Benjamino,

Are you talking about the line from the book Dune I use as my sign off? If so I take it you’ve never seen the film or, better yet, read the book?

The line is taken in the context that a band of rebels on one small, otherwise insignificant, planet can exert a stranglehold over an entire galaxy by threatening to destroy a resource that all depend on that is found in abundance on that planet.

The parallel to this situation seems quite stark to me. Hence the quote

But then again those resources even if under a maniac like Saddam Hussein dont belong to USA or any of the allies. Even seeing in long term USA will keep its power over the resources…it wont be after Saddam whenever and whoever people come to Iraq USA will just give away everything.

Not suggesting that the oil belongs to anyone but the citizens of Iraq. Its certainly no more the personal property of Saddam Hussein (or his to destroy) than it is anyone elses. IMO those resources are going to be needed to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous successful, stable, arab nation that the US so desperately needs to have in theatre now Saudi is starting to come unglued.

I agree about the benifits of the Iraqis after Saddam……but would there benifits be covered during the war while seeing there fellow people die. USA killed much more people in Afghanistan than the no. killed in 9/11.

Nope. Deriving statistics from Reuters, AP wire, Agence France Presse, the BBC, and several UK broadsheets the most authoritative calculated death toll I’ve seen has been between 1000-1300 directly related to the US strikes. Less than a third that killed in 9/11 although undoubtedly still a tragically large number. Is a thousand dead Iraqi civillians too high a price to pay for the rest of them to be able to live free of persecution, censure and government organised rape and torture I don’t know and I’m not really qualified to make that determination. My personal view would be that yes it would, however I have the luxury sat here of not being able to empathise with the lot of the average Iraqi citizen.

Agreed the war will be good for the locals and right we see there eagerness to fight war just because Saddam has guns pointed on there heads….. but the ultimate output of the war, economic destruction and most of all humanitarion destruction will be very high.

Destroyed infrastructure can always be rebuilt. With the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet under responsible and accountable control it cant be too difficult to see that there will be more than a few international corporations willing to “help” the new Iraqi government in order to get shots at rebuilding contracts.

And just for your knowledge jonesy i dont even know who John le Carre or Ian Fleming are!

They’re probably poor examples to use – both are authors that have written fairly well known spy fiction novels though. Le Carre is a bit old hat but “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and “Smiley’s People” are kind of classics. Ian Flemings work you’ll probably be a bit more familiar with – the main character in his novels is a former RN Commander by the name of Bond………James Bond!. 😀

My view is, naturally, quite the opposite I’m afraid Hand.

It troubles me beyond reason that Cook could have been involved in the “containment” and thus “peaceful disarmament” of Iraq for 4 years and not see the fact that those weapons still exist today as a gross personal failure. I would as I suspect many decent, intelligent people on these boards would. Clearly he was given a task to oversee and he did not do it. Worse still he doesnt even recognise that the failure of containment to bring about any substantive policy change in Iraq with regard WMD’s is of any consequence.

Also whilst he’s trying to defend the French govt by saying it’s not only them and Germany and Russia were also responsible – as if that makes French Govt intransigence all the more understandable – he’s saying we have no support in Europe?

I’m sorry but I heard one report today stating that no fewer than 18 European nations are with us and the Yanks on this one including the Spanish and Italians (cant verify this figure but the last I saw confirmed was 12 Euro nations in support including us!). Does the lack of French and German accordance override the opinions of these other nations? If so doesnt that prove the case that the EU is becoming a little Franco-German cabal that is hardly in a position to condemn the US for its perceived lack of democratic values and is an organisation that certain other nations should be very wary of getting too close to.

He also says:

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Which is disingenous at worst and plainly miltarily naieve at best. Any terrorist organisation you care to name constitutes little conventional military threat but with WMD’s in their possesion would become an intolerably dangerous entity. That logic does scale up to fit Saddam Husseins Iraq.

I could go on here…I wont through a lack of time…however I am starting to see that Chiraq….er sorry…Chirac may have done us a favour in getting Robin Cook out of mainstream British politics

To Kabir

Hmmm dont like this new forum structure….can’t respond to sub-threads like the old one…anyone any ideas on when VB might support that as, IMO, its a big backwards step for the forum.

