It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: The Secret Behind Blair's Wars

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
A few days ago, Tony Blair's Labour party clinched victory at the British polls to accomplish a historical third term in office. In the months leading up to the election, many predicted a loss for Labour based on Blair's immensely unpopular policy for Iraq invasion, and in light of some rather damaging leaks...but it was not to be. The election, as is more than often the case, was still decided on social and economic issues. However the discordant noise of scandal and leaks continues unabated, and it may soon drown out the Labour party's victory cheers.
 




Why, Tony, why?

Blair's unflinching, uncompromising commitment to the Iraq invasion continues to puzzle his detractors, many Labour supporters (Labour's recent victory at the polls notwithstanding) and others around the world. That staunch commitment has been plagued by many disturbing revelations, including, but not limited to:


Nuclear...arse'n'all



A little background on the UK's nuclear arsenal. Since the mid 80's, the UK's deterrence consists solely of the Trident submarine missiles and is in fact held in stewardship by the United States.

Trident: a US Missile System
As a result, Britain's Trident submarines use US Trident II D5 missiles produced and serviced in the United States by Lockheed Martin. The United Kingdom does not actually own the missiles, but has access to a pool of Trident II D5 missiles held at the Strategic Weapons facility at the Kings Bay Submarine Base, in Georgia, US. The British Trident submarines conduct missile test firings at the US Eastern Test Range, off the coast of Florida.


At least one Trident class submarine carrying 48 missiles is deployed at an unknown location at all times, however the missiles cannot even be fired without Washington's permission. Washington, it seems, has London by the short n' curlies.

sheffieldcnd.gn.apc.org...
The US sold Trident to us and the nuclear missiles cannot be fired without US permission. The American Lockheed Corporation's engineers control Trident from inside a Scottish mountain at Coulport and from the US Navy King's Bay servicing depot in Georgia (US) where the missiles must return periodically for maintenance. We have Trident to keep on the right side of the US. Geoff Hoon, our Defence Secretary, has virtually admitted that we are now a US client state. He has stated that "it is highly unlikely that the UK would be in large-scale combat operations without the US".



commondreams.org
The Trident nuclear warheads are dependent on the US. They are manufactured in Berkshire according to US designs and under management that includes the US arms producer Lockheed Martin. Specialist joint working groups include nuclear weapons engineering and manufacturing practices.

Neither Tony Blair nor George Bush has made any public statement about what deals are being struck over the renewal of the treaty, but they are likely to involve both specific technologies and political agreements. Tony Blair wants a successor to Trident supplied from the US. In return, the UK will help American WMD manufacturers where it can. For example, by doing some design work if Congress bars American firms from working on new weapons.



Key's key?

external image Folks from the UK, and many others, will know of Reg Keys who lost his son in Iraq and subsequently ran against Tony Blair as an independent in Blair's own Labour-strong Sedgefield seat. Recently a letter that was allegedly addressed to Mr. Keys has been making its way around the blogging community, and may shed some light on the Labour government's baffling commitment to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The letter from one Gordon Logan claims that the U.K.-U.S. 1983 Trident submarine and missile deal and treaty signed by Margaret Thatcher contains a secret clause which states that "the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States."


Here is the full text of the letter:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Keys,

All the discussion on the Iraq war is essentially a diversion. There is a secret clause in the Trident submarine treaty that was signed by Mrs Thatcher in 1983. The secret clause states that the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States. You will appreciate that this information explains a lot, notably why Blair has repeatedly gone to war, but only when required to by the Americans. It also explains why Blair is so different from his Labour predecessors, such as Harold Wilson, who refused to send our troops to Vietnam in 1968. The secret agreement was designed by Thatcher to secretly tie the hands of British Prime Ministers for many years to come. Without naming sources, I received this information from a British Army officer a couple of years ago.

Some people (Martin Bell?) may try to dissuade you from raising this information in your campaign. That would be a grave mistake. it could cause a sea change if you can get it into the media. It is convincing, it is true and it explains things. If you can get it into the news somehow, you will be able to take the initiative, even if you lose this election. This information will be of immense value to your movement 'Military Families Against War'. It can be used to focus your campaign around a priority objective, which is to get the treaty revised and the secret clause removed.

