Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies (I've Tested) Is...
Food & Drink0 min ago
For sale: 1 map of London
31 Answers
I am selling a map of London. In good condition, not much used. I am selling it because I feel it is now illegal to own. I hear the police are arresting people who carry 'information which may be of use to terrorists' and figured my map would be top of their list.
Sounds like a pretty catch-all law to me. Is it a blunketism?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by slimfandango. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For how many British soldiers do you carry around the personal details? Oh...and would the police/intelligence services have additional reasons to suspect you of having terrorist sympathies? I haven't heard of them arresting, say, the girlfriend of a serving military man on her way to the mailbox, because she was carrying a letter addressed to him in Iraq, have you?
So, what would you have the government do, Dom? Disband the intelligence services? Ignore them?
Still, it's good to hear you admit that it was Intelligence that said there were WMD in Iraq!
You would, of course, never forgive a government which failed to act on intelligence if it transpired that many died because of that failure. Isn't that so?
(Are you sure you're Vic? I ask because I was told off last time for responding to Tic erroneously.)
Dharfur is just another perfect example of how the UN - just as it was over Rwanda - is an utterly hopeless talking-shop. Thank God some nations, such as those of the coalition in Iraq, realised that they would have to wait until Kingdom Come for the UN to carry out its own threats - as stipulated in UN Security Council resolutions over a decade - to Iraq and acted off their own bats. Sudan poses no international threat at all, as opposed to what was believed to be the case with Iraq. The fact that the belief turned out to be wrong is neither here nor there in terms of actions decided upon.
Incidentally, I have never heard that Kosovo and the surrounding Balkan region is rich in oil, but we went in there also without UN approval. I can't recall anyone whining about an "illegal war" then, can you?
Sorry QM (and yes it is Vic) -you seem to have got wires crossed - WE (and I assume you mean the UK) never went into Kossovo.
NATO went in with airstrikes in 1998 and the UN sent peace keeping forces there in 1999.
If coalitions are going to be formed with out any treaty (as in the war in Iraq) there is obviously a dangerous precident.
In March 2003 the UN's weapons inspectors (remember Hans Blix) said that he thought that Sadaam was complying "and had accelerated its cooperation" but he needed more time - at the end of that month the US decided to invade.
And going back to the original question - in the 80's with the threat of the IRA, noone blamed 'intelligence' or lack of it when there was an attack on the mainland - we blamed the IRA.
'The fact that the belief turned out wrong.....'
It was Blairs belief, the vast majority of the British public did not share in that belief....they openly/vehemently and may i add angrily opposed that belief. Balir said trust me but more than a million marched on one day and said we dont trust you.......his ministers were against that belief...he would have lost the vote in the parliament as a big chunk of his party did not share that belief, (the ridiculous tories bailed him out as they did not have the guts) his ministers resigned in protest, his joke of a wife lobbied on his behalf in the commons and cajoled/terrorised labour MPs (go on QM deny all this) to vote in the commons for the govt....he came on newsnight and said....i know more than i can tell...the nation did not trust him. We knew what the score was...Bush wanted to protect his family honour and do what his father could not and his poodle obliged.
Dom, you're just offering duff figures all round! 'The Times' carried out a monthly Populus poll (Apr 2003 - Jan 2005) on attitudes to the Iraq war. The figures for April 2003 were..."The attack was the right thing - 64%, the wrong thing = 24% and Don't know - 12%."
The organisers of the march you refer to - with absolutely zero experience of estimating crowd-size - claimed almost 2 million attended. You say "over a million". The police - with vast relevant experience of such estimates - put the figure at � million.
You also claim (quote) "the vast majority" of the British people did not share Blair's belief. As I've pointed out to you before, UNSC Resolution 1441signed up to by all 15 member-states, stated categorically that Iraqi WMD were being proliferated and represented a world threat. So it wasn't just the vast majority of the British people who obviously agreed with Blair, it was the vast majority of the people of everywhere else, too!
Consider this...There have been several cases recently when a man has threatened policemen with a �firearm' and failed to surrender it. And several times such a person has been - quite rightly - shot dead on the spot. But...lo and behold!..the supposed firearm was just a cigarette-lighter in the exact form of a deadly weapon. Should the policemen have done nothing or should they have acted on their perfectly reasonable suspicions that they were dealing with a potential killer? That's precisely analogous to what happened to Saddam Hussein. Nobody has anything but pity for the "deluded" policemen and nobody calls them "liars".
