The War

[Badger]

No problem. It happens a lot. I am anti-war, but am opposed to the anti-war protestors. In the eyes of many, that makes me pro-war....

[pabird]

Not African Badger but try korea on for size not only have they broken resolutions they have notified the world that they would do so

They have physically removed restraints imposed by UN instruction and stuck two fingers up to the rest of the world

Their ability to hold weapons of intercontinental destruction far outway Saddam!s

But no oil?? and no chance of a quick bomb them out "victory"

I am not anti American nor anti war when I can believe in the need I just find Blair impossible to believe

[CANV EFM]

blair...hahahahahaha anyone who voted for this man must really be thinking how they could have been taken in..

the poor.. er more crime,more shitty housing,crap schools and no one gives a [censored] about you

the people in the middle.. massive stealth tax hikes, crap schools , more crime, zero tolerance for speeding but burglary is ok with a side salad of assault..

the rich.. er bothered really, bung n extra 20 k a year at your kids education, hire a private security gaurd and move all your assets offshore..

add in a chaotic health system, immigration out of control, peoples tax pounds being spunked up the wall.. add to the mixture a historic missed oppertunity for an elected second chamber because blair wanted to keep his mates sweet..a norman wisdom style attempt to back up the u.s. in the gulf..the list is endless.. the lies endemic..

if we had a decent opposition these twats would have been out by now..

 

i, like most of us expect a modicum of corruption at the top, and certainly a degree of incompetence, but this is taking the piss.. bring back kenneth clarke, i dont agree with him on europe or the war but he has a certain something that could shake new labour up.. and he laughs in the face of the p.r. advisor....

 

ok this has nothing to do with the war as such but i did use the word 'war' once

 

[Badger]

I thought it was generally accepted that North Korea was next in America's Axis of Evil stance.

 

I think that America is more concerned with NKorea than Iraq, as if they do have the missiles that some say they have, then the US West Coast is under threat. OK, one nuke from N Korea to USA and N Korea won't appear on any maps in the near future, but it's not a risk any President wants to take. Even if they have a nuke that can't reach Seattle or somewhere in the States, it should be able to reach Tokyo, Seoul or a number of other densly populated cities. Before you point out that Baghdad is densley populated, we're talking about a possible nuclear attack on a city, which dramatically increases the stakes that NKorea is playing for. It has also been argued that the NKorean government may happily launch a missile knowing that they will be devastated in return, as their political concepts are close to religious fundamentalism, so all normal bets are off anyway.

 

Perhaps Bush is pushing for a quick victory over Iraq to engender greater support for more far-reaching military actions in the future. Possibly to try and encourage the poulation to back him for a war against N Korea.

[CANV EFM]

perhaps.. but we all know the u.s. are crap in the jungle

[pabird]

Canv your every verb I hereby endorse

I was expecting some sort of response to the statement that Prescott is one heart beat away from the red phone? be afraid be very afraid

 

Badger my generation pulled their jockstraps (the yanks) out of the fire last time they visited Korea, its why the gloucesters are called glorious, if they cannot bomb it the will never again go to war with it

But most of all Badger you are gaining my tearful sympathy in how you believe in the sincerity of Bush & Blair

These are not Kennedy,Churchill, Thatcher or even heartruled Bevenites, they are low brow little people who lied their way into power and in Blairs case if their was an opposition worth tuppence would be dumped at the very next opportunity

He is the biggest non achiever since?????? sorry I am unable to remember anybody who has achieved less

[AFF]

Badge.

 

There is no oil in N. Korea.

 

FACT [1]. The cost of the production of oil in Texas is $23 per barrel.

FACT [2]. The cost of the production of oil in Iraq is $1.75 per barrel, and it's high quality stuff, close to the surface. Plant potatoes, dig 'em up 6 months later and fill your tank with the oil that comes up with them.

FACT [3]. When Saddam came to power he tore up all the supply contracts witth the U.S.A. New contracts were placed with France and China.

[AFF]

Badger.

 

From your postings, you are, clearly a chap or gel who understands 'international affairs'. Could you assist me?

 

READ THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH AND CONSIDER THE QUESTION BEFORE READING THE REST OF THE POSTING.

 

Saddam has these missiles with a range of 183 kms which makes them 'weapons of mass destruction' as they exced the U.N. permitted range of 150kms. As he is in breach of a U.N. resolution, he has been requested to destroy the things. At this point in this post, from the knowledge you have from the media etc. do you believe:

 

a) That Saddam is prepared to destroy the missiles?

