Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

24 Hours and counting...

Page: (1)2

03:22 / 17.03.03

I guess this has nothing to do with Weapons Inspections anymore, so a new thread is warranted...

Bloody.....[inarticulate grumblings]..

War to Start in 24 Hours

Again here

"Tomorrow is a moment of truth in the world," President Bush said yesterday at the end of an extraordinary summit in the Azores with Mr Blair and Jose Maria Aznar, the Spanish Prime Minister.

The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, described the situation as "very threatening". He said he had speeded up the preparation of his report at the request of some Security Council members and it would be ready today which angered US officials who were expecting it tomorrow. That would have been after the US deadline, when it would have received little attention.

Thousands of Suicide Bombers Ready to Attack

Within minutes of the end of the Azores summit, the leadership in Baghdad turned on the battlefield rhetoric and said it was ready to fight at an hour's notice, if necessary. It raised the spectre of suicide bombers wreaking havoc on American and British targets around the globe, as well as the possibility that chemical and biological weapons might be used on troops massing on Iraq's southern border

So is this it? Goddamn it all. What the hell is wrong with these people? I really hope that if this ends up happening tomorrow that at the least it will be the end of the respective administrations. At the least. Some good must come out of this. The alternative is too horrible.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:50 / 17.03.03

Iraq seems an unlikely venue for suicide bombers - a (despotic) secular state isn't really their natural home. Saddam is also claiming he will take the war to our doorstep - which presumably means terror attacks.

Oh, this is just dandy.

09:13 / 17.03.03

The BBC's countdown to war charting the minute by minute failure of diplomacy.

1009:UN's nuclear agency chief Mohamed El Baradhei says Washington has advised weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.

09:40 / 17.03.03

I find it in poor taste to start a war on terror on St Patrick's day. But we knew this was coming, didn't we? How else could it have gone? I've had a horrible feeling of inevitability since Christmas, and apparently Dubyah's had that feeling since last August...

09:43 / 17.03.03

So, where now for protest against this war?

10:26 / 17.03.03

Well, all the leaflets and stuff I've seen say Trafalger Square at 6pm on the day war is declared. Looks like tomorrow I guess. Probably some kind of impromptu angry Barb meet should be arranged. Then we can storm Downing Street and hang the oily sanctamonius fucker by his own intestines ... well, I can dream can't I?

BTW, has anyone seen the "promise" from Bush, that Iraq's oil will be held for the good of it's people. I'm certain it won't be, but it's interesting to see the fuckers concede this point of criticism.

10:29 / 17.03.03

Well, maybe make that today. Jack Straw makes an announcement at 7pm tonight. Jesus fucking Christ.

10:32 / 17.03.03

Sleaznation, I think you mean something more intellectual than this, but figured I'd put this up now and get it out of the way. If you are in the UK the Stop the War Coalition has various actions planned for protest.

To find out what they are doing visit: http://www.stopwar.org.uk

Returning you now to your regular scheduled programming...

I don't have any particularly clear ideas, but is there any scope for the UN to become a focus for expressions of protest or even a means to create action? Also as mentioned elsewhere is this the oportunity for the agressive warmongering of the current US administration to be exposed and condemned internationally, to the extent that nations actually withdraw their support and let the steam out of the engine?

10:49 / 17.03.03

Quantum - for what it's worth, I think the war will PROBABLY start tomorrow, not today.

Love the "emergency summit" between Bush & Blair this weekend. More likely a last-minute dress rehearsal.

13:16 / 17.03.03

According to the BBC and the Grauniad the UK, US and Spain have withdrawn the second resolution and are abandoning efforts to win UN approval for an attack on Iraq.

No surprise I suppose, given that (to all appearances) one of the security council members would certainly have used their veto, but still - doom and gloom.

13:46 / 17.03.03

I'm only going to comment on this briefly, as I'm mentally preparing myself for the sudden cognitive dissonance that will happen tomorrow, when our "journalists" will switch to being grave and sober 24/7, refer to Bush solely as our Commander-in-Chief, and any dissenting voice from the war is characterized as "against our troops."

