STOP THE WAR COALITION
NEWSLETTER No. 2006/44
21 December 2006
Email office@stopwar.org.uk
Telephone 020 7278 6694
Web: www.stopwar.org.uk

IN THIS NEWSLETTER:
1) MORE WAR "UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE"
2) NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION: 24 FEBRUARY
3) US SUPPORT FOR WAR DROPS TO 31 PER CENT
4) TONY BLAIR RELEASES ANTI-WAR SONG
5) TIME FOR REGIME CHANGE AT HOME
6) WOMEN IN THE NEW IRAQ
7) WHAT TONY BLAIR DIDN'T SAY ABOUT MUSLIMS
8) OUR THANKS TO ALL OUR SUPPORTERS

****************************************
1) MORE WAR "UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE"
Tony Blair continues to insist that "British troops will remain until the job is done"
(http://tinyurl.com/yg974v). The "job" being done is now so horrific that even the mainstream
media cannot avoid the scale of the catastrophe that the Bush-Blair wars have brought to the
people of Iraq.

Every week over 1000 Iraqis are dying violent deaths in Baghdad alone. 100,000 people flee the
country every month, as security and public services continue to collapse. Clean water and power
are scarce for much of the population and hospitals lack even the most basic supplies.
Unsurprisingly, the latest poll shows that 91 per cent of Iraqis believe their country is worse
off now than before the war in 2003. (http://tinyurl.com/yfpkwr).

Not content with his disastrous war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tony Blair is now rushing
through parliament plans for spending £25 billion on the Trident weapons of mass destruction, a
system which in 1983 he called "nuclear madness". (See http://tinyurl.com/y6y8os)

2006 has been Stop the War's most active year since the year of the Iraq invasion. Next year is
clearly going to be just as eventful -- with Bush and Blair committed to waging endless war in
Iraq and Afghanistan and still threatening an attack on Iran.

A REVIEW OF STOP THE WAR'S ACTIVITIES IN 2006 IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE:
http://tinyurl.com/vnrc7

****************************************
2) NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION: 24 FEBRUARY
CND and Stop the War Coalition have called a national demonstration in London on Saturday 24
February 2007, with the slogans NO TRIDENT and TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ. The timing for this
demonstration has been determined by the parliamentary agenda set by Blair, particularly on
Trident, which he wants to rush through in the hope that this will forestall opposition, which
has the potential to build into a mass campaign that forces Labour MPs to oppose the lunacy of
nuclear weapons. Parliament will debate and vote on Trident in early March. This means we will
have just six weeks to mobilise.

Local Stop the War groups have been asked to do the following to build the widest support for
the demonstration:
* Book coaches to bring protestors to London on 24 February
* Organise lobbies of local MPs, urging them to vote against Trident
* Organise public meetings to build support for the demonstration
* Organise regular STW street stalls
* Encourage local trade unions, mosques, faith organisations and community groups to publicise
the demonstration

Leaflets, posters, stickers and postcards publicising the demonstration will be available from
the national Stop the War office in early January: Telephone 020 7278 6694 to place orders.

SATURDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2007
NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION
NO TRIDENT / TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ
CENTRAL LONDON ASSEMBLE 12 NOON
Called by CND and Stop the War Coalition.
Full details available soon.

NOTE: As well as debating Trident in March, there will be a debate in parliament in January on
Britain's strategy in Iraq. Stop the War Coalition and CND will call protests at parliament when
the dates for these debates are announced.

****************************************
3) US SUPPORT FOR WAR DROPS TO 31 PER CENT
On average, 25 US troops are killed or injured every day in Iraq and ever increasing numbers of
Americans are asking why. Only 31 per cent now support the war, the lowest ever figure.
(http://tinyurl.com/yyvaeb). In the November elections, the Democratic party took control of the
Congress, mainly on an anti-war vote.

This is the background to the national TROOPS OUT NOW MARCH ON WASHINGTON, which has been called
for 27 January and which will bring protestors from all corners of the country to insist that
the new Congress reflects the clear mandate of the electorate that the war should end and all US
troops be withdrawn. FOR DETAILS SEE OF THE WASHINGTON MARCH, GO TO http://tinyurl.com/546zq

****************************************
4) TONY BLAIR RELEASES ANTI-WAR SONG
Tony Blair has reformed Ugly Rumours - his rock band from the 1970s - to remake the classic
anti-war track WAR - WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? It will be released on 1 January 2007 as a
download-only single costing 79p, of which 20p will go to Stop the War Coalition.

To preview the single, read about Ugly Rumours and hear six songs we don't think Tony Blair will
be recording, go to: http://tinyurl.com/ybv2nw

From 1 January 2007 download-only singles are eligible for chart placing in the official Top 40.
By downloading WAR by TONY BLAIR AND UGLY RUMOURS, you will be giving financial support to Stop
the War's campaigns and you could help get the anti-war message into the top ten.

PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY OF TONY BLAIR'S ANTI-WAR SINGLE NOW ON THE OFFICIAL UGLY RUMOURS WEBSITE:
http://tinyurl.com/y8pldw

A video starring George Galloway MP and Tony Blair's sister-in-law Lauren Booth as police
officers will be available soon to publicise the track. (For a trailer, go to
http://tinyurl.com/y9grql)

One single we are sure Tony Blair will not be releasing this Christmas is: HAPPY XMAS (WAR IS
OVER), a video for which is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/ybs3ur
WARNING: Contains disturbing images.

****************************************
5) TIME FOR REGIME CHANGE AT HOME
Stop the War Coalition's Vice-President Tariq Ali writes:

"The warlord of Downing Street is still at large, zombie like in his denials that anything
serious is wrong in Baghdad or Kabul…The British parliament, even more supine than its US
equivalent, voted against any official inquiry on British involvement in the war, when they knew
that a majority in the country was opposed to a continuation of the conflict. Blair's
ideological zealotry has helped destroy Iraq, revive the Taliban in Afghanistan, increase the
threat of terror in Britain and introduce repressive laws that were not enforced even in the
second world war. Time for a regime change at home."
TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE, GO TO: http://tinyurl.com/vn5sd

****************************************
6) WOMEN IN THE "NEW" IRAQ
In 2003, Bush and Blair said that increasing women's rights was essential to creating a new,
democratic Iraq. What have they achieved?

For much of the 20th century, and under various leaders, Iraq was one of the most progressive
Middle Eastern countries in its treatment of women, who were encouraged to go to school and
enter the workforce. Even Saddam Hussein's Baath Party espoused a secular Arab nationalism that
advocated women's full participation in society. (http://tinyurl.com/ykl6aa) .

In the words of Iraqi sociologist Shatha al-Dulaimy, "Women in Iraq used to go to work,
participate in social activities and even take part in politics. Iraqi women studied and worked
side by side with men, and they formed at least 35 percent of the national working power in
various fields of work until the US occupation came."

And now? Bush and Blair claim there has been "tremendous change", citing the 85 women, out of a
total of 275, who are members of the Iraq National Assembly. But one of those members describes
the reality:

"We are just a part of the décor arranged by Americans who wanted to convince the world of the
'tremendous' change in Iraq. Our voice is never heard inside or outside parliament."
(http://tinyurl.com/y9jx8v)

Shatha al-Dulaimy sums up the condition of women in Bush and Blair's Iraq: "The occupation has
brought nothing but suffering, death or kidnapping."

****************************************
7) WHAT TONY BLAIR DIDN'T SAY TO MUSLIMS
This is what Tony Blair didn't say in his speech on multiculturalism earlier this month:

"When I say things like "belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, respect for this
country and its shared heritage is what gives us the right to call ourselves British", I realise
I'm insulting you all – as if these values are alien to you, your culture, or to the nations you
originate from.

"When I claim to be supportive of you, for example, by saying "most Muslims are thoroughly
law-abiding citizens,, I should ask myself how an average white person would feel to be
patronised by such a statement. This week, for example, would I dare to say something so crass
as, "Of course, most residents of Ipswich are law-abiding"?

And when you add in the macho talk about immigration and asylum from me and my ministers, and
what I said about Britain "not being taken for a ride" – not to mention our edicts on the
religious clothing we say you shouldn't wear – of course, I now realise, I'm adding to the
prejudice you'll face from the rest of society."

TO READ MORE OF WHAT BLAIR DIDN'T SAY TO MUSLIMS, GO TO: http://tinyurl.com/w7vka

****************************************
8) OUR THANKS TO ALL OUR SUPPORTERS
As said earlier in this newsletter, 2006 has been a very busy year for Stop the War. It was made
possible by the efforts our local STW group organisers, the hundreds of volunteers who have
helped us organise our demonstrations and other events, and all those who have donated over the
year to help fund our activities.

Nowhere was this more apparent in 2006 than during Israel's barbaric attacks on Lebanon and Gaza
in July/August, when in the space of four weeks we organised two very large national emergency
demonstrations, calling for an immediate ceasefire, including the 100,000 strong protest in
London on 5 August.

Stop the War wishes to thank all its supporters for the contribution they have made in 2006.
There are big tasks ahead, with the warlords in Washington and Downing Street still at large and
planning mass slaughter without end. A broadly based national anti-war movement, which aims to
represent the majority view in this country opposing the Bush-Blair wars, will be as important
as ever in 2007. We hope we can continue to receive your support which has been so invaluable
this year.

Recent circular :

A WARNING TO BLAIR/GORDON BROWN, DAVID CAMERON FROM MSTWC 2006


In the week that our local newspaper, the Liverpool Echo finally calls
for the British troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, Merseyside Stop the
war coalition proudly looks back on its principled opposition to the
illegal invasion of Iraq and the events we have organised to bring a
speedy end to its occupation. The following are events undertaken by
MSTWC in 2006 only. We are only 1 group within the National Stop the War
Coalition that over 500 groups are affiliated to. We didn't need to
witness 655,000 Iraqi deaths nor the deaths of 126 British soldiers to
convince us that the war in Iraq would encourage racism and Islamophobia
and increase the threat of terrorist attacks -it was obvious. We give
notice to Gordon Brown, David Cameron or whoever that we in the peace
movement will do everything in our power to prevent our government from
engaging in any future wars. We are committed to undertaking actions of
mass civil disobedience if the situation requires. We in the peace
movement recognise that there is always an alternative to war and pledge
that we are committed to bringing Tony Blair and his co-conspirators to
account for their criminal role they have played in taking our country
into this illegal and immoral war.

