Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Love it when he puts his glasses on.
but blair is a don, none of the current or potential leaders have the magic
some much blah blah blah blah blah
in my paisley kipper once.
It was the Tie Rack Inquiry.
'VERY EXPENSIVE AND DAMAGING PUBLIC ENQUIRIES'
the event, when it is too late, After the horse is bolted etc.
If it were to establish, where did we go wrong? can we ensure it doesnt happen again, then this is the only possible reason......yet this is not the case.
Blair is not longer in politics so what is the point in trying to find out 'NOW' whether he is a trustworthy or competant politician?
Why don't they have public enquiries BEFORE major stuff?
they have nuclear weapons
clear and present and danger
gassed his own people
That makes no sense.
So you're saying that we have a public enquiry which will televise our strategies and talk about everything that will be involved in the invasion. Not sure if that would work....
Also, public inquiries after the event have the benefit of hindsight. Thereby we can learn from what happened. The enquiry into the Crimean War set in motion one of the biggest overhauls of the civil service in British history.
what has happened in Iraq after Blair and Bush invaded, is entirely predictable and non suprising.
with Hindsight do we now know anything more? Do we know whether Blair was told there were WMD? (although I am sure there will always be advocates (within security services) for the worst possible scenarios, so it is very likely that there will always be advocates for the hawk way......the only thing that really is in dispute is 'did blair honestly believe that it was true and likely when he was told that Sadaam probably had WMD' and since that is an internal judgement call where the truth is only known or probably inside blair's brain.....so the ONLY WAY THAT tHIS enquiry would help would be if they rigged blair up to a lie detector machine (and also all those in the chain of communication who were involved in reporting 'WMD'
Since the Inquiry will not be using lie detectors it is pointless
for the first time, relatively unbiased new reporters were present......the times and such did not so much 'thunder on' about the reasons or motivation behind the war as much as the conditions and BARMY decisions and bad preparation en equipment for the britich soldiers.........the reporters were genuinely suprised to see (for example) the light brigade going up a valley bristling with guns and artillary pieces on both sides and up the upper end.
They might also have been suprised about why the light brigade had not been used the previous day when the heavy brigade had broken up a huge cossack attack (the light brigade should have gone in to wipe out the fleeing/broken cossack formation....but they were kept out of it because of the petty rivalries of the commanders...............this sort of enquiry is entoirely diferent as they were able to draw conclusions as they had a new reporting method....i.e. non army reports but journalists and these reports DID throw new light on stuff.
for the current enquiry there is nothing that will throw new light on anything as far as I can see, please corect me If you think different
And to learn how to become more efficient in this we have to study and analyse what went wrong and why we made the mistakes we did. The reason we need to continually have inquiries, such as this one, is that warfare changes and is changing so rapidly. There is no way we can just look at something like the mistakes in Vietnam to determine how work in future wars, things are just so different. If, as a state, we want to be able to defend ourselves (whether or not that is right is not the issue here) using a military as a last resort we must be able to identify key failings in our systems of administration. We must have the ability to renew and evolve.
Also, if what happened after we invaded was so predictable and non surprising why were we not able to cope with that? This is, for me, the key point of the inquiry. If we knew what was going to happen then why didn't we have a plan in place. Why were the plans we had not good enough.
In addition, the whole thing about whether or not Blair lied, Campbell sexing up dossiers etc. shows the need for transparency in our government to ensure that you can't get away with something as serious as this without any consequences. Also, going back to Crimea: there was outrage at the poor equipping of the army etc. sound familiar to today? We are far from having a perfect administration and a major way of improving said administrations is analysing how they functioned under the immense pressure of a war.
this one isn't even close in most respects
Creaky originally said, "Why do countries have...." suggesting that the problem is as much the very act of having an inquiry than with the people that are running this particular inquiry.
not enquiries that provide the sort of information that would be helpful in ways that you suggest.
What you are saying is what (in an ideal world) an enquiry SHOULD be done for
What I am asking is WHy have expensive damaging things CALLED enquiries, when they are not designed to provide information that would be useful with regard to future actions/lessons learned.
By having enquiries that are only 'enquiries' in name (not in tooth and heart) they do not provide lessons for the future that will be heeded......I suspect that they only have enquiries so that they can 'fob off' people who are raising objections, with the (transparent) illusion that 'something is being done'
people with influence to NOT HAVE To go along with any recommendations that this 'Enquiry' might come up with
before going to war we were beaten over the head in public about the consequences of inaction and very little of the debate was given over to the consequences of action
I think he'd like that balance reversed
but although it can always be improved by spending more money on the military, ir really is a black hole, because there is a constantly evolving new range of equipment, no army of any size can instantly replace ALL of its older stuff immediately for the newest/latest, it is a charge that will always be able to be levelled at any military. (sometimes it could be culpable, but at other times it might not be, unfortua
is not a bad idea as you have chosen to portray in your post.
BECAUSE Unusually we EXAC|TLY wanted iraq to be aware that there would be armed intervention if Sadaam did not do 'x' or 'y' ....we wanted him to be aware with all certainty that he would be physically ousted if he didnt co-operate....an enquiry as to whether we should invade iraq would not have involved strategies or stuff that would help in opposing the invasion.
I am actually an expert wargamer and used to study military strategy and tactics quite avidly so I am well aware of how not to conduct military operations, and I am well aware of the advantage of pre-knowledge of intent, and I am well aware of the danger of trying to defeat an enemy when you are being run by 'a comittee' where that committee has different mandates/agendas.
