• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should Tony Blair Resign After THIS?

Following the top General's comments, should Tony Blair

  • Resign

    Votes: 7 23.3%

  • Concede to the General's demmands

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • Fire the General

    Votes: 8 26.7%

  • Choose the Planet X option

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • Total voters
    30

FreeChile

Graduate Poster
F
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,039
Are those the only options? Resign, fire the general, or concede to general's demmands, or the usual planet X option.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Government stunned by Army chief's Iraq blast
Last updated at 15:17pm on 13th October 2006

A blistering assessment of British policy in Iraq from the country's top soldier left Tony Blair reeling today.

General Sir Richard Dannatt said troops should come home within two years - flatly contradicting the Prime Minister's policy that the military will stay "as long as it takes".
Click to expand...
 
FreeChile said:
Are those the only options? Resign, fire the general, or concede to general's demmands, or the usual planet X option.
Click to expand...
This is obviously timed by the Democrats to influence the election.


('cause everything only matter so far as how it effects the US) ;)
 
I confess I skimmed it.


I'm not sure wether or not the troops there are on a rotation or not..but if they're not they probably should be. Maybe three years in one year out or some such thing.


Planet X fo lyfe :D
 
More seriously, I don't think Blair should resign over this, per se, but it does look like he's the captin of a sinking ship.
 
Darth Rotor said:
False dilemma. He can "take the general's remarks under consideration" and formulate whatever policy or plan he likes. The general's remarks require no reaction, nor action.

DR
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself. Wouldn't taking the general's remarks under consideration constitute a reaction? Is that why you underlined the word "require"?
 
It's easily spun, as the general complained himself on the radio this morning we have withdrawn from several sectors in Iraq already. This interview (his first in the job) was right after a chat with the defense secretary, my guess is what he said was cleared and the scandal loving media have amplified it.

Lets hope they don't try and sack him though, he seems like a good bloke. Honest, blunt, and recognises the nature of the threat we face.
 
FreeChile said:
You contradict yourself. Wouldn't taking the general's remarks under consideration constitute a reaction? Is that why you underlined the word "require"?
Click to expand...

"I will take that under consideration," is a common beurocratic euphamism for taking no action nor even responding to what someone has to say.
 
RyanRoberts said:
It's easily spun, as the general complained himself on the radio this morning we have withdrawn from several sectors in Iraq already. This interview (his first in the job) was right after a chat with the defense secretary, my guess is what he said was cleared and the scandal loving media have amplified it.

Lets hope they don't try and sack him though, he seems like a good bloke. Honest, blunt, and recognises the nature of the threat we face.
Click to expand...
Too bad the Daily Mail doesn't provide a transcript of the interview! Here's an example of what he actually says now. But I don't see how the General would conclude from that that the solution is to leave Iraq.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/13/1359211

General Sir Richard Dannatt: "That comment just needs to be put in context. There are certain places where we are that we are attacked because we are there. There are other places in Basra and an operation going on at the present moment called Operation Salamanca where we are deliberately going to districts to make things better for people. We are doing reconstruction tasks and development tasks and they appreciate that. But in other places because we are there we constitute a target and we are attacked and it is in that sense that our presence exacerbates the problem."
Click to expand...
 
FreeChile said:
You contradict yourself. Wouldn't taking the general's remarks under consideration constitute a reaction? Is that why you underlined the word "require"?
Click to expand...
Can is indeed the operative issue here, as is a choice. He can also ignore the remarks completely.

I have a feeling that these remarks had already been pre briefed to the PM"s office in a "here's what we are telling the press" before they were made. The article's author seems to assume that this was a blindside by the general.

My experience with generals and staffs and public affairs utterances is at odds with that assumption.

DR
 
Last edited:
ImaginalDisc said:
"I will take that under consideration," is a common beurocratic euphamism for taking no action nor even responding to what someone has to say.
Click to expand...
In any case, I do agree with you that I should have included the ""take the general's remarks under consideration" and formulate whatever policy or plan he likes" option. Thank you.
 
mummymonkey said:
He's taken the "I agree with every word the army guy said" option.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6049126.stm
Click to expand...
Part of what I get from the link is the context issue by the Daily Mail.

Mr Blair said he "suspected" Sir Richard had given a long interview with the Daily Mail, and that some of his comments had been taken out of context.
Click to expand...

However, I don't quite see the proposed solution by the General and Tony Blair to the perceived problems of the Daily Mail story and the situation as detailed by the General. The BBC story also says that we should not not leave places like Basra. But if Basra is in turmoil and part of the cause of it is the British presense, how would staying in Basra help that problem.
 
I just noted another line on the BBC report that details the issue further. I guess that is Blair's definition of getting the job done. I wonder how realistic that is!

"I've said the same myself, in circumstances where the Iraqis are ready to take over control of areas and we're still there."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FreeChile said:
In any case, I do agree with you that I should have included the ""take the general's remarks under consideration" and formulate whatever policy or plan he likes" option. Thank you.
Click to expand...

When exactly did I say such a thing?
 
FreeChile said:
Part of what I get from the link is the context issue by the Daily Mail.

However, I don't quite see the proposed solution by the General and Tony Blair to the perceived problems of the Daily Mail story and the situation as detailed by the General. The BBC story also says that we should not not leave places like Basra. But if Basra is in turmoil and part of the cause of it is the British presense, how would staying in Basra help that problem.
Click to expand...
I just realized I made a mistake here and that according to the general, Basra is under cunstruction. So his statement there would make more sense.
 
mummymonkey said:
He's taken the "I agree with every word the army guy said" option.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6049126.stm
Click to expand...
On the transcripts of those interviews Mr Blair said: "I agree with every word of it."

"He sets in proper context what he is actually saying. What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying. Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done."
Click to expand...
Translation: General pre cleared his remarks with MoD, PM, or both.

Protocol for fifty, Alex. :)

DR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom