Britain’s new prime mister is pro-war! :0

July 31, 2007

I ran into this on Google news… “Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has disappointed American and British critics of the war in Iraq by declaring that he believes the West is involved in a “generation-long battle” against radical Islamic terrorism, that he believes the American mission in Iraq is worthwhile, and that he will stand by President Bush in his efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle East.” – New York Sun

…I thought Blair was removed because he is anti-Iraq! Isn’t that a big part of why Brown was elected (technically he was “selected” through votes from his fellow labor party members)!?! I’m confused. Could he have come to this conclusion rationally?

Apparently the media led me astray on the new prime minister’s stance on The War.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Britain’s new prime mister is pro-war! :0”

  1. Peter Says:

    Brown, wasn’t elected, he succeeded Blair since he was the Deputy Prime Minister. Oh, and Blair retired, whether it was forced or not, no one knows but he took like a year to do it.

    But you are right, I thought Brown was antiwar as well, in fact I remember him saying that he was going to pull British troops out of Iraq? Maybe that was the placate the masses until he was in power? Maybe we’re both mistaken *shrugs* Not my country… brilliant attitude I know

  2. Alex W Says:

    Brown is actually of the same Labour party as Blair. I don’t fully understand Britain’s organization of government, but the prime minister is chosen by the parliament and is always from the party that holds the majority of seats. Blair wasn’t technically kicked out, he voluntarily gave up his position. One could say he was forced out, in the court of public opinion he was reviled for being too cozy with Bush, and the Labour party was taking a hit due to the negative association. Also, i don’t believe Brown promised to pull out the British forces in Iraq, of course he ‘promised’ to do everything possible to speed up the process of ‘standing down as the Iraqis stand up’ (I personally hate the term, stand-down, it sounds ridiculous). But let’s not overlook the massive profits the Brits are pulling in as a little ‘thank you’ for having a few troops on the ground Check out this little year-old article on the subject of war-profiteers in Britian
    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13385

    Follow the money, the U.S is rewarding loyalty with multi-billion dollar contracts. We all know about Haliburton and the like, but private British firms are also making money hand over fist, you think a career politician is going to pull out the tiny 5,500 soldier force from Basra at the expense of billions in current contracts and the future oil revenues???(rhetorical question, not intended to be answered :))

  3. 8r13n Says:

    Thanks Alex and Peter. Good posts.

    I realize Blair wasn’t technically kicked out, but I think he was effectively kicked out.

    I didn’t realize how the prime minister was selected. Based on what I’ve read online Brown received 308 nominations from his fellow members in the Labor party, which allowed him to avoid a leadership contest. Technically they don’t call this an election. …But people in his party did ‘vote’ for him and he did ‘win’ the most ‘votes’.

    My current wording is misleading, and I’ll fix my article to reflect these two ‘technical’ errors shortly. But my main point was that this is another case of media bias.

    Back to that point…

    I did read Brown was going to pull troops out, here’s one such article…

    http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=782222007

    …I don’t know what happened to that.

  4. 8r13n Says:

    Alex, on Haliburton and the likes I have no idea what to say. If these people really answer to no-one, what stops them from doing what they really want to do? Why would they have to pretend? …Last time I checked we aren’t stealing all their oil. And that’s where the real money is at.

    I don’t believe the Brits or Americans are exempt from the rules. I think their honestly trying (and maybe failing) to fix Iraq. Based on what I’ve read Iran, Russia, China, France, etc. have done a lot more to hurt Iraq then we have. …So why pick on the US and the UK?

  5. Alex W Says:

    Not sure what you’re saying in your reply about Haliburton, I’ll do my best to translate, and answer to the best of my knowledge of the situation.

    8r13n said :”If these people really answer to no-one, what stops them from doing what they really want to do? Why would they have to pretend?”

    I assume you mean the politicians I was referring to, specifically PM Brown, who, I contended, would be hesitant to stop the flow of money in the form of contracts for U.K firms in Iraq.

    The fact is, this money, isn’t iraqi money, it’s yours and mine. U.S Tax dollars, and borrowed money(see China, U.S debt) are paying these firms that set their own prices. Iraq will be expected eventually to share some of the cost of reconstruction(in the form of oil revenues, no doubt), but for the time being, the U.S is paying. And guess who decides who gets the contracts?The Bush administration openly said(in more or less words) that those who took part in the destruction of Iraq would be rewarded by contracts to put it back together. They backed off their stance of no-contracts for pacifists, allowing countries such as Germany to take part in the war-profiteering, but don’t doubt for a second that those paying in terms of dead soldiers coming home in bodybags are rewarded with the biggest contracts. It all makes me sick. Cheers!:)
    Alex

  6. 8r13n Says:

    I said, “…Last time I checked we aren’t stealing all their oil. And that’s where the real money is at.”