Owing to the subordination of our national sovereignty to foreign interests - American and even Israeli - there is significant dissent within the armed forces and the security services. It don't think it will take much for people with courage to speak out in your support. After all, it's obvious. Already Britain has a varied record of dissent in such matters: several people have spoken out on sensitive issues. If not in Britain, they have done it in America, thanks to the First Amendment.

I would be very grateful if you would send a brief reply, to let me know that you have received this. I firmly believe that your son's tragic death will not have been futile, if you and your movement can make this a national issue.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon Logan

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the time of writing I am still waiting for a reply from Reg Keys office regarding the letter. At the least, it does not seem to appear on his website.
www.keysforsedgefield.org.uk...


I found a reference to a Gordon Logan on the UK Ministry of Defence website listed as the leader of the Integrated Project Team for the RAF's AWAC signal/spy planes, but who knows if it's the same Gordon Logan: www.mod.uk...



The British Prime Minister answers to the Pentagon. Legitimate leak? Or hoax?


Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)
Britain: Her Majesty’s new nukes
BASIC - Report on US-UK nuclear weapons collaboration
1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement

[edit on 2005/5/7 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Excellent work wecomeinpeace


This helps explain a lot to someone like me who just can't figure out Blair and his servile attitude towards Bush.

I know Regan and Thatcher saw the world eye to eye so to speak but I doubt that there is some sort of "secret clause" because aren't all laws (especially treaties) supposed to be published? How do you know if you broke a law if it's secret?

I could envision some sort of verbal agreement or understanding between the two countries since, as you described, the UK is dependent on the US for it's nuclear status.

What kind of self respecting country gives it's sovereignty to another just like that?

Seems to me the British should be asking lots of hard questions on this issue.
.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Yeah I saw this on cryptome a while ago and was going to post it here, but I wanted to see if it was real first.
Looks like you found the info I couldn't


llama009



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

I know Regan and Thatcher saw the world eye to eye so to speak but I doubt that there is some sort of "secret clause" because aren't all laws (especially treaties) supposed to be published? How do you know if you broke a law if it's secret?


You never know, gools. There have been secret treaties and secret annexes to treaties throughout history. Most notably before and around WW1, admittedly after which there was a general concensus among European nations that this was a naughty thing. Even so, Hitler and Stalin made a secret annex to the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact to carve up Europe in the event of a "territorial and political rearrangement", i.e. invasion by Hitler. Still, a secret clause in the Trident deal is unlikely, but not impossible.


I could envision some sort of verbal agreement or understanding between the two countries since, as you described, the UK is dependent on the US for it's nuclear status.

What kind of self respecting country gives it's sovereignty to another just like that?


Right, you have to look at what the U.S got out of the known part of the deal. What did they get for providing Britain with all that knowledge, support and technology and for basically bailing Britain out of her nuclear redundancy? Nothing, really, on the surface. The only gain I can see, apart from the cash, is having Britain on a leash, and I can imagine that they'd want more than just a verbal agreement for such. As you said, it certainly would explain a lot.

Pure speculation on my part, but there are a lot of questions.

[edit on 2005/5/8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Wecomeinpeace. WATS to you. And I really dislike telling those who I WATS that I did so. But you bring up the single most valid point about the UK election. Why did you re-elect the man that lied to you single-handedly as much as the Bush administration has lied to both the US and the world??? Really??? You seriously can't hate Bush/Republicans/conservatives any more. Please do, just because you have "good" healthcare.


Are your elections rigged too? This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen: politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Ya. That is some crap that comes out of a farm animal (or Animal Farm). If it's kept as just a joke that people in the UK can just "oops" vote a couple times. Bleep you for talking about American elections. Ya, that's some funny bleep you can just "oops" vote twice. Bleeping hypocrites.

Whats more? How can you re-elect an obviously lying administration? Wait.....the propaganda, red-state, Christian laden Americans did it. And so did you humanist, state loving secularists. Bleep you. Seriously. Bleeping Bleepers.

Wars on Terror are only bad if the US starts it, right? Who gives a bleepin bleep if your nation is 100% complicit. Re-elect the bleepers and gloat about keeping the Conservatives down. Bleepin' Bleep.

Britons, you're going to hell in a handbasket too. (Yes your populace is as violent and ignorant as the US's, and guns are illegal.)

Too bad your sons and daughters are dying over oil too, it's not Americas fault you're there. Canada is far more dependant on the US and they told us to stick it over Iraq. Bleeping hyporcrites.

