Ben,

I don`t think Tony Blair was thinking of these kind of anti-war reactions in his own country and in Europe, when he lined up with GWB a year ago. And honestly I don`t think that he would do the same if he had another chance.

I wouldnt agree with that to be honest. I’ve NEVER been a Blair fan, I was calling for him to be lynched in the Fuel Tax protests a couple of years back, but he has impressed me with the consistency of his statements in the face of potentially catastrophic public opinion over Iraq.

I dont think that there is enough “in it” for the UK financially or politically to justify the risks (to his own position) that Blair is taking now so I am left with the conclusion that the PM does actually believe in the correctness of the action being taken. That being the case I think he’d make the same decisions over and again.

Wheter you are pro or anti-War, Jonesy, you have to admit that this British administration made a mistake following the Americans blindly. Blair is still a ****ing socialist. I think he had good intentions trying to influence GWB so that the latter would become more multilateral. But it was the other way around, it was GWB who poisened Tony`s ideas.

No I wouldnt admit that Ben because I feel that your assessment is incorrect. Britain HAS made a difference in coaxing the US position around to a more moderate one than existed 12 months back. I know a lot of continentals like to gloss over that but who else could have done it?

The net result of that being UN1441 which everyone accepted as necessity – again another positive step in global integration and international cooperation. The “poisoning” or increasingly hardline stance from Tony Blair didnt start until signatories to 1441 started to drift away from their stated commitments. Therefore, far from the Bush camp seducing Blair towards its interventionist rhetoric, its more like Chirac has pushed Blair there as Blairs only alternative is to renege on his international declarations like the French, Germans et al.

Glenn,

I am sure that the US probably has brain-stormed that very contingency for some time now. I am for one confident the US could do it alone but they may need to call up more reserves, in fact IIRC they have done so very recently, including another tank division from Texas I think.

125% Agree!. It would be inexcusable to play at these stakes and them NOT to have made plans for any conceivable contingency. I also have little doubt that they could go alone but I’m pleased that they’re not.

Stuff and nonsense Benjamin.

The article you posted is Rumsfelds response to being asked what the US would do if the UK suddenly pulled-up at the last fence to which he answered honestly that Bush will have to examine that scenario and quickly. Big suprise there!

I’ve heard it discussed by political commentators that if, in two weeks, the “war” has been won and there are tens of millions of Iraqi’s rejoicing at being free of Saddams regime Blair will be able to walk across the Thames without using a bridge. He has a conviction to see this through to a resolution which is apparent in all the interviews he’s given and I really can’t see the man blinking when public opinion in the UK is now starting to shift behind him.

Finally as to Rumsfelds “We don’t know what their role is yet” comment its quite true. The problem is that we have contributed about 25% of the combat power in theatre which is a very much different proposition to just sticking a British division into a US Army Corps structure. With the prevarication in the UK House of Commons its simple prudence for the US to make a plan that includes the possibility of that 25% becoming suddenly unavailable.

Problem is Keltic that the only reason the inspections are working now is that there is the credible threat of force waiting to surge over Iraq’s borders.

How long do we have to maintain that level of force out there? Hussein knows we cant sustain it indefinitely at those levels and that if he drags his heels long enough under French, German, Belgian and Russian cover the US and UK will go home and, likely as not, be unable to come back until they’ve reconstituted their forces post-deployment.

By their actions the French and the nations that go along with it are, ironically, undermining the work of the UNMOVIC inspectors as its quite in Saddams interest to have them in his country running around frantically trying to find the things he has hidden and can trickle out to “show compliance”. Shame Chirac isnt as smart as Hussein!

Sean – I did mean Elmendorf not Leavenworth as I thought it a bit harsh for them to jail you straight off the bat! I thought they’d just stick you somewhere nice cold and remote for little while to contemplate the error of your ways!

Cheers,
Steve

PS Keltic – I got your email a little while back but it wasnt stamped with your address! send me a private message with it in and I’ll get a reply off to you soon as i get chance ok pal?

First off thanks for coming in with some stuff that looks like it may be in the grey area before the UNCLAS world Sean. Much appreciated but keep your stern arc covered ok buddy? Dont go getting yourself sent to Elmendorf!

