IRAQ.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Quote:

You've changed your angle a bit there, Zeal.

Errr... no, not at all.

[AFF]

Hmmnn.

 

Urchino. So Resolution 1441. Are you saying that concerted United Nations action is the right way? If any countries act contrary to the U.N., what then?

 

Tyrannical leaders. So it's right and proper for for the forces of good to invade any country with a 'tyrannical leader' and deal with his/her overthrow? Which one would be next on your agenda?

 

I don't think that you are wasting your breath with C.Z. He seems to think entirely the way you do. Just wait until you're in the sixth form.

[GHA EFM]

Quote:

blown to pieces

Possible threat in a decade or two's time - point brought up by Zeal

Quote:

Are you so blind that you can't see that there were over 20 years of atrocities under the rule of Saddam Hussein??

Tyrannical leader - point brought up by Urchino

[Colin Zeal EFM]

I brought up the point about being "blown to pieces", GHA, as AFF referred to "Weapons of Mass Distraction [sic]" in his original posting.

 

Any trawlings-through of three-month old posts, GHA, will show that I was always in support of the war, and in support of the removal of Saddam, a "tyrannical leader".

 

 

[GHA EFM]

AFF referred to countries being:

 

Quote:

Under the un-democratic control of the most dangerous man on the planet

 

in his original posting. Therefore, one can either interpret AFF's posting as suggesting Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical leader, or that Saddam Hussein may blow us to pieces in a few years, or both.

 

You chose to go for the 'blown to pieces' angle.

 

Urchino, more wisely, went for the 'removal of a tyrannical leader' angle.

[Urchino]

"So Resolution 1441. Are you saying that concerted United Nations action is the right way? If any countries act contrary to the U.N., what then?"

 

No not at all i was saying that all countries on the UN excepted Saddam had weapons of mass Destruction by signing 1441 !

 

"Tyrannical leaders. So it's right and proper for for the forces of good to invade any country with a 'tyrannical leader' and deal with his/her overthrow? Which one would be next on your agenda?"

 

I'm not stupid i know what you are getting atl it depends if there are true mass eradication of Human beings perpitrated rather than the extreme Left-Wing lies about certain events or if a state is at war!

 

Probbally Saudis !

 

[AFF]

No reference in your support for the war of the Weapons of Mass Distraction, Zealster? Good foresight, that.

 

Removal of tyrannical leaders?

 

Which one's next on your agendea?

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Quote:

Under the un-democratic control of the most dangerous man on the planet

I think you'll find, GHA, that AFF was making a 'funny' reference to George Bush, actually.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Quote:

I'm not stupid i know what you are getting atl

Unfortunately Ben, you can't win with these two. Once AFF and GHA get the bit between their teeth, you just have to let them get on with it.

[AFF]

When a country with weapons of mass destruction beyond comprehension leads the invasion of another country without United Nations sanction or support and the leader of that country hasn't the first idea what to do next, I suggest that he merits the title "The most dangerous man on the planet".

 

Nothing funny intended there.

 

 

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Quote:

When a country with weapons of mass destruction beyond comprehension leads the invasion of another country without United Nations sanction or support and the leader of that country hasn't the first idea what to do next, I suggest that he merits the title "The most dangerous man on the planet".

Nothing funny intended there.

Nevertheless, you were referring to Bush as opposed to Saddam. As I was trying to explain to GHA.

[AFF]

Urchino. It's nothing to do with winning or losing. Unlike a tennis match people do die in war.

 

You said that you supported the war in order to overthrow a tyrranical leader. I said which country would be next on your agenda.

 

You said "I'm not stupid, I know what you're getting at".

 

Yes, Urchino. You do know what I'm getting at, and, rather than open your mouth [metaphorically] and be shown to be stupid, you choose to remain silent and be thought to be stupid. <wink>

 

 

[Urchino]

I named my country Saudi Arabia add too it

Syria and Iran !

[AFF]

Saudi?

 

No weapons of mass distraction, there, though. Unlikely to get U.N. support for an invasion. Don't let's worry about those minor details.

 

Urchino. You have the advantage over Dubbya to the extent that you are able to learn the lessons of recent history from both Afghanistan and Iraq. After you have invaded Saudi and overseen the overthrow of the Saudi royal family, [and secured the oil supplies, of course] what would you put in their place?

 

We can leave Syria and Iran for the moment.

[CANV EFM]

lets not get too caught up in the details.. saddam was a percieved threat ,more from a funding terrorists and training terrorists point of view, than having mutli billion dollar missle delivery systems.. mind you most of the middle east is like that.. the u.s. and u.k to a lesser extent, need a reliable supply of middle east oil, its as cheap as chips,.. once iraq oil supplies are secured then the u.s can get after the real extremists in saudi arabia.. this was never possible before due to the saudis being americas oile producer of last resort.. in 2 to 5 years time this wont be the case and not lond after that there will be oil pipelines from iraq going in all directions making that indefendable strait less of an issue..

you can argue the toss about hans saying this and so n so saying that... in the big picture none of that counts for sh.t.. this is the start of probably a 20 yr plan to secure the middle east for the good ole us of a.. agree with it disagree with it.. it probably suits the u.k. and europe if they pull it off.. but they are playing the big picture and unfortunatly a load of bombed iraqis and a handfull of dead marines are a price to be paid for the long term good (well their version of the long term good) ..

if zimbabwe was perched on top of 2 zillion barrels of oil old bob would have had his marching orders years ago .. in fact it would probably still be called rhodesia..

moral crusading, freeing the masses, hahaha dont make me laugh its about power, self intrest and money its always has been and it always will be..

[AFF]

In a slightly wider context than our view of The Crooked Billet, Canv, we are as one on this one, too.

 

[save that the British Intelligence Service had confirmed to Tone that there were no links between Saddam and International Terrorism.]

 

I presume that yours is a summary of the reality rather than a promotion of the policy?

 

Don't let Zealster respond on this one, Canv. He believed the lunatics' BS before the invasion and, remarkably, is unwavering despite the absense of WoMD and the chaos that has been caused.

[Urchino]

Quote:

No weapons of mass distraction, there, though.

Isaid i don't give a damn about WMD's i care about repressive regimes !

Quote:

Unlikely to get U.N. support for an invasion. Don't let's worry about those minor details.

Your question was who would you attack next ! not with UN backing who would you attack next !

Replacing the Saudi regime is tough as there are fanatics who could get democratically elected i would probally do what i would do with the BNP in this country ban the extreme groups from being elected and allow a democratic vote on the moderates.

[EFM's Librarian]

Urchino - if you care about repressive regimes I presume you will be encouraging attacks on: Turkey (who have killed a lot more Kurds than Saddam ever did) Indonesia (Just ask somebody from East Timor why) Russia (ask a Chechen this time) Britain (ask anybody from Diego Garcia, Kenya, Chechnya, East Timor, or any of the other countries where we have helped 'repressive regimes' to kill thousands of people) and of course the US ( I won't bother listing the countries they have either repressed or helped with the repression of) Like CANV says "self intrest and money its always has been and it always will be.. "

 

 

 

[AFF]

Hi Urchino.

 

The Secretary General of the United Nations declared beforehand that any invasion of Iraq without a second Reoslution would be contrary to the Charter of the U.N.

 

You said that you supported the invasion in order to get rid of a tyrranical leader. I said "Which one's next on your agenda?" You said "Saudi".

 

O.K. Back to my very first question. Do you think that countries should act wiuth the sanction of the U.N. and what should happen if they don't?

 

 

 

 

[CANV EFM]

most of the press coverage on this deals in the details.. the details dont count, just as they dont count in any huge organisation..

that is my take on the reality of this situation.. i dont believe the u.s or u.k have acted out of context.. this is no great change of 'allied' foreign policy since the war..

they way it has been presented to the public is pretty much business as usual also.. the majority dont care as long as 'we' won and dont get dragged into a vietnam..

will it benefit this country? yes it will if they get it right.. thats a big country with lots of oil waiting to be turned into the next saudi arabia.. lots of power stations, dams, ships, refineries etc etc and we are in line for a lot more of that work than europe.. add in the secure cheap oil then the whole operation is/was very much in britains intrest..

dead women and children cant be argued against, people starving neither.. smashing up a country that hasn't nor cant do you any harm cant be justified in an arguement.. well not in a perfect world .. but this is far from being one..

in terms of the best long term outcome from a crap situation i would say i back what has been done..and if its 75 per cent as sucessful as they hope then 20 years from now most people will be happy with that outcome..

you cant claim it as a moral war.. but its itentions (motivated for whatever reasons) will more likely result in a better outcome than years of pussyfooting around and throwing aid at it .. look at a whole host of african countries in the crap now .. probably the best thing you could do would be invade em and rebuild em from top to bottom and get em in a free trade zone.. its not 'right' but it would probably work a fk load better than the current bollox where we give em our money to buy our landmines..

ill go for realism over 'right' in this case im afraid thats just the way of the world currently