 

. That World Leaders and International Statesmen should view war as the last resort of diplomacy?

 

I listen to Radio 5Live in the car. The 4th or 5th item on the 7 o/clock news this morning was brief and went broadly as follows:

 

"The deadline imposed by the U.N. Weapons Inspectors upon Iraq to destroy it's banned Al Samoud 2 missiles expires tomorrow. Saddam Huussein has offered to destroy the missiles but his offer has been dismissed by U.S. Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld.

 

Now to Arlo in Cape Town for news of the cricket world cup."

 

Now, Badger. Ignoring Arlo in South Africa, can you enlighten me concerning the 'offer' and its 'dismissal'?

 

What was your answer to the two questions?

[Badger]

Long post - sorry!

 

It’s true, it’s very unlikely that America will win any war in Korea purely through the use of air power. This does not in any way mean that America will ignore what it considers to be an ongoing threat. Sooner or later, NKorea will reach a level where it’s potential threat to the US is great enough for the US to take action.

 

Pabird, you have my tearful sympathy if you honestly believe that America will never attack NKorea regardless of the level of threat that NKorea poses to America, either directly to it’s land, or indirectly by destabilising the Pacific.

 

I would like to add that I do not believe Blair or Bush to be sincere. Sincerity is not a trait that many politicians and leaders have shown, and I doubt that it ever will be. I have not, to my knowledge, stated in this discussion that I believe either of them to be sincere. I apologise if I gave you any reason to misunderstand me. The fact that they are two of the politicians on the world stage who recognise that the threat of force must be used against Hussein means that they are in roughly the same camp as myself on this particular issue.

 

There might not be oil in NKorea, but there is a potential threat to the US. They will take action.

 

Moving on to Iraq, doesn’t it strike you as curious that France and China (and Germany too, if memory serves) have contracts with Iraq, and have made attempts to delay action against Hussein. Are they acting in the best interests of world stability, or are they working in the best interests of France and China? Why the US and UK should be berated for acting in what they consider to be the right way, but France and China are not berated for exactly the same thing seems very odd to me.

 

To answer the two questions you asked:

a) no

yes

 

I don’t believe that Hussein is prepared or indeed willing to destroy the missiles. Having been told 12 years ago to stop research into wmd, the Iraqi government only proscribed the research on 14th Feb this year when the latest deadline expired, as they are merely playing for time.

 

I’ve had a quick search on the BBC website, and found this.

 

I admit, it is just one news item, so please point me in the direction of other items that give differing information.

 

To quote a few passages:

 

Quote:

Iraq has agreed in principle to destroy its al-Samoud II missiles, a United Nations spokeswoman has said. The announcement came after the UN's chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said the inspections aimed at disarming Iraq had produced "very limited" results.

So, we’re yet to see anything actually happen, and Blix himself says that the results so far are ‘very limited’. Why do you expect better results this time?

 

Quote:

Mr Blix has given Baghdad until Saturday to start destroying the missiles, which weapons inspectors say are capable of travelling beyond the limits set by the UN after the 1991 Gulf War. A spokeswoman for Mr Blix's office said Iraq had now agreed to the move in a letter to the chief weapons inspector. UN weapons inspectors in Baghdad plan to talk to Iraqi officials to clarify the offer.

So, Blix has offered Iraq until Saturday to start disarming, and UN weapons inspectors will discuss it with Iraqi officials. Doesn’t sound like the offer has been ratified by either side as yet, so Rumsfield has a right to be dismissive.

 

Quote:

But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said destroying the missiles would not be enough to prove Iraq was co-operating with the UN. "I don't see a change in the pattern at all," he told reporters. "You know, this is exactly what's been going to for years." "They refuse to co-operate, don't co-operate, drag it out, wait until someone finally nails them with one little piece of the whole puzzle and refuse to do anything about it and then finally when they see the pressure building, they say well, maybe we'll do some of that."

Are you really that surprised by his response? What he says appears to be true. Iraq may well begin to destroy the missiles on Saturday. I sincerely hope they do. But I’m not going to hold my breath.

 

Quote:

In Mr Blix's draft report, seen by the BBC, he says Iraq could have made greater efforts to find proscribed weapons and to provide credible evidence that some of them have been destroyed.

Indeed, Iraq could comply with the weapons inspections, maybe?

 

Other headlines on the page state that Iraq is mobilising its Republican Guard. They obviously expect an imminent attack. Perhaps if they stood the Guard down, it would be seen as a sign of greater cooperation.

 

French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin says France does "not exclude the use of force" to disarm Iraq, but that he believes in a diplomatic solution. So, if US/UK attack, France will send troops to show how much they agree with it after all. Or to sit on the oil wells?

[AFF]

Badger.

 

I'm beginning to think that you are a chap rather than a gel.

 

I diagree that Rumsfeld was "right to be dismissive".

 

Other than launching it, how does one destroy a missile? Dismantling it with a Swiss Army penknife is not really an option as it could be put back together using the same useful tool. I recall newsreel footage of, probably, WW2 when a steamroller was driven over surrendered rifles. Perhaps that would do the trick.

 

Badger. Whilst we agree on a number of individual points, we are completely apart on several basic principles.

[Badger]

I am indeed a chap.

 

I think we understand each other's viewpoints on this, even if we don't agree on many points.

 

To be honest, I've got no idea how they intend to dismantle/destroy the missiles. They'd need a ruddy huge steamroller!

 

[pabird]

Friday February 28, 10:11 AM

LONDON (Reuters) - A pensioner held in South Africa for 20 days after being mistaken for one of the FBI's most wanted criminals has flown home.

Just as an aside these are the same people who supply President Bush with much of his "intelligence"

[pabird]

Blair dismisses Iraqi missile offer

Prime Minister Tony Blair has dismissed an Iraqi agreement to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles, saying "this is not a time for games

 

Good old Tony just a few hours behind the american announcement

But where is the smoking gun proving any other weapons of mass destruction

No lads the second biggest deposit of oil in the world has nothing to do with the promised attack on Hussein

And seriously if America ever considered (again) going to war with NKorea remember that means also taking on China, no I think not, Pork Chop hill is safe for the known future

[CANV EFM]

as long as the septics can avoid having troops on the ground they can bomb most of north koreas nuclear facilities and what ever else they want.. the chinks wont even try to challenge american air superiority in the area, or their naval power... the odd incursion of special forces will do the rest, no need to occupy the country at all....

 

north koreas only come back is a massive land attack of south korea.. with no air cover they wont get far..

[Badger]

Quote:

Badger. Whilst we agree on a number of individual points, we are completely apart on several basic principles.

I've been thinking about this. I reckon we're closer in pronciple, but our relative arguments bring us to different conclusions. Perhaps I'm being pedantic about semantics.

I think we agree that the two B's aren't the best men for the job. We both agree that any action would ideally be sanctioned by the UN. I'm saying that the threat of military force, or even the use of military force, may be the only way to force Iraq to comply with the UN resolutions. I'm also saying that America will react against the threat of NKorea once that threat becomes great enough. It's these last points (especially with regard to Korea) that we seem to be disagreeing on.

[Badger]

Quote:

Friday February 28, 10:11 AM
LONDON (Reuters) - A pensioner held in South Africa for 20 days after being mistaken for one of the FBI's most wanted criminals has flown home.
Just as an aside these are the same people who supply President Bush with much of his "intelligence"

OK, I'll bite. What has this got to do with the situation in Iraq? Does the Metropolitan Police force become less able to do their job if Merseyside Police arrest the wrong person in relation to a murder? Do the intelligence organisations of other countries ever partake in counter-intelligence operations to reduce the effectiveness of 'enemy' operatives?

[Badger]

Quote:

north koreas only come back is a massive land attack of south korea.. with no air cover they wont get far..

Their artillery, if it survives any air assault, could probably flatten large areas of SKorea. As I understand it, NKorea is an artillery-heavy military nation.

[pabird]

Sorry Canv I was a bit vague on the China issue

At this time the American and European investment in China is massive they are a 1st rated country with 3rd world infrastructure and American and European industries are rolling in the cash big time from IT systems to the construction of every type of modern structure known to man including entire towns from homes,services,schools and factories etc.etc.

That goes hand in hand with finance deals that stretch for many years to come

Its a cart full of rosy apples the west has no desire to spill

[Badger]

Has China ever stated openly that they would back NKorea? I know it's generally accepted that they would, I'm after something a bit more formal here, though.

[pabird]

No only historical

As for the intelligence issue it was only a minor point in how iffy the intelligence reporting can be, Again supported historically

 

The real issue is we are all attempting to second guess the two Bs plus the far eastern mind

My best bet is that the USA and Blair will only pick on those they consider easy victories and quick electoral point scores

This does mean of course not upsetting the Jewish, Irish, Ethnic African vote etc

Superb intelligent debate but we are discussing politicians