Yours in Peace
Audrey White
National STWC Steering
Committee Delegate For Merseyside

2006 OUR BUSIEST YEAR YET

Public meeting----Gladstone Hotel MPs Jeremy Corben Alice Mahon etc
Public meeting-----------St Helens MP Alice Mahon Bruce Kent
Film Show----------- Southport MP John Pugh
Film Show-----------Liverpool Ken Loach introduced and spoke
Demonstration-------London NSTWC sent coaches
Vigil-------------------St Georges Hall for 100th soldier killed
Public meeting------Gladstone Hotel Rose Gentle Linsey German spoke
Picket ----------------Lipa all week re Condi Rice visit
Picket-----------------Philharmonic Hall 2 days re Rice visit
Lobby------------------Liverpool City Council meeting re Rice visit on
two occasions
Meetings-------------with Council Leader Execs of Philharmonic Hall &
Police
Demonstration----- Mass opposition to Rice and Straw Day ( 10am to 8pm )
Rally ------------------ Involved in May day Rally Stall Raffle etc
Vigil-------------------Steps of St Georges Hall for victims of Lebanon
Two Coaches to London Re demonstration against invasion of Lebanon
Demonstration------with Friends of Palestine at Anfield re Lebanon
Public Meeting------Caribbean Centre Lebanese journalist spoke
Public Meeting------Caribbean Centre-ex UK Ambassador Uzbekistan
+Fireman
National Conference London sent 8 delegates
Pub Quiz--------------The Pilgrim raised funds had ethical raffle
Fund Raiser----------The Piazza Bruce Kent music and a 4 course meal
Band Night-----------The Casa school students against the war
Demonstration--------Four Coaches to Manchester LP Conference led demo +
die-in
Picket--------------------Starbucks re Guantanamo Bay
Picket--------------------Army Recruitment Office with Coffin + Grim
Reaper
Reception---------------Adelphi Hotel Palestinian trade union leader etc
Public Meeting--------Adelphi Hotel Tony Benn John Rees Palestinians
Die-in---------------------- City Centre School Students for Armistice
Day
Sponsorship------------Representation at protest at Faslane
Stalls----------------------Saturdays throughout the year
Letters--------------------published in local and national newspapers
Radio+TV----------------Various interviews and phone ins throughout year

Conference---------------Islamophobia - sent 22 delegates
Demonstration---------Coach to Brize-Norton RAF Base

For every activity we produced thousands of leaflets and posters. We
have contacted the press and radio, e-mailed and texted. We have had
letter writing campaigns. We have spent many hours on the streets
gaining support.

How naive. If the US and UK pull out the place will turn to carnage.

Get real dope!!!!!

How naive. If the US and UK pull out the place will turn to carnage.

Get real dope!!!!!

Aye, some peoples posts on other places I've read think Iraq would be stable on it's own if Uk and US troops left!

Some Hippie's believe the conspiracy theories too much too.

How naive. If the US and UK pull out the place will turn to carnage.

Get real dope!!!!!

Will turn to carnage? If I may be so bold as to say the country is now a bloody carnage. And for what?

Get real dope!!!!!

Mr bolshevik is entitled to his opinion and it certainly doesn't make him a dope, Mr Waterways.

Will turn to carnage?


Yes!!!!!


If I may be so bold as to say the country is now a bloody carnage. And for what?

So more carnage then. How jolly! Shishhhhh!!!

Aye, some peoples posts on other places I've read think Iraq would be stable on it's own if Uk and US troops left!


As Iraqis are killing each other on an ever increasing scale, how do these plantpots conclude this. Nah! Don't answer.

Mr bolshevik is entitled to his opinion and it certainly doesn't make him a dope, Mr Waterways.

He is a total dope. An opinion of a plantpot is not worth taking into account.

He is a total dope. An opinion of a plantpot is not worth taking into account.

From postings that I read
I think you will find that some members have the same opinion of you.

Just giving a balanced view

for evil to flourish it only takes good men to do nothing. We should back our troops out there protecting the innocent. Wasn't it Saddam who murder thousands by gas and bullets to stop anyone challenging him or if they annoyed him.

Because iraq never won the world cup he had the team tortured? Considering our troops dont receive the proper kit or support they are doing a fantastic job of saving the innocent.

Because its taking time all the doom merchants and people who want to get on the telly are calling for us to pull out. It will be carnage if that happens and the mad mullahs will step in and produce another generation of suicide bombers.

From postings that I read
I think you will find that some members have the same opinion of you.

Just giving a balanced view

By balance do you quantity of opinion? Balance of reasoned opinion is another matter.