    You said, “The fact is, this money, isn’t Iraqi money, it’s yours and mine.”

    I’m talking about THEIR oil, it is THEIR money. We’ve been very clear that they own it.

    Iraq’s oil revenue *should* afford the Iraqi people with top-notch social services. …Under Saddam that SHOULD have happened, but never did. …He used the money to build palaces instead. France, Canada etc. were helping Saddam, knowing that he was fucking the Iraqi people. Here’s a primer, Google for more…

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/17/133225.shtml

    …My point is that America is at least TRYING to fix things. We deserve props for that.

    Iraq isn’t some big conspiracy by Haliburton, etc. and that argument is laughable. We really were freaked out that Saddam had nukes. He thought he had nukes, he WAS really trying to building them…and he was almost there…

    http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15780

    Considering all the other horrible things Saddam did, I’m glad we acted when we did. Who really knows what would have happened. He was a bad guy, and his sons (his successors) were really, really, really bad. Here’s a quick snibbit to jog your memory…

    A chef at Baghdad’s exclusive Hunting Club recalls a wedding party that Uday crashed in the late 1990s. After Uday left the hall, the bride, a beautiful woman from a prominent family, went missing. “The bodyguards closed all the doors, didn’t let anybody out,” the chef remembers. “Women were yelling and crying, ‘What happened to her?'” The groom knew. “He took a pistol and shot himself,” says the chef, placing his forefinger under his chin.

    Last October another bride, 18, was dragged, resisting, into a guardhouse on one of Uday’s properties, according to a maid who worked there. The maid says she saw a guard rip off the woman’s white wedding dress and lock her, crying, in a bathroom. After Uday arrived, the maid heard screaming. Later she was called to clean up. The body of the woman was carried out in a military blanket, she said. There were acid burns on her left shoulder and the left side of her face. The maid found bloodstains on Uday’s mattress and clumps of black hair and peeled flesh in the bedroom. A guard told her, “Don’t say anything about what you see, or you and your family will be finished.”

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,454453,00.html

    I’m so glad we killed those bastards.

  7. Deb Says:

    When does the killing stop? Who decides who the worst dictator? I don’t see the us stopping the killing in other countries? Maybe Mr. Bush wanted to show up his dad and go into Bagdad.

    You think Iraq is better off since the US INVADED, which was illegal and immoral.

    I’d do more research.

    http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/59318/

  8. Deb Says:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

    I was always against war as was the majority of Americans.

  9. 8r13n Says:

    I don’t want to live in a country that ignores injustice at a distance. I think all countries should support removing people who have committed grave crimes against humanity. I think we have a good system for deciding who we go to war with. Bush isn’t a part of that process. The Congress is the only institution that can wage war. They should have done their homework. I think Bush is America’s scapegoat. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I think he’s been way over vilified.

    And I’m not saying Iraq is better off now, it may take years to stabilize or it may never happen. But I do think doing something was better then doing nothing, or even worse (as with France/Canada, etc.) helping Saddam starve his people from their birthright/oil.

  10. Deb Says:

    It is Bush who is exacerbating the violence in Iraq by keeping U.S. troops there as an occupying force. The more troops there are in Iraq, the greater the violence and the greater justification for additional U.S. troops to quell the violence. So if we follow the Bush policy, there will be a never-ending cycle of violence and the troops will never come. Some legacy.

  11. 8r13n Says:

    I’m not saying you’re wrong Deb, but it is VERY difficult to understand what’s really happening because of the media’s commercial nature (broadcasting whatever can sell the most expensive ad space). I will dare to say that I hope you’re wrong though.

    …And based on your words, “if we follow the Bush policy, there will be a never-ending cycle of violence and the troops will never come” I wonder if you’ve read the latest headlines from CNN…

    “President Bush said Thursday night that conditions in Iraq have improved sufficiently to start reducing the number of U.S. troops there, and urged Americans, divided over the war, to “come together.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/14/bush.speech.reader.feedback/

    They say 5,700 troops will be home by Christmas. I seriously hope that’s trie. If you’re hesitant to believe the media, I obviously can’t blame you for that. It wouldn’t shock me if nobody came home and things got worse over there. …After all, Ramadan is coming (a holy holiday that has brought lots of blood in the past). …But I hope all goes well and 5,700 more families are together on xmas.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: