The War

[BOROMAN]

Bit sensitive, I know but here goes anyway.............

 

Everywhere I turn in London there are Stop the war posters etc etc. We all have our views and I can see both sides of the argument however I feel what ever America's motives may be the more important determining factor to consider is:

 

Is Saddam a threat to the Western World? Could he orchastrate an attack that could cause severe loss of life on European soil? Will his elimination reduce the potential threat of Al Queda?

 

Is it not time for all sensible muslims (who live in places where they are allowed to speak) to denounce Saddam and Al Queda for what they are. When 200,000 march on parliament to condem Blair and Bush, shouldn't they also be marching to condem Saddam and Al Queda.

 

This reminds me of the days of the "Campaign for Nuclear Dissarmament". The protest was always aimed at the west and not at the Soviets. So it became known as the "Campaign for one sided Nuclear Dissarmament".

 

 

Did any of these socialist,greenpeace types shed a tear for the victims of Sept 11TH. I think not.

[The Invisible Man]

Re. paragraph 3: yes, in that oil supplies could be disrupted, and oil is the lifeblood of the west; no; no.

 

Para.4: yes, and I think they do, but as ever you only tend to hear and see the vociferous extremist minority. Non-muslims don't do much marching to protest against Saddam or Alan Quada (whoever he is!)either.

 

Para. 5: yes, CND supported unilateral nuclear disarmament. The theory was, I believe, that one side has to lay down its weapons first, and then the other will follow suit as it will no longer need them and won't want to waste money. Hmm, maybe...

 

Last para: I would presume that any human being whatever their political allegiances, would be distressed at the event of 11 Sept and have great sympathy for the dead, the injured and their friends and families. For the record I am a socialist but do not support Greenpeace (but I'm not sure what they have to do with it).

 

There are more Americans killed every year by other Americans than died on 11 September. Again I'm not sure if that has anything to do it.

 

The war as presented by George W seems to me to be competely pointless. The evidence presented by the US seems to be very thin. If there is a hidden agenda, just tell us, and I can only think it must be the oil that we depend on.

[BOROMAN]

You make some good points,however I feel you missed/did not answer my real point in para 2.

 

Both you and me can only make judgements from what we hear, neither of us nor many others know what the real threat of Saddam is, therefore do we risk ignoring the so called experts? Oil may have an underlying motive but it would be at a great price, so is it just that?

 

What frustrates me is that had the UN given Stormin Norman the final green light 12 years ago, he could have liberated Iraq at very little extra cost to civilian life and we would not have to be having this debate now. Even if the Yanks did have hidden motives, surley Mr Man in the Street in Iraq would have been more settled than he is now. Take what has just happened in Afghanistan as an example.

 

The terroists that roam the world in the name of Islam baffle me. Other freedom groupd like the IRA, PLO, etc have always been born out what they saw as a particular injustice. This Al Quaeda (f**k knows how you spell it)thing has no specific reason in terms of historical wrong doing.It is not even centred on particular area. Therefore there is not a specific thing that the west can go and do to appease these people, no role for Kissinger.

 

 

[Stu B]

Aren't they are fighting against what they see as an imoral western civiliasation,so,the only way to please them is to be like them,something i for one and not going to do,i understand where they are coming from but i think it is there life to do what they want,our life to do ours. If they want to try and change our ways,i dont mind,but they are going about it all wrong,this relates to saddam imho. If saddam is going to attack us,then, i believe it would make sense for us to attack first, but from what i have seen i dont think he will,the evidence i have seen is laughable(e.g. the pictures). Personally i dont think he would start a war,does he think he can beat the world(it would be the world if he started it,they virtually all opose him,they just dont want to start the war)?i hope im right because obviously the implications are huge,i just hope that tony can stop george bush from starting ww3 for long enough for the truth to come out.

[CANV EFM]

iraq is just the start. the septics mean business.. after sep 11 who can blame them, its like someone throwing a plane into St Pauls or knocking over nelsons column..

they do iraq, secure the 4 million barrels of oil a day they need then they can move onto the real pieces of work in saudi arabia.. argue the bits n pieces as much as you want .. morals, religion, just cause, israel blah blah etc etc.. it doesn't matter.. these guys are playing big boys games now and they are not going to fk around.. they dont give a [censored] about the u.n. and they certainly dont give a [censored] about the vocal protestor in the street.. they are playing long term and they intend to win..the only country on the planet that they will listen to is the u.k. and we are on their side as we always are .. as they are on ours..the falklands war was made much easier with the use of the latest u.s. missle technology and satelite information... im no yank lover, these are just the facts.. war is coming and the only way it wont happpen is f saddam takes whats known in the trade as voluntary redundancy .. permenantly..

[Big J R]

Well said Fleet Boy !

 

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

There are too may bleeding-hearts and do-gooders in this world and the only way they will change their opinion, is when it is there house and family that are hit !!

 

Big J.R.

[phoenix]

I have a feeling this is a done deal and we are on our way. Bush has talked the talk for the last year and now is itchy to walk the walk.

Blair will of course trot along behind him. I am neither anti war or pro war, justification is if the end justifies the means.

We cannot allow another atrocity like 9/11 to ever happen again, but how do you stop it happening?

[CANV EFM]

today and yesterdays 'terror alert' hysteria is all part of the P.R. exercise to gear the populance up for war.. tanks at heathrow..??!! er to do what?? , like they are going to start using 30 mill cannons in the west end? are they expecting the republican guard to roll up the M4 in T64's?..

extra undercover police on the ground is the only realistic defence against a missle wielding loon 15 miles from heathrow.. not a tank outside baggage reclaim.. but that wont get you on sky news

[Ofiicial]

Interesting and diverse opinions. the truth is however that there is going to be a 'happening' I have a son in an elite regiment and for them it is already 'happening'..... rights and wrongs of it....well.... as a father obviously I would not want to see it happen (Blairs kids won't be there of course, 'Queenie' will see to that) but that's what the armed forces are for and the lads know that when they join. No complaints, just paternal concerns.

 

From a personal point of view, I believe that its all politically motivated, probably oil motivated and in any event, we can't even walk down to the pub without some junked up scumbag with a knife trying to mug us so my money goes on internal policing instead of interfering in other parts of the world that really do not threaten us. Blairs a spent force, regardless of our personal politics, he will not survive, winning wars makes poiticians popular but this one won't. Blair, as always has misread the situation and is in too deep. It will happen, sooner than later, to whatever degree is all we can guess at.

 

Who next, North Korea, Libya, Syria, (lets do the aussies as well after last night) they're all the same, in the meantime, the one hooked wonder still resides in our capital and still draws his dosh from the DHS offices on the corner. The hordes of unwashed, deseased asylum seekers still get into our country (with a little help from our friends across the channel) to the tune of 50,000 per week and we continue to fund them through the national lottery which comes out of our pockets in the first place. Whilst all this is going on Lord 'Merry Derry' gives himself a payrise and Browne takes it back, do we really believe that this wasn't stage managed, as indeed was the whole load of bolloks at Heathrow. You really couldn't make it all up could you.

 

Oh..nearly forgot, the IRA are now our friends and will assist us in this noble holy war. Gerry Adams said so......

[AFF]

Yes Canv. "to gear the population up for war". Now did The Great One expect that 99% of the British population would be so outraged at the clear threat posed to this green and pleasant land by these terrorists, that overnight we would all support an invasion of Iraq? Well if that was the idea, he over-estimated the reaction by approximately 90%.

 

Your point about tanks at Heathrow is spot on. In the event of a rocket attack, the only people that they would protect is the soldiers sitting in them. They would be as safe sitting in Aldershot or wherever they come from.

 

Do I think that Saddam is a bad man? Yes I do. Is that a good reason to invade Iraq? No it isn't. Surely, as a principle that needs no explanation.

 

Someone above talked about Tone slowing the other lunatic down. The only World leaders slowing Bush down are those from France, Germany, Russia and China.

 

Two weeks ago I could not conceive British troops in action in Iraq without a second U.N. Resolution. On the evidence available then from the U.N. Weapons Inspectors, I couldn't see that coming. Today I can't see it coming as Russia or France would exercise the veto. However, all of a sudden, I have this picture in my mind that Blair has painted himself into a corner with Bush and could actually join an invasion with the U.S. regardless of the U.N.

 

I don't believe that the remaining countries in the Middle East would welcome a joint US/UK invasion of Iraq without the second Resolution. We may be talking about enormous firepower but they will need active support 'on the ground' in the area.

 

I heard on the radio this morning that Blix has issued a statement that Saddam has made a flagrant breach of an earlier UN resolution. "Oh no", I immediately thought, "This is it. the balloon is about to go up. Where do I buy 500 square metres of polythene and a mile of duct tape?". It seems that Saddam is allowed to develop rockets which have a maximum range of 150 kms. [Obviously that is the limit beyond which a rocket becomes a weapon of mass destruction.] Well would you believe it. Saddam has adapted those rockets and they have a range of ...wait for it....according to Blix.... 183 kilometres. A clear and flagrant breach if ever I heard one.

 

So. Back to the guy at the top of the thread. Tone is doing all the hand-wringing stuff about the threat to peace and stability of the free world. Saddam's rockets have a range beyond the rules imposed by the U.N. of 183 kilometres and that makes headline news on the radio this morning.

 

The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

[Ofiicial]

When you read back on our views through these posts it just about sums it all up really, propoganda and confusion....I see on tonights news that ....a venuzuelean....what...!!!....anyway thats what it said....has been arrested at Gatwicks North Terminal after a 'live' hand grenade was found in his baggage, after he disembarked the plane....what....!!!...where was he gonna take it to....god knows...why didn't he blow the thing up in mid air...god knows....did he know it was in his bag...probably not....we've got excellent security services in this country duntyaknow....

 

my mother had a live hand grenade that the old man brought back from the war in the coal cellar of our house for over 30 years, we tipped it in the sea off the pier in the end along with a luger...two bayonettes and a shell case with a swastika on....wish we'd kept 'em...worth a fortune now.........

Terrorists... not us mate.....venuzueleans........not likely mate...UN inspectors report in the morning and that report coupled with these terrorist outrages' and presumably more to be widely reported in the next few days.... and... more up to the minute intelligence information...presumably from Old Hack....will probably serve to get the second resolution...they won't go it alone.

 

In the meantime Hamza's son has been arrested for burgalary...presumably he's got hands...and released on bail....he he...

Gatwicks North Terminals now closed (and they'd better open the fkcer before the end of next week cos I'm off)

 

five Iraqi asylum seekers have trashed a safe house in London because they didn't like the bedroom layout and have since been rehoused in... wait for it ....single accomodation...which means that they've all got their own apartments now in Chelsea Village.....presumably with season tickets to the bridge which will serve them all right...he he....

 

browne again rejects the euro referendum...whats the euro...?.....

 

and Peter Foster, Carole Caplin and Queenie Blair have been caught having a cocaine induced threesome in Claridges.....and so the whole mad caravan trundles on....the real reason for it all.....well now....Saudi Arabia comes to mind...which country is next door then..?.....why don't we just attack them..?....that's the true 'axis of evil' in the middle eastern melting pot for sure....

[AFF]

Errr...yes.

 

A keep left illuminated bollard was knocked down in the village last night.

 

That stupid looking goalkeeper from Hayes scored from a corner in the 98th minuite to equalise against us last Saturday.

 

Some Equadorian on a flight from Colombia to London gets off the plane and is found to have a live hand grenade in his luggage.

 

The space shuttle explodes upon re-entry to the earth's atmosphere 16 miles up.

 

The Authorities are investigating all of these events.

LINKS WITH AL Q'AEDA HAVE NOT BEEN RULED OUT.

[Badger]

The UN originally passed a resolution 12 years ago that is still valid today and allows a UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq today. USA is garnering political support, as it doesn't need any legal support.

 

Some things that worried me from the recent events at the UN:

The Iraqis have stopped interviews because they wouldn't be on Iraqi terms, they would be on the terms laid down by the UN, which theoretically represents the entire rest of the world. Who's in charge again?

The Iraqis have passed laws specifically outlawing activities that were prohibited under the original resolution - these laws were passed days or hours before the 14/02/03 deadline. The only reason the law was passed when it was is because they can see the UN is divided and hiope that this will help delay any military action. Any forces invading Iraq will need to be well under way before late March, as the NCB suits they'll be wearing will cause too much fatigue come summer.

France et al are against sending defensive weaponry to the only NATO nation that borders Iraq, in case it provokes an attack, although France is deploying troops to the potential combat zone. If I was Iraq, I wouldn't be looking to invade Turkey for any reason right now. And defensive anti-air missiles are going to make me even less likely to attack.

The French president appears to want to make France a superpower once more - perhaps he's realised that France should not have a right to Veto at the UN because they're not important enough any more. Perhaps they were never important enough.

The UN was set up after WWII when the nations of the world realised that the League of Nations, although a good idea, was flawed, because it had no military power. The UN has military power, it has stated 12 years ago the exact situation in which this power will be brought against Iraq, the situation is upon us and some within the UN have forgotten one of the reasons it was made.

Some of the people on the march on Saturday had placards saying 'free Palestine'. What has that got to do with Iraq - I may have missed something there, if anyone can enlighten me, please do so.

I saw another placard saying we should attack North Korea, not Iraq. Is that really an anti-war placard?

 

I believe that the UN has to take military action with the situation as it currently stands. I can understand that many people will disagree with me, and if I had to, I would fight to maintain there right to those opinions, no matter how misguided I feel they are.

 

Hope all that made sense.

[Mr Happy]

Badger, I didn't realise you were such an intelligent striped mammal.

 

For a long time I have been very anti war as I see it as an excuse for George W Bush (and we all know what the W stands for) to get his hands on Iraqi oil. I still believe that this is his motive. However Sadam has butchered thousands upon thousands of his own people. So, although I don't agree with Bush's motives I have now come around to the way of thinking that we must get rid of Sadam; not for oil, not for the war against international terrorism as he really poses little or no threat, but for the sake of the Iraqi people who have suffered under this evil [****!!****] for too long. If we go to war I accept that there will be civilian casualties but these will be far less than if we allow Sadam to stay in power.

 

Mr Happy

 

oh yeah, don't visit my website cos I haven't got one!

[Badger]

Quote:

Badger, I didn't realise you were such an intelligent striped mammal.

Thanks, I have my moments!

[AFF]

So you two think that Saddam is a bad man, and in order to liberate the Iraqi people from his tyrannical rule, it's all right for the two lunatics to go in and bomb the country.

 

Out of curiousity, what leaders of other countries in the world do you two consider to be bad men?

[CANV EFM]

you cant start bombing places because the leaders are a bit naughty..you'd have to bomb iraq iran zimabwe, well most of africa actually, korea and few places out there and of course china would get some as well..then we could bomb america for its annexation of alaska and finally ourselves for not letting the sheep shaggers speak welsh..blair is a [****!!****] of the highest order which is now becoming plain to everyone....lets stick to the storyline here, we want cheap oil and a frdly state in a vital strategic area..the side effects of a reduction in terrorist frdly states is good, so is getting 18 odd milion people back into a civilised society with milk and food n stuff.. i dont have a problem with any of that, the short term pain will benefit the people of that country enormously in the medium to long term.. but lets stick to the facts blair you waffling toady twat! ... opps sorry lost it a bit at the end there

[The Truth]

Quote:

the short term pain will benefit the people of that country enormously in the medium to long term..

Not the dead ones it won't

[CANV EFM]

valid

[Badger]

Personally, I feel the UN should stick to what it said when the original resolution (668 or so, I think) was set up. It arranged a ceasefire with certain obligations placed on Iraq to ensure the ceasefire remained in place. Those obligations were ignored, so technically no new resolution is needed to go to war, as the ceasefire can be lifted. If the UN backs down, not only over the original resolution but also on the 15 or 16 further ones that have at least in part ignored, it will invalidate everything that the UN stands for.

There is little point in saying that the weapons inspectors should be given more time. After years of inspections, the inspectors were absolutely positive that Iraq had no serious nuclear programme because the inspections had found none. Then the head of the programme defected and showed how wrong the assumption was.

If the deadline for compliance is pushed back much further, any UN action will have to wait a further six months, as the forces will not be able to fight in the heat of summer, thus giving Iraq more time to prepare, thus increasing the loss of life and destruction once action is taken.

Which of the following is more likely to make Iraq comply with the resolutions passed by the UN:

1) A further resolution saying military action will be taken if Iraq doesn't take certain actions by a specific date.

2) A further resolution saying that the UN might consider the possibility of maybe talking about action if Iraq doesn't take certain actions by a specific date.

 

Jack Chirac - Neville Chamberlain in disguise.