Posted by JLW on Thursday Jun 30, 06:25
John Leech has asked for a guarantee that the Metrolink will be funded.
"Given the Prime Minister's promise during a recent visit to Rochdale in April to deliver Metrolink phase 3, will the Secretary of State now guarantee the necessary money from the transport innovation fund and finally get Metrolink back on track?"
Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley, Lab) and Paul Rowen (Rochdale, LDem) also contributed to the debate asking the Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport for assurances about funding of phase one of the Metrolink and that GMPTE won't lose out with the introduction of the national consessionary fare scheme.
Alistar Darling says the position has not changed since his statement on December 16th 2004, and said "Since the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to pay tribute to his predecessor, Keith Bradley, who did an awful lot of work to try to get Metrolink moving along."
+ tags coming soon
( 73 Comments )
Bernard Jones
Wednesday Jun 29, 16:07
Credit to JL for raising Metrolink. Also interesting to read Darling's reply where he praises Bradley for helping to get things back on track.
This is an issue that's got some way to run yet.
It will be interesting to see who claims credit for what...especially when the Lib Dems failed to make a specific pledge to deliver Metrolink in their Gen Elect Manifesto.
As Chat Show Charlie said, "if it's our manifesto, we'll deliver it"
(which means, "it wasn't, so we wouldn't")
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 16:51
Bernerd, I also give credit to both Keith and John for raising the issue of the Metrolink in parliment. However, you seem to read quite a lot into Chat Show Charlie's remark. I think "if it's in our manifesto, we'll deliver it" could mean "if it isn't, we can consider adding it in, as we are a far more progressive party than the other main two!"
Steve J
Wednesday Jun 29, 16:59
The real question is why wasn't it in the manifesto? There are several possibilities:
1) They don't support it
2) It isn't a priority
3) They think it isn't feasable, and can't promise to deliver it.
4) They forgot
I can't really see how any of those excuses can be seen positively - it reflects that while John Leech may be supportive of the Metrolink, his party isn't.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 17:39
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4074178.stm
Steve you may be right, but like Bernerd, you seem to only focus on the negatives. Is it possible that the majority of the people who use this forum, are just bitter and twisted, and need something to make them happy? That said, may be they can't be happy for some reason?
Whatever happened to optimism?
Bernard Jones
Wednesday Jun 29, 17:59
Steve, yup it's all a matter of interpretation but I think there's an important difference between scrutinising somebody's performance/holding them to account and just being out-and-out negative.
I mean, JL's countless Gen Elect materials hardly reeked of positivity did they?
(ouch)
John2
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:06
Suspect that most people in the constituency are not interested in who claims credit for the Metrolink, if it is ever built - but most would expect their MP of whatever party to do what he/she could to highlight the issue.
This is in many ways a sad website. Many who post here cannot come to terms with the election result in Withington - and many others, myself included, cannot really come to terms with the war in Iraq and the dreadful lies that were told in the run up to it.
Len Draycott
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:09
Dave - notice your name links to John's profile on bbc.co.uk, where he cites I Am the Resurrection (Stoned Roses) as his favourite track.
Shurely shume mistake...
given his 'campaign' tactics on Christie Hospital maybe 'Unbelievable' by EMF would be more appropriate!
Len Draycott
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:10
Dave - notice your name links to John's profile on bbc.co.uk, where he cites I Am the Resurrection (Stoned Roses) as his favourite track.
Shurely shume mistake...
given his 'campaign' tactics on Christie Hospital maybe 'Unbelievable' by EMF would be more appropriate!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:11
Surely Len, Tory Blair (oops! I mean Tony Blair) should have "Tell me lies" by Fleetwood Mac?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:12
PS I got it the first time Len!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:20
by the way Len, if they were so "Unbelievable" why on earth didn't you do something about it before john was voted in?
Len Draycott
Wednesday Jun 29, 18:33
'Dave'
That's incredulous - John's elected so anybody with concern about his integrity/the Christie issue should pipe down?
If you check the timeline, you'll find the GMSHA rebutted JL's claims after the election...just as the genuinity of the *petition* has just come to light.
It's shady and it stinks to high heaven.
Fin.
sarah jackson- west dids
Wednesday Jun 29, 19:32
how about 'charmless man' by blur?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 20:44
Well Len, if that was the case it was sadly missed by mean during the election campgain. Not sure how much it would of affected my vote. I had become so disillusioned with the Labour party - voted them all my life, but now the Lib Dems seem to be the only ones making plenty of sense! (I say plenty, but I do not agree 100% with them, but I struggle to see any sense with either the Labour Party or The Tories). If and when Tory Blair leaves, and the government drop the war on fear, apologise to the Iraqi people, do a full on ban on GM plants, sort out the NHS, etc etc, then and only then, I may vote for them again. I am not an unreasonable man! ;-)
Steve B
Wednesday Jun 29, 21:19
What? No complaints? Oh no wait, there are... I don't understand how the people who are posting on this site that are "ProLeech" can go on about this being Labour party bitterness, it's a positive story and everyone agrees that if we can have the metrolink then we should have it. The only issue is are people at a national level committed to it, and as far as I can tell there was only one party with a manifesto that supported the Metrolink.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 21:31
I apologise, I think it was me who went of TRACK! Ho! Ho!