The UK do not cut and run. When de-empiring, NO country was left in turmoil. We never ran out of Ulster either. We only go when any place is ready to run itself and stable enough.

We stay until Iraq is arable enough - no matter how long it takes.

Mr bolshevik is entitled to his opinion and it certainly doesn't make him a dope, Mr Waterways.

Mr. Waterways is fond of name calling, so far he has used nutter, dope and plantpot. Is there an order these go in, I have qualified for nutter twice so far. can anyone beat this?:eek:

Mr bolshevik is entitled to his opinion and it certainly doesn't make him a dope, Mr Waterways.


I agree we all have opinions and we are all entitled to express them, if someone doesn’t accept the argument they have two choices, ignore it or present an alternative argument.
Regarding the situation in Iraq it is blatantly clear that what the coalition of the willing, US, Britain and Australia, are doing is only inflaming the situation and in my view they are now part of the problem.
As for “bloody carnage” that’s already there, hundreds of innocent men, women and children are dying daily and something has to be done now to stop it. From day one of the invasion the death and destruction has become progressively worse and that is with coalition forces on the ground, the logic of that tells me it is not going to improve, that being the case the coalition should start pulling out their forces now; surely experience tells us that you can’t bring peace and democracy at the point of a gun.

Why should US, British and Australian families send their young people to fight and die in a political war, ask yourself what does it matter if Iraq is democratic or not, it certainly didn’t mattered in the past and from what I have seen in my more than seventy years its not going to matter in the future!

Hi all

Bottom line is this is an Iraqi problem and they have to solve it. Outsiders, occupation forces can't do it. Putting in more US or UK troops will not solve the problem, and President Bush's prescription that the GI's will stand down as the Iraqis stand up will not work. It is clear that the current government is too weak, and the Iraqi army and police are utterly compromised by factional interests at the expense of the good of Iraqis in general. The sectarian militias are far too strong.

The U.S. and the American public have not recognized that following the U.S. overthrow of Saddam from the first this was a Shiite versus Sunni war. As has been noted, the death toll of Iraqi on Iraqi violence is staggering. But because of the misleading information fed to the American public, most Americans I am certain think what is mainly going on in Iraq is a terrorist/al Queda war versus the U.S. but that is not the case. The U.S. and U.K. need to withdraw but the problem is that a rapid withdrawal might spark a regional conflict. The bipartisan commission led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton has the right approach, so far rejected by Mr Bush: the U.S. needs to drop its bullheaded approach to Syria and Iran and begin talks to ease the situation in Iraq. It seems the U.S. were able to talk to Syria to send suspects there to be tortured but will not talk to them about this. Duh. . . .

Chris

There is one person who would quickly solve the problem that is Iraq but right now he is busy defending himself in an Iraqi court!

Don't get upset, my tongue is firmly in my cheek.:)

There is one person who would quickly solve the problem that is Iraq but right now he is busy defending himself in an Iraqi court!

Don't get upset, my tongue is firmly in my cheek.:)

Hi Phill

It's a terrible thing to contemplate but I hate to admit that you are right. Saddam Hussein was the strongman who held Iraq together. The situation in some ways also parallels the circumstances in Yugoslavia once strongman Marshall Tito was gone. So there are precedents to what is happening now in Iraq.

Chris

A question I always ask is, Was Iraq the way it was because of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq?
I think this is a good one for you to answer phill.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:

I agree Chris, it is a very sad thing to contemplate, but it certainly does have merit, especially for many of those wretched Iraqis who just want to get on with living.

Chris, from the beginning of this occupation I was against the invasion of Iraq, I felt it was politically motivated and had no beneficial advantage for anyone other than the opponents of Saddam Hussein, and as a balm to sooth the paranoia of the Bush administration; that Saddam was a tyrant there is no argument but he was certainly no threat to the countries who backed the invasion namely the US, Britain and Australia.
I can understand the anger demonstrated by US citizens during their recent election, three thousand young American men and women have given their lives for no obvious reason other than they were doing their duty, as was asked of them!

Iraq had no involvement in what happened at the WTC on September 11th and they most certainly had no allegiance to Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein reined over a secular society that was no part of the theocratic hierarchies from whence terrorism came … The world is a more dangerous place now, especially for those countries whose governments sided with Bush Administration in their “so called” pre-emptive strike,
Recently Bush and Blair spoke of the threat of terrorism for the next hundred years, perhaps it is where they are going; I imagine it will also be devilishly hot down there as well. Commonsense and diplomacy will eventually give our kids and grand-kids a world fit to live in.

Hi Phill

There's much truth in all you say. I have also opposed this war from the beginning and I believed that the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq were bogus when the Bush administration began to put them forth in 2002. I could also forsee what has happened, which was not hard to predict given prior events in Iran, Israel/Palestine and Lebanon in terms of kidnappings and suicide bombings. The region is too volatile for the type of cavalier and simplistic venture that Messrs Bush and Blair entered into. I agree that the world is a more dangerous place because of their meddling. Saddam was contained before the invasion and he was no threat to world security. I think he was seen as an "easy" target by Bush and his cronies, many of whom thought that Saddam should have been taken down in 1991 during the first Gulf War. But that is kind of like the type of thinking that thought MacArthur could have gone on to defeat the Red Chinese at the time of the Korean War. More simplistic and unrealistic thinking.

