Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support Fans Focus by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Give War A Chance


Recommended Posts

GIVE WAR A CHANCE by Richard Littlejohn

 

 

DON’T kid yourself. There is going to be war in Iraq unless Saddam Hussein hands over his weapons of mass destruction.

 

He’s got them. We know he’s got them. He knows that we know he’s got them.

 

It’s not the job of the United Nations weapons inspectors to find them, it’s Saddam’s job to give them up.

 

If he doesn’t, he’s already in material breach of last month’s UN resolution.

 

And that’s enough in itself to justify an invasion.

 

When Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1988, Saddam was in possession of at least 400 bombs suitable for germ warfare and another 500 artillery shells designed to carry nerve gas.

 

Where are they now? He won’t say.

 

Has he destroyed them? What do you think?

 

Will he use them? You bet.

 

Saddam has already waged chemical war on his own people, on the Kurds, on Iran.

 

He is a clear and present danger, not just to Israel and the Middle East but to world security.

 

Saddam’s fingerprints are all over the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

 

He is a sponsor of international terrorism who funds Palestinian homicide bombers.

 

The mistake the Allies made was not pressing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait in 1991.

 

That they didn’t was down to the bleeding-hearts and merchants of doom in the West.

 

The USA won’t make the same mistake again.

 

So-called “sophisticated” European opinion makes the fundamental error of underestimating George W Bush.

 

They choose to believe their own simplistic caricature of the President as a dim-witted cowboy.

 

They’re not used to a politician who means what he says and then does it.

 

And be in no doubt, Bush is going to remove Saddam.

 

What the European nay-sayers also fail to comprehend is the view from the other side of the Atlantic.

 

This isn’t about starting a war.

 

America is at war. It has been at war since September 11.

 

That it may not be a conventional war makes no difference.

 

When Bush said he was going to war against terror wherever it lurked and however long it took, he was deadly serious.

 

The world changed forever on September 11. The campaign in Afghanistan was your starter for ten.

 

This war could last for decades. Terror must be confronted and eliminated.

 

When Bush proclaims this is a struggle between good and evil, he is absolutely right.

 

Evil comes in many guises, whether Islamofascist maniacs like al-Qa’ida or tyrants like Saddam.

 

Sitting back and doing nothing is no longer an option. Inaction is taken as a sign of weakness.

 

Crushing Saddam will send a powerful message to any other rogue state which threatens democracy, either through developing nuclear and chemical weapons or by sponsoring terror.

 

Tony Blair is 100 per cent right to place Britain shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA. We are a target too.

 

It’s about taking sides. As Bush said, you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.

 

Predictably, there are plenty of people on this side of the pond who are with the terrorists.

 

Those opposing war in Iraq now are the same people who at the time of the first Gulf War predicted millions of deaths and environmental devastation lasting decades.

 

They’re the same useless idiots who said we could never win in Afghanistan and would become bogged down in another Vietnam.

 

They were wrong then and they are wrong again.

 

This time they’re pinning their hopes on hiding behind the skirts of the UN.

 

There mustn’t be “unilateral” action, they parrot. As if a coalition of the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is “unilateral”.

 

Turkey and Spain are on side, so are Egypt and Kuwait. Even the duplicitous Saudis have sniffed the wind.

 

Once the balloon goes up plenty of others will come on board, including the reluctant Italians and the opportunist French.

 

The UN will fall in line, have no fear. As Bob Dylan once sang, they just want to be on the side that’s winning.

 

Blair may not have done the best job of selling the war but that doesn’t make him wrong.

 

To his credit, he is prepared to risk splitting his party and his government to do the right thing.

 

Some things are more important than keeping Clare Short happy.

 

The game is already afoot. British special forces have been operating inside Iraq for some time. Forward bases have been established.

 

George W Bush isn’t the Grand Old Duke of York. He’s not sending an army to the Gulf just to bring them back again.

 

The only way in which that will happen will be if Saddam hands over his arsenal and falls on his sword.

 

Not even Jack Straw would give you 6-4 on that.

 

When it comes, the attack will be clinical.

 

Victory will be comprehensive and swift.

 

Saddam will fall. Our armed forces will make us proud and there will be plenty of people currently undecided about war who will be first to bask in the reflected glory when the job is done.

 

But, as Churchill said, this will not be the end, or even the beginning of the end.

 

It is merely the end of the beginning.

 

 

www.the-sun.co.uk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bit short staffed here today and ive been steering clear of the pub recently as im off the marlboro lights.. but i reckon i can fet a quick hour in for pace beer consumption.. leaves me nicely set for some irrational outbursts on here from 1 till 3 pm .. more beer tonite as well i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate all this talk of war. My history teacher said he reckoned the war would have begun by the end of February-a scary thought. What I don't get, right, is this: Let's just assume Saddam HAS got weapons of mass destruction. If he has then the rest of the world can't win. If we don't attack, he'll might use them(allegedly). If we do attack, again, he might use them in retalliation. So what are we supposed to do?......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A trifle harsh in the detail but I understand the sentiment, EFMTFTV.

 

I appreciate that someone has taken his article and reproduced it in this form but if one looks at his writing, every sentence is just a sound-bite. He doesn't have the intellect to try to link them for the most part. Clearly someone buys the cr@p issued by No. 10, then. Unfortunately, it's been bought by what passes for a journalist who peddles it to the masses who read whatever respected journal employs him. He'll probably end up as one of the 'media advisers' on the Tone's staff.

 

I rember him on 606 on 5Live. Make a short sharp controversial comment to encourage more callers to the programme. This is a little more serious than The Premiership.

 

And another thing. Look on T.V. for voices against a war. Look for reference to the absence of justification for war; the need for action under the umbrella of the U.N.; to Iraqi civilian casualties; to Allied casualties; to any element of reasoned debate.

 

Look in vane, my friend. [That sounded like a U.S. President!]

 

No. What you will hear from the media as the fundamental reason not to go to war is that if this goes wrong, Tone will be in real trouble with the back-benchers. Dear God.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
If we don't attack, he'll might use them(allegedly). If we do attack, again, he might use them in retalliation. So what are we supposed to do?......


EXACTLY!!

That's why we get him now, before he has the capacity, rather than later. Unfortunately, most people are too short-sighted to realise that. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, O Learned One. [Ouch!] It is good to know that you are there, as ever.

 

On another thread, I recalled that there is a collective noun for those educational odes ["i before e except after c" etc.] but I can't remember the name. can you assist?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Quote:
If we don't attack, he'll might use them(allegedly). If we do attack, again, he might use them in retalliation. So what are we supposed to do?......


EXACTLY!!

That's why we get him now, before he has the capacity, rather than later. Unfortunately, most people are too short-sighted to realise that. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />



He's much more likely to use them if we do attack than if we don't I would have thought. Its what I've always thought was so strange about the whole WOMD thing. ie we're attacking because he has these weapons. hmmm whats the most likely reason for him using them? Yep - attacking him.

And the argument for attacking before he gets the capability seems a bit strange. I though the whole reason for attacking was because he already has "WOMD". Otherwise there's not a lot of point in sending weapons inspectors.

The USA seem to be the most dangerous country around at the moment. I think we should impose sanctions against them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...