Yeah, as long as we get the Metrolink, I don't care how we get it, I will be pleased. So go for it the Labour Party and go for it on an individual part member level JL!
Tim
Wednesday Jun 29, 22:21
The Metrolink Big Bang was in the previous Labour Manifesto.
Look what happened.
So is 'the real question' whether it is in the manifesto? No. It being in the Labour Manifesto clearly meant nothing. There was even a photo of it in their last manifesto. So Steve J what is more important? Broken promises or promises that are kept?
The Liberal Democrats made a commitment to fund the Metrolink Big Bang (ALL OF IT). Labour made the right noises in the election, with Blair saying he suported the Big Bang. Now Darling says that nothing has changed since December 2004. Both can't be true.
Well done to JL for putting pressure on the government.
Alan
Wednesday Jun 29, 22:37
Tim, the Liberal Democrats may very well make a commitment to fund the Metro Link Big Bang; they could also very well make a pledge to pay off everyones mortgage for them using government funds. How can they do this... because they know that nationally they will never gain power so they can pledge what they like.
The fact is that Labour is in power, they pledged to fund Metrolink in their manifesto and they have placed the money in the TIF to pay for it.
When The Big Bang Expansion takes place it will be thanks to a Labour Govt and the hardwork of Keith Bradley who headed the working committee of MP's on the matter; not to John Leech who is trying to jump on the back of all the hard work done by Keith so as to gain credit for it.
Jen
Wednesday Jun 29, 22:57
Perhaps the Metrolink wasn't mentioned in the manifesto but would be one of the little surprises the Libs would spring on us if they'd won -- just like Tuition Fees or spending our taxes on invading a new country every year under Labour!
Alan
Wednesday Jun 29, 23:10
Jen, how would you have dealt with the Iraq problem? Furthermore how would you have dealt with the massive increase in people going to university? Where does the money come from? It's very easy to criticise!!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jun 29, 23:34
Alan, Saddam was no bigger a problem than say, Muggabe, yet look at the allied forces storming that dictator office!?!?! Oops! Sorry, no, we don't seem to do anything about him, he has no big oil fields to tap into!
As for the increase in students. Well surely, the principles of Labour are set in socialism? Why not increase taxes to fund education from infant school right through to university? Afterallm that way, we would be investing in our health service (through the training of doctors) education (through the training of teachers) etc etc. Yes some courses seem a little odd, like who needs a degree in Madonna Studies? But I am in favour of dropping them anyway. And why not a graduate tax on a sliding scale? Eg public sector workers earning less than £20k pay the normal rate of tax, those earning £35k or more a high rate of tax, and those in the middle, pay a middle rate?
Tim
Thursday Jun 30, 00:06
'It's very easy to criticise'. I thought that was the basis of this site. An open forum for unreasoned comment.
Interesting that you seem to think that money has been put in the TIF for Metrolink. Do you know something that the government won't tell us?
The facts are that Darling has again declined to fund Metrolink.
But what really makes me smile is the blind faith that Labour will get round to Metrolink, well what are they waiting for?
Political pressure, such as losing two MPs to the Liberal Democrats on the Big Bang route will have far more effect. Insead of more than a decade of broken promises, taking Manchester for granted, Labour should release the funding for the Big Bang.
They support it at election times - now is the time to honour their MANY promises.
peter h
Thursday Jun 30, 00:49
Alan
You know perfectly well that first metrolink was promised then it wasnt then it was again ad infinitum, depending on which Minister was speaking, and whom he was trying to impress.
Prescott says it's necessary, Darling says its too expensive, then in the face of an election it's promised, and the moment the election is over the plans get filletted yet again.
It's a punchup between local labour council and labour government, a complete ballsup.
As for asking Jen how SHE would have dealt with Iraq? Shame on you.
Why don't YOU tell Jen how YOU would have dealt with it?
Hopefully neither you nor her would have lied to us all about it!
International law does not allow for going to war for the simple purpose of regime change, but that is what we did - regime change to suit USA's strategic interests, not to get rid of a tyrant or because of defying UN. In those cases there would have been a waiting list longer than the ones for scans on the NHS.
Throughout this website's existence, you and your colleagues have ALWAYS ducked Iraq. And it is unworthy of you to do so in the way you just did to Jen.
