Straw: Iraq war made UK safer

Straw: Iraq war made UK safer

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Monday March 15, 2004

Jack Straw today insisted that Britain's role in the Iraq war had not made it a bigger target for al-Qaida terrorism.

In the government's first formal reaction to the fall of the Aznar government in Spain, assumed to be a consequence of public horror at the presumed Islamist attack on the Madrid train network, the foreign secretary said that Britain would be safer in the "medium to long term" as a result of deposing Saddam Hussein.

But, speaking of the attacks which claimed over 200 lives, he admitted that the way the Spanish government "may have handled those events may have swung votes".

Mr Straw, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, insisted: "So far as people feeling that they have become a bigger target, obviously we are going to hear a lot of this argument.

"All I can say is that no one should get the idea that somehow if you were a country which was opposed to the military action in Iraq, you are less of a target for al-Qaida and these terrible Islamic fanatics. Not at all.

more.............

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1169691,00.html

Given Straw's track record with declarative statement's, I think I'll stay skeptical for now. :)

"no one should get the idea that somehow if you were a country which was opposed to the military action in Iraq"

Er? Apart from in reality you probably are. "Islamic fundamentalists" are clever enough to see the occupation of Iraq for what it is. A power grab giving the coallition the ability to project power in their heartland. They have reacted violently and will continue to do so until the interlopers leave.

The U.K is no safer than it was with Saddam in power.

If Straw says we're not a bigger target, that's conclusive proof that we are.

If said it gets dark at night I'd go and check.

These Blairites really do come out with some utter shite.

Iraq had no connection with Al-Quaida before the war but now it is a breeding ground for terrorism. There are now many al-Qaida operatives and groups whose suicide bombings have taken such a toll on British troops in Iraq.

Al-Quaida is still a threat and Britain is a target. If we had not gone into Iraq then that would be much less so. All Jack Straw is doing is showing what an idiot he is. Aznar's defeat is a kick in the balls for "new" labour too and he knows it.

to talk like that. They don't take the train or bus.

"may have handled those events may have swung votes"?

So how did Spain handle those events, Mr. Straw? They allowed millions of people to peacefully demonstrate. They didn't use the attack to cancel or postpone the election. And then the people of Spain spoke load and clear that they wanted to change the way Spain deals with the world.

Of course the US and England won't make the mistake that Spain just made. The next attack will be their excuse for Marshall Law and to cancel the election because that is the only way that these folks will be able to stay in power. Of course, it will all be to keep us safe and for national security reasons.

The Spanish government tried to blame the attacks on ETA, even though it wasn't ETA's style and they had already found some evidence that Al Qaeda was behind it. The Spanish public felt that the government was misleading them (again) right before an election.

on the way out. The terrorist attack just made Spanish public opinion against Aznar and the Iraq War even stronger.

Bu$h & Co are probably shitting bricks this morning because Spain is just the tip of the iceberg of world public opinion. They're probably sending out the orders to initiate the next Project ____________ as we speak. Bu$h and Blair know they can't win in a general election and they are capable of doing even the unthinkable in order to stay in power.

Is Blair suffering from Diebold envy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F15%2Fweu15.xml&sSheet=%2Fportal%2F2004%2F03%2F15%2Fixportal.html

Electoral fraud could increase as a result of plans to force millions of people to vote by post in this summer's European elections, police chiefs have warned.

With peers likely to defeat the Government for the second time on this issue tomorrow, the Metropolitan Police Special Branch conclusions will make it harder for ministers to justify their proposals to extend postal voting across almost half of England.

All-postal voting, which involves polling stations being scrapped and people having to vote by post, has been piloted in local elections, where it has tended to increase turnout from about 30 per cent to 50.

Although the Government officially wants to promote postal voting to make it easier for people to take part in elections, opposition parties believe ministers are influenced by partisan motives.

> Is Blair suffering from Diebold envy?

Some areas (including my own) used touch-screen voting in the last
set of elections. No pieces of paper. No proof of vote being cast.
One video console activated by a smart card (returned to the desk)
and, hopefully, passing on the correct decision to the counters.

I think Blair is actually being slightly smart here: not just one big
switch to touch-screen voting but diluted by other means - postal, SMS,
internet, whatever. That way it becomes much harder to point out the
potential vote-rigging whilst actually making it easier to implement.

Not that there's a viable opposition anyway ... still, it makes sense
for this sort of thing to come in under the radar while there are few
contentious seats around. That way, everyone will be used to the "tried
and tested" technology by the time that it is really required to run
things.

Nihil

Here is another very good article on the subject by George Monbiot. I've used a postal ballot once before and I must admit that it does seem to make elecoral fraud a tad easier to do. :scared:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,945383,00.html

The government's problem is that it needs to raise the vote. It knows that there is little prospect of revitalising people's interest in politics until some significant difference between the major parties re-emerges, but it cannot present us with distinctive policies without upsetting the powerful agents - everyone from Lord Sainsbury to President Bush - it seeks to appease. It also knows that a government elected by a small proportion of its people is a government whose claim to legitimacy is dubious. So, rather than expanding our choice, it has sought to boost the turnout by tinkering with the mechanics of voting. In doing so, it has also enhanced the opportunities for interfering in the way we vote.

The new technique for winning votes is simple, effective and legal. You pick up a stack of postal-vote application forms, then walk from door to door asking voters to fill them in. You either leave the forms with the voters or encourage them to complete the forms on the spot, then take them back and deliver them to the registry yourself. By this means you come to possess a list of the people who have applied to vote by post in your constituency. Postal-voting forms are all sent out on the same day; to seek to govern the way that confused or vulnerable electors may vote, you merely need to arrive at their homes soon afterwards. Your conversation goes something like this.

"Hello, I'm Algernon Scroggs, your Bring Back the Poll Tax party candidate. I was just wondering whether you'd received your postal-voting form." "I don't know. Is this it?" "Yes, that's the one." "What do I do with it?" "You put a cross next to the name of your favourite candidate. If, for example, you wanted to vote for me, you'd put your cross just there. Would you like to borrow my pen?" "Like this?" "Yes, that's it. Shall I witness it for you?"

This approach has already proved to be devastatingly effective in old people's homes and sheltered housing and among those who have difficulty with English. It is not hard to see how it can influence the decisions of people who either don't understand what is happening or wish to oblige their authoritative visitor. If the candidate is already a councillor, and voters live in accommodation provided by the council, they can, if they don't understand their legal rights, be made to feel concerned about the conditions of their tenancy, without any actual threat being issued. These are among the long-established reasons for the secret ballot. The secret ballot has just been thrown to the wind.

more snotty though

Stupid prick.

The dolt may have well said that.

Aren't there other brands of voting machines that do have paper?