MORE LLOYD: Another reason many of us feel a bit queasy about the thought of Bush starting a scrap with Iraq is the way he's not really yet sorted his mess in Afghanistan out. Lloyd has a response for this - yes, Afghanis may have one or two problems, but isn't the place so much better now? "Women have been liberated from servitude", so presumably the worries of RAWA about the increased numbers of self-immolations by women and the fundamentalist hold on power is just them getting their pretty little heads all confused. "A semi democratic government is in place in Kabul" - the non democratic half presumably being the bit shooting student protesters and banning foreign TV feeds, we imagine.
While John Lloyd seems happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, Debarati Guha-Sapir (the director of the WHO collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters and professor in the Epidemiology Unit at the University of Louvain School of Public Health in Belgium) seems less enthralled by the attempts to enforce humanitarianism at gunpoint, fretting that the mistakes of Somalia are about to be repeated. If, of course, the International community doesn't just get bored and piss off first anyway.
"Afghanistan is much better for its people" concludes Lloyd. That's except for the seventeen villagers who were the latest added to the 'collateral damage' pile.

 
HEADS TED: We're delighted to bring the rather fine Ted Mills Blog to your attention. Amongst the things you'll find waiting for there is a link to abc new's report on how the Orange Alert Rating was based, um, on a huge great lie. So much for the quality of intelligence they're expecting us to believe, but still, everyone gets it wrong from time to time, don't they? And its the first time the FBI have given serious credibility to a load of old tosh before checking it since, ooh, Christmas Eve. If someone could get us a photo of the US intelligence HQ changing its "XXX Days since issuing 'Panic Now' instructions on the say-so of some Walter Mitty or other" sign, we'd be delighted.

 
ABOUT THE OIL? APPARENTLY THAT'S ABSURD: John Lloyd takes space in this week's New Statesman to attack the left for claiming that there's some sort of moral equivalence between Bush and Saddam. Admittedly, to suggest the two are interchangable is a nonesense, but to draw the parallels between the two is surely valid. When Madeleine Bunting suggests the pair of leaders are "two erratic, angry men, both of whom control quantities of lethal weapons and both of whom are making a mockery of the UN and any concept of international law" it's hard to see which bit Lloyd could disagree with. Sure, it's a matter of degree - Saddam's 'democracy' returned a 100% victory for him; Bush's election was the result of nearly winning more votes than his rival; in Baghdad, the press is controlled by Saddam's son, in the US the press is free - allowing the anti-war movement at least the chance to have their attempts to buy airtime turned down by NBC, Fox and CNN; in Iraq, opposition often results in execution, whereas in the US, opposition just leads to having your right to travel removed, while executions are much more humane - even ensuring the mentally ill are cured before they're killed (those who the gods would destroy may first be made mad; when its the Supreme Court doing the destruction, they ensure they're sane first). And so on. America is a much, much better place to be than Iraq, certainly. It doesn't mean Pretzel-choke is a better person, just the State is arranged in such a way as to afford him less control over his citizens than Saddam enjoys - although the craven Congressional attempts to cede powers of declaring war to the Oval Office suggests things are running in a more Iraqi direction (although there are legal moves afoot to see if the President can start bombing with the approval of Congress after all).
The difficulty of being a pro-air-attacker, of course, is that it's hard to argue against the stop the war charges, especially the continued belief that if Iraq had no oil reserves, it would either be left alone to develop its scary weapons in - ahem - peace (like Pakistan) or receive little more than a agitated "bad dog" (like North Korea). Lloyd has a go, though: "Valerie Marcel of the Royal Institution of International Affairs concluded 'if protecting the interests of the American oil companies and getting more oil on to the market were the prime interests of the Bush administration, sanctions would be lifted against Iran and Libya.' An invasion of Iraq and an attempted regime change there are risky and expensive ways of securing future oil supplies." You know that moment when Gail turned to Ken in the Kabin and told him she'd always respected him but that was until now? I've always enjoyed Lloyd's writing and his arguments, even at times when I've disagreed with him, but if he actually believes that "lifting sanctions against Iran and Libya" then I'm afraid I can't respect him any longer. He really believes that America would feel it had a secure supply of oil from Gaddafi? from the regime in Tehran? (Astute readers may also recall that prior to the sudden focus on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, members of the British government were, indeed, popping over to Libya and giving 'oh, the Colonel's not so bad, you know' press conferences, so it's not impossible this course of action was being considered when the US realised that their Saudi friends were funding terrorist attacks behind their backs).
At least Julie Burchill had an honest response to the "it's about oil" charge - "would you rather not have cars and central heating?", which was saying "Yes, it's about oil." Of course, there are alternatives to using oil for cars and heating - wind power for example. Which is why its curious that plans to build a massive wind farm in the Mersey estuary were blocked by the Ministry of Defence. They claimed - wonderfully - that the farm would bugger their radar defences, which makes you wonder just how crap their radar stations must be. "Sir, those hovering helicopters on their side still haven't moved their position..." But they must really have been worried. It's not like the British Government is so in thrall to the oil industry that they'd fib to smack down any serious alternative, is it?

 
ABOUT THE OIL? TRY MOVING A STEP ON: Thanks to Graham S for bringing The Euro Effect: The Real Reason for the War in Iraq to our attention. Its theory is that the war isn't - of course - about weapons of mass destruction, or even about getting the oil for its own sake. Really, the war is America attempting to pre-empt a switch by OPEC from trading in USD to trading in Euro. Crazy? Iif that was the case, you'd imagine the biggest countries in the Eurozone wouldn't be supporting the ... oh, hang on a moment...

 
SOME PEOPLE TAKE A STAND: Jenny Toomey, once of Tsunami, gave this example to Maximum Rock and Roll of the difficulty of forming an opposition to war in the US. You'd have thought the fields of Ladyfest would have been keen to take a stand, wouldn't you? But...
"At ladyfest in Los Angeles, I tired to raise the question of war. I stood on stage and asked the smattering of an audience 'Have a lot of other ladies been talking about the fact that we are about to go to war'? I was met with a humid silence. I limped forward trying to make connections between war and feminism, and eventually abandoned politics and returned to performing songs.
We live in such an anti-political cynical climate that everyone is terrified to take a stand that might make them seem stupid"
Apparently, the soon-coming Ladyfest in Manchester won't be the same; the organisers are adding a busload or so to the marchers this weekend.

 
SHARON MAKES MENTAL NOTE TO TRY TO HANG ON TO POWER FOREVER: The few places that have picked up on the attempt to bring Ariel Sharon to trial for war crimes in belguim seem to be spinning it - as the Canadian Broadcasting Co do here - as a rejection of the petition. But of course, if it was, then Israel wouldn't be so angry, would it?
The Palestinians tried yesterday to bring Sharon to trial under Belgian rules allowing the country to try war crimes committed anywhere. Citing Ariel's diplomatic immunity, the Supreme Court said "not right now, but maybe later." Israel, of course, are raging, recalling their ambassador to Brussels and claiming that Belgium has harmed "the entire free world." Shimon Peres tutted that Belguim could not be the "judge of Israel" because "it did not experience what we have experienced, and it must not place itself on a perch above the nations of the world as a judge of all history." Because, presumably, that's America's job.

