The War

[Badger]

Quote:

Argument? I found this to be stimulating intellectual debate.

Argument is easier to type.

I must admit that I found it interesting that the Mirror, being vehemently anti-war, would print this letter.

Just remembered something else from it: in one of the editorials, it stated that Prescott had said Hussein would have to do more than he was currently doing to avoid military action. The editorial said that this could mean only one thing - the country is being run by bloodcrazed warmongering lunatics (paraphrased but not very much).

Actually, I've missed the point. Newspapers aren't about telling the news, they're about making profit, so of course they have to make these sort of pronouncements to boost sales.

[pabird]

Troops told war to start March 17, says paper

 

Click to enlarge photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British troops based in the Gulf had been told to prepare for an invasion of Iraq on March 17, the Daily Express has reported.

 

 

The newspaper, quoting unnamed Westminster sources, said British officers based in Kuwait had been told to expect an invasion on that date, preceded by a massive "short and sharp" air blitz on Iraq from March 13.

 

 

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said she had no comment on the story.

 

 

The U.S. and Britain have committed more than 300,000 troops to the Gulf region along with dozens of warships and more than 500 attack aircraft for a possible war against Iraq.

 

 

 

Did I miss that UN second resolution

 

[GHA EFM]

A quick point, something that I'm confused about.

 

Yesterday, the Daily Mail runs a double page spread about the forthcoming war, saying that 'Blair and Bush give Iraq 10 days to act.'

 

Which is all well and good.

 

However, the same article says that Blix appreciates Iraq destroying 34 of these missiles.

 

Destroying something. That's an act, isn't it? Therefore Iraq are acting.

 

???

[TACKLE1000]

I think you are all missing the point. Which is it has been 12 years since Saddam avoided obliteration by PROMISING disarmament. Does anybody seriously think that an less the pressure we are putting on him was there, he would have done anything! Also, i have heard said that Iraq is not a threat to the western world. That is "C$*P"! The argument is how can they pose a threat? The answer is a country with billions of oil dollars, poses more of a threat than a poxy terrorist organisation! But, an organisation, such as Al-Quaeda can wreack havoc with much less! Argue about whatwe have done before

[GHA EFM]

1. What is the link between Al-Quaeda (sp?) and Iraq?

 

2. Whatever happened to the War on Terrorism and the promise to get Osama Bin Laden?

 

3. How much of a threat to the USA or the UK are missiles that can travel 183 kilometres? (This question can probably be answered with the answer to the question: how likely is it Iraq will set up bases in France or Mexico)

 

4. Why is the destruction of at least 40 Al Samoud (sp?) missiles (so far) not classified as action?

 

5. Why have world leaders waited 10 years before re-taking action on Iraq?

[Badger]

Quote:

5. Why have world leaders waited 10 years before re-taking action on Iraq?

I hope you're not suggesting that as a reason for not taking action now.

[pabird]

TK1 I agree but my argument all along has been that we the great unwashed are being conned by that great man Blair who I personnaly would not follow into a chip shop

According to Blair we broke the back of Al-Quaeda halfway through the Afganistan "war" so whats the problem? The problem is Blair told lies then and continues rather than break the habits of a life time

Saddamm has the least fundimentalist moslem state in the Arab world

Saddamm is a slimy viscious creton who must be got rid of but there is no positive proof that he is a threat to world peace other than control of the second biggest oilfield in the world

Where we should be making application of pressure is to get the Arabs to put their house in order with assistance from the west if requested

 

Or all that money we have poured into the UN and the EU has been (shock horror) wasted money if they individually or together with the Arab states are unable to sort out a tin pot sleaze bag of a man who threatens mass destruction in a limited field of operation around his own country

[The Invisible Man]

Why was there action against Iraq in the first place, 12 years ago? The noble west selflessly and heroically springing to the aid of poor defenceless little Kuwait? Poor little Kuwait, that well-known little model of democracy, where everyone has a vote, an equal right to education and a share of the wealth.

 

Yeah right.

 

Maybe the US can only be the world's policman when there's something in it. Do I hear the word "oil" somewhere?

 

 

[Badger]

Quote:

However, the same article says that Blix appreciates Iraq destroying 34 of these missiles.

