Santerme

From my point of view. On the start line in March 2003, I was briefed and completely convinced from the filtered intelligence available and open to me that we were going on a premise with which I was entirely comfortable. Not that the option not to push on was available to me. Soldiers are a foreign policy tool of the Govt of the day, it is not quite wind us up and let us go, but it is not too far from that. Subsequently, my view has developed to one where I absolutely believe, there was no real legal basis for our actions.

immaterial Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Santerme - What are "Phase IV processes"? Phase IV simply put is re-establishment of goverance in the post conflict phase of operations. Closely followed by reconstruction efforts to restore power, infrastructure, etc. Properly done they do not leave a vacumn or a lasting resentment against the occupying power/coalition. Unfortunately, it was a bit of a cock up in Iraq.

The Cincinatti Kid for me too, truly excellent! RIP.

gallinello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The other thread has nothing to do with this; why > are you writing so freely about top secret > matters? > > Are you suffering from shell-shock, Soldier-Man? > > "Loose lips sink ships" 'n' all that type of tosh. Now I know this is wind up, but I will indulge you. Which part of what I wrote is top secret? We have removed ourselves from Iraq, perhaps that passed you by. But thanks for playing!

gallinello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Santerme Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > I sat on some of the planning staffs pre > invasion > > and one of the issues we constantly raised was > > force numbers and lack of Phase IV processes in > > place. > > Either you are a Bliar, haven't signed the > Official Secrets Act or have taken leave of your > martial senses! > > Which one is it soldier-boy? The 1911 Official Secrets Act as amended by provisions in 1939, when I signed it in 1982. Soldier-man to you. Are you still smarting over the other thread, get over it!

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > my initial point that the BBC is biased in > honouring paid killers as some kind of heros. > > I would suggest that the BBC reported on the Armed > Forces Day in an objective fashion. Local BBC > reported on the 30,000 that turned out at Chatham > to watch, meet and honour members of the Armed > Forces. They carried out some vox pop interviews - > all of which spoke about their support and pride > for individual soldiers, sailors and airmen - a > couple also deplored the fact that those > servicemen had been sent, with inadequate > equipment and resources, to fight wars on behalf > of this government. > > Across the country similar events garnered similar > support and comment. > > I have not met many, if any, people that share > your view of Britain's armed forces as being "paid > killers" - there is a legitimate argument to have > about the political decisions to send servicemen > to war, any war. It is however, important to > remember that the individual servicemen are there > to do the bidding of the democratically elected > government. > > I also understand, and expect the forthcoming Iraq > enquiry to reveal, that senior Defence Chiefs > argued against many aspects of the Iraq invasion - > not least the "weapons of mass destruction" basis > and particularly the lack of a post invasion > recovery / management plan. The British Army and > supporting Royal Navy & Royal Air Forces have been > damaged, as has the standing of UK on the world's > political stage, by their involvement in Iraq and > Afghanistan where a lack of resources has meant > they could not and cannot play a full and > professional part in the task. Quite astute summation MM. I sat on some of the planning staffs pre invasion and one of the issues we constantly raised was force numbers and lack of Phase IV processes in place.

PROSouthwark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And Peckham of course. Eileen is fighting the > good fight on Sustainable Communities and wholly > endorses giving it over to the PEOPLE. Now who is > laughing? Me I live in Dorset! As to 7/7, keep an eye out for the black helicopters!

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Santerme, when/where did you serve? Any views on > current leadership. My ex girlfriend's big bro > been serving in Afghan and Iraq. He and a cadre of > other young officers have some very interesting > views re role of armed forces in foreign policy > arena. Tending more towards the warrior > philospher approach of Gen Petreaus (sp) rather > than the "shock and awe approach" of Colin Powell. Happy to answer first part in PM and second part later this afternoon, busy day ahead, I fear.

