He had a point

Look at his posture, observe his pose. He's leaning towards you, pointing at you, bearing his teeth for you. He's telling you something, he's not sure if he believes it, but he'll be damned if you don't.]

David, [David Aaronovitch, (bad) Guardian columnist]

Tony Blair has been doing the rounds this week, repeating himself ad nauseum, harping on about some Iraqi thing hes got going on, not gonna cut and run yadda yadda yadda.

When will we get round to the real business of the day? I've been considering this for several years now, but just can't find solace in the upshot of every meditation. Why does Tony look so young? How is he so snappy at his age? I feel the anger growing within me each time I am reminded of the trenchant nature of this mans mind. Every speech and sound bite that he utters provides just another snippet of wisdom that I could never have hoped to have concieved when I had this mans humble years.

I've decieded I've had enough, thats the last time I vote Labour.

Listening to his latest 'sermon' describing his incessant fight with those pesky Arabs. I am reminded of his resolution, one can't drop enough bombs on innocent civillians and if the bombs miss lock them up, and if they're still not toeing the line, give them a good kicking.

Perhaps the real reason people 'hate' Blair is that his postion is one designed to represent the feelings of his country's people, their goals, their aspirations and their ethics. He has recently avoided much questioning over violations of the Geneva convention by happily shifting the attention onto a tabloid newspaper editor. In continually disregarding the will of his people in his imperialist conquests he has alienated himself, but luckily for him, found refuge in the arms of a much stronger man.

If you really are interested in understanding Blairs 'recent' surge in unpopularity, I suggest you find a Spanish person.

Your sincerely,

dav





Yes,
Write to me again when the drugs have worn off.
Yrs,
DA






DA,

Thank you for your lengthy reply, by 'yes' am I to take it that you are in agreement.

Point taken, this has been a stressful week, combined with my reading of Will Self's "Great Apes" my mind has been tending to wander in awkward directions, but I felt my point would come across quite fluidly.

The offending letter was in response to your Gaurdian article of the 18th where you discuss Blair's unpopularity and attribute the brunt of the cause to his devilish good looks, intelligence etc. Where I could equally suggest you may have dabbled in 'extra-curricular activities' (I hope you won't take offence, as I didn't).

The circular explanation of my point could be summed up in that the majority of British people opposed the war and in this democracy, Blair chose to ignore them.

The war was based primarily on the threat from WMD, which don't exist.

Freedom for Iraqis, no matter how much faith you have in Blair's 'ancient verities' is not in their forseeable future.

War has has been conducted on false pretenses, causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, many coalition troops and the violations of several articles of the Geneva Convention, not forgeting the neglection of millions of anti-war protestors.

These are the only some of reasons for Blairs unpopularity. You, amazingly, didn't mention one.

Yours Sincerely,

dav

My reply, followed by the story so far

"Please cite for me your source which proves unequivocally that Fallujah is now "annihilated" and "put out of existence"."

I referred to this in my post earlier. What is the point of your statement? "BTW – Fallujah is not destroyed. The bomb factories, the weapons caches, etc. are now gone, as are the terrorists who inhabited the city."

This is about as useful as saying "Iraq is still there, isn't it?"

The point is, the people who live there now have no homes to go back to.
(I gave you a link on my earlier post referring to 200,000 refugees)


With regard to "things getting better":

You source "Chrenkoff":


While I gave you:

"“Latest reports are showing that acute malnutrition among young children has nearly doubled since March 2003,” she said. “This means that hundreds of thousands of children are today suffering the severe effects of diarrhoea and nutrient deficiencies.”"

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_24233.html

which was reported by the (FT) Financial Times

"According to the survey of 22,000 homes, conducted in April and May of this year, acute malnutrition among children aged between six months and five years has risen from 4% before the invasion to 7.7%.

‘The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from “wasting,” a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein’ (Washington Post, 21 Nov)."

All these quotes are repeated on thousands of other sites and surveys , some of the original articles are no longer available online, therefore I see no point in providing dead links. They are all accurate.

"How about the fact that al Sadr is no longer running around killing people with his "militia"?"

Similar to Bush declaration of "war over" a year ago.

"How about that fact that the still extant Fallujah is no longer the haven it once was for terrorists ?Are you truly trying to say that all of these things do not help make Iraq a safer place?"

still no homes to go to.