 
SADLY, SNOW DIDN'T SAY 'THIS IS ALL A BIT OF FUN': Interesting watching last night's Britain Decides Iraq debate special [Real Player] with the added bonus of text-message length instant responses from the public running along the bottom of the screen - we'd say they were probably two thirds against, one third pro; almost all duff. While its hard to make a cogent argument in 156 characters, some of the gung-ho were more gung-what - A Duff from Edinburgh suggested "Iraq's more dangerous than an angry tiger", which is undoutably true; an angry tiger would only require containment until it fell asleep, or possibly a quick knock-out dart into its loins. Duff didn't suggest any other animals that Iraq might outrank in danger factors, but we can assume most monkeys, an upset cow and a cobra with an entire elk inside would be on his list. Kulbir Moktan from London suggested that "anyone who is against the war should be prepared to live under Saddam", which, as we understand it, is what a large number of Baghdad dwellers are currently doing while they fear the liberating effects of three thousand bombs pummelling from the sky. It's nice to see a modern version of "Why don't you go and live in Russia, then?" taking hold.
The filmed inserts didn't make a great deal of coherence either. Trotting down to Plymouth to speak to the mother of a sailor who has suddenly twigged that - despite what the adverts claim - being in the navy isn't all posh uniforms and boxing tournaments. Asked about the findings of the BBC poll which suggested nobody much wanted to be wading into war with Iraq, the mother spat "It's no surprise" before moaning about "the apathetic nature of the British people to our armed forces." Eh? So if we really cared about the army, we'd be desperate to send them into a battlefield possibly besmirched with mustard gas and nuclear weapon bits. Doubtless Downing Street is desperate there will be a "get behind our boys" effect when it all kicks in.
The American chap - who got to sit in the Gavin Esler Memorial Washington studio, and whose name I managed to miss twice - had unearthed a new stick to hit France with: "Saddam would have a nuclear weapon now if the French had actually sold them the reactor they were trying to..." - what? We knew the French didn't see eye to eye with Bush, but they've been trying to flog Baghdad nuclear materials? - "... in 1981." Ah. So, you mean, it's like the way Saddam wouldn't have had any anthrax to play with if the Americans hadn't sold it to them when it wasn't on the axis of evil but was a handy bulwark against Iran, then. I see.

 
YOU HAVE TO GO A LONG, LONG WAY TO FIND A BETTER LAPDOG: Couple of things raised from the Blair/Howard press conference a few minutes ago - when, exactly, did "the weapons inspectors are not a detective agency" line actually come into play? I've heard that a few times on both sides of the Atlantic in the next couple of days, and it's curious. So, then, the UN mandate was merely for them to verify the truth of the Iraqi statement - presumably the version before the US photocopied it. But as the Americans insist that the statement was a lie, and concealed stuff, surely the job of the inspectors is to uncover that stuff? In other words, detect evidence of a weapons programme or programmes. Or are Blair and Bush telling us that they think Blix's men should only inspect the sites Saddam wants them to?
Second, when asked why there was the big security lock down in London, Blair spoke specifically of groups looking to cause chaos "through the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons" - erm, but isn't the muscle flexing down at Heathrow because it's feared someone might try to shoot a plane out the sky? Since its unlikely that a Prime Minister is unlikely to forget the precise nature of a threat verified by "the clearest intelligence since September 11th", we're assuming this wasn't a slip of the tongue, more a bid to rack up our fear factor a little further.

 
INTERESTING...: When John Reid was clarifying his earlier remarks, he grinned in a slightly inane fashion and said "I never actually said 'September 11'" - ah, so that must have been some other massacre in New York you must have been referring to.
And why is Downing Street now shying away from the tanks-outside-Heathrow stunt, letting it be known that the Prime Minister was "surprised" that tanks were brought in, a mere twenty four hours after proudly proclaiming that the Prime Minister had personally ordered the security measures. Which was it? And should Blair really be taking us to war if - as it appears - he's incapable even of keeping on top of what the military are doing twenty miles from his house?