gallinello Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Apologies for the length of this, but lest we > forget all HER 'achievements': > > Margaret Thatcher presided over the destruction of > more industry in Britain than that destroyed by > the Luftwaffe in the Second World War. She plotted > to smash the National Union of Mineworkers and to > dismantle the welfare state and all the reforms > that had been fought for over decades by the > working class. She slashed welfare payments, > attacked the old and the sick and basically > co-ordinated a one sided civil war against the > British (and Irish) working class. There were many > people in Britain whose lives were cut short by > unemployment, by sickness and poverty as a result > of the politics of Thatcherism, many families that > fell apart, many children who went hungry. Yet, > she was admired by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, > who wants her to have a state funeral, the sort of > event normally reserved for royalty. > > Thatcher represented a new brand of Toryism, > ostensibly more middle class and "ordinary" than > many of their predecessors. Thatcher and Norman > Tebbit - the Chingford Skinhead - sought to appeal > to the backward prejudices of the middle class and > to layers of the most backward workers. Thatcher > was heralded as possibly the first woman Prime > Minister. She would understand therefore the needs > of ordinary women and so on. Hardly a day went by > without her appearing on telly armed with a > shopping basket bemoaning the lot of the "little > people." The fact is however that she was anything > but ordinary. Married to oil millionaire Dennis > Thatcher, she represented the most vicious and > small minded layers of the bourgeoisie. > > The ideas of class compromise and a formal > commitment to the goal of full employment that > were dominant in both big parties during the > period of the Post War boom and were based on the > theories of Keynes were abandoned. Thatcher > embraced monetarism and neoliberalism. Her > ideology was a ragbag of reactionary prejudices > and crackpot economic theories, but they > represented a coherent set of ideas and programme > to attack the working class with. > > It's no surprise that the dominant economic and > political ideas that Thatcher and Reagan supported > were those of the Chicago school of economics - > ideas known as monetarism - that had been promoted > by the likes of Milton Friedman and Hayek. These > ideas had been tried before of course. They had > been put into practice in Chile under the > murderous military regime of General Pinochet. > There the 'Chicago Boys' had advocated tight > monetary controls ostensibly to reduce inflation - > which means smashing up the public sector, mass > privatisation and attacks on the poorest in > society. > > This was combined with a political programme to > advocate self help, standing on your own two feet, > and all the other alleged petty bourgeois virtues. > Thatcher went as far as to say that there was no > such thing as society. This was the green light > for a massive onslaught on the working class, > their communities and their organisations. This > onslaught wasn't restricted to Britain either. It > generated a programme of liberalisation and > deregulation, that was ruthlessly applied by the > IMF and the World Bank across the ex-colonial > countries. Thatcher dressed up this reactionary > programme as the logic of commonsense and thrift, > armed only with a handbag (and a small onion for > when she needed to shed a tear - according to > Private Eye) she set off to put the world to > rights. > > Thatcher's programme of privatisation and so > called "popular capitalism" was wrapped up with > the idea of a "property owning democracy", where > everyone owned their own council house and had > shares in the gas board and the electricity board. > They would travel to work on privatised buses, or > privatised tubes and trains. Because everyone was > thereby "standing on their own feet" they would > forget about the evil ideas of socialism and > accept the god of "market forces". The fact is > though that the assault on the public sector had > much more to do with providing productive fields > of investment for the bosses. Compulsory > competitive tendering and the internal market > within the health service served to batter down > wages and conditions across the public sector. In > the ?service? sector the vast majority of costs > are in wages. The logic of compulsory competitive > tendering meant that private companies could > undercut council services, by the very > straightforward policy of cutting wage levels and > staff numbers. Thus, once they had also built > their percentage profit into the equation, > resulting in a massive growth in the exploitation > of some of the poorest sections of the working > class. Of course Thatcher also opposed the minimum > wage as it would ?harm industry?. > > The recession between 1979 and 1981 had a huge > impact on the working class. Unemployment shot > through the roof as millions lost their jobs. What > was the Tory answer? These, they said, were weak > old fashioned industries that were uncompetitive > and overstaffed. In other words they took the same > attitude as their Victorian predecessors; they > introduced ?laissez faire? capitalism. In other > words Thatcher did absolutely nothing; the Tories > just let the industries fold with calamitous > results for working class communities up and down > the country. What about the unemployed? Well, they > were lazy, layabout shirkers, ?moaning minnies? > and scroungers. The Tories slashed the number of > tax inspectors and took on hundreds of people to > police the benefit system. There were huge tax > cuts for the rich while benefits were cut and > people were encouraged to ?get on their bikes? and > look for work. > > Did the medicine work? Monetarism meant that > unemployment went higher sooner in Britain than in > any other major capitalist country. Neoliberal > policies didn?t solve anything. They are now > totally discredited and the policies introduced by > Thatcher in the 1980s are seen as being a factor > in the present crash. > > One of the biggest factors in the victory of the > Tories in the general election was the Falklands > war. Out of the blue, or at least it appeared to > be, the Argentinean army invaded the Falklands > Islands or Malvinas a small bleak and utterly > inhospitable group of islands with a tiny > population massively outnumbered by sheep, > penguins and elephant seals. The Argentinean > Junta?s invasion unleashed a wave of jingoism on > behalf of the press, which Thatcher used to > present herself as a great war leader, casting > herself as the successor to Winston Churchill, > Joan of Arc and of course Britannia. The Tories > sent a task force to the South Atlantic to retake > the islands in what was essentially the most > expensive election campaign in history. It?s clear > that the Argentine military were surprised by the > level of the response from the British. > > But for Thatcher it was too good an opportunity to > miss, an opportunity to play on all of the long > faded traditions of the British Empire, Rule > Britannia and so on by showing ?the Argies? who > was boss. > > Thatcher has always been portrayed as a strong > leader. She was certainly dogmatic, stubborn and > inflexible, but her longevity in power was > achieved in part as a result of accident and in > large measure as a result of the absolute > incapacity of the Labour and trade union leaders > to seriously challenge the Tories. Weakness and > prevarication invite aggression and the Labour > Leaders helped to create the conditions whereby > the Tories were able to lay in to the working > class for over a decade. Thatcher was no great > thinker either. Her social base within the Tory > Party was the nouveau riche, the petty bourgeois > upstarts and the yuppies, the city slickers and > the wide boys, the very same people who brought us > the credit crunch. Large parts of the country were > decimated, whole industries wiped out of > existence. Dogmatic monetarism drove the Tories? > politics and it was the working class that > suffered. > > Viva the grocer's daughter! Isn't it protocol to attribute pieces here to the original writer of the piece??

