JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-01-03 AT 11:36 PM (GMT)]that is fair enough, but i can think of a great big list of countries that have broken UN resolutions and mandates, some are even permenent members of the council, others are their good friends.
Yes you’re quite right and, with a little work I too can conjure up such a list. This is where I believe Saddam Hussein is actually quite unlucky…if he’d been the tin-pot despot of a state almost anywhere else in the world he’d have been left to mind his own business WMD use and possesion included.
can only use the excuse of iraq breaking a UN mandate as a justification for war if the same treatment is extended to all other offenders.
Why?. How many of these other nations are holding an implicit threat over essential oil reserves and have the track record of someone like Hussein in charge? If extremist policies in Iran threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz or the Yemeni’s decided to mine the Mandeb strait or the Malaysians or Indonesians threatened the Malacca Straits you would see an identically sharp reaction from the Western nations but none of those nations have given cause (until the Iran – Axis of Evil thing which now needs work admittedly) for anyone to believe that these worst-case events would ever actually occur.
That is simply not the case with Hussein – no one here could put their hand on their heart and state that Hussein would not disrupt oil supplies from the Gulf in the next ten years. This is the risk that the leading economies on the planet have had hanging over their heads for the last thirteen years or so and, with his measured rearmament, that risk is increasing.
otherwise u are asking ppl to call u hipicritical.
To keep the global economy from spiraling into the ground I could stand the UK being branded a hypocrite. Especially when that condemnation would be coming from other nations standing on shakey moral grounds themselves!.
does it make the deed less evil if u only used WMD on enemy civilians?
No, and I never suggested for a second it did, I was talking about the military application of these weapons on the battlefield against soldiers (as in the Iran-Iraq war) being a slightly lesser crime than deploying them against ANY civillian concentrations wherever.
also, the US never had a problem with iraq’s use of WMD on the kurds. in face, at the time washington tried to place the blame on iran, and shortly afterwards sent delegations to iraq to expand their ‘cooperation’.
I can’t dispute that PLA. You’re quite right and to use the Arab expression “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” does indeed look a little weak in their defence there. Are you, and all the others who’ve made this kind of point, right to accuse the US of duplicity and hypocracy – yes of course you are!. Is the UK tarred with the same brush? – again, yes of course we are!. Should either of those things stop us from getting it right the next time around – no, I dont think so.
If u had no problem with saddam back then, what case do u have now?
Simple. Now he’s starting to get stronger and has shown himself to still be the wriggly, untrustworthy, b@stard he was 13 years ago. Furthermore he seems to be quite adept in making the UN dance to his tune and fairly soon is going to render that organisation a laughing stock on League of Nations level just as Elp said above. Enough is enough.
i mean u dont see african nations demand sanction be put on the UK and US cos they used millions of africans as slaves a few hundred years ago do u?
The city I live in, Liverpool, was built on the money from the slave trade – to its eternal shame so its an issue that strikes close to home up here. Every now and again a story does surface of how some group are trying to seek redress for the ills of the past. My answer to them has, I’m afraid, always been to wish them every luck in finding someone still alive from the slaving period who was responsible and, if they do, to immediately sue the life out of him!. After they do that I’m going to petition the French government with a request for damages following the Norman Conquest of 1066 and follow that up with a case against the Norweigans, Danes and Swedes making ’em pay for the raids and excesses of those damn Vikings! }>
well, with all due respect, but that is just plain self ‘supremicism’ speaking mate.
Damn right it is PLA. Legacy of service life if you like. I want our guys to have bigger, smarter, better guns than everyone else. That way I’m less likely to have to bury any of my friends. I make absolutely no apology for this!.
what right do we have to decide what other nations can be trusted with? its not like the US and Uk never invaded another country for our own gain, or used WMD before(refers to the US).
Well the UK have been worse monsters with regard to WMD use than the US in fairness there PLA. Some of the things we fired into the German trenches back in WW1 beggar decent conversation. That, and the US nuke raids in WW2 (which I take it you were referring to) were a very long time ago though and, since the end of the Cold War (which did kind of demand WMD stocks) the US and the UK have officialy stated that they have disposed of all of their chemical weapons stocks for instance – in fact, if memory serves the UK ditched its chemical weapons decades back and both are signatories, afaik, to the CWC. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to who you’d rather see holding WMD’s.
if u say that iraq cant be trusted with advanced weapons and WMD because they invaded other countries and used WMD before, then we should not be allowed WDM for the same reasons.