Referring to the Chirac declaration today though…who was suprised by it? Look at whats happening from the Paris viewpoint –

Saddam is giving some ground on his WMD capabilities. The main reason, that everyone is well aware of, for this is because of the large US/UK military deployment and the setting of fixed deadlines.

The deployment is costing Paris nothing and, if its held in place and new deadline sequences set, is likely to force more and more of Husseins proscribed weapons out into the open until the threat of the next deadline loses its credibility and force has to be used. Until that time Chirac gets to count coup at the expense of the US and UK and demonstrate the correctness of the French moral political compass compared to that of the “Anglosphere”.

When the threat of force degenerates into the need to actually apply force he can say that he was “never anti-war” just that he wanted to “keep war as the real last option”. Then he can deploy French forces to help in sweeping Saddam’s regime out of power and, afterwards, demand French companies get their fair share of involvement in rebuilding Iraq.

As a plan its faultless – it’ll p1ss off the American’s but he can pass that off as US Imperialism and get nations with an anti-US agenda of their own to agree to that. It’ll p1ss off the UK and the Spanish but Chirac has already made veilled threats to the availability of EU funding to Spain and the UK is all too easily portrayed as the US’s pet poodle and anti-European anyway. C’est magnifique!

Steve

Shipborne WMD’s

Kev,

I’m afraid I’ve not heard anything about the whole mess being embarked and despatchd to roam the seven seas but it doesnt sound all that plausible to me really.

Immediately the problem any ship departing from Iraq faces is the US 5th fleet and all the NATO Op Enduring Freedom, Op Resinate and UNSCR 665 tasked ships of up to 13 different nations! Thats even before they get to the Hormuz strait and really get boxed in!.

Even if, by some utter miracle, they did manage to break out into the Gulf of Oman theyre then faced with only quite limited choices. Heading due south gets them lost in the middle of the Indian Ocean which isnt too bad – except for the problem that the IO gets rougher the further south you go. I wouldnt fancy sitting in a ship loaded with VX if it was bouncing up and down in a heavy chop. Personally I’d want to stay in the most sheltered waters possible and try and hide-in-the-crowd.

The wolf-in-the-herd option gives me problems too though. If I head East with the main commercial traffic to SE Asia I run the risk of being spotted at the Malacca Strait chokepoint and I run a gamble of piracy attack if I deviate too far from the shipping lanes.

If, instead, I head West though and try and get into the Med and Atlantic I run the chokepoint at the Red Sea entry in the Mandeb Strait, then Suez and then Gibraltar – IF I get past NATO SNFM patrols in the Eastern Med.

If I try to go South Westerly from the Gulf of Oman and try to stay in to the East African coastline I run right into one of the most dangeous patches of water, in piracy terms, on the planet off the coast of Somalia as far out as the Seychelles. Again I wouldnt like to try that with a cargo of nerve gas in case some Somali pirate manages to hand-crank enough shots out of his WW2 vintage 20mm Oerlikon to “disturb” whats in the hold.

Interesting post though Kev. I’ll try and see if I can find out anything “official” thats been mentioned about what you saw.

Regards,
Steve

RE: I want to see your face

I do this reluctantly, but I cannot let Keltics bravery in sticking his pic up like this go for naught!

The pic below is a publicity shot that I got caught for in work about 5 years ago, in my mid-twenties, which explains the abject cheesiness of the shot. It is also, quite woefully, the best photograph I have in electronic format!

Today there is a goatie, slighty more “fashionable” optics and, naturally, an additional 5 years wear and tear damage!

Attachments:

RE: Are you crazy?

Dead right Frank. As a for instance, in this case do you study at Ohio State University or do you work there Toorandy?

If I wanted to find out who you are, specifically, I can do many things not least crack into your login server and get your login details or, even more simply, call the number listed by ARIN for your Universities’ technical support (+1-614-292-5555) and tell them some story about you misbehaving in some fashion on the net and requesting your details “to forward to the relevent authorities”. Bingo I’ve got you.

Be very, very careful about the information you put out here.

RE: War or no war?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-01-03 AT 07:42 PM (GMT)]PLA

lets be honest here, there is no chance in hell that saddam can come anywhere near the UK or US in terms of conventional or nuclear capacity. all saddam cares abt is his own servival. so unless his crippled son suddenly wacks him silly with a great big stick, saddam is not going to do anything that can threaten thw oil feilds of SA or kuwait. the only real impact i can see him cause is lower oil prices through smuggling.

I’ll describe the real problem for you then. Hussein is not stupid, I agree absolutely with your assessment there, once he’s faced down the United Nations and shown the world, and the Arab world in particular, that he doesnt need fear the censure of the world community he then has little reason NOT to rebuild his forces. Given time to assemble these forces, which is precisely what certain members of the world community are proposing we do, he will have the ability to take precipitate action. Action which will mean the most severe of economic consequences for us all. Why would he not – who would stop him? The US or UK – nope, they’ve proven to be too easily checked by the rest of the world. Who else would dare threaten him if he held a threat over the oilfields? This is simply an unacceptable position for us to be in now……let alone by the end of the decade!.

….and very likely only threat of saddam using WMD on the SA and kuwait oil feilds is if he come under attack and knows he’s going down.

Or if he wants to achieve some political goal, the permanent removal of the no-fly zones or a guarantee of global non-interference while he finishes off the Kurds in the North of his country perhaps. Why would he not expect to get away with it? He’s gotten away with flouting international resolutions half a dozen times already so what would make him think twice about chancing his arm again….a strongly worded letter from Kofi Annan? He’d not even use that to wipe his backside with!.

just think abt it, with someone like saddam, do u think he would just put his head between his leg and kiss his butt goodbye when there’s a dozen SAS banging down his door? no, his going to try to make u(ie everyone) suffer or go down with him. and the fact that western retalitry stricks would kill half his ppl wont mean crap to him.

The dozen SAS troopers that havent been able to find him yet you mean, why do you think they’d have any more luck once Husseins military capacity has been allowed time to build up again?.

the western media seems to get a kick out of portraying leaders of countries we dont like as evil, crazy and stupid.

The western media is quite happy to portray ANY leader in such a fashion if it increases their circulation and revenues.

but the fact is, saddam my be evil and crazy, but he is by no means stupid. and also the fact that he’ll do anything to stay in power makes him very predictable in some feilds. that is the soild case against war i was talking abt in my last post, and that’s y i am 99.99% sure saddam will not threaten the SA and kuwait oil feilds if we done go in guns blazing first.

I agree it does makes him predictable, this is why I find it so easy to accept that he still has bio-chem weapons in his inventory and so hard to believe that so many people think Hussein is actually telling the truth!. The leopard has not changed his spots and the games he’s playing with the UNSCOM inspectors right now show it clearly. How clear some people need things to be spelled out for them amazes me more and more every day!.

History has demonstrated that Saddam Hussein will take advantage of any situations he considers himself to have an edge in. In the Iran-Iraq war he took the opportunity of the Iranian Revolution, and the weakened state Iran found itself in afterwards, to commence a war of aggression. In 1990 he believed he had tacit approval from the US to annexe Kuwait and used that to launch into a war of aggression. Both times he’s had a clear advantage and both times he’s exploited them for conquest. I see no reason to believe that that will change once he regains the capability to exploit situations again.

the UN is now finally willing to show so balls in saying ‘no’ to the US, and telling them to play by the book.

This is exactly the thing that infuriates me about this whole debate though, no offense levelled directly at you, but what has the US’s, or anyone else’s for that matter, behaviour in the past got to do with stopping Hussein achieving a threatening position to the global economy? I dont care about the French, Chinese and the rest being able to score a few cheap points off the US – I DO care about the lives of the kids who’re just going into secondary school now who will be the ones in uniform to face Saddams forces in 10 years when he’s got the developed world by the balls.

u say that saddam has broken his cease fire accord, maybe so, and probably so. but until u can show evidence that he has, then he mush be presumed innocent. isnt that what our legal system is based on? ‘innocent until proven gulty’? or do u want to change that to ‘innocent until proven gulty (UK,US only)’.

No problem – these are the records, easily available on FAS at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/northern_watch.htm, listing his violations against UN-tasked aircraft in the no-fly zones:

Chronology of Significant Events
2001

24 Jan 01 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. Iraqi forces launched surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.