PROSouthwark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Police state Britain is an understatement. Boy oh boy you should have been in Belfast in the 80's.

PROSouthwark Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For all who see the world for what it is, there > are likeminded voices all around ready for radical > change. > > As a start, BBC bias and our "beloved, brave > troops" (NOT): here's what the most powerful new > website in London sees it: > > The Armed Forces day saw the usual bias from all > involved with the powers that be. Why the need for > the brave killers of innocents in other countries? > The reasons for invading Iraq are now shown to be > lies, even the claim to be creating a democratic > state after years of dictatorship The biggest > change has been de-nationalising the oil industry > for US & UK oil firms advantage. The Armed Forces > troops are not forced into their job, the armed > forces are entirely reliant on employees > volunteering. Next we should have a Bankers' Day > to show support for the brave individuals who make > piles of money whilst all around starve. > Possibly one thing to be learnt by the armed > dictators day by the independently minded is to > have a positive slogan for demos'. The problem is > media coverage, the Climate Camps spring to mind > as having positive messages for climate change and > alternatives to have this happen. All the main > media concentrates on is the trouble, no items on > cycle generators (how to make your own), solar > panels, eco-loos, cooking &c and most importantly > they never filmed me making benches from scrap > wood, OK plenty of others at the camp stood around > and explained how I was to do it and enjoyed > themselves too, I'm not too a standard of teaching > others to make their own benches yet. As an ex Army officer, the son and grandson of army officers, all I can say is I am glad you have the freedom to write this, enjoy. You are welcome from the whole family.....I am sure my long dead Grandfather won't mind me calling it for him.

Opening with London Calling was a great idea, just like Coma Girl at Glastonbury. Perfection. London Caling was a great reminder of the 2003 Grammy ceremony which Bruce, Elvis Costello and Steven Van Zandt played.

I'll be there....and Carhaix on 16th July Seen him a few times and I argue politics all the time on the Backstreets website. I have to say though Seeger Sessions....Nah!

My journey from home to work was plagued by Glastonbury traffic....GRhhh! No doubt getting home is going to be interesting.

I read last year that some Jewish group was considering a claim to the Coliseum in Rome on the grounds that it was built by the Flavian Emperors with the proceeds from the sack of Jerusalem in AD70.

