[EnergySpin]

This is interesting ..... I think we might see some really BIG developments in the next few days. Everyone is trying to blame it to someone else ..... A pull-out maybe?

[rogerhb]

Blair has got an easier opt out than Bush. Blair merely needs to step down for Brown to take over, Blair has previously indicated he would not stand another term. (perhaps we couldn't stand another term of him?),

Bush on the other hand has a harder job, he either needs to stand down due to health reasons, get assassinated or impeached.

Hey, I'd rather be Blair.

Don't forget John Howard in all of this, he is up to his neck in it as well.

[jackal42]

Oh france was the reason for invasion, not WMD!?.


(OFFTOPIC: man did they have a red face when they couldnt find all those WMD's that america sold iraq!)

[EnergySpin]

Oh france was the reason for invasion, not WMD!?.

I knew that these French characters were behind Iran,Iraq,Yoko, stale bread, peak oil, global warming, bird flu!

[Euric]

Oh france was the reason for invasion, not WMD!?.

I knew that these French characters were behind Iran,Iraq,Yoko, stale bread, peak oil, global warming, bird flu!

Don't forget the euro!

[Longsword]

Blair has got an easier opt out than Bush. Blair merely needs to step down for Brown to take over, Blair has previously indicated he would not stand another term. (perhaps we couldn't stand another term of him?),

I concur. Remember that the public opinion's opposition for the Iraqi war in UK was and is HUGE. I was living in UK at the time, and I remember the enormous demonstrations. If the country had a half-decent opposition, Blair would have been out of power there and then.

UK pullout would be domestically easy, and perhaps would even bolster New Labour popularity. Internationally? I doubt Blair would dare to upset Washington unless he was utterly desperate. I think Bush already has plans for the UK soldiers in stirring up trouble with Iran.

[rogerhb]

Impeach Blair over Iraq

Blair should be impeached

This government, who are willing to lead us into a war, must also be willing to take responsibility for those actions

I've got alot of time for Michael Rose, he did an excellent job in Bosnia given the conditions, and gave Wes Clark a good slamming for
(a) wearing a Serbian General's hat
(b) trying to start WWIII by racing for the airfield that the Russians managed to get to first.

He commentates on BBC World quite a bit. If you hark back to the Downing Street Memos, remember the Chiefs-of-Staff were worried about being prosecuted for the war and wanted to make sure the gov went down with them if they did.

[Novus]

You don't have to Impeach him. Just vote no confidence.

[rogerhb]

.... and prosecute.

[julianj]

Tonight's Newsnight (FYI heavyweight news analysis TV programme in the UK with legendarily combative anchorman Jeremy Paxman) had a report on Iraq with a cameraman/photographer embedded with the US 101st Airborne in a town in the Sunni area north of Tikrit and Baghdad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/n ... efault.stm

(NOTE: You want the programme which starts with a tedious discussion of leaked Conservative tax cuts - it takes a little while for tonight's upload to supplant the previous one)

Why is this worthy of note:

It shows that the US soldiers, in a compound with Iraqi Army, and Officials, get hand grenades thrown at them *from inside the secure compound* and can't find out who did this.

During a firefight an American gets very irate because he hears over the radio an Iraqi officer ordering his troops not to return fire on the insurgents.

Also they investigate a factory zone, which they are taking incoming fire from (outside the secure zone) and find 4 Iraqi police, who deny they have seen/heard anything (maybe they were the insurgents?)

****

Then we get in a panel discussion the UK armed forces minister Adam Ingram, IMO, bullshitting his head off about what's going on.
Lord Garden (ex Air Chief Marshal) makes more sense, although I notice he has got more balls since Gen Dannatt told the truth a few days ago.

****

What I am trying to elucidate, is that if this is the state of things, where the 101st Airborne can't be safe in its own compound, and the Iraqi police, army and civil officials, are apparently hostile, then there is little chance of the "Iraqis standing up and the US standing down".

I guess that you in the US will never see this report. It doesn't cast the 101st in an unfavourable light. But I feel that it shows how deep Iraqi resistance is. Presumably everyone in the secure compound is supposed to be on your side. Yet someone threw those grenades, nobody betrayed them, and the US forces end up arresting the Iraqi army.

This is the very definition of an unwinnable guerrilla war.

[rogerhb]

Do you get the idea that the US may not be wanted in Iraq?

[Dreamtwister]

Do you get the idea that the US may not be wanted in Iraq?

When the people who are supposed to be your friends are throwing grenades at you, just imagine what the people who really hate you are thinking.

[Jack]

Interesting - as you suggest, we haven't seen any of this.

And then there's the Camp Falcon ammo dump explosion. We heard one brief report on October 11 - and all reports were word-for-word the same. After that, not one word in print. Some very biased reports from non-mainstream sources suggest a loss of a billion dollars in ordnance, along with significant casualties - but who knows?

[Zardoz]

There have been other stories about so-called friendlies coming under deep suspicion. We have no chance of "success" (using the conventional Fox News-style definition of the word) in that hellhole. We're doomed to failure.

[julianj]

I found the actual report on the Guardian's website (apparently it is a Guardian Films/Newsnight co-production) so you can download it yourself (it is in Flash 8 format).

Sean Smith The Real Iraq

[Lokutus]

Iraq: The Hidden Story

50 minute video by a Brit journalist trying to find out what's really happening. There's a nice US helicopter attack on a crowd after minute 33.

Watch this and the 655K dead estimate sounds plausible.

[skiwi]

Interesting - as you suggest, we haven't seen any of this.

And then there's the Camp Falcon ammo dump explosion. We heard one brief report on October 11 - and all reports were word-for-word the same. After that, not one word in print. Some very biased reports from non-mainstream sources suggest a loss of a billion dollars in ordnance, along with significant casualties - but who knows?

Like this [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=295002651#Post295002651]Another Disastrous Coverup

Forward Base Falcon Disaster [/url]

[dukey]

John Snow,
channel 4 news every night. Lot of respect for him.

[julianj]

Surely the US media couldn't keep a casualty list as large as rumoured by Skiwi's links quiet? What about mobile phones and milbloggers?