Again there was that little Cold War thing knocking around until, what, a decade ago and since then we’ve been drawing down WMD stocks to minimum requirements for projected worst-case scenarios. I dont think we need to try and confuse the responsible, and long term, ownership of strategic nuclear weapons with the possesion of bio-chem weapons by an unstable despot sitting on top of the better part of the developed worlds’ energy reserves!. I dont really see the connection to be honest!
germany and many other countries are against war because there is a solid case against the CURRENT plans for war
What is this solid case though? Apart from some generic antiwar blustering by, people who, in the main have all the tactical and strategic thought capacity of a three-toed sloth i.e the press. Where is the issue? The lack of Hans Blicks “smoking gun”?. There are smoking guns all over Iraq and they’ve been joining in with SAM’s blasting away at coalition aircraft for years. WMD’s are there, but, are not the sole reason we should be kicking lumps out of Hussein.
and because that is what their ppl want.
So democratic governments, irrespective of their knowledge of facts not in the public domain for opsec reasons, should follow the will of the people even if the people are ignorant of certain facts?. Has a vaguely lemming-esque quality I suppose 🙂
but the leaders of the rest of the world arent mentally challenged either.
I didnt suggest they were, I just think that there is a level of desperation amongst certain countries to chip bits off US hegemony at whatever cost. Russia, France and China were the traditional ones that went in for this and now it looks like France has pulled Germany in with it probably in an attempt to show the UK as being isolated in Europe. Crying shame if you ask me!? }>
are u saying the leaders of germany and france and others should just ignore the openions of their ppl and just follow ur lead? how denmocratic of u.
Democracy doesnt necessarily have to equal stupidity though PLA. Like I said the politicians of those nations have agenda’s which they consider more important than the potential loss of life, of predominantly US and UK forces, that would be caused by giving SH another 10 years of game time. In that context theyre hardly going to have a debate, like this one, with their populaces and are going to rely on the respective media’s in each nation to argue wildly with each other (increasing their circulations) to obfuscate the real issues.
well, didnt powell just go on TV and say that the US and allies are propaired to go to war even without UN approval? and lets not forget that the kosoval conflict was not sanctioned by the UN either(even though it was for a genuenlly good cause). we can all see how much good saddam’s ‘political armour’ would do him.
Nope you saw Powell go on TV and say they didnt need ANOTHER UN resolution over the one that was already enacted against Iraq to go in against him. What I’m saying is that the original resolution against him wouldnt have been called for if he’d simply have complied with UN resolution. Lets not forget he is in breach of the original UN resolutions from ’91 too though it seems unfashionable to mention that!
also, lets not kid ourselves. iraq’s military capacity may be growing, but compaired to the US and Uk, the distance between that of the US and that of iraq has only grown bigger and not shrunk since 91. saddam’s conventional forces have abt as much chance to fight off an US led attact as i have of becoming the next US president. all iraq has that can pose any real deterrence against an US attack is WMD. so asking iraq to give them up would be like asking a crab to declore itself.
Again I’m sorry about the sportsmanship issue, but I dont care if his forces are still overmatched by ours after he’s re-armed. The fact is he has re-armed and he is MORE capable of causing us pain than he needed to be if we just got the job done and dusted.
i do conceed that i was probably being a little nieve thinking that saddam could change by himself. but once u start down that slippery slope, it would be much much harder to stop. today iraq, tommorow iran, later north korea, then cuba…
This is something I do agree with you on PLA. To be utterly frank with you when I first heard about the official US acceptance of regime change being an instrument of policy I got quite concerned with where the rolling stone might stop (Saudi was the one I was concerned about). There are two things that have made me reassess the issue a bit though – first is Colin Powell as, to me, he’s always seemed to have a good ability to look at a problem from outside the box. I like the way he talks and, for a politician, he does impress me. Second is that Bush does seem to listen to Blair and value UK support. I’m not saying that between them Blair and Powell can pull Bush’s strings but, I think, they can offer him wiser counsel than he’d get from Rumsfeld or Cheney.
also notice how strong countries like the US have been constainly lowering the ‘standard’ of the need to go to war. from WWII, when the US only got invalved when itself was attacked, to vietnam and korea when one of its allies was attacked, to iraq, where iraq is close to having the capacity to attack one of the US’ allies. where will the line be drawn?