Given that you started all this in reaction to John Leech's election, and , as you know perfectly well, Iraq was the main single reason for that result, then your evasiveness is pure hypocrisy. You talk about having a debate. Debate means answering points, not evading them. Come on, tell us all what you think about the war in Iraq. You've got the floor. Tell us what you think about the 45 minute claim, the dodgy dossier, the agreement with Bush in 2002 to go to war and to engineer the circumstances for its acceptance, the dead scientist, Alistair Campbell, BBC Today programme, and the 100 000 or so innocent dead in Iraq. And tell us just how that compares on a scale of 1 to 10 with John Leech's statements about Christies, so we can see your sense of perspective.
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 01:18
Peter, I am more than happy to put forward my views on Iraq, I am certainly not evading the issue.
Any decision to go to war is a difficult one. I personally would have liked to see diplomatic avenues pursued further.
To suggest, however, that the Prime Minister went to war on a whim so as to please the Americans is ridiculous. I actually believe that Tony Blair and his cabinet were influential in preventing Bush going on an all out rampage of the middle east on Sept 12th 2001. The decision to go into Afghanistan I believe was the right decision. With the Taliban regime gone Afghanistan is no longer a place where terrorists can hide unchallenged.
When looking at Iraq, as I said earlier, I would have preferred if diplomatic attempts to resolve the situation had been pursued further. However, Saddam was refusing to cooperate.
Lets look at it from the Prime Minister's point of view. Here is a country known for it's hostility to the west, it's disgusting civil rights abuses and it's growing wealth, refusing to allow UN inspectors into what were believed to be weapon producing facilities. British and American Security services are informing you that the Iraqi's have the potential to create WMD (serious threat to Israel and stability in the Middle East). Do you sit back and let them get on with it, possibly allowing World War Three to start or do you take a tougher stance and say let the inspectors in or we will use military force to prevent you from creating WMD?
If further diplomatic efforts had been fruitless then I cannot see any other way in which to resolve the problem.
I believe that the Prime Minister made a decision in light of the facts presented too him at the time. The Tories backed him and then for their own political gain went against him at the election (no suprises there). He stood by his decision and continued to stand by it throughout the General Election when it would have been very easy for him to u-turn on the issue as the Tories did.
You talk about the 100,000 or so dead in Iraq as a result of the conflict; true this is terrible but lets not look upon the Ba'ath Regime in the same way in which we might look upon Mother Teresa! Even now British and American soldiers are unearthing mass graves where the victims of Saddams regime have been burried, lets not forget the atrocious acts upon his own people,thousands of men, women, children fleeing from gas attacks and persecution by Iraqi soldiers.
Yes, there is still much to do in Iraq but transformation from dictatorship to democracy takes time (history teaches us this).
Dave, in relation to your comments on Mugabe, I completely agree with you. More should be done to stop the atrocities and extreme infringements on civil liberties in Zimbabwe. We should be looking at working with the UN and NATO in order to put a stop to Mugabe and his tyranical actions!
peter h
Thursday Jun 30, 03:39
Alan
Are you serious?
Iraq hostile to the West? It was armed by the west as a bulwark against Iran. A threat to us? He was going to invade Essex, was he? He would have loved to be allied to the West. Growing wealth? The country was on its knees through UN sanctions. Weapons producing facilities? The UN inspectors did not believe they existed, and the US with all its satellites MUST have known that.
Disgusting Civil rights? Agreed 100%. Iraq and half the rest of the world.
Potential for WMD? None whatsoever. Ask Hans Blix.
Ignoring UN resolutions? The main cuplrit for that is Israel. From resolution 242 onwards.
World War 111? Grow up.
Threat to Israel? THe only threat to Israel is Israel and its inbuilt racism
There is a fundamental rule in international law. One country does not have the right to invade another country in order to change the regime of that country just because it does not approve. You can only do it in self-defence. IE when you are threatened by it. Since when did Iraq threaten our sovereignty?
Even Jack Straw will tell you that. He says it often enough in other contexts.
It is ILLEGAL. It is not for one country to tell another country who should lead it just because they don't approve of them.
You know perfectly well that the world is full of nasty little governments from Zimbabwe to Liberia to Saudi Arabia to Haiti to Borneo to Russia , North Korea, various South American states and so forth. Theyre on every continent.
Iraq was invaded because USA wants a secure power base and a secure source of oil in the Middle East as part of its global strategy and to counterbalance the potential loss of Saudi Arabia.
The Neo-conservatives had been planning it since the mid-nineties and lobbied for quite openly throughout the Clinton presidency for USA to invade Iraq, stating baldly that it would be one of their first objectives as soon as they got into power. All they would need was a trigger to be able to justify it to the public, a catasptrophic event which would enable them to win over public opinion.
They got that with 911.
They used 911 quite despicably by making out an utterly bogus connection between Saddam and Al Qaida (when in fact Saddam and Al Qaida loathed each other - Saddam's regime being secular and an anathema to the Islamic fundamentalists).
Nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with Iraq's civil rights record or any other of the claptrap you came out with.
If you don't believe me, then go look at PNAC - Project for New American Century - it has websites - which is the main Thinktank which formulates Neocon philosophy in USA. It's there quite openly in black and white. And it's not non-entities - PNAC's trustees include Jeb Bush (George's brother), Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and so on. The aim is to have a network of client states around the world containing US bases enabling US to contain and neutralise any potential enemies or competitors. Hence its interest in all those dirty little states from the old USSR with their mini-Saddam dictators who will give US airstrips, and Taiwan, Japan etc around China. You should read about it Alan. Then Iraq, Iran and the rest will fall into place in a completely new context for you. It isnt pretty. And it's happening right now. And your party is helping them do it.
peter h
Thursday Jun 30, 04:00
About Zimbabwe. Before you get too carried away, do a bit of research. Find out (a) what percentage of the population is white (b) what percentage of the land was owned by the whites until Mugabe began his clearances.
I think you will find the figures rather interesting.
Then ask yourselves why the white English press is suddenly so anti-racist and keen to expose Mugabe's excesses, and why black Africa is not.
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 07:00
Peter, get real!!!!! Yes they were armed by the US during the Iran conflict making them a serious threat when they turned against us due to the updated weaponary they posess!
Your ridiculous suggestion claiming that I believe them to be invading Essex or be a direct threat to the UK is exactly that, ridiculous. You know perfectly well that I mean them to be an indirect threat!
Using such weapons against Israel is a serious threat; Israeli retaliation could have shattered the fragile alliance and caused other Arab states to begin hostilities resulting in an escalated conflict.
Furthermore if you believe that there is no connection between Al-Quida and Iraq then it's you who needs to do your research. Having researched terrorism in great depth for my degree it is clear that there were strong links between the Iraqi security services and Al-Qaida. Although I suppose such information is just more propoganda fed to us by the Americans as part of the great neo- conservative conspiracy you continually talk of!
Don't get me wrong I'm not a huge fan of the Republicans but you almost seem to suggest that they devised 9/11 as a way in which to 'influence' public opinion in favour of the war.
We are not in the 1940's anymore Peter and the methods of warfare and the threats posed to our country are different; it isn't the Nazi army threatening our borders from across the channel;or the KGB and their many faceless spies, it's the crazed guy in a van full of C4 revving his engine outside the House of Commons.
In relation to PNAC I will certainly take a look at the their websites and report back my opinion of it!
In relation to Zimbabwe, don't patronise me! I don't care if the inhabitants of the land were pink with a hint of yellow; if you are justifying the clearances merely because it was white land owners who owned it then that is dispicable and I stand by my original comment that the UN and NATO need to look at intervention so as to solve the problem.
Len Draycott
Thursday Jun 30, 16:06
This thread was originally about Metrolink, so let's get back to basics (thanks).
Charles Kennedy said that only if something was in the LD manifesto the Lib Dems would do it.
That clearly means that if it isn't included, they wouldn't.
Metrolink was not mentioned in the Lib Dem manifesto.
It's like if you say 'save our hospital' then you're clearly saying it could be lost.
So credit to Alan for taking on the issues and firing up debate. There's every chance of a Den-and-Angie relationship with Peter.
But cripes, it's so very painful how LDs/non-Labour postees always evade straightforward questions in favour of launching an anti-Labour tirade.
Perhaps our MP is giving masterclasses.
First Christie, and now yesterday's health debate where John launches into a searing promotional speech for the Cheadle by-election....oops...sorry... an attack on the government on NHS dentistry.
Yes, the dentistry issue is important but JL blatantly blanked a question asking him to provide detail of Lib Dem policy/failure to cost their own proposals.
And that, is why I love the Lib Dems.
Contractdiction after contradiction after contradiction.
What next? Black is the new White...
Pete
Thursday Jun 30, 18:28
I wonder how John is getting on in respect of speeding up the process of registering with a local doctor - it was taking almost 2 months last year. The reasons as to why this was the case, as advised by the PHCT, were that the administration of the process was taking the time. It seems quite extra-ordinary that the NHS can spend 2 months on administration for a task that should take minutes. What an opportunity to refocus resources on the primary purpose of our healthcare system - the care of patients... Over to you, John.
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 18:52
Sorry Len, I did go off the topic somewhat!
Dave Wilson
Thursday Jun 30, 19:16
http://www.2atoms.com/comedy/build-a-better-blair.htm
Alan, we agree on something at least! That Mugabee should go, and like someone else stated over dictors the world over should go. I don't have the answers, just some questions, which I feel has taken myself waaaaaaaaaaay off the original topic for this forum, so again I apologise. May be if we bring up a review of the Lib Dem policy on the War on Terrorism or War on Fear, as a topic for the forum, then I will get in my element!
I don't care who argues and wins over who got us the Metroline extension through Chorlton, just as long as we do! Be it Labour, the Lib Dems, Tories, the greens, BNP, Socialist Workers or the raving monster looney party. I will be happy!
Alan
Thursday Jun 30, 23:01
Dave, like the link!!
peter h
Saturday Jul 02, 04:26
Len
No, there's no evading issues. I started posting these things because I got fed up with local labour people going into denial over why they lost this seat. I'm not a Lib Dem. I want to be a Labour supporter, but the party has lost its way.
Alan, Iraq was not a threat to anybody. It was a busted flush after the Iran War and the 1st war with us. It was on its knees.
And if you don't know that Al Qaida and Sadam hated each others guts then you reaslly know nothing about the Middle East. Any tenuous links were purely on the basis of my enemy's enemy is my friend , as they say in the Middle East, not some meaningful alliance.
You may well have studied Terrorism at University. Books are all very well. But have you ever been there? Met them? Understood how that area works? You can't get that from books mate.
I've walked round a Palestinian refugee camp full of women and kids in cardboard boxes a few days before the Israeli Airforce flattened it and told an uncritical world it was a terrorist training camp; sat in Beirut talking to Christian Arabs referring to Palestinian refugees as their equivalent of "Pakis" (his word) in England; been trapped in the middle of a PLO firefight - with the Jordanian Army trying to kick them out of Amman; helped shelter Iranian dissidents in hiding from Iranian secret police - in Manchester!! - when the Shah ruled Iran (he was imposed on Iran by the British and very pro-Western); sat and talked with a nice mild middle class palestinian guy just after he and his family had been evicted from Nablus by the Israelis and his family home bulldozed becauwse they wanted the land; sat in Riyadh in the palace of a Saudi prince with his mates as they got blind drunk on smuggled whiskey and bought in arab women (whose husbands were absent) for their pleasure, whilst their family's subjects face the death penalty for adultery and imprisonment for drinking alcohol; sat merrily getting drunk in Muscat with British Army Officers fighting a civil war un knkown to the people of Britain, and merrily also going over the border into the Yemen in hot pursuit. All denied over here at the time.
The point of that long monologue is that the West has raped the Middle East, turned it into a complex mess, and is paying the consequences for years and years of interference and imposing corrupt puppet regimes in order to ensure cheap oil and a submissive populace, and all the recent crap that has happened with terrorism, Sadam, Iran, Afghanistan , Israel etc etc etc is a direct consequence of that, and the invasion of Iraq is merely the latest step in that corrupt colonial process under the pretence of trying to bring peace and justice to Iraq.
If you actually bother to read Al Qaida statements, by the way, you will see that they are all about expelling USA and its allies from Arab soil and retruning it to arab hands, and ridding Arab lands of foreign interference. Which bit of that do you disagree with?
If youve studied terrorism then you will know that terrorism is alomost always based around a just cause, and that tyerrorisn can only ever be overcome by addressing those causes in the first place. Same applies in Arabia.
As for 911, I did not say that Neo cons caused it. I am saying they exploited it for their own purposes.
And they did. Their only bloody literature had already said theyd needed something of that nature to enable them to launch their plans. Read their pamphlets.
And, to finally get back to the point,a large number of the British electorate, to their credit, vaguely realised that this was going on and voted against Labour in protest over it in Iraq. What goes around, comes around
Alan
Saturday Jul 02, 14:14
Peter, yes I do 'bother' to read Al-Qaida statements. I beleive that to read such statements is imperative in the task to understand why terrorists do what they do.
In relation to your comments about 'just reading books' I completely agree with you, there is no substitute for seeing things first hand and that is something that I would very much like to do in order that I can gain a better understanding.
You talk of terrorism always being based around a just cause. In some respects I agree with you in the sense that it is always a just cause to the people that perpetrate acts of terrorism but not so to those that are on the receiving end.
In my mind there are three forms of terrorism, state terror, group terror and religious terror.
The problem with religious terror is that it is so absolute, there is no compromise.A country/ dictator can be overthrown either by internal power (revolution/ civil war) or by external powers and a terrorist group may often be infiltrated and members turned (IRA/UVF operations by security services and special forces).
The difficulty with a religious terrorist organisation is that they are so fanatical about their beliefs.
After seeing the attacks on the World Trade Centre, Osama Bin Laden is claimed to have said
"...we calculated that teh floors that would be hit would be three or four floors; I was the most optimistic of them all.."
You talk of terrorism being based around a just cause. I fail to see how slamming 2 jumbo jets into the twin towers helped a 'just cause' I can however perhaps begin to understand from a religious view point why the perpetrators of the attack undertook it.
Surah 48 Al-Fath of the Qu'uran states:
"..And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire..."
A very apt passage if you consider what happened!! Infact the Qu'uran is a very interesting read and I would encourage people to read it.
To me, an I'm sure many others, these attacks were not based around a just cause. Furthermore, I am not quite sure as to what Al Quida thought it would gain from such attacks. Surely Osama Bin Laden was not stupid enough to think that a Republican led United States would sit back as though nothing had happened??!
In relation to your point about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaida, I'm afraid I disagre with you. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (which I'm sure you will respond by saying has been written by neo conservatives and therefore is wholly unreliable)Iraq and Al Qaida, although not having an operational relationship certainly discussed the possibility of cooperation.
In 1998 Bin Laden's Egyptian Deputy organised a meeting in Afghanistan between a delegation of Iraqi officials, members of the Taliban government and Osama Bin Laden. Subsequent meetings took place in 1999 and the crux of these meetings was to offer Bin Laden a safe haven and assistance in his fight against 'the unbelievers' announced in his public fatwa, issued in March 1998.
Like I say, although there was no outward opperational connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, it would be wrong to suggest that there was no connection at all. It doesn't really matter if they hated each other or not, you don't have to like someone to work with them!
Anyway that was a ridiculously long posting and I hope Len is not too upset.
peter h
Saturday Jul 02, 17:49
Al Qaida achieved exactly what it set out to achieve. It provoked USA into a massive over-reaction which has turned huge numbers of ordinary muslims against the West - all for the cost of twenty airline tickets and a few Stanley knives.
It was textbook tactics, as you should know if you studied the subject.
And of course the underlying cause is just. Or do you think that what the West has done to the arab world over the last 100 yewars is just? Don't forget who first used Chemical weapons in Iraq against innocent civilians, or who created Iraq in the first place, or who either directly imposed or indirectly kept in place all the disgusting corrupt little autocracies and dictatorships which litter the Middle East. We did. And now we're paying for it.
Remove the causes of injustice and Terrorisnm will disappear. It can only survive if it has the support or acquiescence of aizeable chunk of the popluation, who feel that it is their only way of combatting the evils which beset them. Again, if you understood the subject you studied, you would know that. But I get the impression that you know a lot of figures, but have no idea whatsoever about the human realities behind them.
Alan
Saturday Jul 02, 18:51
Having not experienced first hand what you have Peter I would agree that I don't have a true idea of the human reality behind the figures.
Unfortunately Manchester University don't do excursions to Kurdish refugee camps, but if they had perhaps I could have seen first hand the attrocities committed against them by the Ba'ath regime and the armies of Saddam Hussein - thankfully no longer in power!
peter h
Sunday Jul 03, 00:29
Yers he was a monster. But we created the circumstances for him to appear by meddling in that country's politics for our own purposes. And we are still doing it
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 03:13
To some extent I do agree with you. The foreign policy of each individual country usually reflects what is best for that specific country at that given time.
I don't disagree with you for the sake of it!
From what you have said you seem to have infinately more knowledge and first hand experience of the situation than I do at present and that is why I find this dialogue very interesting.
I appreciate, even if I draw this conclusion purely from books and reports, that the situation in the Middle East is not black and white. I hold no hostility towards any one specific group and would genuinely like to see peace in the region, not for our sake, but for the sake of the people who are living through it...I'm sure that on this we can agree! Whether we were instrumental in bringing Saddam to power or not he was an evil dictator who needed to be removed from power and despite the religious terrorism that has been born from his removal I would imagine that the majority of Iraqi people are glad to see the back of him.
peter h
Sunday Jul 03, 05:07
thats not the point.
the point is that one country must never be allowed to invade another in order to change the regime just because they disapprove of it. Otherwise, Sadam could claim exactly the same excuse legitimacy to invade Kuwait, or Iran, or one Korea could invade the other and so on ad infinitum. That's the whole bloody point about internationa law and the United Nations giving the world a channel through wich to take such action; that's why there was all the argument about UN resolutions over Iraq and why what USA and UK did was ultimately wrong and illegal.
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 12:46
The United Nations was not willing to approve such action. Their inspectors were not gained access and their resolve on the matter was weak.
If we are to rely on the United Nations to solve such problems then we need to make it more of an operational organisation as opposed to it's current bureaucratic administrative role.
peter h
Sunday Jul 03, 17:21
I see. I don't like that law, so I'll ignore it.
I don't like doing 40 along princess parkway. So I'll do 90, shall I?
And you are factually wrong about UN inspectors. Go check out Hans Blix.
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 18:20
No. It's more like the law doesn't work so lets recognise that and lets change it!!!
Speed limits are a ridiculous example!
I am not wrong about UN inspectors, they were not effective and they didn't have enough power.
peter h
Sunday Jul 03, 22:01
Don't be sily.
If the inspectors were ineffective, how come they got it right?
They said there were no WMD left in Iraq, and there were none.
Odd definition of ineffective.