Kabir,

Dont tell me USA cannot get rid of Saddam by peaceful means…

I say again….how?. Assasination of Saddam Hussein has been officially sanctioned by the US govt for a while now, I think, and unoffically a process to overthrow Saddam has been kept over low heat presumably since 1991. Leastwise reports surfacing every few years of failed military coups resulting in the execution of another couple of dozen middle-ranking officers seem to insinuate that someone’s had their fingers in certain pies over the years.

The fact that, in 12 years, even with internal cooperation, no-one’s been able to get a bead on Hussein must give you some clear indication of the difficulty level of the operation you’d like brush off as the most trivial of matters. To be honest Kabir I’d stop reading John le Carre or Ian Fleming novels for a while if I were you.

Also we should count out what Bush said about creating Palestine…that was just to please Blairs opposition so that hes not in trouble. If Blair drowns USA will not have that support they have now.

I dont think you should discount the desire for Bush to hardcode his Presidency into the annals of history either. The “President that solved the Arab-Israeli conflict” does have a certain ring to it. What your saying though does have a ring of truth in it. Using Iraq as a lever to a more proactive stance over the Palestinian issue will go a long way to backing up Blair at a time when he may be glad of it. That said though the net result could be very beneficial for the ME region….would you begrudge the Israeli’s and Palestinians a chance at peace and prosperity just because Blair and Bush will gain from the reflected political glory?

The war has more to do with controlling Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other political motives

Of course the war has a strong economical dimension. It would be imprudent of any developed nation to ignore the threat to those vital resources and pulling them out from under Saddams’ control will definitely make many economists very happy. I heard on BBC radio last night that the global price of oil is now dropping on the belief that the new Iraqi War will be short, not effect oil supplies and will see a much more prosperous Iraq emerge afterwards.

Again though I’d put it to you that, as a whole, the Iraqi people (if the Kurds and Marsh Arabs can be kept in the mix – which should be largely in their interests with Saddam gone) will benefit in the long term from a change of leadership so why, even if the economic reason IS the overiding factor in the “allies” decision to go in, should the Iraqi people not benefit just because its not a morally pure reason?

__________________

I quite agree Eric, outside of the urban areas firepower limits are not an issue. On the first-day-of-war C3, IADS and all the usual priority targets are also going to be recipients of everything in the US and UK arsenals (have heard talk that MBDA are racing Storm Shadow missiles out to the RAF GR4 lads).

Its after this first-day-of-war phase when absolute air dominance is achieved and USAF tac recon is pinpointing the strongpoints, arty emplacements, HQ sites, logistics sites and the suchlike around the Baghdad defensive perimeter that a step-change has to take place as, from this point, the method and conduct of attack is going to be as vital as the result. Simply because its guaranteed that a 500lb LGB dropped on an arty battery set up in a Baghdad schoolyard will be reported in the media as an allied attack on a Baghdad school and, further down the intellectual food-chain come with the banner headline “US and UK Child Murderers”.

Total control of the airspace coupled to the high mobility of forces in theatre means that, if fought cleverly, the Baghdad “rings of steel” can be picked apart piecemeal from multiple axes til they are rendered ineffective. Simply blundering in dropping 2000lb’ers is ultimately going to be more self-defeating than anything else. The point I was driving at was that after making the distinction that the war was not one against Iraq rather that it was against the Iraqi government we’re all now in a peculiar situation where we have to treat the noncombattant “enemy” populace as friendlies and treat them accordingly. Full use of the US and UK arsenals in those situations that could endanger those “friendlies” is therefore not too sharp an idea

Nicely put Moggy. Agree with you 100%

….and yet again I’m still waiting to hear just one person tell me how “peacefully” Saddam can be disarmed?

Not being funny with either of you gents – the rights and wrongs of who sold Saddam what IS important of course Zippo but I’d say save it for the inquest after we have all the facts – i.e ALL the Iraqi records that survive. Only than can we really see where the axe should fall.

The inequalities of one course of action on one state over that applied to another is something that can be discussed ad nauseum. In this context, as we speak today, though I’d liken that argument to Scotland Yard refusing to catch any more murderers on the basis that they never caught Jack the Ripper and it wouldnt be fair on others to be caught and prosecuted when he didnt!. In otherwords a bit daft really.

Steve