This kind of decision by the U.S. (and as someone pointed out, the "summit" in the Azores was probably just an occasion for Bush and his cronies to badger Blair into going along with them, not any real attempt to strategize for multinational unity) deserves tremendous public scrutiny by our press - unfortunately, that will never happen in the current climate.

Even after years of being exposed to Chomsky and other anti-American voices from the left, I've never truly felt that I've lived in a "rogue nation" until today, and that is because I thought that most of the people of America, if they truly knew what they're government was doing in Nicaragua, etc. would object to it. Now that Bush has failed utterly to make a convincing case for the necessity of war in Iraq, and publicly uttered easily verifiable lies numerous times about his "intelligence" about Saddam's plans (does anyone fail to think that the revelations about the forged nuclear documents, the balsa wood drone that could threaten America, etc.), and the American public seems ready to support this endeavor, I truly have to wonder about the morality and intelligence of the majority of my fellow citizens.

Make no mistake about it - this isn't a "normal people are sheep" screed. Indeed, had a convincing case that Saddam possessed chemical/bio/nuclear, I probably would have supported a war against Saddam. But a case was never made, Bush seemed intent on bullying and alienating the world, and his one tactic of brinksmanship proved to be useless against America's "friends."

13:48 / 17.03.03

Just read the Guardian piece mentioned by K-CC. I always knew that the US would get bored/frustrated eventaully, and abandon the UN, but it has actually happened and as of tomorrow we in the UK will actually be at war.

Fuck.

Tomorrow's Daily (hate) Mail/The Scum are going to be full of out and out hatred and vitriol toward the French, for this being their fault! Of course, that Russia or China looked equally likely to veto any 2nd resolution anyway, and the fact that the UK/US wouldn't have even secured a majority anyway will simply get forgotten...

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:05 / 17.03.03

Todd - the shift in media coverage started at the weekend here, or so I perceive. What's depressing is that it was more of a return to form than anything else - papers which I would ordinarily have expected to be jingoistic warmongerers from the first mention of war but have actually been very sceptical prior to this point, suddenly fell back into line and started ranting and raving about 'our boys'. Worst of all was the Saturday Express (I think - may have been the Mail), which bore a full cover picture of some British troops with the legend 'We're here and ready to die for Britain and democracy - NOW BACK US!'. That seemed like something of a first to me - normally when papers kick into no-pretence-of-objectivity overdrive it's to shout an opinion they think their readers already agree with, not to shame them into changing their minds. But the change can really be seen in the way the TV news is suddenly interviewing toffy-nosed generals and honest, salt-of-earth Tommys whenever possible - they're raring to go, are our boys, and they'll do their job, no questions asked, they just want us to be proud of them. Gah.

And it all started to shift when Rumsfield said the US might go in without UK troops. Hmmm. It's enough to make you paranoid...

14:15 / 17.03.03

Well, the French aren't equally culpable as the United States - but they are responsible for the war in a large way.

As I understand it, the French were willing to veto any plan that included a time table with landmarks, with a recourse to war if Iraq failed. That, my friends, is bullshit. France's public dismissal the compromise plans floated by Chile, etc. (yes, the U.S. had earlier dismissed similar plans from Canada - however, the momentum seemed to be shifting against the US at this point, and they looked ready to cave) gave Saddam no impetus to cooperate, and gave the UN security council no fangs to support its words. In effect, France's veto threat was a "We dare you" to the U.S., and any child knows a bully will never back down from his bluff.

14:23 / 17.03.03

All the principal members of the UN have some responsibility to bear for the current disaster (crisis just doesn't seem to cut it anymore). However, one has to remember that the US/UK are proposing to go to war with no UN support. It is not France's (or Russia or China) fault that the US wants to go storming into Iraq for somewhat murky reasons...

Surely if you can't get a majority of votes on your side (even with the 'diplomatic' measures the US has been employing in Turkey etc.) and up to 60% of the permanent members of the UNSC look like they may veto your resolution you should stop and think that maybe this war business isn't such a good idea...

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:24 / 17.03.03

I think this must be some strange new usage of the word 'bluff'.