Do try to get your facts straight. Giving up reading 'The Daily Mail' would be a worthwhile start!
PS for Vic. When I said "we", I meant Britain and the USA, the mainstays of NATO as of the coalition in Iraq.
To use your example QM. the policemen who shot an unarmed man for carrying a table leg (i thought the Daily mail reported it as a table leg...perhaps the Sun called it a smoking cigarette lighter) they were investigated and suspended from the force. the armed units recently refused to carry their weapons in solidarity with their suspended colleagues. What we got was Hutton.
The policemen did not shoot the man, his entire street and the rest of the city for good measure and from 32 000 feet. 100,000 were not killed. 60 British troops were not killed. You have to appreciate the scale of the devastation.
Most labour sympathisers will phooh phooh the march and scale it down but there was a massive protest march not only in this country but all over the world.
How many marches were held in support of the war QM.
By the way, you may find that not all posters are labour sympathisers on this site. You will have to accept the opposing viewpoint without casting aspersions on reading habits of others. I read the Daily Mail and the Times on a daily basis.
QM - I don't read the Mail and hate to agree with Dom Tuk but.....
Your first point regarding opinion polls - I recall you using MORI in a previous listing so: http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq2.shtml
(Dated 5th March 2003 a couple of weeks before we went in) - without the proof or further UN resolution there was certainly a higher proportion of people against the war than for the war.
Your second point refers to crowd size - the police put the figure at 750,000 but (a) they do not have vast experience of this type of event as this was unprecedented - no other rally has come close to this amount of people protesting and (b) (I quote the BBC:) "The police estimate of 750,000 people could be an underestimation due to people bypassing official routes or going straight to Hyde Park without joining the main march"
Your third point is regarding Resolution 1441 which was signed in October 2002 (5 months before the war).
The resolution stated The Security Council recalls that it �has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.� All this resolution was, was a precussor to another resolution which would be needed if Hans Blix came back and said yes, we have proof that Sadaam is continuing development into WMD. It is also noted that a new resolution would have to ask for a regime change or similar, as (obviously) just disarming Sadaam would not be enough - as Resolution 678 did in 1990.
cont.
cont.
And with regard your final point on the exmaple with the policemen.....
Neither Tony Blair nor Bush are the world's policemen. They have no mandate to atttack any country with preemptive strikes without UN backing.
I am not a policeman either. Would you feel i was justified if I went to a burglars house with a mortar bomb and killed him and his children with it. I would justify my behaviour by saying that "but the world is a safer place without him" and "I, aswell as quite a few of my employees, said he may be armed and about to atttack a neighbour so I attacked himi first".
I don't think so.
Dom, if you do read The Daily Mail - as you now confess you do - then my comment can scarcely be called an 'aspersion'...defined as calumny or slander...now, can it?
And if you do read The Times, you will presumably have seen, in mid-March, the table of month-by-month results of the poll I talked about. It demolished your claim that the vast majority of British people were against the invasion at the time. 64% is darn-near three times 24%, so the "vast majority" held exactly the opposite view to the one you ascribed to them. Presumably, then, if anyone had bothered to arrange a pro-war march, there would have been the best part of 3 million people there!
I don't expect everyone to be pro-Labour here, but I do expect them - whether pro or con - to present a reasoned case rather than one at playground level. Elsewhere on AB you criticised an Irishman for having an Irish accent...here you have criticised the Prime Minister's wife as a 'joke', neither detail being of the slightest relevance to the point at issue. These things are roughly on a par with "My dad's bigger than your dad!"
We appear to have been involved in a bit of synchrography there, Vic. Re the differences in the Populus/MORI poll findings, all I can say is that I read 'The Times', so obviously I tend to accept the polls it publishes. Presumably, on the occasion you refer to my quoting them, The Times must have published the MORI findings. Certainly, the two appear to be widely separated re support for the Iraq war.
The fact that the total number of people at the march was unprecedented doesn't alter the fact that the Metropolitan Police does have long experience of assessing crowd-numbers in general, so larger crowds merely require them to extrapolate their figures...ie if X-number fill half of Trafalgar Square, then 2xX-number is required to fill it completely. The organisers had no such experience to call on. That never seems to prevent their supporters from accepting their figure.
Re UNSC resolutions, the whole point is the fact that Iraq had been "repeatedly warned" and it was also a fact that even earlier resolutions than 1441 had (quote) "authorised member states to use all necessary means" to ensure Iraq obeyed them. That's precisely what the coalition did.
Re policemen shooting apparently armed men, I offered that as an analogy of what had happened to Saddam. All five permament members of the UNSC - never mind the membership in general - have often over the years taken unilateral action in pursuit of their own ends, utterly oblivious to any so-called "UN mandate"...France and ourselves in Suez...Russia and China in Korea and so forth. It is a nonsense to believe that such actions are "illegal" without UN support.
Sorry QM - thought you had read 1441 - it did NOT say in any part of the resolution anything about "all necessary means" - the furthest it goes is in point 13
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"
I would also point out decision 4:
"Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submittedby Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq�s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below"
Decision 11 directs a report and any interference to be reported, and 12 I quote again:
"Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordancewith paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secureinternational peace and security"
Don't know about you, but if I had put my name to that resolution, I wouldn't expect a war to start without a report and another resolution.
Vic, Of course I've read 1441. Its introductory paragraphs contain the following...
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area."
In other words, the UNSC is deliberately recalling - and including that recall in November 2002 in Resolution 1441. In other words, pointing out that 678 still applied.
If you care actually to read what I wrote, you will see that I did not claim 1441 itself had the "all necessary means" injunction as such. I said:
"It was also a fact that even earlier resolutions than 1441 had (quote) "authorised member states to use all necessary means" to ensure Iraq obeyed them."
Resolutions 678 and 1441, however, both contain the words. But that's enough. I at least shall leave matters there. Cheers
I am sorry, but it recalled a 1990 resolution which was when Sadaam invaded another country. A different time. Lets not get into historical resolutions or we could talk for months about Israel and the resolutions concerning them, not to mention the fact that Bush could arguably use the same resolution for attacking Iran - after all it is to preserve peace in the area!
Personally, I don't think that any rational person can read 1441 and not expect another resolution to come authorising a war. And lets face it - that was what the government were after before they realised they were not going to get one (because France, China And USSR would veto) so they changed their mind and said they didn't need one.
QM - you are very obviously an intelligent, articulate person and our politics are (obviously) very different.
I know you want to leave it there, however, I ask one favour of you - read agin 1441 and tell me this - if you signed this resolution (and pay close regard to deicision 4) would you in all honesty expect to go to war without seeing either a report from UNMOVIC and the IAEA or another resolution authorising force.
I will await your answer with interest but not post anymore questions to you.
Vic
OK, Vic - since you ask - just one last comment..."the rest is silence". 'Recalling' in a document such as 1441 does not mean sitting in a deck-chair in the garden with your pipe on a summer's afternoon, gently reminiscing. It means: "Hey, Saddam, remember this? It still applies, mate!" It's not a question of just being "historical"; the reference to it makes it "immediate", also.
Not a single UN resolution against Israel was promulgated under Chapter VII of the UN Charter...ie resolutions which are mandatory. All are Chapter VI resolutions...ie subject to negotiation. I don't approve of Israel's ignoring them, of course, but Iraq was simply not in the same league.
France, Russia and China all signed 1441 in November 2002, which - as I seem to be constantly reminding people - unequivocally stated Iraq was proliferating WMD and a threat to world peace. To reach a conclusion as to why they would not sign a further resolution on the matter, all you have to do is grasp that it obviously had nothing whatever to do with knowing there were no WMD. Simply learn which three countries of the world were making the most substantial profits from their commercial enterprises in Iraq! France's ELF, for example, in Iraqi oilfields
Naturally enough, I suppose, you pick the parts of 1441 that seem to support your argument whilst I pick the parts that support mine!
I'm sure that face-to-face we could have a long and interesting discussion, because you, too, are clearly an intelligent person. AnswerBank appears simply not to be the place for this sort of debate, so - from now on - I think I'll just ignore this type of question. Otherwise we're doomed, you and I - like the Ancient Mariner - to retell our tales for all eternity! Cheers
It always amazes me that the people of this country, on matters of national security, think that the Prime Minister should do an "Ask the audience" exercise and go with the arbitrary beliefs of Mrs x of Sheffield and Disgruntled of Leamington Spa, rather than heed the advice of the security services whose job it is to advise on such matters.
Regardless of the outcome, I know which way I'd go based on probability alone.
As for not releasing the reasons for arresting terrorism suspects - that seems prudent. It's on a need-to-know basis and we don't need to know. You don't give out any info that can be used by illegal organisations to gain an intelligence advantage.
Isn't this all really obvious...?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.