The word you are looking for is "inconvenient".
They were reporting things that Bush did not want to hear because it buggered up his plans for Iraq.
I would remind you that Labour lost the trust of this country because of its behaviour on this issue, and that even Keith Bradley voted against it.
If a law does not work properly, OK, change it. We didn't change it, we broke it, because it didnt suit us.
Alan
Sunday Jul 03, 22:18
I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one!
The inspectors were not allowed into ALL facilities so therefore they could not conclude with certainty that WMD did not exist.
Dave Wilson
Sunday Jul 03, 23:36
I guess Jesus and God are real? As are Aliens? Afterall, we can't prove they don't exsist!
Alan
Monday Jul 04, 00:35
http://www.politicswatch.org.uk
God is real to those who believe in religion just as ghosts are real to Yvette Fielding and Derek Ocarah.
No one can tell them with absolute certainty that they are wrong and that these phenomena do not exist!
So I guess you are right Dave, we cannot prove that they didn't exist unless all weapons facilities were opened up to the inspectors. The fact that some were not only added worry onto an already worrying situation.
peter h
Monday Jul 04, 03:44
Alan
You just listen to the bits that suit you.
One more time; read what Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspectorate, told the UN.
Get it into your head, man. The invasion of Iraq had been decided by Bush's associates in the 90s, and Tony Blair agreed to support it in 2002 when he met Bush. And they had then to engineer circumstances to make it acceptable. That is not supposition. It's documented fact. WMD were the excuse, not the reason.
Actually, Dave, Jesus is historic fact. Even atheists admit that. Slip of the pen no doubt. And aliens are a statistical probability somewhere in the universe. And the existence of God is a matter of what you mean by GOd.
Dave Wilson
Monday Jul 04, 14:36
Please could you reference Peter H, where you get your historical facts about Jesus exsited? You keep telling us to read about Hans Blix, but you don't state where to read up on him or Jesus? Many thanks.
By God, I was refering to the one in the Bible, which claims that he made the Earth in seven days, (in days before the European Union's Working Time Directive), but the exsistence of any God would do? I was just trying to make a point to, so Bush and Blair believed that WMD exsisted, and therefore, it was okay to blow the hell out of Iraq. Which means, as long as they "think or believe" WMD exsist in ANY country, be it Syria, Sudan, Sweden, Senegal, for example, then we can go and attack those countries?
peter h
Monday Jul 04, 17:16
Dave
agreed 100% about bush and blair, except of course they knew perfectly well the WMD werent there. They "believed" they could talk their way out of it later - and judging from Alan's comments they haver done just that. If you watched the last election, Blair dropped the pretence of WMD and went onto the "Sadam was an evil fiend" tack instead. Sleight of hand.
As for Jesus existing I think you'll find that is an uncontroversial fact. Who he was and what he did is a different matter
Len Draycott
Monday Jul 04, 17:48
Did Jesus catch the Metrolink?
Dave Wilson
Monday Jul 04, 17:56
He didn't need to, he could walk on water!
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 01:11
And if he did catch it he'd make sure it went through Didsbury and to wythenshawe hospital.
Seriously, it'll need a miracle for us to get metrolink now, so shut and start praying
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 03:17
And when he got off he'd thank Keith Bradley and a Labour Government for enabling him to get to his destination using Metro Link!
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 03:54
And he would perform miracles at Wythenshawe Hospital, catch the bus down Palatine Road to Christies, perfrom miracles there, and Blair would say, "son, you have done an excellent cost cutting exercise, with a little more PFI and Jesus Inc, we could release some of the burden on the NHS and close these two hospitals down, and make a little glorified clinic like we have done in Withington Hospital"
Len Draycott
Tuesday Jul 05, 16:18
Er..nice one Dave...you've just cast Tony Blair as God!!
If only we had somebody to 'save' Christie Hospital from this fantasy threat of closure....
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 16:49
Of course, both George Bush and Tony Blair are devout Christians. I would love to hear their explanations to Jesus if he ever came back down to have a look round. And his reply.
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 16:58
Len I thought Tony was God? Therefore Peter, if Tony is God, judgement day has begun on Iraq
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 18:21
This is possibly the most bizarre series of postings I have ever read!?
Dave Wilson
Tuesday Jul 05, 19:13
Peter, if Jesus did come back, he think "why is everyone who claims to be a friend and a believer in me, wear a reminder of my brutal death around their necks?" It's like people wearing a rifle round their necks and say "hello sorry to hear about your husbands untimely death" to Jackie Onassis!
peter h
Tuesday Jul 05, 22:21
I once accidentally spilled a glass of lager down aristotle onnassis's suit in a club in Paris many years ago. He was only about 4 ft tall. Must have been weird for Jackie Onassis. Maybe I should have worn an oil tanker round my neck.