"Um, I was agreeing with you about how freedom should include those things. The second part, well, how about the fact that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces are considered safe enough for voting? As opposed to before when the entire country was much more dangerous."

I have just finished reading an article in the Irish Sunday Tribune which has also studied the voting situation and puts the majority of provinces in the "dangers to vote" box and at least a third in the "extreme danger" box. Howeverit is not available online, so you can disregard, however I will not be accepting your view entirely.

The quote from Glenn C Schoen, Director of Analytical Services, TransSecur, Inc.:

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/region/middleeast/irq040927.html

"But even these politically motivated kidnappings are only the tip of an iceberg. Criminal gangs are kidnapping anyone whose family or employer may be prepared to pay a ransom. Iraqi hospitals are suffering a collapse in staffing as doctors are fleeing to Amman or Damascus because of the high rate of kidnapping of skilled medical staff. The kidnapping of children, a crime unknown under Saddam Hussein, has now become a routine dread for every parent. The inability of Iyad Allawi's regime to restore day-to-day security undermines any possibility of the occupation gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the population."

from: http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/iraq3.htm

it has socialist in the title, so I better get some other ones too, eh?

"The report released by Centurion, which is working in Iraq, says that overall security in Iraq is worsening, with kidnapping a particular problem. The report notes that kidnapping has often followed other conflicts in places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya, with opportunists looking for a quick way to make money."

from: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0910/p05s02-woiq.html

"You seem to think that the U.S. is a monster (war crimes, remember?). I just thought you might want some perspective, that's all.)"

WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN ACTIONS. WE MUST MAINTAIN OUR MORALS OR WE ARE NOTHING BUT TERRORISTS OURSELVES.

On Saddam and Bin Laden:

Read more: This is a review of a book. Not a source.

""intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan.""

The rest of the "evidence" is inconclusive at best.

It is immaterial as no link has been made official by any intelligence agency. If it was there, they would be harping on about it continually.

"Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said, though he later issued a statement saying he was misunderstood.""

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

"suicide bombings he encouraged in Israel by paying suicide bombers families $25,000 each"

This is irrelevant.

"Leftist billionaire"

These are two conflicting ideologies. I am in now way a "Democrat". Kerry is simply "Bush lite".

"Orbock said it was hard to estimate how many stayed, probably fewer than 1,000."

This is a military estimate.

"he got a first glimpse of the rubble that was once his neighborhood."

"

Falluja: "But you make a serious logical mistake in implying that the terrorists did not have a hand, perhaps the leading role, in such attacks."

Problem: No source

[Ed. Note: You left out an important part of my point: "BTW, the report you cite does not claim that it is known that the U.S. forces killed the people in question." Selective editing of a quote, dav? Now you sound like Maureen Dowd.

I pointed out that your source did not say what you thought it said. Do I need to have a separate source other then to demonstrate that the words your chosen citation uses do not actually claim what you think they claim? You mean I have to find a different source which specifically says that your article did not say what you thought it said? Boy is THAT a tough standard to meet. I'll keep looking for that article which references the article you submitted. In the meantime, why not go back and re-read the article you referenced and realize that what I said was true.]"

Who was dropping 2000 pound bombs?

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample
/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004042612400002&Take=1

and theres this bit too: "More than a third of the population of 200,000 fled the city."

"And I refuse to "prove" that our soldiers did not "randomly shoot people just for fun". You are sick if you believe that, you obviously know no one in the military, and it is up to you to prove they did, not the other way around."

I gave you several eye-witness accounts.

"Maybe the survivors of such an evil could tell you a thing or two about actual war crimes. . . ."

Look up the Geneva Convention on war crimes.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
Protection of civilians
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Prisoners of war

"To educate yourself on who these men really are, how about a little reading? Try this simple primer for starters. Then try reading Marine Sniper. Then try meeting one and finding out instead of relying on some fuzzy idea of what you think you know."

Military sources. Basically how it's meant to be done. Brilliant.

Some other things from military handbooks:


"Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."

Now look up "Low Intensity Conflict" which is official US policy.

"But it seems like most of the leadership there understands that there will be a need for coalition troops at least until Iraqis are able to fight."

Was from the article I posted.

I have pointed out you are lacking in sources, do not continue to chastise/berate/insult me.
Otherwise this is pointless.