use if any?  If none then you do not have a leg to stand on.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually....with NATO moving toward disbanding I would argue that thwy do not.

 

Ummm? I don't recall such serious talk on disbandment at the turn of the millennium. There is always such talk since the fall of the Soviet union but it's been mostly fringe stuff, it's certainly more mainstream now. 

 

My goodness that is a lot of words.  Do you know what evidence is?

 

If I write a report and say "The sky is always orange."  and leave it at that then there is no evidence.  You cannot then use my report as evidence or support for an argument because it would be garbage.

 

If I write a report and say "The sky is always orange."  and take a picture of a sunset then the picture is evidence to support my claim. 

 

So....what evidence did the report use if any?  If none then you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

Odd way to discredit. It was a investigation/Public inquiry/review over a period of several years on the information at the time, the people, and so forth costing millions with a lot of people involved. You talk as if the report consisted of a man sitting down and deciding "the report will say this". Confusing it for the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights I think.

Edited by Rozalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.