The Secret Downing Street Memo

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Xtremehkr, May 10, 2005.

  1. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #1
    Link

    Just to settle an old issue, the war was for Oil. Cause it certainly wasn't about WMDs, terrorism or human rights issues.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Great insight into the "thinking" - if that's not too kind a word - in Washington. And the lying in London.
     
  3. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #3
    How, exactly, does this prove the war was for oil?

    This is a briefing document intended for the Cabinet Office only, and as such isn't dressed up in the usual Politico-speak that a press release would be. It's a frank overview of the situation as perceived by an intelligence/political community facing imminent military action by a close ally. Action this country had every reason to think it was going to be involved in.

    The Cabinet needs this kind of information to be able to spin the info to the public, appease dissenters in it's own ranks and popularise a very unpopular issue worldwide.

    Sure, it's a concern to hear that this Govt. was contemplating military action so early, but it'd be a damn sight more of a concern if they weren't.

    This document is a slice of political reality, the work of people who know the crap is about to hit a fan roughly the size of Iraq.

    Now, if it had said: "Sod the UN, lets bomb the bastards and nick all the oil" I'd agree with you, but as is, this is a working paper out of context, nothing more.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    But it certainly reveals the geopolitical ambitions of the White House. And the "war" did neatly deprive the French of their oil concessions.

    It also reveals that the politicians over here were fully aware that they were misrepresenting the case for war. This may be "how things work", but it's not good enough.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    from the article:
    exactly as many of us here suspected. how i hate being right sometimes.

    fascinating. bush pretended to be interested in a peaceful resolution, but it was really just a ploy to justify force. and if it weren't so tragic, i'd find it hilarious that saddam foiled that plan by actually cooperating with inspectors. didn't do him much good, though.

    more evidence of BS. bush and blair used known illegal reasons to sell the war.

    isn't that treason?
     
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    Only if Bill Clinton had done it.
     
  7. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #7
    or it was done while comitting some form of adultry that has no bearing on any laws...
     
  8. Xtremehkr thread starter macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #8
    How is it evidence?

    Well, you remove all of the given reasons and then identify other possible reasons for why that region may be important.

    Then you look at who the Administration is connected to, some would say indebted to. And you consider who has stood to profit most from this illegal invasion.

    And you would have to wonder how you could come to a different conclusion considering the actual reasons for having gone in.

    The UK has been an Empire in decline for some time now and they really only achieved their Empire by doing things like this in the first place. The US is no different.

    Funny how all non participants were cut off, whether they were owed money or not.
     
  9. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    John Conyers is demanding an answer from the Bush administration on the memo. Not that I expect he will get much of one.
     
  10. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #10
    i find this fascinating... in a frightening way mostly. it's interesting to see behind the scenes of the gov't in any place, especially in the way they talk about talks with the US. and then of course there's the obvious sickness i feel about how pathetic this administration is and how they were somehow re-elected... sad.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    What I find fascinating is that the story has totally disappeared from the press both here and in the US. Look it up on Google News: nothing. Look it up in the Indy or the Guardian: nothing. US press: nothing. Is it just my over-active imagination, or are people being leant on?
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    my big brother tells me not to worry about it.

    now what's that runaway bride up to?!?
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Front page news again. Apparently she's checked into a hospital. Bah... what a waste of news.

    Wake me up when Dubya gets involved in a sex scandal. That'll bring the newsies out.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan

    link

    the letter is downloadable in pdf directly from house.gov, here.
     
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    you're not the only one who noticed.

    link

     
  16. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    You'd think with so many of our friends and family being injured or killed over there, we'd care more. Perhaps it's simply easier to attempt to justify this war and our current leaders than to realize what a mistake we made. I do have to wonder how many of those who agree with this war actually understand the real motivation behind it, and of those, how they justify it.

    Say, whatever happened to bin Laden?
     
  17. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    he snuck into the cast of Spamalot and was nominated for a Tony for his role, in what the Guardian called, "an hilarious send-up of a Medieval locksmith, his devotion to his son tinged with a fascinating yet subtle mixture of regret and ennui."
     