All the best

Chris

And now Bush is likely to Ignore his chiefs of staff, who, let's face it are military experts and send in more troops. He is just showing how ignorant of the situation he is.

And now Bush is likely to Ignore his chiefs of staff, who, let's face it are military experts and send in more troops. He is just showing how ignorant of the situation he is.

Well he still thinks "Victory" is possible which as you say shows his total naivety about what is truly going on over there.

Chris

A question I always ask is, Was Iraq the way it was because of Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq?
I think this is a good one for you to answer phill.:Colorz_Grey_PDT_16:


That's very good question ar shy, and requiring a bit of thought, however I would say Saddam Hussein was the a product of the diversity of the society into which he was born. Remember it was the British who took a group of states of different ethnicity, religion and politics and brought them together form Iraq, it is a tribal culture and as such difficult to control and govern; sadly because of the invasion and occupation the very fabric that is Iraq is in danger of reverting back to what it was before and that is not progress for the people.
As I’ve said before there is no argument as to the despotic tendencies of Saddam Hussein, however I believe he ruled the Iraqi society in a mind-set common to Middle East … Remember the Saudi’s are the strongest ally of the United States and that is a dictatorship, is it any better than Saddam Hussein’s reign, I don’t know but they do have lots of oil?

The soldiers took the queen's shilling, did thier family's try to put them off from joining? but now the troopsare being shot at they want out. Appeasement does not work, they tried it with hitler, let him do want he wanted and looked the other way and see were that led.

Keep the troops there until the Iraqis straintheir own security forces then we should withdraw

That's very good question ar shy, and requiring a bit of thought, however I would say Saddam Hussein was the a product of the diversity of the society into which he was born. Remember it was the British who took a group of states of different ethnicity, religion and politics and brought them together form Iraq, it is a tribal culture and as such difficult to control and govern;

But it was the US who interfered with the British Plan, in Palestine, in Saudi, in Kuwait in Iraq, and in Iran :?

sadly because of the invasion and occupation the very fabric that is Iraq is in danger of reverting back to what it was before and that is not progress for the people.

What was it before... before the US interfered ?


As I’ve said before there is no argument as to the despotic tendencies of Saddam Hussein,

Many here that opposed the US led invasion...also opposed, and protested against the Saddam regime... whereas ?

however I believe he ruled the Iraqi society in a mind-set common to Middle East … Remember the Saudi’s are the strongest ally of the United States and that is a dictatorship, is it any better than Saddam Hussein’s reign, I don’t know but they do have lots of oil?

aye.... and?

The soldiers took the queen's shilling, did thier family's try to put them off from joining? but now the troopsare being shot at they want out. Appeasement does not work, they tried it with hitler, let him do want he wanted and looked the other way and see were that led.

Keep the troops there until the Iraqis straintheir own security forces then we should withdraw

Sorry but Saddam is not in Hitler's league. Saddam posed no threat to this country, Hitler did. I suppose it was ok to turn a blind eye to Saddam while he was fighting the Iranians in the '80's?

Some good points have been made - the other thing I would like to say is that the US / British presence in Iraq is only succeeding in adding fuel to the flames. One of the arguments that was consistently put against going to war in Iraq was that launching such a huge assault on an enemy who had not attacked us and posed no demonstrable threat would only encourage the kind of extremism and terrorism that it was supposed to root out and destroy. The reality has proved more terrible than even the harshest antiwar critics could have predicted. After near four years of military occupation, the carnage is reaching new heights of horror. How long does it have to continue before our rulers see that the army presence is part of the problem, not the solution ?

The problem doesn't lie with the soldiers, but with the job that they're being asked to do. The war was a piece of political adventurism by the White House who spurned calls from across the world to await the findings of the weapons inspectors and work together with the UN. Naturally it was viewed throughout the Middle East as an act of aggression motivated by a desire to maintain control of the region's oil. Parallels were drawn with the situation in Palestine where the peace process had been allowed to collapse. It became very easy for violent extremist groups to recruit people to their ranks by saying that American imperialism had to be resisted.

The problem doesn't lie with the soldiers, but with the job that they're being asked to do. The war was a piece of political adventurism by the White House who spurned calls from across the world to await the findings of the weapons inspectors and work together with the UN.

Blair went to war aginst his own supporters wishes, and against the majority..

He called it democracy.... WE called it LIES...


Bush.. well Bush, he just fooled the foolish.....

though there were also many Americans who weren't fooled ...

Astonishing to think that Iraq is generally agreed to be the main reason why Bush's Republicans got hammered in the recent midterm elections.

though there were also many Americans who weren't fooled ...

Oh aye yeah... the silent minority I think as the media referred to them yeah?



Astonishing to think that Iraq is generally agreed to be the main reason why Bush's Republicans got hammered in the recent midterm elections.

Innit?.. international relations have never been a big issue in the USA aye?

But it was the US who interfered with the British Plan, in Palestine, in Saudi, in Kuwait in Iraq, and in Iran :?

What was it before... before the US interfered ?

Many here that opposed the US led invasion...also opposed, and protested against the Saddam regime... whereas ?
aye.... and?


Britain created Iraq from what was known as Mesopotamia, which they invaded in the 20’s, they re-occupied Iraq in the 30’s at a time when the whole Middle East was in turmoil pre the formation of the new Jewish state of Israel, to be situated in the land of Palestine; the reason for the British adventure in that part of the world was to protect their oil interests and secure a safe route to India but they were soon joined by the new emerging world power the United States of America.
I am going a little off track here but it is interesting to note, in spite of what many young people in Britain believe, the US did not enter the Second World War to help the British defeat the Third Reich … In fact 95% of Americans were against becoming involved in the European war, they joined the battle in 1942 when Adolph Hitler, as per an agreement with Japan, declared war on the US at the same time as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour but thank God the Americans were drawn into the fight otherwise we could be marching to the beat of a different drum right now!

Whatever the history I family believe the coalition of the willing should start standing down their military in this political war in which thousand have all ready died … I’m sure the Iraqis are quite capable of restoring order in their own way; democracy only comes from within and I don’t believe they have any understanding of the democratic principle.

Having lived through the Israeli/Palestine troubles after 48' I wasn't aware of any US interference, as far as I understand, from what was happening at that time, Britain was doing what the Bush regime just foolishly tried to do all over again?

thank God the Americans were drawn into the fight otherwise we could be marching to the beat of a different drum right now!Bernard Montgomery and his 8th. Army defeated Germany's acknowledged greatest general at El Alamien in Egypt and this was before the US entered the European theatre of the war proper. The RAF fighter command had driven the Luftwaffe from the skies over Britain and reduced them to night bombing raids of British cities before Pearl Habour drew the US into the European theatre. The Red Army had defeated the Wehrmacht at Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow before the US entry could have had any impact on the outcome of the battles. So just how "could we" be marching to "the beat of a different drum"? The US participation in WWII hastened the end of that war, it, the US, did not win it.

I’d be the first to admit that America became very rich on the back of the Second World War but without their help Britain and the whole of Europe would most certainly have been defeated
Britain and commonwealth (which was then Empire) held out against the might of the Third Reich with US financial and material assistance until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in December 42. At the same time of the Japanese attack Germany declared war on the US and they joined the war early 42’… Britain and Empire countries were still fighting in North Africa in 1943 and it was only with the American’s in the combined operation Torch, in 43’, that the Italians and Germans were defeated in North Africa.
The Germans were still effective in the air up until Operation Overlord which was the invasion to take back Europe, because of the war Britain owed the US millions from the lend lease arrangement and with the post war Marshal Plan that debt grew to 3 Billion by wars end; I believe the debt was finally repaid in or around 2002.
Undoubtedly Britain and Europe would now be part of the Greater Third Reich if not for US help!

The Pearl Harbor raid was on the 7th December 1941 not 1942.

The Pearl Harbor raid was on the 7th December 1941 not 1942.

Quite right Cissie, thank you for your correction, I was ahead of myself which is better than being behind yourself but not good enough!
http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/lachen/smile30.gif

Sorry but Saddam is not in Hitler's league. Saddam posed no threat to this country, Hitler did. I suppose it was ok to turn a blind eye to Saddam while he was fighting the Iranians in the '80's?

Saddam posed an indirect threat to this country. Kelly even said he can have WMD "in weeks, days". There was a threat to the oil region. The world runs on oil. An unstable regime in the area can't be permitted by the rest of the world. He was also a mass murderer - you may have noticed.

It is very simple. Blair had the guts to go in with the Yanks and Aussies and Poles. All the rest of the hypocrites sneer the US and UK as they enjoy the benefits of plentiful cheap oil.

BTW, Hitler didn't want war with the UK. He said that from the begining. Even after Dunkirk he was pushing for peace. Hess even parachuted in to make peace. We said NO.

Saddam posed an indirect threat to this country. Kelly even said he can have WMD "in weeks, days". There was a threat to the oil region. The world runs on oil. An unstable regime in the area can't be permitted by the rest of the world. He was also a mass murderer - you may have noticed.

It is very simple. Blair had the guts to go in with the Yanks and Aussies and Poles. All the rest of the hypocrites sneer the US and UK as they enjoy the benefits of plentiful cheap oil.

BTW, Hitler didn't want war with the UK. He said that from the begining. Even after Dunkirk he was pushing for peace. Hess even parachuted in to make peace. We said NO.

So Saddam was a good guy when the Americans were using him as a bullwark against the mullahs in Iran? Of course he, Saddam, had to go when the Americans decided to offer democracy to a people who cannot even spell the word in Arabic.

Saddam posed an indirect threat to this country. And if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.:rolleyes:

The Pearl Harbor raid was on the 7th December 1941 not 1942.