The original anti Sadaam alliance that responded when kuwait was invaded, displayed that they WERE NOT WELL AWARE of aspects of warfare, as instead of focussing on 'the enemy' that needs to be beaten (Sadaam) they focussed on a limited objective (although the objective might have had to have been altered because of the public loss of appetite for invading iraq (that time) due to the cnn pictures beamed to democratic countries about the civillians killed in the bunker...but who knows......it would be useful if a public enquiry could tell us why they did not persue and defeat the enemy when they were in retreat.....why allow the enemy to escape relatively intact? why try to degrade the enemy then, by sanctions that hit not the enemy but people associated with the enemy........
please dont try to make out that what I say is niave or unworldly, I am far wiser and worldlyer than my style might suggest
I am actually an expert wargamer and used to study military strategy and tactics quite avidly so I am well aware of how not to conduct military operations UNQUOTE.
Seriously now, stop it. You've jumped the shark.
in this case innisj pointed out that the idea of having an enquiry before an event was niave (or that was the inference)
I had not gone into detail to explain that 'yes i know that initially on first glance it might look niave....but if you look closer and consider.....blah blah blah' because I dont want my posts to start becoming as large as they used to.
I hate people saying that someone has expertise therefore who the hell are you to criticise them 'when you are a mere amateur' (or sentiments to that effect)
Therefore I resorted to the weak declaration of self assessing as 'an expert'
OK you can pull ME up on this because I agree that it is a weak way to go on.......but If you like I will try to qualify my claim.
Before I was a teenager I had read lots of clauswitz and sun tsu, shortly afterwards I read the prince.
I had studied probably about 100 battles.
I used to be able to set up the significant positions of units for many different historical battles.
I used to play many potential future scenarios.
I used to run and set up many wargames for others
I Used to referree
I used to regularly challenge some games rules as to their realism to get myself able to do something that was slightly more radical, sometimes the games rules/parameters on what might happen in an unforseen event might uphold over me, but more often than not I would be able to argue my reasoning and convince the refs andf other gamers that my points were valid and likely (it was only that certain commanders might not suggest some new things)
I have won several competative wargame tournaments as well.
I Used to ensure that in a sphere of historical conflict I knew all the weopons used on both sides (their specs and official performance IRL on paper and understood how closely the games rules modelled the reality and when they were unrealistic.....I would also try to read as much actual field reports and hindsight info about how the weopons performed. I also studied the history of units that performed well and worked out what the possible reasons were for the performance of all the troops.
I also noticed the correlation of how military commanders perform relative to their timeline and whether they 'should' have learnt something from previous battles to theirs.....and why some didnt learn. I think that I could still lay out the troops pretty accurately for many historical battles.
I could name and id every aircraft and tank (not all artillary pieces) used in the second world war (I could id most weopons but there were also many many localised varients of some pieces)
I could also do the above for weopons and equipment up to about 1986.....if i saw a weopon on the news I would always pipe up with helpful info to people like 'thats french'
stuff that the news itself would not reveal.
I don't like blowing my trumpet over stuff like this, but I am not going to be able to prove to innisj that I am not as niave as he suggests by being able to actually beat him in a wargame on here
(PS I got into computing because I thought that computers could aid with wargaming (providing all the dice rolls to give the right odds on various outcomes (chances e.g. weather, spotter plane spotting troops in woods etc, or whether the panzerkampfwagen VI's L70 75mm gun's shell penetrates the rear armour of a t35/85's turret at a range of 500 yrds (at an angle of 20% from being directly behind) or whether it gets deflected before exploding) (believe me there were HUNDREDS of dice rolls (of various numbers of sides) to just generate the right spread of results according to the actual real life records.
Unfortunately I didnt get to use computers for this (much) I ended up being a cobol programmer
This is a looming and coming challenge. I see the impact and influence of Iran everywhere. It is negative and destabilising. It is supportive of terrorist groups. It is doing everything it can to impede progress in the Middle East peace process ... At some point – and I will say this to you with all the passion I possibly can – at some point the west has got to get out of what I think is a wretched posture of apology, for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing, or what these extremists are doing. We are not. The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and will carry on doing it unless they are met by the requisite determination and if necessary force ... At some point we've got to get our head of the sand and understand that they are going to carry on with this [terrorism and the nuclear weapons programme].
The man is a maniac. And has seemingly learned nothing.
PS he is religeous as well (of course he's a maniac) ......anyway.......Iran Iraq very different situations Iran's current admin DOES feel that it has to have an anti west stance.
Sadaam Hussein DID NOT HAVE an anti west stance.
QUOTE:The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life
that baffles me. Iran is building a nuclear weapon because they disagree with our way of life? He's heavily involved with the Middle East so he must have some insight, but that statement makes zero sense to me.
trying very hard to b ecome a nuclear power.....so Iran does not disagree with 'our way of life' that much.
Also I disagree with our way of life.....hey perhaps that means Im Iranian ;)
I agree with you he has a nutty evangelisticness about him in the way he is saying it.
Of course in some ways he is right, Iran does adopt the stance as 'the enemy of us' but then again many people fundementally disagree with our way of life......perhaps instead Blair should examine 'our way of life' and see if there is anything in it that is disagreeable......if we could try to address (or at least acknowledge) what is 'disagreeable' 'in our way of life' then we can start to discuss (with Iran) what is 'disagreeable' about 'their way of life'
This should finally shut the bloody anti-war mob up for good.
(pig flies past window)
oooo look....they're playing arial football
I thought he came across very well.