They're removing the engines first. It's the engines that give the missiles the range that exceeds the allowed maximum. So although it is an act, it isn't a very powerful one, and one that is open to interpretation.

[GHA EFM]

it is an act

 

You said it yourself, Badger. It is an act. Why should it be 'powerful?' 'Open to interpretation?' It's an act, isn't it?

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Don't be so naive, GHA.

 

 

[GHA EFM]

Alright.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Good lad.

 

 

 

[Big J R]

The Iraqi Ambassador to the UN has just finished giving a speech, and walks out into the lobby where he meets President Bush. They shake hands and, after a brief chat about world affairs, the Iraqi says,

 

"I have a question that I think perhaps you can answer. "

 

President Bush says, "Well, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'll do my best."

 

The Iraqi ambassador continues, "My son watches this show 'Star Trek' and in it there are Russians, Blacks and Asians, but never any Arabs. He is very upset. He doesn't understand why there are never any Arabs in Star Trek."

 

President Bush laughs, leans toward the Iraqi, and whispers, "It's because it takes place in the future...."

[Badger]

Quote:

it is an act

You said it yourself, Badger. It is an act. Why should it be 'powerful?' 'Open to interpretation?' It's an act, isn't it?

Imagine that Saddam Hussein had dropped his trousers and waved his todger around in the face of Hans Blix. It is an action. So the UN should not do anything at all other than sit on its hands and hope.

[SteveP]

May as well throw my normal two penneth worth in. Sorry to demean this whole scenario to a game, but this is how Saddam sees it, get away with getting rid of what you can and hide the rest, remember originally Iraq didn't even claim to have these missiles, then they acknowledged them and then agreed to destroy them.

 

It is naive to believe Iraq are going to comply and there's going to be a series of uphill battles till they do. I think we should go to war for these reasons.

 

1. Hussain is a killer and probably the most dangerous dictator going, though Kim Il Son is trying awfully hard with North Korea.

 

2. Oil, so what if the war is about oil?? If you can raise revenue of this level, you're going to have far more access to destructive weapons, or are we forgetting this for the sake of calling the yanks greedy??

 

3. For Iraq, do we think we're doing them a favour by leaving Hussein in charge, if this war was won quickly, it could start a new regime without any of the existing sanctions, something people want to work towards.

 

I don't know, may be I read the wrong kind of papers, but I think we are forgetting to judge Iraq after we've judges the Americans. Isreal and Kashmir are far more important in my view but perhaps a world without Hussein would be a good start.

[Big J R]

Well said SteveP ! I totally agree, though it seems that Blair is being rail-roaded by his own back-benchers. Wonder how they would feel if a plane flew into their house ?

[The Invisible Man]

Does Iraq have aircraft capable of flying into US or European homes?

 

The west needs oil like it needs food and water. If there is a threat to the supply of any of these, then sure, let's go and get it, it's a big bad world. Without the west, the oil would stay under the ground anyway.

 

But let's not pretend this war and the previous "liberation" of Kuwait are for altruisitic motives or for the rescue of a little downtrodden nation. It's the hypocrisy that pees me off.

 

For me, so long as we've got our food, water and oil, I'm not really bothered what happens in or around Iraq, they're not our friends and/or allies to whom we should go to the aid of (er, grammar?)

[SteveP]

true invisible man, but we're involved, we were 12 years ago and we should be now.

 

if a bit of liberation and freedom from one of the world's worst regimes is a bi-product, why not use it? I mean another bi product after all the fuss from the Germans and the French we've probably won ourselves a few more years reprieve from the Euro, shown that Brussels is a bad idea for central government for common European Policy (which we stick to and very few countries do), we can wrestle a bit of control back.

 

After all if Saddam is prepared to play games, why not America? If you don't like hypocracy steer clear of any political argument, everyone gets caught out of that, both sides of the argument have acted cynically and hypocritically, so I am not surprised or even affected by the spin.

 

I am only bothered about Iraq because I think we do have some responsibility. Maybe we shouldn't have been bothered what was happening in Poland in 1939, after all that didn't affect us either??

 

[GHA EFM]

Quote:

Wonder how they would feel if a plane flew into their house ?

What's that got to do with Iraq??