The Destruction of Fallujah Report

[laptop]

(a) When did Britain become a statelet?

Sometime between 1941 and 1947 it acquired a rôle distinctly subsidiary to the US state.

Lots of UK history since then only makes sense if you imagine the scene as each incoming Prime Minister is solemnly shown a series of agreements and treaties with the US, some secret.

We know about the 1947 UKUSA intelligence agreement that appears to make GCHQ a subsidiary of the NSA - but not what's in it.

We know about the 1962 Nassau and subsequent agreements that, as I understand it, essentially place UK nuclear weapons under total US control, but not (last time I checked) the whole of what's in it.

Some suspect that there were unpublicised conditions on the 1941 Lend-Lease agreements.

(b) The US (as far as I am aware) haven't paid the British for the involvement of the British Army, RAF and RN.

See, speculatively and sometimes hoping to live to see the history books published in 2047, Lend-Lease

(c) Why would politics have started in 1871?

That was the year that the modern concept of "the nation-state" was invented with the "unifications" of Italy and of Germany.

Of course there's an endless argument to be had about the origins of "the nation-state".

But the date is particularly significant in the context of (this bit of) this discussion. Before then most wars in Europe were fought by complex mixtures of the forces of states, princedoms, bishoprics, city-republics, feudal holdings - and mercenaries as you define them.

I'm taking the long view, suggesting that the concept of "the nation-state" will turn out not to have lasted much more than a century, and drawing the "mercenary" line a bit earlier in that list than you do.

You may not like the way that British forces are used by TCB and his cronies (and believe it or not, neither do we), but that doesn't make us mercenaries.

But you see why I'd challenge the definition?

Of course my challenge wasn't meant to suggest that you personally have the morals of a (freelance) mercenary. It was meant to suggest that your commander-in-chief has the morals of a pimp

 

[moono]

Lots of UK history since then only makes sense if you imagine the scene as each incoming Prime Minister is solemnly shown a series of agreements and treaties with the US, some secret.

It's a 'secret' which needs more publicity. It comes as somewhat of a shock to see my own fears voiced casually.

Aside, the Diego Garcia lease comes up for renewal around 2013. Opposition to renewal, starting now, might expose the true character of this relationship.

 

[oi2002]

The American military just doesn't seem to learn from past mistakes does it?

true

TAL AFAR, Iraq (AP) - Fighting eased Sunday, the second day of a U.S. and Iraqi sweep through the militant stronghold of Tal Afar near the Syrian border, as insurgents melted into the countryside, many escaping through a tunnel network dug under an ancient northern city.

Iraqi and U.S. military officials vowed to expand the offensive.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yep. I've been reading some of the more serious stuff you've been linking. I understand the point about the uselessness of sweeps.

They've lost I think.

 

[X-77]

I don't think John Pilger counts as the most impartial journalist in the world though, does he?

name one piece of Pilger's writing that can't be described as 'impartial'? Or does being honest these days automatically make you biased?

There's few with more integrity or conscience than Pilger - he puts 99.9% of so-called journos out there to shame.

Edit to say: As he says, "silence isn't journalism" however there is a deafening silence coming from the mainstream media with regards to the massacre taking place in Iraq at the hands of the coalition

 

[Bigdavalad]

name one piece of Pilger's writing that can't be described as 'impartial'? Or does being honest these days automatically make you biased?

There's few with more integrity or conscience than Pilger - he puts 99.9% of so-called journos out there to shame.

Edit to say: As he says, "silence isn't journalism" however there is a deafening silence coming from the mainstream media with regards to the massacre taking place in Iraq at the hands of the coalition

I don't read enough of his work to pull out examples - he was employed by one of the tabloids (Mirror if I remember rightly) before the war on Iraq kicked off, and came across to me as having a very anti-American agenda in all of his writing. I agree that he is one of the few 'mainstream' journalists who actually has a personal moral standpoint and writes all of his stories from there, I just don't think he's completely neutral.

Massacre taking place at the hands of the coalition - was it American or British soldiers that lured hundred of unemployed labourers to a street in Baghdad this morning, then detonated a large car bomb in the middle of them, killing 150? Iraq is falling into a religion based civil war between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. They hate each other in a way that makes NI look like a minor disagreement. I personally didn't agree with the war, since deploying there and seeing the results of the invasion first hand, I still don't agree with it, but if the US and UK forces pulled out now, the Iraqis would slaughter each other in days - we would, literally, be talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths within days.

 

[X-77]

but if the US and UK forces pulled out now, the Iraqis would slaughter each other in days - we would, literally, be talking about tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of deaths within days.

oh give me a break - we're such a civilising force aren't we, stopping the savages from tearing each other apart

News flash - the west has killed far more through bombings, sanctions, and more bombings than any so-called terrorists. It's time to get the fuck out of there and stop murdering Iraqis. We've caused them to suffer enough over the years and you know as well as I do that it's never been for any moral cause.

And if you think that the coalition aren't constantly engaged in military 'operations' that are also killing a lot of people by the day then you have been sucked in by the fact the media aren't reporting any of it. You of all people should know better than that regarding what's going on over there.