I think that oversimplifies the situation drastically PLA. Also just think on about the usefulness of a little regime engineering in 1938 Germany when Hitler was too weak to repel an attack by the Allies!
from what we can tell, iraq has nothing to do with al-Q, or terrism.
Absolutely agree!.
so calling a war on iraq part of the war on terrisum can only fool a 3 years old.
As I understand it the only attempts to join the two have been from Bush and the media so I think it safe to assume that it was pitched only at those with the intellect of a three year old.
the fact the iraq was chosen has more to do with what it has, and the fact the few in the world feel warmly abt saddam. so from that, all i can tell is that the true motives behind GWB’s ‘crusade’ on iraq is far from noble, and either has sth to do with the black liquid that made GWB rich enough to run for president, or is another step to push the ‘boundry for war’ lower, for whatever plans GWB has in the future. that is y i and a great lot of other ppl across the world firmly oppose war under the current conditions, and motives. but i will drink to the downfall of saddam under any other circustance.
The one about him trying to “de-sensitise” his people to military action is a good one and I’d never considered that. For me though Bush can have whatever machiavellian reasons he likes for doing the job – I honestly dont care and, for me, issues of justness, fairness, rightness and all the rest are just so many conversation topics for the talking heads in the media and in various parliaments around the world. I want to see Hussein and his entourage away from those oilfields, permanently, as soon as it can be arranged.
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-01-03 AT 11:36 PM (GMT)]that is fair enough, but i can think of a great big list of countries that have broken UN resolutions and mandates, some are even permenent members of the council, others are their good friends.
Yes you’re quite right and, with a little work I too can conjure up such a list. This is where I believe Saddam Hussein is actually quite unlucky…if he’d been the tin-pot despot of a state almost anywhere else in the world he’d have been left to mind his own business WMD use and possesion included.
can only use the excuse of iraq breaking a UN mandate as a justification for war if the same treatment is extended to all other offenders.
Why?. How many of these other nations are holding an implicit threat over essential oil reserves and have the track record of someone like Hussein in charge? If extremist policies in Iran threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz or the Yemeni’s decided to mine the Mandeb strait or the Malaysians or Indonesians threatened the Malacca Straits you would see an identically sharp reaction from the Western nations but none of those nations have given cause (until the Iran – Axis of Evil thing which now needs work admittedly) for anyone to believe that these worst-case events would ever actually occur.
That is simply not the case with Hussein – no one here could put their hand on their heart and state that Hussein would not disrupt oil supplies from the Gulf in the next ten years. This is the risk that the leading economies on the planet have had hanging over their heads for the last thirteen years or so and, with his measured rearmament, that risk is increasing.
otherwise u are asking ppl to call u hipicritical.
To keep the global economy from spiraling into the ground I could stand the UK being branded a hypocrite. Especially when that condemnation would be coming from other nations standing on shakey moral grounds themselves!.
does it make the deed less evil if u only used WMD on enemy civilians?
No, and I never suggested for a second it did, I was talking about the military application of these weapons on the battlefield against soldiers (as in the Iran-Iraq war) being a slightly lesser crime than deploying them against ANY civillian concentrations wherever.
also, the US never had a problem with iraq’s use of WMD on the kurds. in face, at the time washington tried to place the blame on iran, and shortly afterwards sent delegations to iraq to expand their ‘cooperation’.
I can’t dispute that PLA. You’re quite right and to use the Arab expression “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” does indeed look a little weak in their defence there. Are you, and all the others who’ve made this kind of point, right to accuse the US of duplicity and hypocracy – yes of course you are!. Is the UK tarred with the same brush? – again, yes of course we are!. Should either of those things stop us from getting it right the next time around – no, I dont think so.
If u had no problem with saddam back then, what case do u have now?
Simple. Now he’s starting to get stronger and has shown himself to still be the wriggly, untrustworthy, b@stard he was 13 years ago. Furthermore he seems to be quite adept in making the UN dance to his tune and fairly soon is going to render that organisation a laughing stock on League of Nations level just as Elp said above. Enough is enough.
i mean u dont see african nations demand sanction be put on the UK and US cos they used millions of africans as slaves a few hundred years ago do u?
The city I live in, Liverpool, was built on the money from the slave trade – to its eternal shame so its an issue that strikes close to home up here. Every now and again a story does surface of how some group are trying to seek redress for the ills of the past. My answer to them has, I’m afraid, always been to wish them every luck in finding someone still alive from the slaving period who was responsible and, if they do, to immediately sue the life out of him!. After they do that I’m going to petition the French government with a request for damages following the Norman Conquest of 1066 and follow that up with a case against the Norweigans, Danes and Swedes making ’em pay for the raids and excesses of those damn Vikings! }>
well, with all due respect, but that is just plain self ‘supremicism’ speaking mate.
Damn right it is PLA. Legacy of service life if you like. I want our guys to have bigger, smarter, better guns than everyone else. That way I’m less likely to have to bury any of my friends. I make absolutely no apology for this!.
what right do we have to decide what other nations can be trusted with? its not like the US and Uk never invaded another country for our own gain, or used WMD before(refers to the US).
Well the UK have been worse monsters with regard to WMD use than the US in fairness there PLA. Some of the things we fired into the German trenches back in WW1 beggar decent conversation. That, and the US nuke raids in WW2 (which I take it you were referring to) were a very long time ago though and, since the end of the Cold War (which did kind of demand WMD stocks) the US and the UK have officialy stated that they have disposed of all of their chemical weapons stocks for instance – in fact, if memory serves the UK ditched its chemical weapons decades back and both are signatories, afaik, to the CWC. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to who you’d rather see holding WMD’s.
if u say that iraq cant be trusted with advanced weapons and WMD because they invaded other countries and used WMD before, then we should not be allowed WDM for the same reasons.
Again there was that little Cold War thing knocking around until, what, a decade ago and since then we’ve been drawing down WMD stocks to minimum requirements for projected worst-case scenarios. I dont think we need to try and confuse the responsible, and long term, ownership of strategic nuclear weapons with the possesion of bio-chem weapons by an unstable despot sitting on top of the better part of the developed worlds’ energy reserves!. I dont really see the connection to be honest!
germany and many other countries are against war because there is a solid case against the CURRENT plans for war
What is this solid case though? Apart from some generic antiwar blustering by, people who, in the main have all the tactical and strategic thought capacity of a three-toed sloth i.e the press. Where is the issue? The lack of Hans Blicks “smoking gun”?. There are smoking guns all over Iraq and they’ve been joining in with SAM’s blasting away at coalition aircraft for years. WMD’s are there, but, are not the sole reason we should be kicking lumps out of Hussein.
and because that is what their ppl want.
So democratic governments, irrespective of their knowledge of facts not in the public domain for opsec reasons, should follow the will of the people even if the people are ignorant of certain facts?. Has a vaguely lemming-esque quality I suppose 🙂
but the leaders of the rest of the world arent mentally challenged either.
I didnt suggest they were, I just think that there is a level of desperation amongst certain countries to chip bits off US hegemony at whatever cost. Russia, France and China were the traditional ones that went in for this and now it looks like France has pulled Germany in with it probably in an attempt to show the UK as being isolated in Europe. Crying shame if you ask me!? }>
are u saying the leaders of germany and france and others should just ignore the openions of their ppl and just follow ur lead? how denmocratic of u.
Democracy doesnt necessarily have to equal stupidity though PLA. Like I said the politicians of those nations have agenda’s which they consider more important than the potential loss of life, of predominantly US and UK forces, that would be caused by giving SH another 10 years of game time. In that context theyre hardly going to have a debate, like this one, with their populaces and are going to rely on the respective media’s in each nation to argue wildly with each other (increasing their circulations) to obfuscate the real issues.
well, didnt powell just go on TV and say that the US and allies are propaired to go to war even without UN approval? and lets not forget that the kosoval conflict was not sanctioned by the UN either(even though it was for a genuenlly good cause). we can all see how much good saddam’s ‘political armour’ would do him.