If you want to knock the French, go for their culpability in arming and supplying Saddam over the years, held jointly with, er, the UK and the US and just about everyone else. Talk about the fact that they have an interest in maintaining the status quo and the officially-unofficial-but-unofficially-official oil deal they have with Saddam's governement.

The idea that France blocked peace by saying "we'll veto any resolution which would automatically trigger war" is pretty weak.

14:24 / 17.03.03

UN inspectors check out of hotels

There's stories in The Guardian and whatnot about how this is legal because Saddam didn't disarm, but these rulings fail to note that force was only to be used if the INSPECTIONS DIDNT WORK. aaah. ah. Goddamn governments.

Goodness Gracious Meme

14:38 / 17.03.03

And Robin Cook's gone. Cabinent in emergency session.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN, earlier this afternoon:
"The co-sponsors reserve the right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq." "

14:39 / 17.03.03

Right - I'm not looking to constuct a "who started it" or "root causes" analysis of the situation. It's well and good to look at how the situation evolved and who armed Saddam, etc. but that does little to help the immediate problem of whether or not there'll be a war. I think, sometimes, in the rush to assign blame and uncover hidden motives, activists tend to neglect pragmatic, short-term solutions to problems - solutions that may be, given the past actions of the U.S., France, whomever, morally stinky, but are nonetheless more realistic.

What I'm trying to say is thatt, in the face of American belligerance, it seems to me that the French could have done a lot more to prolong the inspection process. If the American leaders appeared unserious about discussing peaceful alternatives about the conflict, the French were equally unserious about discussing recourse to a military solution - for which, in the face of Saddam's continuing intrangiscence, a reasonable argument could be made.

I'm certainly not saying they "blocked peace" - of course the Americans (and the British) are more culpable. It's just that I don't understand how people can say that the French acted completely responsibly in this situation. People have lumped in Russia and China with France in this crisis, but the Russians and Chinese would have probably rolledover and let the U.S. do whatever they wanted, with private assurances that their interests were protected. Chirac went out on a limb as an activist for peace, and while that may have made him a brief hero to doves around the world, France's stance was not consistant with their responsibility as a member of the security council.

14:40 / 17.03.03

Robin Cook, leader of the UK Commons, just resigned. He resigned prior to an emergency Cabinet meeting that I think is still going on.

Cook matters - Blair won't be happy to lose him. I wonder if Short will follow?

14:48 / 17.03.03

I wonder if Short will follow?

Well, given that Cook went with no overt sign of his intentions until the event, she's kind of got to go this time.

14:52 / 17.03.03

BBC radio are currently reporting that claire Short is still IN the government - it seems she has been persuaded to stay at least in the short term... not sure what the implications for this are yet - quite what would compel her to stay...

14:55 / 17.03.03

This is a bit startling. I'm not entirely up on the current parliamentary goings on though - so if anyone feels like telling me - firstly, does the whole house still have to vote on war, or just the cabinet? What do resignations mean re: causing cabinet collapse? or is all of that completely irrelevant?

15:10 / 17.03.03

The UK parliment do not have to vote on any decision to go to war - that power rests solely with the PM.
There probably will be a debate in the house of commons over the war, but it will only be called when such a debate will be kind of moot.
As for Robin Cook's resignation, its not a serious practical problem. The PM just has to find someone to replace him. However it is a tremendous political blow to lose a member of your cabinet over entry into a war.

15:15 / 17.03.03

Todd wrote: It's just that I don't understand how people can say that the French acted completely responsibly in this situation.

I think the French were reasonable. They wouldn't support any resolution that said "30 days to disarm" or anything with a timeline, since it's was up to the inspectors to determine a time, not the governments. I may be wrong, but I thought France was trying to let the inspectors do their work. The threat or pressure of war was only supposed to be there to keep them from difficulty with the Iraq government.

15:17 / 17.03.03

AARGH. The bastards on CNN look like they're smirking when they talk of war. AND THE INSPECTORS NEVER FOUND ANYTHING. I know, there could still be stuff to find, but give them a chance!

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:22 / 17.03.03

A reminder:

Fax your MP

Tell 'em to rebel. Tell 'em how you feel.

I wrote:

Dear Rt Hon Frank Dobson,

It's five o'clock in the afternoon on Monday. By this time tomorrow, I fully expect my country to be at war with Iraq, without the sanction of the UN.

Since my Prime Minister apparently has no intention of listening to what I have to say, I don't see any reason to go into more complex observations as to why this adventure is both disgraceful and profoundly unwise.

What I will say is that the explanations and justifications given by this government are idiotic. The claim, for example, that the UN must green-light war on Iraq to demonstrate its continued relevance, incites in me the response that on the contrary, in refusing consent in the face of UK and US bullying, the United Nations is proving very relevant indeed - in fact, it speaks for me better than my Prime Minister.

My faith in Labour is undermined, though the resistance of the rebels inside the party gives me hope. My faith in Mr. Blair is non-existent - and I was once a huge fan.

On a related issue, yesterday's Panorama programme ("Frontline Britain") made it clear that Britain is woefully unprepared for a terrorist attack. John Denham's empty responses and apparent ignorance - or denial - of the reality on the ground were utterly unreassuring.

In other words, it seems to me we are about to spend billions of pounds exacerbating a situation we already can't deal with. "We are sleepwalking our way to disaster," says one emergency planner. Well, no. I'm wide awake. The government, however, seems not only to be asleep, but to be living in another country.

Yours Sincerely,

Nicholas Cornwell

15:30 / 17.03.03

Nick,

Great idea - I do it when I feel strongly, but I am somewhat hampered by the fact that my MP is a bloody Govt. whip!

I faxed him a month or so ago about this - even in the face of futility I had to. The reply arrived yesterday and read like a form letter response he had just scribbled his name on the bottom of.

Which it probably was.

At least you've got Frank Dobson...

15:37 / 17.03.03

I've written to my M.P and sent off letter to blair in pure anger in this morning, it didn't say anything useful really just a sounding off about how terrible I though his actions were, but I felt like I had to do something. It might sound stupid but will also light a candle for the people of a Iraq, if war starts just a symbolic gesture, also wrote poem this morning apologising to Iraqi people, because I feel in such a weird positon, as a citizen of Britain, I feel I am on some level partly responsible for this war, we can get all apathetic and say we can't do anything and blair blatantly isn't listening to anything but his arrogant pride anyway so what's the use but it's good to do your best.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:38 / 17.03.03

This war makes for strange bedfellows- Cook's leaped up in my estimation. I'll still be very surprised if Short goes- once the bombs start falling, my money's on her doing yet another U-turn. Fuck, I even thought Peter fucking Hitchens was making sense in the Mail on Sunday this week.

The Sun have done their by-now traditional "squaddie" poster (oh well, at least now I know whose windows to brick) which means full mobilisation can't be far away.

I guess we all knew this was how the UN route was gonna end... but fuck, I'm pissed off.

22:33 / 17.03.03

The war starts tomorrow. This happens to be Iranian new year. Coincidence?

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

01:52 / 18.03.03

Bush said Saddam has 48 hours to vacate the country.

I would say that he will wait until the weekend before attacking.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

06:57 / 18.03.03

And they've just said on the Today Programme that Clare Short has decided to remain in the cabinet.

Well, I'm flabbergasted. Actually- no, hang on a minute, I'm not.

07:22 / 18.03.03

Did Clare Short give a reason for remaining?

I am just annoyed that she was once my MP and I voted for her, coz I thought she had a conscience!

FWIW she has completely lost my faith in her.

07:54 / 18.03.03

Come on now, lets not be hasty condemning Claire Short (or indeed anyone) out of hand. At the moment she s inside the government and has some small measure of influence on events. Outside the government she will not be able to do anything other than wring her hands at the plight of the Iraqi people, but as Minister for overseas development she will have even more influence rebuilding Iraq and post saddam society. More to the point - isn't it better to have Claire short exerting an influence over Iraqi reconstruction than a less idealistic MP or a consortium of Oil companies ?

How can she best serve both the British and Iraqi people - by staying involved or walking away for the sake of her precious priciples? It is by no means an easy decision, and I do not envy her having to make it one bit.

Page: (1)2