Yes it makes me mad. You dumb hypocritical bleepers.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
you know pete just because someone dosn't blindly follow the us to a possibly illigal war does not make them bleepen hypocrits. what is hypocritical about it? the us does not have some mysterious power that makes every government decision right. in this case the canadian government made the decision that the war was wrong. many canadians were all for it. i was all for it being caught up in the whole 9-11 thing. but i have since realized how wrong i was about it. the canadian government made a stand just as is a separate sovern nation's right to do. there is no hypocracy that i can see in it.

it seems that many in the us have adopted an "either you are with us or against us" stance on things. you are oviously on the wrong side if you dare to have a differant opinion and do not swallow the bs that the states puts out. if anyone is in the wrong here it is people who asume that everyone must bow to the superiority of the us. just because the us says something is true does not make it so.

if there is some little agreement about using us nukes and always supporting them. i would sudgest that the uk hand back the us their toys and develope their own. otherwise you might as well admit to being a new us state.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Heres the problem the rest of the world has with us now. They got used to us not doing a damn thing. We stick our noses in here and there, but nothing major. Untill they'd come beggin us for money or aid. When we started getting hit around the world at various bases, we still did nothing. Thats the America that world likes.

Well, September 11, 2001 changed all that. This got real personal, real fast. No more would we sit by and let this happen. It was a new day. Screw popular opinion. You attacked us. You killed 3000 innocent Americans. Therefore we will hunt for you whereever we you might be. If you harbor them in your country, you are guilty. If you stand in our way, we will walk over you. We can't be stopped. Plain and simple.

Well the world doesnt like it. Well, if it happened in your country, to your people, you'd feel the same. You people scream about this being a war for oil. Its not about oil. Its about power. And showing those who need it, what lengths we will go to, to defend ourselves. The world didnt see this coming. But it was long overdue.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Pete,

There are a large number of people in this country who were tired of 18 years of Tory rule/Thatcher and the scandals that went with their closing years of power. Many do not Brits remember this time with fondness and are therefore reluctant to cast a vote for the Conservative party (who are the only party capable of providing a credible opposition to a Labour government at this time).

As one member of the general public said when interviewed - "Better the devil you know".



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   


We can't be stopped



I don't know whether to
or


[edit on 8-5-2005 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Look..Im not tryin to flame, but think about it..We could invade any country. Who could stop us? Sure, say china. That would never happen. We are to dependent on each other. Russia? Not a chance. That place is a mess. So take those 2 out, and whos left? Who could stop us?



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
A secret policy that forces the British government to do the bidding of the United States? This means that Britain is no longer an autonomous nation which should have the people of the country up in arms that their leaders secretly gave up their sovereignty for some stupid nukes. For 22 years it has been simply a military arm of the United States that must kill on command.

Incredible and outrageous is all I can call this.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
To actually make a post about the topic now....

I dont know much about Brittish politics, other than it makes great tv. Far better than our snore fests here. Any rate. I think Blair is a good guy. I think he's geniune, and thats why he's there again. Also, you dont want to switch horses mid-stream. Bush and him are in this for better or worse. He has to see it out. If you elected a new administration now, it would only prolong your stay there. Let em finish it up and retire. He's served you guys well. I was there in 2000. Nice country, great history. Good museums. Terrible pizza. Good fish. Cheap beer. Nice public trans and clean cities. All in all, the guys done good in my book..



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Frith,

Depending on which websites you read, some people actually say that the reverse of your satatement is true, via things such as The Tavistock Institute. However, I think we all know how reliable internet based sources are!!

[edit on 8-5-2005 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Spliff,

Funny thing is, I don't hold with some people's view that Blair is some sort of monster. I actually think that he is a good man at heart. But like the rest of us, he can only go on the information he is 'fed'.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
It is interesting to me that, no matter what happens in the world, it is always, somehow the US's fault.

Could it be that the British population (the ones who voted in this election as I recall) feel, generally, as secure under Blair as apparently a majority of Americans do under Bush?

Give it a rest, and realize that in this world that most people (American and otherwise) will gladly trade their freedom and security for a handful of beans and a feeling of security.

Seems that as bottom lines go this one is saying that the Blokes are just as prone to be like the Yanks as not.

No air of superiority, we are all the same. It is just that us Yanks don't speak English!