Nope you saw Powell go on TV and say they didnt need ANOTHER UN resolution over the one that was already enacted against Iraq to go in against him. What I’m saying is that the original resolution against him wouldnt have been called for if he’d simply have complied with UN resolution. Lets not forget he is in breach of the original UN resolutions from ’91 too though it seems unfashionable to mention that!
also, lets not kid ourselves. iraq’s military capacity may be growing, but compaired to the US and Uk, the distance between that of the US and that of iraq has only grown bigger and not shrunk since 91. saddam’s conventional forces have abt as much chance to fight off an US led attact as i have of becoming the next US president. all iraq has that can pose any real deterrence against an US attack is WMD. so asking iraq to give them up would be like asking a crab to declore itself.
Again I’m sorry about the sportsmanship issue, but I dont care if his forces are still overmatched by ours after he’s re-armed. The fact is he has re-armed and he is MORE capable of causing us pain than he needed to be if we just got the job done and dusted.
i do conceed that i was probably being a little nieve thinking that saddam could change by himself. but once u start down that slippery slope, it would be much much harder to stop. today iraq, tommorow iran, later north korea, then cuba…
This is something I do agree with you on PLA. To be utterly frank with you when I first heard about the official US acceptance of regime change being an instrument of policy I got quite concerned with where the rolling stone might stop (Saudi was the one I was concerned about). There are two things that have made me reassess the issue a bit though – first is Colin Powell as, to me, he’s always seemed to have a good ability to look at a problem from outside the box. I like the way he talks and, for a politician, he does impress me. Second is that Bush does seem to listen to Blair and value UK support. I’m not saying that between them Blair and Powell can pull Bush’s strings but, I think, they can offer him wiser counsel than he’d get from Rumsfeld or Cheney.
also notice how strong countries like the US have been constainly lowering the ‘standard’ of the need to go to war. from WWII, when the US only got invalved when itself was attacked, to vietnam and korea when one of its allies was attacked, to iraq, where iraq is close to having the capacity to attack one of the US’ allies. where will the line be drawn?
I think that oversimplifies the situation drastically PLA. Also just think on about the usefulness of a little regime engineering in 1938 Germany when Hitler was too weak to repel an attack by the Allies!
from what we can tell, iraq has nothing to do with al-Q, or terrism.
Absolutely agree!.
so calling a war on iraq part of the war on terrisum can only fool a 3 years old.
As I understand it the only attempts to join the two have been from Bush and the media so I think it safe to assume that it was pitched only at those with the intellect of a three year old.
the fact the iraq was chosen has more to do with what it has, and the fact the few in the world feel warmly abt saddam. so from that, all i can tell is that the true motives behind GWB’s ‘crusade’ on iraq is far from noble, and either has sth to do with the black liquid that made GWB rich enough to run for president, or is another step to push the ‘boundry for war’ lower, for whatever plans GWB has in the future. that is y i and a great lot of other ppl across the world firmly oppose war under the current conditions, and motives. but i will drink to the downfall of saddam under any other circustance.
The one about him trying to “de-sensitise” his people to military action is a good one and I’d never considered that. For me though Bush can have whatever machiavellian reasons he likes for doing the job – I honestly dont care and, for me, issues of justness, fairness, rightness and all the rest are just so many conversation topics for the talking heads in the media and in various parliaments around the world. I want to see Hussein and his entourage away from those oilfields, permanently, as soon as it can be arranged.
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-01-03 AT 03:52 PM (GMT)]PLA,
Sure, saddam is probably the biggest a$$hole out there today, and the world would be better off without his ugle mug dominating the TV screen. but currently no one, especially not the US has any right to go to war with iraq(ie bomb the crap out of them).