Pearl Harbour wasn't even part of the US when it was attacked it was only a naval base,so in my opinion America (as in the American mainland) was never attacked during the War.

Saddam posed an indirect threat to this country. Kelly even said he can have WMD "in weeks, days". There was a threat to the oil region. The world runs on oil. An unstable regime in the area can't be permitted by the rest of the world. He was also a mass murderer - you may have noticed.

It is very simple. Blair had the guts to go in with the Yanks and Aussies and Poles. All the rest of the hypocrites sneer the US and UK as they enjoy the benefits of plentiful cheap oil.

BTW, Hitler didn't want war with the UK. He said that from the begining. Even after Dunkirk he was pushing for peace. Hess even parachuted in to make peace. We said NO.

It looks like you'll swallow anything they want you to believe John,you couldn't be further from the truth.I do believe we had to go in too save the penguins during the Falklands war though.

I’d be the first to admit that America became very rich on the back of the Second World War but without their help Britain and the whole of Europe would most certainly have been defeated

No that one again. The USA were the Wal-Mart of war. In 1939 UK industrial output was larger than Germany. The Soviet economy was twice, three times the size of Germany. Germany's only hope was in short sharp wins - they could not win a protracted war. They did it in France and were defeated in the battle for air fighter supremacy over England in the west and hoped to defeat the USSR quickly by Xmas 1941. Once they failed to defeat the USSR by Xmas (they were stopped at Moscow and the Soviets took 30,000 prisoner) they were going to lose, USA or no USA. The combined economies of the USSR and the British Commonwealth would ensure the Germans were defeated. The USA shortened the war - they did not decide the outcome.

BY the time the USA entered the European war in 1942 with "boots on the ground" at Kassarine in Tunisia, the Soviets had defeated the bulk of the German army and effectively wiped out the Romanian and Italian armies at Stalingrad - using Soviet guns, tanks and armour.

Only 20% of German forces faced the UK and the USA.

The USA were the Wal-Mart of war and have no right to claim victory in the field. The Soviets did the killing and took the loses. They deserve most of the credit.

Fact: Most of the Japanese army was eliminated by the British and Soviets, not the USA. The British faced a million in Burma and killed 250,000 of them. About 800,000 were eliminated when the Soviets moved into Manchuria and wiped out the Kwantung army. Nearly 2 million Japs taken out by the British and Soviets.


Britain and Empire countries were still fighting in North Africa in 1943 and it was only with the American’s in the combined operation Torch, in 43’, that the Italians and Germans were defeated in North Africa.


The USA made little difference to the outcome in North Africa.


The Germans were still effective in the air up until Operation Overlord which was the invasion to take back Europe, because of the war Britain owed the US millions from the lend lease arrangement and with the post war Marshal Plan that debt grew to 3 Billion by wars end; I believe the debt was finally repaid in or around 2002.


No. In a few weeks time - with interest. The UK should have told them where to go. We were doing the fighting for them with our men taking the loses using their equipment while they were preparing for war (in 1939 Portugal had a larger army than the USA) - and then they charged us with interest.


Undoubtedly Britain and Europe would now be part of the Greater Third Reich if not for US help!

Read above.

I agree with you on that John,Hollywood and myth won the War for America.

It looks like you'll swallow anything they want you to believe John,you couldn't be further from the truth.I do believe we had to go in too save the penguins during the Falklands war though.

I am bang on the button, and who are these they? Use some common sense.

Of course he, Saddam, had to go when the Americans decided to offer democracy to a people who cannot even spell the word in Arabic.There are not to few people in this country that would welcome Bush offering to extend democracy here.

Pearl Harbour wasn't even part of the US when it was attacked it was only a naval base,so in my opinion America (as in the American mainland) was never attacked during the War.

Officially Hawaii was not a part of the USA - realistically it was, as it was US sovereign territory. The Japanese took 3 US islands in Alaska. In one island, Kiska, the USA invaded to re-take the island and had about 25 killed and lots injured. It would have been more if there were any Japs were on the island - it was deserted, the Japs left days previously. Totally true.

And if you believe that,

That was the case.

Having lived through the Israeli/Palestine troubles after 48' I wasn't aware of any US interference, as far as I understand, from what was happening at that time, Britain was doing what the Bush regime just foolishly tried to do all over again?

Israel was created with the enormous aid of the US Zionists. The UK disagreed with its creation and abstained from the UN vote on its creation. The UK was right it its predictions, understanding the area.

Blair went to war aginst his own supporters wishes, and against the majority..

He called it democracy.... WE called it LIES...


Blair has been proven time and time again to have told NO lies whatsoever.

Some good points have been made - the other thing I would like to say is that the US / British presence in Iraq is only succeeding in adding fuel to the flames.

The problem with Iraq was that the US forces were not trained in a peacetime role. The UK had no major problems in the south. It escalated in a copy-cat style when the US run north went out of control.