 
YEAH, I'M SCARED OF A MAN WHOSE ORGANISATION CAN'T RUN TO A VIDEO CAMERA: Nice to see Osama's comeback - talk about a sense of timing, and saying things that couldn't have been better for George Bush if Dubya had scripted them himself. We're not entirely sure though why Colin Powell thinks that Osama (or someone who sounds a bit like him) saying "Yeah, Iraq - kick the Yanks" proves links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, especially since OBL didn't actually mention Saddam at all; and it doesn't take a genius to see that OBL has a lot to gain by Iraq and America having a massive scrap - goading Iraqis into war is one of the easiest ways to rid the Middle East of its only non-theocratic state, offering the prospect of a much more friendly government post-war; something more in the mould of the Saudis; plus, tying up American planes and bombs and leaving Afghanistan even more free of support and protection from the Taliban; and even better yet, nothing will rally support for terrorists like America dropping bombs on mosques and muslim women. Of course Osama would want to push the Iraqis to war.
Can anyone explain why all the previous OBL tapes surfaced first through Al-Jazeera, but this one seemed to have been picked up the State Department before it went out?

 
OF COURSE WE'VE BEEN QUIET: We're hiding under the bloody bed, dammit. Except, of course, there's a tank underneath there.
Now, it might be that there is a credible terrorist threat to airplanes flying out of London (or Manchester, or Leeds), and it could well be that the hundreds of troops are there to make us safer. But you know what? We can't help wonder if maybe Mr. Tony has got a bit sick of people gently mocking the UK government's hamfisted "intelligence" and decided to teach us a lesson by wiping the smug smiles off our face. "There, see, we've got soldiers at Heathrow - that's how serious it is." Let's just hope if this is the case, he doesn't need to ratchet up the tension any further...
We had been going to mention how the Chairman of the Labour Party was probably going to get his butt smacked for saying "the threat is on a level with the time thousands died in New York", but before we finished doing pop papers he'd already released a statement - ah, shall we say correcting - his earlier comments.
What we can't quite believe is that Heathrow has got 400 troops or whatever surrounding it, but if you run "Gatwick" through Google News, not only is there not a single mention of so much as a couple of extra policemen being drafted in, but the very first news story returned (at present) is "BIA traffic increases by 26pc - icBirmingham, UK - 5 hours ago - ... The airport handled 175000 passengers in January. The UK's two major airports Heathrow and Gatwick also registered a rise in passenger numbers during January. ... . You have to hope they didn't order a lot of extra perishable goods based on this report.

 
ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE TERRORISTS TURNS OUT TO BE, UM, A CONMAN INSTEAD: Of course, nobody approves of Enaam Arnaout's funding of private armies using money given for the poor, and nobody would dispute that he deserves time in chokey for what he did. But let's not lose site of the more important fact here - once again, US intelligence has proved its totally unable to back up its allegations of terrorist links, and more precisely Al-Qaeda links. Since Saddam-Bin Laden linkage was meant to be Colin Powell's big rabbit-from-a-hat at the UN, and even at the time kids aged three and upwards were able to spot the links that he did have were somewhat vague, we're forced to ask - has American intelligence got anything at all that stands up to anything more rigorous than a Fox News interview?

 
TALKING OF FOX: We don't want to turn warticker into the Fox equivalent of the always refreshing, but usually wrong biased bbc blog, but even by the hard and fast standards of 'imparitality' usually demonstrated by Murdoch's American 'fair and unbiased' channel, the opening to yesterday's Studio B was a masterpiece of brassneck. "Our viewers in the state of France should read page eight of today's New York Post" instructed the preppy presenter, delivering a mini-lecture on the reasons why those bloody French should do what they're told, dammit. There is, of course, a fairly important clause in the ITC code that reminds programme makers that even if they're mainly broadcasting to an audience outside the UK, they still have to abide by the British rules. It's not very far from the one about not broadcasting opinion as fact, if memory serves.

