Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103088)	6/26/2003 10:12:51 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

'Especially when it involves WMDs and blatant imperialistic colonization of a neighboring state.' Oh boy, i could really turn this one around, Hawk .... very juicy line that ... but, on to something touching on recent middle east conquest et al - The 'binding UN resolution' of last fall [october or so?] that was drafted largely if not entirely by the US, was passed only because it specifically included a specific requirement to hold at the time of deciding what specific action to take against its transgressor, a vote of the security council ..... which was pretty reasonable, nobody gets a blank cheque in such matters Then this february or so, US reps there quickly go through perfunctory motions while making it plain that the order of the day is really 'yer with us or yer agin us' ..... they have decided that there will be a war, it will be now, no other course will be considered, no matter that Blix says there are no significant WMDs outside the US and israeli arsenals, as has been borne out now, no matter nothing, the neocons will have their war their way and they will have it today That is not diplomacy ..... that's not even close to diplomacy .... and there is a cost to it, which you are beginning to realise now, all the body bags arriving, the bills coming due, future bills looming closer, your deficit rising daily .... do the crime, do the time - you should have listened, you would have been far better off with a few genuine allies ... not so much to help in the assault, although that too, but more for to share the responsibility, the burden of all this in the eyes of the Rest of Us, to legitimise it as democratic ..... and quite possibly, allies to stand beside so that together we all could have taken Iraq with less bloodshed and destruction, perhaps little to none, we'll never know now The UN as currently constituted is greatly flawed, no lo contendere, but we definitely need something superior to Diktat from the backrooms of Washington ..... there are a number of democracies on this earth, some of them like Canada your longtime allies, we do not want to be left out of this stuff ...... but leave us completely out of the decision making loop, and you can sure as hell leave us out of those at whom you bark orders .... as things stand now, we do not trust your neocon bunch, personally i don't think them capable of self-improvement, you should just get rid of them ..... until then you're on your own, and it's going to be a lonely road with a long string of body bags

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (103088)	6/27/2003 1:51:36 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

British Government Takes Gloves Off in BBC Battle Thu June 26, 2003 09:03 PM ET asia.reuters.com By Katherine Baldwin LONDON (Reuters) - The British government, locked in a battle with the BBC over a claim officials doctored intelligence on Iraq, challenged the state broadcaster on Thursday to answer questions on its reporting standards. Alastair Campbell, Prime Minister Tony Blair's communications supremo, has been accused by the British Broadcasting Corporation of "sexing up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons that helped build the case for war. But Campbell, who in turn has accused the BBC of biased reporting on Iraq and of slandering his name, gave the BBC until the end of Thursday to respond to more than a dozen questions about the allegation and its general working practices. Blair's office has weighed in on Campbell's side but refuses to say what action it will take if the BBC fails, in its words, to "set the record straight." "A highly damaging allegation was made that went right to the heart of the integrity of the government on a very important issue," Blair's spokesman said on Thursday. The spat -- by no means the first between British governments and the state broadcaster -- erupted after the BBC, citing an anonymous intelligence source, said Campbell had pressed the security services to include a claim in a September dossier that Iraq's weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes. Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction were the main Anglo-American justification for war but the failure to discover such arms has damaged the British government's credibility. An indignant Campbell on Wednesday accused the BBC of lying and demanded an apology. The BBC had accused him of inducing Blair to lie to parliament over the premise for war, Campbell said. But the corporation denied leveling such a weighty charge and is standing by its report and its anonymous source. "Does the BBC still stand by the allegation that both we and the intelligence agencies knew the 45-minute claim to be wrong?" Campbell asked in his letter. "Why did BBC journalists not check the story with us before broadcast? Is this now normal BBC practice?" he went on. Blair's spokesman denied the exchange was about "petty maneuvering." Earlier, at a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Blair did not offer the BBC a question, a highly rare occurrence. British governments and opposition parties have often blamed the BBC for being biased against them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright Reuters 2002. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters. Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. © Reuters 2002. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.