<snip the rest as it is really just tripe>

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8132/pict0029ez6.th.jpg (http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0029ez6.jpg) This was the allies most powerful weapon. The combined Axis submarine fleets couldn't sink them as fast as Uncle Sam could build them. The Liberty ship and it's Canadian counterpart, the Fort boats, were horrible to sail in but they got the job done. This one is permernantly moored in the Port of Tampa and is part of the Maritime Museum of Tampa. Just click on the thumbnail to enlarge the image.

Sorry about the above, I haven't yet been able to master "Image Shack", but perseverance is the key.

What a terrific thread! I don't know enough to contribute ("never stopped you before", I hear you say!). Thanks to all those who have posted.:PDT_Piratz_26:

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8132/pict0029ez6.th.jpg (http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0029ez6.jpg) This was the allies most powerful weapon. The combined Axis submarine fleets couldn't sink them as fast as Uncle Sam could build them. The Liberty ship and it's Canadian counterpart, the Fort boats, were horrible to sail in but they got the job done. This one is permernantly moored in the Port of Tampa and is part of the Maritime Museum of Tampa. Just click on the thumbnail to enlarge the image.

They were based on a Sunderland yards standard design. A Brit designed them.

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8132/pict0029ez6.th.jpg (http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0029ez6.jpg) This was the allies most powerful weapon. The combined Axis submarine fleets couldn't sink them as fast as Uncle Sam could build them. The Liberty ship and it's Canadian counterpart, the Fort boats, were horrible to sail in but they got the job done. This one is permanantly moored in the Port of Tampa and is part of the Maritime Museum of Tampa. Just click on the thumbnail to enlarge the image.

Hi Sloyne

There's a similar vessel tied up in Baltimore, the Liberty Ship S.S. John W. Brown (http://hnsa.org/ships/jbrown.htm).

Chris

There's a similar vessel tied up in Baltimore, the Liberty Ship S.S. John W. Brown (http://hnsa.org/ships/jbrown.htm).Thanks Chris, I will certainly go and see it next time i'm in Baltimore.

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8132/pict0029ez6.th.jpg (http://img116.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pict0029ez6.jpg) This was the allies most powerful weapon. The combined Axis submarine fleets couldn't sink them as fast as Uncle Sam could build them. The Liberty ship and it's Canadian counterpart, the Fort boats, were horrible to sail in but they got the job done. This one is permernantly moored in the Port of Tampa and is part of the Maritime Museum of Tampa. Just click on the thumbnail to enlarge the image.

The Liberty ship in the photo was known in the trade as a "Sam Boat" because many of them were launched as Sam something or other; as for comfort they were better than most of the British ships of the time, I sailed on two "Sam Boats" and on a T3 and T2 Liberty tankers ... they had refrigerators in crew messroom’s and iced water on tap, actually it was chilled water as the pipes passed through the ship refrigerator.
Women virtually built the vessels because the men were away fighting the war, all the welders were female and they did an incredible job.
Because the “Sam Boats” were all welded the British wouldn’t sail them unless they had a double row of rivets right around the hull, this was known as an Insurance Band … nowadays all ships are welded.

I sailed on two "Sam Boats" .And judging by your avitar you sailed aboard, in my opinion, the finest looking ship to sail on the Mersey, the Scotland too. I also sailed aboard her and the France, England and Britain.

as for comfort they were better than most of the British ships of the time.I meant "sea kindly". I sailed on one and she would have rolled on Sefton park lake, felt every wave. I sailed a T2 (Moss's), in ballast, from Ardrossan to Curacao. Calm seas on the voyage but we broke down twice and had to be towed by a Shell tanker, the Labiosa, into port. Her crew, which included my cousin, received 'salvage' for the tow.

They did have a tendency to stiffness, depends who did the cargo plan.

Yes I did my first trip on the Scotland in 1951 and my dad did the maiden voyage in 1930 when she was the Empress of Japan ... I spent my whole working life at sea and retired eight years ago.

Blair has been proven time and time again to have told NO lies whatsoever.


Proven ?:disgust:

Did the Brits...overthrow Iraqi and Iranian governments?

Did the Brits create ISRAEL ?



The British left stable governments and regimes.... the USA toppled them.

i agree that the soviets did more than any nation to win world war 2. but they could not have carried on fighting without war materials ( ie food) which even today they struggle to feed their own populace.

As for the Iraq war, conflict call it what you will.........i still think our troops should be supported no matter what. Basra was an example of what could have been had we not been paired with the inempt yanks.

i agree that the soviets did more than any nation to w
in world war 2. but they could not have carried on fighting without war materials ( ie food) which even today they struggle to feed their own populace.

I don't think Russia or its soviets are in danger of starvation..today..

But yes.. no country on its lonesome can claim to have won WWII... the ALLIES won aye?


As for the Iraq war, conflict call it what you will.........i still think our troops should be supported no matter what. Basra was an example of what could have been had we not been paired with the inempt yanks.

Has the Baghdad police and army also been taken over by militias ? :shock:

A true Soviet, I wish to be like this man. Cold looking and wanting to break.:PDT_Piratz_26:

Except, An American would not beat me.:PDT_Aliboronz_24:

http://www.totalrocky.com/multimedia/wallpaper/drago_800.jpg