(no subject)

[tinyjo]

I wish I was French sometimes. At least their government isn't totally subservient to the Americans all the time. I find it hard to believe that we're actually going to have a war in some ways, not least because I'm so used to the government folding under the tiniest bit of pressure from public opinion. It's so strange to see Tony Blair stick to his guns in the face of complete disagreement from the country, the party, even his MP's, normally so well trained. And I suppose that in the end, I have faith in the idea that getting re-elected is still more important to them than anything and this is one issue I can imagine they could lose the election on. If they go in without a second resolution we could even see enough defections to the Lib-Dems to shift the balance of power in the commons, perhaps not enough to change the government, but enough to cut down on the majority. I suppose that's a certain amount of wishful thinking but it's also pretty pragmatic. There's a lot of votes in this, and no MP can sit quietly by, especially in those marginal Middle England seats, and see those slip away from him. Maybe self-interest will save us after all, even if it doesn't save the Iraqis.

Comments

[blufive.livejournal.com]

there may well be truth in the American claim of the mountains of evidence that Saddam he be bad man. We've heard a lot of posturing from Dubya about how he knows loads of dirty little secrets, but they're too dirty for us to know. He might be right, and Mr Tony Blair has seen these and agrees and is prepared to fight in the face of opposition from his party and outspoken others.

So why can't they publish it, or at least bits of it? Maybe I'm being dumb, but I'm thinking hard, and I can't see any reason.

At a stroke, publishing would increase support, and could easily generate the UN resolution that most western European governments want before war happens. So why keep quiet?

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't know. The only two things I can think of are:

1) They don't want Iraq to find out what information they have to prevent them hiding it before the weapons inspectors get there so they can prove it beyond doubt

2) They retrieved the information in an obviously illegal way, and can't afford to publish the information because it will prove they're quilty.

(3)

[(Anonymous)]

Revealing the secret nasties would reveal the *sources* of the information, with consequences for the sources, their families, their villages, and anyone else who might have known them.

This is a guy who *drained* the *entire* wetlands between the Tigris and Euphtrates rivers - wiping out over a million hectares of habitat - to flush out the Arab tribesmen living there who opposed his regime. His people rape, torture, and kill, for nothing; so the release of nasty facts known to a limited circle of Iraqis would point the finger. People who use information have a duty of care for their informants - as in "protecting our sources", so fondly used by the Western, free, press (quite rightly).

Without supporting every reason for 'the war', or even supporting it at all, there can be valid, indeed, imperative, reasons for not releasing every type of information a government might have which supports the premises of the war.

(4) I am a microbiologist. I know my government is using my hospital's laboratory as a research station to produce and develop biological armaments to use against civilian populations. I give that information to agents of a government which I know is opposedt o my government. Is my action "illegal"? Has the information been acquired "illegally"? By whose laws?

Re: (3)

[truecatachresis.livejournal.com]

A very valid third reason, indeed. In fact, thinking on it, most likely to be true.