Um, who is exactly controlling Britain (UK)

[savemefromdumbya]

So, Britain is going to be the next state of the America? I don't think the majority of the UK realise that they are ruled by King George.


Straw was pushed by bush

"Two London papers have speculated this weekend that complaints by President George W. Bush forced a British minister from his post because of his opposition to the use of nuclear force against Iran.

The Independent suggests that a phone call from the U.S. president to British Prime Minister Tony Blair led to the removal of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Friday.

The newspaper reports that friends of Straw believe Mr. Bush was extremely upset when Straw pronounced any use of nuclear weapons against Iran "nuts."

Both The Independent and the Guardian write that Straw's "fate was sealed" after a White House phone call to Blair."

when will they stop meddling? and what does it mean for iran? i shudder to think,


http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/05/straw-was-pushed-by-bush.html

[AndyTiedye]

1. Unfortunately Boosh** Really Is Crazy Enough To Do It

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[ediedidcare]

2. hopefully the upheaval will expose

the 7/7 terror conspiracy.
Exercises in the same stations at the same time?
UNBELIEVABLE!

[mr blur]

6. The IS NO 7/7 terror conspiracy.

Get a grip.
Or keep your conspiracy theories for the US where you may find enough people to believe them.

[savemefromdumbya]

12. how do you know?

[truebrit71]

18. So you believe everything you're told by Blair?

Good to know....:eyes:

Open your mind and think about all of the coincidences that occurred on that fateful day....and then tell me again how Tony (45 minutes) Blair is telling the truth...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. What upheaval? n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

11. probably same patsies

Atta clones

[Chomp]

15. Will you

please stop with this offensive nonsense. There was no 7/7 conspiracy.

To you, it might be a fun little bit of theorising to discuss on the internet. To others, it is a grevely offensive lie that pissess all over the memory of dozens of dead people.

[CJCRANE]

19. Ok

show me the official independant report from the investigation into what happened.

[Chomp]

24. I'll tell tou what CJ

if you want to get into the evidence and investigations game, why don't you and I both post the evidence we have for our respective positions on this board for everyone to see and then decide which stacks up?

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

I'll start, with an article from the Observer newspaper last Sunday:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769381,00.html


And from a few weeks before that:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1750139,00.html




(Ed to fix first link and add second).

[savemefromdumbya]

32. so the Guardian is 'evidence'

I wouldn't depend on it

[Chomp]

36. The links are from the Observer, not the Guardian

Now I'm sorry that your glib and patronising response - only 10 words long - has been so cruelly exposed as foolish from the get-go, but that is your fault, not mine.

So, for starters, do you accept that you were wrong about the origin of the links I posted? If so, please have the courtesy to reply admitting so.

Now, I know the Guardian-Observer distinction is only a minor point, but to me is indicative of someone looking at the link and not even bothering to click and read it.

So, did you even read the links?

Furthermore do you know ANYTHING about the Observer/Guardian newspapers? About their history, traditions and values? You think perhaps that they are tools of the British right-wing? LMFAO.

And perhaps you think they are LESS relaible than the news-sources you use? Do tell us what they are becuase if you are going to deride my choices, you are honour-bound to reveal yours.

But let's stop being silly and get back to the substance of the matter.

....

The poster asked where the investigations into 7/7 were, so I posted the 2 links above.

The first paragraph of link 1 says:

"The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no 'fifth-bomber' and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan".

And the first paragraph of the second link says:

"Britain's intelligence services will face a fresh barrage of criticism on Thursday when a parliamentary committee publishes a report into the London terror attacks that shows a direct link between the bombers' ringleader and a terrorist cell."


So, I directed the poster in the direction of exactly what he was asking for (2 stories about 7/7 investigations). I then invited further discussion on the matter.

But instead of debate, CJ disappears and you disparage the links whilst avoiding the substantove issue(s).

Why?

Finally, no, the "Guardian" is not the evidence, as you put it. The Guardian is reporting the evidence. A subtle but crucial distinction. The newpaper is not the evidence. The STORY is the evidence. (And BTW, if you don't like the Guardian, go to any other British newspaper of the left right or centre and you will find similar reports).

Do you think they are making up these stories and committees? Where is your evidence to contradict the stories?

....


Next time you have 10 words for me, they better be an improvement on the last 10 you tried.

[savemefromdumbya]

40. I used to get the Observer on a Sunday

no what I was saying is that don't believe all you read in the newspaper. Even the guardian and the Observer. Open mind?

[CJCRANE]

46. I haven't

disappeared...

BTW I haven't got my own pet theory to push, I just know from lots of different sources that there's always more to these type of attacks than meets the eye. The information released to the newspapers and what's available to the intelligence services are two very different things.

The vey fact that Blair wanted to release a 7/7 "narrative" (similar to the 9/11 commission report) rather than have an independant inquiry should tip you off that there's things they don't want you to know.

[Chomp]

48. If you don't

have a pet theory to push CJ, then you should have been a lot more careful about the langauage you used and the context in which you used it.

In a section of the thread rubbishing the idea that 7/7 was an inside job (my post #15), you simply posted: "OK, show me the official independant report from the investigation into what happened."

The obvious implication is that you disagree with the premise of #15. If that is not what you meant, then you should have been less glib in your response: "It wan't an inside job, but where's the public enquiry?". On such an emotive issue and in response to such an emphatic post, I think you owe it to yourself and others to be clearer.

And with respect, your remaining points in this post (#46) are merely statements of the obvious:

"The information released to the newspapers and what's available to the intelligence services are two very different things."

That is merely a self-evidently true tautology.

"...should tip you off that there's things they don't want you to know."

Yes, I agree, and the first line of the front page of the BBC News today reads:

"A lack of resources prevented security services from intercepting the 7 July London bombers, a report has claimed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757915.stm

So among the things they don't want us to know is that there was under-resorcing of the security services. The sound of jaws not hitting the ground is deafening.

Show me an unsecretive government and I'll show you a Unicorn dancing on the head of a pin.


Cheers.

[CJCRANE]

52. Yes

and a lack of resources/incompetence is the excuse given for not stopping 9/11. The truth is usually a lot more complicated than is revealed to the general public.

[Taxloss]

38. You prefer the websites of the ultra-far-right, of course.

Alex Jones, Rense, Flocco, all those "dependable" sources.

[savemefromdumbya]

39. ?

what?

[Taxloss]

42. You MIHOPers, expounding on your increasingly elaborate conspiracies

from the comfort of DU's sweaty little basement - and, of course, another website. You're quick to dismiss sources like the BBC, the Guardian, the UN, NIST, the New York Times, and so on ... but if something pops up on Prison Planet, or Rense, or Tom Flocco, it's the gospel truth! You favour the ultra-right with terrific credibility, which is very charitable of you. I'm sure they'll thank you when they've finished pissing their pants laughing at you.

[savemefromdumbya]

45. never

[0007]

56. cough cough 'tis quite obvious and so far you've booked a loser.

But that's okay keep digging pal.

[truebrit71]

Oh please....

...Dear Leader tells you so and you believe it?

[Chomp]

22. Please don't

patronise me and please don't insult my intelligence.

And what "Dear Leader" are you referring to? I am Irish and live in Ireland. You think maybe George Bush is now engaging in some trans-Atlantic mind control?

Please stop with the insults and please start with the facts.


Peace.

[truebrit71]

41. So if you're Irish, and you live in Ireland...

...why the heck are you so uppity about something that happened in London?

[Chomp]

50. Sorry, your point

is too ignorant and too menacing to respond to.

[CJCRANE]

47. Well

if you live in Ireland you may be aware that British intelligence services had double-agents inside the IRA including bomb-makers. They are adept at manipulating both sides of a conflict.

[Chomp]

49. CJ, as I feel my

anger rising, I very much recommned you read this thread, starting at post #54, about the very issues you raise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x84640#84878


So if you fancy continuing down the route you are starting upon, I'd recommend you get your ducks in a row before you go too much further.

[CJCRANE]

53. BTW I'm English and live in England..

*on edit: probably more correct to say I'm British (as I'm only part English).

[Chomp]

54. Ok CJ

I really don't want to fight - I got into a very nasty argument recently in the link I provided above (as you'll see) and I'm still carrying that with me a bit!

As your English, I know you're likely to be a reasonable person, so maybe we should leave it as a misunderstanding.

It's just when people post things like (#41 in this thread): "So if you're Irish, and you live in Ireland.....why the heck are you so uppity about something that happened in London?", I just find that level of rank ignorance and downright stupidity very, very hard to take.


Cheers.

[savemefromdumbya]

31. it wasn't fair that those people died

one should keep an open mind when these attacks occur

[Taxloss]

37. Don't pollute British politics with your delusions.

The only conspiracy on 7/7 was four guys deciding to kill innocent Londoners. It's offensive crap.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. 'Unbelievable' because there weren't exercises in the stations

I'm glad you find the conspiracy theories about 'exercises in the same stations at the same time' unbelievable - because there weren't any. A company was doing a crisis management exercise, on paper, in a room one of its London offices. The crisis management professional pointed out that the scenario he had chosen, of bombs on the Tube near mainline railway stations, was what he had chosen for the company exercise.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=46961&mesg_id=47397

[Chomp]

51. Thanks for posting this Murial

I must bookmark this for future ref.

Great info. Thanks.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

55. Classic.

I'll bet he still gets a ton of e-mails every day from the MIHOP hive mind.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. You THUNK?

they are the 3rd Territory, the Fourth is Iraq, and the fifth will be Iran... and no, I do not mean to get puny.. I am QUITE serious.

[jerry611]

4. We are the lone superpower...

Whatever we say carries a lot of weight.

Plus Mutually Assured Destruction has been the foundation of NATO for 50 years. If Britain comes out and says that there is no way nukes will be used, it makes America and NATO look significantly weaker in the eyes of the international community. And that actually weakens our hand diplomatically.

If you ever take International Relations in college, you will better understand why you can't remove the nuclear option from the table. Whenever you enter international diplomacy, you MUST have the threat of force on the table or there is no way in hell you will convince the other nation to do what you want.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, did JFK back down? Did JFK go on TV and say we will not fire our nukes? No. JFK stood face to face with the Soviets and told them if they don't remove their nukes from Cuba, we will invade and take action. Two weeks later, the Russians removed their weapons from Cuba.

You don't ever remove the threat of force from the table.

[Kailassa]

7. By making it clear that 1st strike with nukes is an option,

America is ensuring that all other countries will be secretly working at arming themselves with nukes, so as to at least do some damage in return if America decides to attack them next.

America might fancy itself as the strongest power, but you are still not as strong as the rest of the world combined. And if the present tactics, which are resulting in the rest of the world combining against you, are taught in Industrial Relations in college, then for the sake of America, that course needs to be seriously rewritten.

A bargaining table is for negotiating. Iran has been successfully negotiated with, but America has turned its back on that fact. Your government is spinning the lie that Iran has been breaking regulations for an excuse to attack it for reasons which have nothing to do with the Iran's putative ability to produce The Bomb in 3 years time.

A bully demands what he wants and starts throwing punches if he doesn't get it, just like the America that you so approve of. And the rest of the world now hates America for being a loud mouthed idiot bully who is risking all life on earth with his childish nuclear threats.

America is also hated for its interference in the politics of other countries, and that will not bode well for the future of your country either. Sadly, people from other countries know that there are many "people" like yourself who believe America has some kind of right to manipulate other country's governments in that way. It's not blamed onto Bush. It's blamed onto Americans such as yourself who support his arrogance.

And believe me, that is what is being risked here. Just to stop oil being sold for Euros, Bush is throwing around threats which are encouraging the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And Bush may well be mad enough to carry out those threats, which could result in Russian nukes annihilating America.

I hope you heard about the Russian war plane flying undetected through American radar last week.

[savemefromdumbya]

14. was it a drone?

[savemefromdumbya]

13. what was that operation northwoods?

[Zynx]

17. Our policy has always forbidden the first strike with nuclear weapons.

Thus we can say a first strike is off the table.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. I have news for you

WE ARE NO LONGER a super power... thank bush for that one... we are in many ways where the ruskies were in 1979... we still have the illusion of power, but we are far from being one... why do yuo think the coalition of the unwilling has disapeared so fast?

Oh and MAD never invovled first strike... this is why this is so horrifying. The reason MAD worked is that First Strike was not a workable option for the Warsaw Pact either.

[magellan]

5. Straw needed to go anyway

He was part of the Iraq deal. But it's just plain wrong if it was done this way, on Bush**'s order.

So much for Dimson's understanding of the word 'sovereign'.

[rman]

8. The US pushes almost everyone around

It is the biggest crook on the block, and most of the states in the "civilized world" are its henchmen.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Some interesting additional information.

Blair essentially repeats Straw's remarks:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=691552006

[sweetheart]

16. Britain is controlled by fools

who would form an unholy alliance with the darkest most corrupt
american government, arguably, ever, and then wonder why he's
not loved. He has forged no ties to the american people, only
the nazi party.. what a fool.

If the labour party's got any balls, blare will be gone before
summer... but true to his secret tory membership, he'll delay
going so that labour never wins another poll and he'll go down
in history for that, as a tory hero forever.... then they'll
make a statue of him like Baronness thatcher, and somebody
can behead the statue and call it performance art, and most
people will laugh, whilst blaaariites get offended.

:-)

Supporting blair staying in office, is voting tory, he's rotten wood,
cut him out.

[Chomp]

20. Who is controlling the UK?

Answer: the UK government, headed by Tony Blair.

This discussion is taking place without any regard for what is happening in UK domestic politics at the moment.