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Sigung,

Security issues didn't really play much of a part in the election campaign to be honest. I for one don't feel any more or less secure under Blair.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Great posts Wecomeinpeace, I'd vote for you again if I could but I've already done so this month


This information fills in a lot of the blanks in Blairs behavior and fits in perfectly. No suprise over Blairs reluctance to fully sign up to the EU in all its forms. How can we have Brussels AND Washington pulling our strings and owning our sovereignty?

This clause would of came in not long after the Falklands war. Was it signed by Thatcher in light of how vulnerable our armed forces were becoming? After all it wasnt an astounding win against Argentina. Reagan would of played on our insecurities at the time.


Originally posted by spliff4020
Heres the problem the rest of the world has with us now. They got used to us not doing a damn thing. We stick our noses in here and there, but nothing major. Untill they'd come beggin us for money or aid. When we started getting hit around the world at various bases, we still did nothing. Thats the America that world likes.


I actually like the American people, I really do. I do believe there is a connection between the British and American public that has been forged over 2 epic World Wars. However, where the love breaks down is at governmental level. Britains have an innate distrust of our politicians. You wont see vast swathes of flag waving Britains at governmental rallies, it just doesnt happen.

As such we dont, as a whole, buy into jingoistic behaviour such as the United States response to 9/11. After all isnt the official line on 9/11 that it was carried out by a group of individuals? Then why is the US response leveled at entire nations? A little drastic no? Americans have the heartfelt sympathy of the British public but you dont have the support for your reactions contrary to what the politicians say. That your nations closest allies people are not supporting your international actions should be a sign to you all.

We have a history of fighting for our allies when its obvious that they deserve our help. Take WW2 for example. Hitler was courting Britain for an alliance and wanted nothing more than to fight alongside Britain to divy up Europe for the benefit of British and German empires. However we had allied ourselves with the unassuming Polish nation and when that country was invaded we took the hard fight and declared war on Germany. We didnt do that because it would be an easy war, we did it because it was right. Defending Poland nearly cost Britain her existance but we did what was right. This is not how Britain views the U.S War on Terror - I assure you.


Originally posted by Pistolpete
Whats more? How can you re-elect an obviously lying administration?

I definately did not vote for Labour. I voted for the Liberal Democrats whom oppose the Iraq invasion and I.D cards which errode our freedoms.


Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Many do not Brits remember this time with fondness and are therefore reluctant to cast a vote for the Conservative party (who are the only party capable of providing a credible opposition to a Labour government at this time).

As one member of the general public said when interviewed - "Better the devil you know".

That logic is EXACTLY why we have a proven liar as our Prime Minister. How can you say that the Liberal Democrats are not a credible party? Because the party is not 100's of years old? You cannot know exactly how a party will fare unless elected and as such all the parties are as unproven before an election as the other.

Look at the opposition of the Iraq invasion. The LD's were the only party to oppose it. What did our government do? They lied to us and invaded a sovereign nation with no legal basis. Well I can see how Labours actions are more credible...

What did Michael Howards Conservatives do? Well they supported the invasion and even claimed that knowing the information was false they'd of invaded even earlier than Blair did! Soooooo credible!

Facts of the matter are that last time a liberal government was in power in Britain, almost 100 years ago, they introduced radical new ideas such as universal pensions and free health care. What an in-credible thing to do at the time for sure but I wouldnt want to do without those Liberal achievements. Would you?!

[edit on 8/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete
Whats more? How can you re-elect an obviously lying administration? Wait.....the propaganda, red-state, Christian laden Americans did it. And so did you humanist, state loving secularists. Bleep you. Seriously. Bleeping Bleepers.


We re-elected Labour (even though we disagree with Blair) because they have done very good things for our country, and will continue to do so. Blair took us to war, yes, and many people didnt agree with that. But I can assure you that it wont happen again, or Blair will be out of the job. You see here in the UK we have the power to impeach our leader and remove him from power whenver we like, unlike in America. Lets leave that at that, and not let this thread turn into a British or American bashing thread. Oh, and bleep you for being so arrogant.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   


How can you say that the Liberal Democrats are not a credible party?


Subz,

Sorry, I should really have qualified that statement by saying it was my opinion. You are quite right to say that one cannot know the LD's couldn't do the job...but put it this way, they haven't convinced me yet.



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Subz,

Sorry, I should really have qualified that statement by saying it was my opinion. You are quite right to say that one cannot know the LD's couldn't do the job...but put it this way, they haven't convinced me yet.

And youre more than entitled to that opinion and I appreciate the qualification



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join