 

[Bigdavalad]

oh give me a break - we're such a civilising force aren't we, stopping the savages from tearing each other apart

News flash - the west has killed far more through bombings, sanctions, and more bombings than any so-called terrorists. It's time to get the fuck out of there and stop murdering Iraqis. We've caused them to suffer enough over the years and you know as well as I do that it's never been for any moral cause.

And if you think that the coalition aren't constantly engaged in military 'operations' that are also killing a lot of people by the day then you have been sucked in by the fact the media aren't reporting any of it. You of all people should know better than that regarding what's going on over there.

I know perfectly well what's going on over there, I have still have blood on my boots and nightmares about what I saw over there. But the fact remains if we pull out of there, they will tear each other to fucking pieces. They are two seperate tribes that despise each other, if we pull out they will do everything they can to slaughter each other.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't read enough of his work to pull out examples - he was employed by one of the tabloids (Mirror if I remember rightly) before the war on Iraq kicked off, and came across to me as having a very anti-American agenda in all of his writing. I agree that he is one of the few 'mainstream' journalists who actually has a personal moral standpoint and writes all of his stories from there, I just don't think he's completely neutral.

What is this "anti-American" bullshit? I'm fed up to the back teeth of people like Pilger being dismissed as "anti-American" because he dares to ask serious questions of the American colossus. People who bandy this phrase about almost always hold a particular political agenda; and quite often they aren't honest enough to admit to it.

Also, what journalists and newspapers are "neutral"? They simply do not exist. Would you describe The Daily Telegraph as neutral? Is Fox News really "fair and balanced"? You need to look at this in terms of hegemony and counter hegemony.

 

[Bigdavalad]

What is this "anti-American" bullshit? I'm fed up to the back teeth of people like Pilger being dismissed as "anti-American" because he dares to ask serious questions of the American colossus. People who bandy this phrase about almost always hold a particular political agenda; and quite often they aren't honest enough to admit to it.

Also, what journalists and newspapers are "neutral"? They simply do not exist. Would you describe The Daily Telegraph as neutral? Is Fox News really "fair and balanced"? You need to look at this in terms of hegemony and counter hegemony.

I just thought that he went looking for excuses to write negative articles about America. I don't think I have any particular political agenda though, just the impression I got from his articles.

I don't think there are many neutral newspapers or journalists - it's human nature to have an opinion on things (no matter whether it is well informed or not), and journalists are kind of human. I doubt the Torygraph or Fox could be described as neutral either, although I don't read the Telegraph and when I do watch the American news channels on Sky it's normally CNN, although it's very very rare that I watch the US news.

 

[nino_savatte]

I just thought that he went looking for excuses to write negative articles about America. I don't think I have any particular political agenda though, just the impression I got from his articles.

I don't think there are many neutral newspapers or journalists - it's human nature to have an opinion on things (no matter whether it is well informed or not), and journalists are kind of human. I doubt the Torygraph or Fox could be described as neutral either, although I don't read the Telegraph and when I do watch the American news channels on Sky it's normally CNN, although it's very very rare that I watch the US news.

No, there are no neutral newspapers. In fact the news cannot be ideologically neutral. To think that it should or could be is a fantasy. I don't think Pilger was "looking for excuses to write negative articles about America" at all. He has taken a position counter to the hegemony and that is important since many US journalists are worried about losing their jobs if they dare criticise Bush; therefore they support the hegemony whether they like it or not. Journalists should have the courage of their convictions to stand up for what they believe in, Pilger's American counterparts have no courage. Without journalists like Pilger the US would lie its way through every single conflict it has started by claiming it is for "freedom and democracy". We need people like Pilger to expose the lies of the state.

 

[X-77]

Without journalists like Pilger the US would lie its way through every single conflict it has started by claiming it is for "freedom and democracy". We need people like Pilger to expose the lies of the state.

Amen to that. It's such a shame that there aren't more well-known journalists with the integrity of Pilger, he's certainly one in a million (although it must be hard to get recognition if you want to be a truthful journo - I'm sure there's plenty wannabe Pilgers out there who haven't got very far in their career).

As for 'looking for excuses' to criticise US policy Bigdavalad, I strongly suggest you read Pilger's 'New rulers of the world' which I am currently reading. As I think I've already said, his writing is based on a wealth of evidence including leaked documents and many shameless quotes from the various powerful figures themselves. Pilger certainly hasn't scrambled around for 'excuses' to criticise - each page I turn appalls me more than the last.

And I agree nino - calling someone 'anti-american' because they have the courage to speak out against all the attrocities, lies, and crimes against humanity is such a convenient cop-out. As it happens Pilger is very outspoken against the UK and his own country Australia - so I guess he's 'anti-UK', 'anti-Australian' and 'anti' all the other powerful countries he criticises too...

 

[moono]

And I agree nino - calling someone 'anti-american' because they have the courage to speak out against all the attrocities, lies, and crimes against humanity is such a convenient cop-out.

It's worked for 'Anti-semitic' for decades so it's a tried and tested policy.