  18. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #18
    I can see why this memo and the contents would be such a bombshell in the States, and I'm sure some "pressure" is being brought to bear on those who would have it more widely reported, but I still don't see how it throws suspicion on Blair and his government, I want my government to be aware and evaluating the positions of events that will ultimately lead to armed conflict, they were doing their job correctly.

    The oil issue does not get resolved in any way with this document, sure it lands Bush in the brown, sticky stuff, but he's up to his arse in it anyway, no?

    Speaking as an Englishman I think the document is a snapshot of a cabinet doing it's duty to the country and to it's allies, it's out of context and later briefings would have clarified and refined policy and intention.

    Blair knew this was going to be unpopular, he knew it might cost him his job, and it did cost him 2/3 of his majority in the House, but he did it anyway because he thought it was right to support an ally and right to act on the information he had at hand.

    History will judge him harshly for that I think.

    Of course this was a war for oil, of course it was a personal vendetta waged by the Bush family, of course there are masses of unanswered questions about the prosecution of the war. Anyone with a brain and clear vision can see that. Those people can should also acknowledge that this war, legal or not, MAY result in a better life for the people of Iraq in the long term.

    Bring on Zimbabwe and North Korea I say... ;) ;) ;) :rolleyes:
     
  19. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    Maybe this story will convince a few more Brits that it's a better idea to be a partner in Europe than America's little buddy.
     
  20. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #20
    What was the (unelected) greasy bastard Campbell doing at what is essentially a cabinet meeting.
    A large number of Brits want nothing to do with Bush,Blair or any of the sodding governments in Europe.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    Doing their job correctly would have entailed complying with the spirit of the UN Charter. Doing their job correctly did not include conspiring to deceive Parliament and the electorate. Doing their job correctly did not include sending British troops into war on an illegal mission.

    You have an extraordinary faith in the frankness of Blair. Surely the whole point is that the briefings should have been earlier rather than later, before the hindsight and the revisionism set in.

    Not what the US thought at the time of Suez, it seems.

    You don't wage aggressive war and kill tens of thousands of people on a "maybe". Even more so in Zimbabwe and North Korea. There are enough political levers to use, if only war was not seen as a quick fix solution.
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    cnn is finally carrying the story, it's on the front page of their website at the moment. link
     
  23. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #23
    sadly, as long as laura bush is telling some funny jokes, dubya is safe.

    and anyway, isn't the war over?

    and how about that micheal jackson trial.

    and paula and that american idol dude?

    i heard oprah lost 3 more pounds...



    we don't need fascism here to control the people....just tv.
     
  24. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Watch the f-word, ruffles IJ's feathers. :p

    I think we last settled on "Plutocracy".

    Plus, I'm pretty sure that damn, liberal media is just giving us what we (and by we, they mean the lowest common denominator among us) want. So that makes it ok.
     
  25. WinterMute Moderator emeritus

    WinterMute

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Location:
    London, England
    #25
    But it wasn't and (to date) still isn't illegal, sure there may be challenges in the future, but as of right now it's a legal action. Blair HAS to take the advice of the legal bigwigs, his decision to go was based on a report that said it was legal.

    This briefing was well in advance of the action, it was well in advance of military planning, if the text is to be believed, I do believe Blair thought he was doing the correct thing. Other than that I'm a firm sceptic when it comes to politicians and the truth. An awful lot of crap is being spouted with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, a very dangerous thing.

    Two wrongs make a right now do they? Blair was in nappies when Suez blew up, why should he be constrained by the mistakes of the French?

    Blair didn't go to war on a maybe, he went on hard intelligence, from previously un-impeachable sources, the fact those sources were compromised isn't Blair's fault. I'd go as far as to say that the UK intelligence community didn't know the intel was "skewed" till far too late, if they ever did. take a look at the sources for the reports that were fed to Blair's cabinet, where did they come from?

    The Zimbabwe line was a joke, I'm PPP, remember? ;)

    If Blair has a fault in this it is that he has been too trusting of his allies opinions, the report shows that not everyone in the Cabinet Office was as trusting of Bush's motives. The UK's involvement in this war was less to do with oil as it was to do with the fact we export and import more to the US than we do to Europe.

    The US can afford to ignore world opinion on many things, the UK cannot.
     

Share This Page