Browne Challenges Salmond Over Iraq

Reluctant Hero · Browne Challenges Salmond Over Iraq

Des Browne, the most annoying politician ever, otherwise known as the Defence and Scotland Secretary, has challenged Salmond to go to Iraq.

Have Labour got no grip in reality. They make a total mess of a country, where over 80,000 civilians have been killed because of violence in the 5 years since they created the mess and they continue to hail the operation as a success. If it was a success, they would have found weapons of mass destruction.

Then to top it all off, they challenge opposition parties, who have been outspoken against the war, to visit the nightmare they have created! You just couldn't make this stuff up.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n..._Iraq_amid_anger_at_interview.php

Aventinian

The justification was never to 'find' weapons of mass destruction, it was to enforce the ceasefire conditions on Iraq and stop it from violating international law. That has been a success.

Whether it justifies the loss of life, however, is another matter.

iainmhor

I challenge Browne to do a meet and greet [without armed protection] in downtown Basra. See how long the prick lasts.

George

Lochaber

Aventinian

Reluctant Hero

Wendy Alexander has waded into the argument now saying that Salmond should stick to the issues that concern him. If Salmond isn't concerned about the wellbeing of Scottish citizens, whether they are working at home or abroad, then he wouldn't be doing his job.

As for Murdo Fraser's comments

skip

the handful of soldiers ive talked to are only there because its their duty to serve. they don't think we should be there and there is a sense also that we are fighting america's war and our allies just do what they like.

the only real support ive heard for the war comes from some ex-soldiers who fought in the first gulf war who thought saddam should have been finished off first time round.

Aventinian

iainmhor

Holebender

Please bear in mind that Alex Salmond has another job, as Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan. I'm sure Aventinian is fully behind the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament (as long as it's Westminster) and would therefore decry any attempt to stop a Member of Parliament from expressing himself on any topic.

Wendy Alexander, on the other hand, is a nobody.

Reluctant Hero

Dave Coull

Aventinian wrote "If someone with a real job behaved as Salmond has (and the Labour FMs before him) to issues of remit, he'd very quickly find himself sacked".

Reluctant Hero asks Aventinian "How do you explain the recent poll of the two Scottish leaders popularity then? There was a 75% difference between Salmond and Alexander. The electorate certainly seemed pleased with the way Salmond is conducting himself".

Aventinian accepts the alien legal doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament, that is, the Westminster parliament, and he sees the role of that parliament as being largely to act as the grand committee of the ruling elite, to which a limited amount of democracy has had to be added as a sop to the proles. He wants the relationship between that parliament and the Scottish parliament to be like the relationship between Head Office and a branch office, with Head Office having the ability to dismiss underlings who don't perform as required. Now, there are probably plenty of folk at Westminster, in Whitehall, and in Downing Street, who would share that attitude, but most of them probably realise that, as a matter of practical politics, Alex Salmond draws his authority from the Scottish electorate, who show every sign of approving of how he is doing his job, including approving of his attempts to extend the political (but not geographical) reach of the Scottish Parliament. They know that any attack on the office of First Minister is liable to be seen by the great majority of Scots as an attack on the sovereignty of the Scottish people, so, for this reason, they may not be able to go as far as they would like in putting the First Minister "in his place".

Lord Pitsligo

Here's something which sums the Iraq war up nicely:

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/mored...eed=false&colorNo=0&tab=1

Aventinian

Aventinian

Lochaber

Dave Coull

Thanks to my wife’s American connections I have been watching the excellent historical dramatisation series “John Adams” (who became the second president of the USA, after George Washington). I say it is an “excellent” series because, having studied that period of American history, I know enough to recognise that these American writers have really done their historical research, and not just relied on patriotic myths. For instance it shows the British troops who fired on a Boston mob as being innocent victims of terrifying circumstances, and it shows an American military parade celebrating the declaration of independence flying a flag consisting of the Union Jack and thirteen stripes (they had the stripes, but hadn’t yet come up with the stars). At one stage John Adams’ cousin Sam asks him to go to some “continental congress” as a representative from Massachusetts. John Adams is very doubtful. “What legal authority does this so-called ‘continental congress’ have?” he asks. (This is also historically accurate.) But he went anyway, and of course that Congress is still in existence, and few question its legal authority over the USA nowadays. The funny thing is, the actor playing John Adams looks just like Alex Salmond. Well, a bit less impressive than Alex Salmond actually, he doesn't have the bushy eyebrows. And again that is historically accurate. They chose Washington for the first president because he was very tall, and distinguished looking, and he had a military uniform. John Adams was the second president, and his son John Quincy Adams was the sixth.

Aventinian writes “the ‘Scottish Government’ is certainly pretend”.

Merely in legal terms, Av. Where government is concerned, if enough folk believe it, then it’s true.

Shagpile

Aventinian

Aventinian

Dave Coull

I wrote

"The funny thing is, the actor playing John Adams looks just like Alex Salmond. Well, a bit less impressive than Alex Salmond actually, he doesn't have the bushy eyebrows. And again that is historically accurate. They chose Washington for the first president because he was very tall, and distinguished looking, and he had a military uniform. John Adams was the second president"

Aventinian says

"I'm afraid I don't quite understand what comparison you're trying to draw between the two gentlemen".

Like I said, I just thought it was "funny". It made me smile. I said I thought those behind that dramatisation had clearly done their historical research. They showed John Adams as having a lot to say at that very first Congress, but not appearing very impressive. Whereas Colonel Washington from Virginia played a smaller role in the proceedings, but was very tall, and distinguished looking, and he was wearing a (British) military uniform. When the Pennsylvania representative asked, sarcastically, which of the Massachusetts delegates was Adams suggesting should lead this purely hypothetical "continental army", Adams replied "none of the Massachusetts delegates, but Colonel Washington of Virginia". The tall guy with the British officer's uniform later became the first President, whereas the shorter guy who looked a bit like Alex Salmond became the (almost forgotten) second president.

My original point, regarding governmental status and authority, was that, if enough folk believe that a particular body is the government, then it is.

youatethebabyjesus

iainmhor

youatethebabyjesus

iainmhor

Piss poor joke.

British and American imperialism is nt raising too many laughs in Iraq amongst the Iraqi people.

Like i said, victory to the Iraqi resistance[ and victory sooner or later will be theirs when the Brits and Yanks leave.]

youatethebabyjesus

Rinty

meanwhile the situation in Basra deteriorates. Looks like our mission (preparing the iraqi forces then leaving it to them) has failed as the iraqi forces have now been joined by british troops and american air strikes as they are losing to the Mehdi army.

The trouble we have is we are now imposing on the southern iraqis a regime that they dont want and backing the govt against the popular uprising. It seems totally conradictory for a country that supposedly took basra FOR the shia people who were under attack from Saddam. We have now replaced the saddam regime and are doing the same as he did!

Even with the help of the british and americans I am sure that the southern iraquis will win this eventually and be allowed to govern themselves and be represented by the people that they choose.

The breakdown in the iraqi govt meanwhile means that the iraq economy suffers as the low tax free-for-all for foreign oil companes still exists. If they were to pay the corporation tax that they have to in the UK or US the iraqis would have billions more to spend on the basics that people lost because of the war, electricity, water,health etc.

youatethebabyjesus

bring back saddam/darth vader. delete as appropriate.

Rinty

no need to bring him back. the people who he attacked are still being attacked.

It shouldnt be a simple choice of whether it is us or saddam who kills the marsh arabs, there is another way, democratic rights of southern raqis.

youatethebabyjesus

who you talking aboot?darth or saddam?

Rinty

Neither, I ma talkng about the southern iraqis who are still under attack 5 years after getting rid of saddam.

youatethebabyjesus

darth's attacking them or their fellow countrymen are attacking them? very confusing.

Rinty

Its not really confusing, no one mentoned darth so if you were able to get over the wee darth distraction in your own head it could make it easier to understand.

The people that we encouraged to stand up to saddam in 1991 and to not fight the invasion in in 2003 are still fighting off atacks from an undemocratic iraqi govt, this time with the military support of the UK and US. This is new, previously, until the late 80's Saddam had the support of the UK and US when attacking the shia population in South Iraq, but not air strikes and troops.

Red Justice

one thiing is clear occupation has never worked in any country. It was a horrendous situation that civillians and hospitals found themselves in the line of fire during the air strikes. When Iraqis were being bombarded by airstrikes it did not matter if their dictator or war criminal was Saddam or Bush or Blair.

I think if you look in the world where the British or Americans have been they have left civil strife and unrest. The Brits are very good at covering up history and their involvement in Palestine implementing the Balfour Declaration was no exception.

youatethebabyjesus

okay.very good and i'm sure very informative in a 1 sided way.may the force be with you.and them, iraqi's,brits,wanks or al quisda.

iainmhor

Its got to be True Blue/ SG Millerton isnt it?