2000

16 Nov 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
14 Nov 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft were also targeted by Iraqi radar. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
01 Nov 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. Iraqi forces launched surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
23 Oct 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft were also targeted by Iraqi radar. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
17 Aug 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. Iraqi forces launched surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites north of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
15 Aug 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft today. Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from a site northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
14 Jun 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. This time, the Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites west of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
12 Jun 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. This time, the Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from a site northeast of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
8 Jun 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. This time, the Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites west of Mosul while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.
1 Jun 00 — Iraqi forces threatened Operation Northern Watch (ONW) coalition aircraft again today. This time, the Iraqi forces fired anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) from sites near Bashiqah and Tall ‘Afar and targeted coalition aircraft with radar while ONW aircraft conducted routine enforcement of the Northern No-Fly Zone. Coalition aircraft responded to the Iraqi attacks by dropping ordnance on elements of the Iraqi integrated air defense system. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely.

See a pattern developing here? This is only a small sample of the details listed there and is only from the Northern No-Fly zone!

well, WMD isnt just bio-chem u know

I was the one who just mentioned the strategic nuclear inventories of the protagonist nations wasn’t I!?

and since the end of the cold war, the US has countined to pour $$ into development of ‘stratigic’ nuclear weapons. i dont see the russian or anyone else doing the same, so i can only assume the US wants to use nukes as an offensive weapon.

You’re looking from a blinkered perspective then PLA. France has been villified for continuing its nuke programme especially with the Polynesian underwater test series in the mid 90’s. The Russians have been trying to field the Topol-M ICBM for years and the Chinese have resorted to outright theft of US MIRV designs in its race to develop its nuclear potential. Clearly these are all ok though as its just a counter to US hegemony….right?.

chances are they would only considered using ‘stratigic’ nukes on nations without nukes for fear of counter reprisals. and that is the greatest hypocracy in my view. u condame others for developing WMD, while planning to use them on others! isnt that forcing countries like north korea and iran to become nuclear?!

I’m afraid youve got that backwards PLA. The problem with asymmetric threat countries is that MAD doesnt work in that scenario – this has been the main driver behind the Ballistic Missile Defence programme the US has been trying to get various nations behind and has been taking so much flak over. Simply put if the N.Koreans did flip its total inventory of 4 ICBMs at the CONUS the US President could hardly issue the order for a total retaliatory strike and turn the northern half of the Korean Peninsula into a big glass-covered carpark. The North Koreans, and everyone else, are acutely aware of that sooooo there’s no MAD at work anymore. No MAD means that you need something else to balance the small-scale threat…..enter Missile Defence. This is getting quite a way off the issue under debate though.

well, thats exactlythe case with the US. abt 50% of americans actually think that saddam did 9/11, and alot also think he is bin ladden’s long lost cusin or sth.

Wow, bit of a generalisation there PLA. In my experience 100% of the Americans I’ve spoken to (and my wifes’ family lives over there – so this is not just a couple of people I’m talking about) are under no illusions about the lack of connection between the WoT and the Iraq situation.

hmm, did u even stop to think that since most of the world is against us, could it possibley be us that is in the wrong?

No. I’ve honestly never thought that, simply, because most of them are trying to make themselves look busy going in the wrong direction for the real reasons to get shut of Hussein. In my opinion they ARE all wrong because theyre willing to let all Husseins current transgressions go unpunished without the merest investigation (because those violations only involve the aircraft of the bully-boy US/UK alliance after all) and yet, get into a vehement and heated debate about whether or not there could be a linkage to Al Quaeda in Baghdad!!!. You’ve got to accept there is something badly out of step there!.

did it eve occur to u that tony and bush may have their own little agandas for fighhting this war other then just to get rid of saddam? could it be that the others are objecting because they see GWB’s real intensions and dont like it?

To me the issue of what Bush and Blairs “actual” reasoning may or may not be is just another attempt, by those with their own agendas, to obscure the basic facts that Hussein is currently getting away scot-free with breaching all the UN agreements he’s signed following the 1991 Gulf War. All I think we need to be concerned about, for now, is getting him away from the levers of power in Iraq and safely neutralised down a hole somehwere. Only after we’ve done that do we have the time and space to bicker, like children in a playground, about who pulled who’s hair first.

Regards,
Steve