 
AND THE LINK WOULD BE...?: The Daily Mail has gone over the top this morning, suggesting that France is just being totally ungrateful after everything the Americans did for them in the war - a similar line was being taken last night on Fox. Apparently, then, the eventual entry of the US into the Second World War means that the whole of Europe must now do anything the US asks, is my understanding of it. Right.
It's curious that when people go "If it wasn't for America, Parisians would be talking German now" they don't say the same thing about Berlin, isn't it?
But maybe the Americans have got a point - if they hadn't got round to helping out in 1942, we would have been in trouble. On this basis, if they want to start a war with Iraq this month, they could count on us fighting alongside them from 2006.
Because remember - if it wasn't for the US, France would now be expected to dance to the will of a foreign power whose position is dependent solely on its possession of greater weapons and a stranglehold on the culture of the region. Oh, hang on...

 
GRUMSFELD: Ole' Uncy Don's mask has really been slipping of late, hasn't it? Dunno about Eminem, it looks like Rumsfeld who could really benefit from anger management. The poor dear seems to be incapable of coping with any nation which says anything other than "Yessir, right away." Of course, the US couldn't give a tickertape parade about Turkey in itself; what they're really pissing themselves about is the promises they made behind the scenes to persuade the Turks to make themselves a target in the first place by allowing US troops to be stationed there: swift entry into the EU and a promise of NATO protection in return for giving the US somewhere to put its tents and ammo dumps.

 
LOOKING FOR THE ORANGE ONE: Hmmm, let's hope that Ashcroft isn't planning to visit Britain soon, else his lazy linking of the recent "traces of ricin" discovery so firmly to Al Qaeda could be used as further evidence to thwart any trial of the alleged terrorists. His conclusion-jumping, due-process-bypassing words came when he was lifting the security threat in the US to a pretty shade of orange - "like a russetty sunset imagined by Turner", which was due to some intelligence stuff all the intelligence guys agree on, the details of which shouldn't really bother us; and had nothing to do with ratchetting up the tension to get the stragglers behind IraqWar, oh no.
Taking questions, Ashcroft again made mention of "the kind of activities discovered in England" between Mombasa and Bali, although, really, nothing much has been discovered at all - so far, we've got traces of ricin. if there's so much evidence of Al Qaeda activity in the UK, and the intelligence guys are so far on top of it, how did they let a group of unarmed cops go blundering into a Manchester house on an immigration investigation? It might be that every street in England has a sleeper cell of Al-Qaeda terrorists quietly humming along to Janis Iain songs on Radio 2 while brewing up baths full of toxic potions; what's clear is that intelligence doesn't have a clue if there is.

 
WAR MAKING FOR STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: Prince Charles seems to be less than keen on going to war; apparently it was his less-than-keen approach to the war that led to a recent jaunt to the US being axed; oddly, on this issue the old sod finds himself making common cause with Dave 'Bloody' Matthews of the Dave Matthews Band featuring Dave Matthews, who has also clambered on the anti-war bandwagon ("spoken out against Bush"). Last time round there was a big coalition for war. This time, it seems, the unlikely alliances are on our side.

 
IN THE INTERESTS OF BALANCE: Hey, we're painfully aware that Warticker might come across like namby-pamby wetass liberals here, just because we're not entirely convinced exploding half a million Iraqis is the best way to secure low, low forecourt prices ("the right to live free of the threat of weapons mass destruction"), so we're happy to offer space for the considered responses of people who really, really wanna see those bombs falling. In that spirit, then, we're proud to present: "In my name", an occasional series of found calls for the war to get its fucking act together and start, already.
Number one: From a Britney Spears list:
im with coldgin96 [who responded to one of those stop the war petitions with a 'nuke the bastards' message], we should go to war. i think collen powell and george bush gave enough evidence about how iraq is a threat to the world. (and i am not a very big george bush supporter at all, i might add.)

I disagree that a war with iraq will start a WORLD WAR III. Iraq has no allies. its basically the U.S. against iraq. You need a lot more countries to make it a WORLD WAR. I really think people need to gather ALL the facts and information before making statements like that.

remember 9/11 and Britney forever!