TOny Blair can't be god. God is 3 faced - father, son. holy ghost. Blair is only 2-faced
Alan
Tuesday Jul 05, 22:39
Peter, can I ask out of a completely unrelated interest what you do for a living as you seem to have been around a bit.
Anonymous
Wednesday Jul 06, 03:10
God isn't three faced - he doesn't exist... he's just a lie created by the Lib Dems
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 03:14
I export and import clothing for the last 36 years. Most of the comments thrown at you relate to working around the MIddle East in the 70s when what you see now was in its infancy, and it occasionally got a bit hairy.
The core of what I keep trying to say to you is that you get fed large amounts of biased information in the Western media and images you receive give you a grossly distorted view.
The jews have always been very good at promoting the cause of Israel and belittling Arabs and painting them as hysterical nutters, whereas the Arabs have never understood the nature of PR, and the West now instinctively ,and unnecessarily, fears Islam, which suits Israel nicely. And it is utterly unfair.
That is why Palestine is at the centre of all this nonsense that worries you so much.
Just about every regime in the Middle East, except Iran and Syria, owes its existence to Western intervention to support Western interests irrespective of the locals. Whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan , the Gulf States, all of them. The reason that Syria and Iran are hated so much by USA is because it cannot control them, not because they are evil. Whether they are good or evil is irrelevant to USA. All USA cares about is its strategic and economic interests. It does not care if the regime is good or evil. It only cares if it fits USA's interests. That is why USA supported Iraq, knowing full well what a bastard Saddam was, till Saddam mistakenly invaded Kuwait and upset USA's plans. That is why USA was so supportive of the Shah of Iran despite his repressive regime, and that is why USA tried to overturn the Iranian revolution despite its massive (at the time) popular support. Israel, with its huge presence in USA with the Jewish lobby, knows exactly which strings to pull in USA to keep that bias going. I remember watching a TV program on September 12th , the day after 911, where the Israeli Primer Minister was being interviewed. The rest of the world was in shock, but Israeli officials went into overdrive. He could scarcely comtain his excitemenr at drawing parallels between New York anbd what Israel had to put up with . It was utterly sickening to see the blatant opportunism at a t ime of tragedy for the Americans. But they knew exactly what to do.
JUst like now. Israel fears Iran and fears Syria. So it makes damned sure that we do too.
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 14:07
Alan
I forgot to add one last point. The only country that had any reason to fear Iraq 2 years ago was also Israel. And Israel has always been keen to promote action against Iraq as a result.
And to take it one bizarre, but true, step further, if you study the ethos of the evangelical christians who predominate in large slabs of USA and the US administration, you will find that they (including Bush) believe in such things as apocalypse, the second coming etc and the safety and last-minute conversion of Israel before the end of the world, and they therefore support and defend Israel. Absurd as that may sound as a reason, it forms a major part of some powerful people's thinking.
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 15:46
Hey Anonymous, if so many people beleive in God, and the Lib Dems made God up, then I guess Charlie should be PM by now?
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 15:52
But then why should he? We don't have proportional representation!
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 17:54
And he's useless!!
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 18:11
And Alan, how about Michael and Tony?
Alan
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:38
I completely disagree with Michael but at least he has formulated policies even if they are completely wrong, as for Tony he has transformed this country and brought it out of the dregs and depression of conservatism!
Charles Kennedy promises anything that he thinks will get his MP'e elected at a constituency level. He can do this because thankfully he will never be in power
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 20:55
Didn't Labour promise better public transport? Excuse me, where do I catch the Metrolink in Chorlton and Didsbury?
Didn't Labour promise to listen to people regarding GM crops, in fact, didn't it do a huge PR stunt by creating a consultation web site with the public on the subject, where the vast majority stated they didn't want GM crops in this country? Only for one M. Beckett to give various GM technology companies the go a head!?! (they pulled out, due to public opposition!)
So tell me, who keeps breaking promises?
peter h
Wednesday Jul 06, 22:58
Dave
Politicians lie. All of them
Dave Wilson
Wednesday Jul 06, 23:15
So if that is the case Peter, why the hell do we have this website?
It's like Channel 4's big brother, every year I say I am not going to watch it, but sure enough...
peter h
Thursday Jul 07, 00:44
Combine the two. Read 1984 by George Orwell - then you get politicians lying AND Big Brother.............
AND a police state for good measure.
And then read Animal Farm by George Orwell, the ultimate explanation of the Labour Party in Government where it starts out with all animals being equal and ends up with the pigs in power and saying "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".
And then savour the ultimate irony that George Orwell's original name was Blair, but he changed it. Now that is foresight with a capital F.
These comments are owned by the person that posted them. They are not necessarily indicative of public opinion and their content has not been checked for accuracy. If you find a comment you think violates our Terms of Use please report it.
Sorry, posting on this entry is disabled to prevent comment spam.