Crona Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?ve never heard so many weak arguments and > especially the one that the Ottoman Empire sold > ?legally? the marbles. > > Very cleverly you are hiding or ?missing? one > point. Greece was occupied during the exchange. > > Lets see the bigger picture. The reason the > marbles exist (i.e. in pieces) is because the > Ottoman?s used the Parthenon for storing their > arsenal which eventually one day blew off thus > destroying one of the old 7 wonders of the world. > The same occupying force agreed to give away the > marbles to Lord Elgin. > > ?A the time of the purchase the Ottomans ruled the > region and carried legal responsibility for the > ownership and distribution of their resources - > just as the UK does now for its own resources? > > It?s like you are saying to us that since UK and > US occupy Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment we > are entitled to their artefacts. > > Since when an occupying force adopts the ?legal > responsibility? of the land and their people? They > can do whatever they want with them (sell, destroy > etc) but IMHO they are in a position to act > legally. > > Lord Elgin was trading with an Occupying force > while Lord Byron helped the Greeks to liberate > themselves. > > ?The Museum has accepted the international > precedent that so long as ownership is not > contested, the marbles could be returned on loan > to Greece indefinitely. This is the same precedent > that has filled Rome with the relics of it's own > heritage that have been returned from the four > corners of the world.? > > Replicas will be in their place in British museum > so people will still have access. > > (The point that the big museums agreed to have a > ?Universal museum? is so obvious it speaks of > itself) Interesting debate, after the wars of the century around Alexander the Great, the populations of mainland Greece seem to have gone into a steady decline that lasted for a thousand years. By around the time of Christ, the depopulation of the old city states was a matter of general comment by those who lived there and of Roman visitors. It is described in a letter to Cicero. It is implied in an inscription that Nero had placed on the Parthenon. Plutarch ascribes the progressive silencing of the Greek oracles to the diminished need for their services. The great plague of 542 reduced populations right across the Mediterranean world, and would have reduced that of mainland Greece still further. Long before that, however, the majority of those living there might well have been descended less from the nation of Pericles and Demosthenes than from imported slaves and barbarian invaders. Certainly, in the two centuries of disorder that followed the great plague, the territory was almost wholly lost to the Byzantine State. When finally reconquered from the Slavs, it had to be rehellenised from Constantinople. The linguistic evidence is important here. With the exception of the Tsakonians in the Peloponnese, the modern inhabitants of Greece speak a language clearly descended from that of Byzantium, with no trace of the old regional dialects.

It is true life moves at a temperate pace here.... However to assuage my need for a reminder of urbanite living, I am going to brave the Dorchester Carnival crowds (it can be tough out there), find somewhere to park and indulge in a Chinese buffet lunch. Then I will, because it is a beautiful day, take a leisurely 20 minute drive to Abbotsbury watch the signets hatching and end up at either Chesil Beach, or West Bay reading a good novel. Hardy country has it's little compensations.

I am 8 miles from Dorchester and no one delivers out here.... There are some things I miss about urban life

It is highly questionable whether Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program, or even to delay it for several years. Should the approaches made by the Obama administration not prove fruitful and who can predict in these new times, then Iran will possess nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. Consequently, Jerusalem need to adjust their mindset to accomodate an Iran with a nuclear strike capability against Israel. Israel has over egged the pudding with the Iranian threat in my view. Certainly, the regime in Tehran is an embittered and intransigent rival, however it is a leap from there to proving a real existential threat to Israel. Iran's delving into regional terror is worrying, but financially supporting terrorism amd the intent to engage in a nuclear exchange with Israel are a quantum distance apart. MAD, will prevail in the region and deter attacks. There has to come a time to desist from potraying a threat which may not materialise, hold back from sabre rattling, which presents the serious possibility of unencumbered escalation.

I think the Indians want Tipu Sultan's tiger back too, the V&A will be pretty much empty if this becomes a trend

Well, the RAF flew their Hercules aircraft over my apartment last night at about 12.05am practicing low flying. Not heard a siren in ages Top news, someone broke the pavilion window with a cricket ball during practice. Not much to twitch curtains at here in exile in Dorset.

HellNoHellYeah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought these fascist corrupt scum (the po-po) > used real guns and kill innocent people just > because they can? A perk of being a police > "officer" perhaps - you do the job, you get the > evil thrill of killing another human being just > because you can get away with it. Satire?

Reasonable force is the measure used in law, if inappropriate force is used then the Police are as guilty of assault as a member of the public. Whether this incident warrants charges being bought against the officers concerned is a matter for the IPCC and the CPS surely. I think this case is borderline assault but I do not have to make that judgement at the end of the day.

I see his point, period

And you don't think that PIRA and INLA had a field day with the publicity gained from this. Sands and his ilk, were probably the first suicide terrorists we have encountered. The deal was there to end the hunger strike in July and the PIRA Council rejected it, because the propaganda value of the deaths was calculated to be and indeed was enormous. It's what we call 4th generation warfare today! All these events have multi layered approaches to them. Robert McLarnon a senior Box 500 officer was engaged in talks with PIRA leadership throughout the hunger strikes.