The Straw move was part of a wider cabinet reshuffle that saw Blair making a series of very radical and unexpected changes to his top table.

There are suggestions that the main reason that Straw was moved was because he was becoming too close to the main rival to Blair for the Labour leadership (the Chancellor, Gordon Brown). It is said Blair found this alliance threatening, and so demoted Straw.

Is it possible that Blair was a bit peeved with Straw for what he said about Iran? Yes, it is entirely possible. It is also entirely possible that Blair simply thought that Straw was no longer the man to continue in the job.

But I'll tell you what is NOT possible: that the US administration told Blair to sack Straw and Blair just did it. This is just nonsense, and anyone with an understadning of Blair or indeed UK politics in general will know it's nonsense.

[truebrit71]

21. Sorry but that's not entirely accurate...

How long did he wait to sack Clarke? What about John Prescott? He stuck by both of those guys for as long as possible, and Straw had done nothing other than Blair's bidding...your logic is flawed...But thanks for the condescension.... :eyes:

[Chomp]

23. lol

It was a bit condescending. Sorry.


I don't really understand the point you're making though. Are you suggesting that Blair stuck by all these people through thick and thin, and it was only US intervention on Straw that forced his hand?

Because that's not true: what forced his hand was a combination of bad local election results and on-going questions about his leadership of Labour (and thus his premiership).

One way or the other, it is entirely inaccurate to say that "He stuck by both of those guys for as long as possible"

On each of your points:

"How long did he wait to sack Clarke?"
For about a week longer than the first calls for his head to roll from opposition parties. In other words, absolutely no time whatsoever. Indeed, he sacked him at basically the first opportunity he had (i.e. the day after the local election results. Sacking him before that would have been insanity).

"What about John Prescott?"
He didn't want to sack him at all and for all intents and purposes he didn't sack him. Sure, he removed his department from him, but essentially left him in the same high-profile position as before with the title of Deputy PM and all the perks that go with that.

"Straw had done nothing other than Blair's bidding"
Well I explained above why I thought Straw may have been moved. Furthermore, the suggestion elsewhere in this thread is that it is beacuse Straw would NOT do Blair's bidding (on Iran) that he was moved. So which is it, that Straw did Blair's every bidding but was sacked anyway, or that Straw was "speaking up" and therefore required (US-sponsored) sacking?


No, this re-shuffle is almost entirely about domestic UK politics, and I'll stick by that assertion.

Peace.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. Another thing...

Just a bit of background for those who might not know... Prescott is considered to be just about the only person capable of negotiating a "peaceful" transfer of power from Blair to Brown.

[savemefromdumbya]

34. the bad local elections

were not responsible for Straw's exit

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Straw was working fine with Blair, except on Iran

And the differences between them had already been noted. No, it is quite believable that Bush, or Cheney, said that Straw wasn't working properly with the US State Department on Iran, and could Blair move him on? It wouldn't be purely the Americans who had him sacked - but they would influence Blair's decision. Look at the Downing Street Memos, and you see how much the UK is expected to fall in line with the American Middle Eastern policy. And consider what happened with Lord Goldsmith - he didn't think there was a basis in international law for invading Iraq, so he was sent to Washington for 're-education'. He came back compliant with the American viewpoint. Straw's resistance to attacking Iran cannot have been going down well in the White House.

The local elections did not 'force his hand' with Straw at all - there was no talk of Straw being unpopular with voters. If anything, Straw's cautious approach is more popular with voters than Blair's "do what the Americans say" approach. Iraq is still very unpopular, and taking the same route into Iran is not good PR for Blair.

Sacking Clarke before the elections would not have been 'insanity' - Clarke offered his resignation when the scandal surfaced. If he'd taken it then, he could have gone into the elections saying the lack of deportations was in the past, instead of having it hang over the party.

Prescott has had his responsiblities removed, but he retains the perks - as far as we can tell, because Blair doesn't want to risk an election for Deputy Leader of the Labout party. He's effectively bribing Prescott to shut up - outrageous, but that's the power the PMN has - to bribe people, legally.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. Clarke and Prescott are not anywhere near Brown's sphere of influence.

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[Chomp]

27. I was simply

responding to the questions posted above.

The only point I was making at the outset was a simple one: the reshuffle was about Blair's domestic political concerns and not as a result of the bidding of the US administration.

Surely you agree?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Sorry, I was responding to truebrit's post, not yours.

Apologies for any confusion.

[Chomp]

30. Sorry, Yibbehobba. My mistake. nt

[savemefromdumbya]

33. well...

after being in British politics for years anything is possible and this one is. Why else would Blair the way he does now. He's changed.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

35. This is why the British call Blair Bush's poodle.

n/t