I’m very sorry PLA but there IS a clear right to remove Hussein (not bomb the crap out of Iraq – this needn’t be Desert Storm II). 13 years ago Saddam Hussein signed articles of surrender stating that he would act in a certain fashion in return for a cessation of hostilities by the coalition forces. Now, and for the past few years, he has been in breach of those agreements. The last time we got to this position was Dec 1998 when the US kicked off Operation Desert Fox against his military capability. It seems that that was absolutely ineffective as a long term resolution so, now, we are faced with a need to create a permanent solution and the best one come up with is to decapitate the regime itself.
so waht if iraq had WMD? almost everyone eles does; sure he’s used them, but that was ok with he was on our side and used them on someone we dont like
Surely PLA you see the distinction in intent between using a chemical weapon in a military context against an enemy in a war (as bad as that is) and spraying civillians in a village with a non-persistent nerve agent. I cant name many nations who’ve used nerve gas against their own populace…well one does spring to mind but those parallels have already been drawn by others!.
taking that into consideration, can u really blame him for wanting to keep his WMD, if for no other purpose then to make sure he does wake up one day in a cage in cuba?
No and neither could I blame him for wanting nuclear tipped ICBM’s, 200 Su-30’s, 2000 T-80 and an Imperial Star Destroyer. I dont think that someone with his record, in the geographical poisition he’s in, should be allowed to posses or retain any of those things though.
well still no excuse for war, saddam may have ‘yanked’ the UN’s chains, but GWB said openly that if the UN if not with ‘us’, then its against ‘us’ and irrelevent. based on ur logic, should we start bombing washington after we finished with bagdad?
I dont see the connection there PLA. Saddam Hussein signed documents stating that he would behave a certain way as a penalisation for waging aggressive war. Despite having 13 years to do this he hasnt and, instead, has used every trick in the book to squirm out of honouring his obligations. In the process he’s managed to play on the naivete and private agenda’s of various first-world powers to set them and the US against each other – look what he’s achieved now with the Germans and the US. The man must be laughing his arse off!.
What has the US said or done that compares in any way to that?. The President, a man accepted to be of challenged intellect, has made comments stating that anyone who isnt for the US is against it? OK, thats a statement, where is the threat in that though?. Is Bush threatening to bomb Berlin if Herr Schroeder doesnt toe the line. No of course he’s not. Bombing Washington, apart from the natural benefit you’d be giving to the US political scene, doesnt quite look appropriate yet does it?
please dont tell me u truely believe that. would u entrust ur life to someone who says he hate u and who has a seriouse grug on u cos u ‘tried to kill his daddy’?
If he’d openly gone out and divested his country of the chemical weapons he had he’s diminished his nations defensive capability to a small degree. In the process though he has politically armoured himself against all comers .
The world community is now in the position of debating what should happen to Iraq. If he’d made a clear declaration that there really are no weapons, given free access to Iraqs scientists and all the rest of the access that the UN inspectors are seeking there would be no such debate. Saddam would be being hailed as a reformed character by the French, Chinese, Russians and all the rest who really dont want to see the US taking a proactive lead on issues to their perceived cost.
The US/UK would have been absolutely powerless in that situation to do anything so it wouldnt be a matter of the Bone Ranger swinging into town shooting from the hip as that position would been utterly indefensible. Without the US/UK threat who does Iraq have to be afraid of in the near term – Iran, Saudi, Syria, Egypt…the Kuwait/Jordan alliance perhaps?. They all have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by that kind of action. So what value does a limited stock of chem and bio weapons have for him in that situation?.
but of all ur remarks, what i find most disturbing is ur constaint ‘reminders’ that it would cost more lives to fight iraq tomorrow then today. did it ever occur to u that we may not HAVE to fight a war?
I’m sorry PLA but if you think that a second military intervention in Iraq isnt unavoidable you’re very much mistaken. What do you think is going to happen in another 10 years in Iraq if Husseins’ still there? Do you honestly believe, at some point, he’ll see the error of his ways and seek to rejoin the world community on honest terms and get his country straightened out? The man has proved year after year that he’s not interested in that and that, rather, he’s interested only in keeping his own position intact and as strong as possible.
wars used to be a seriouse matter, a decision not taken lightly. but now, its treated like a holiday or buying a new TV.
Thats probably an issue to take up with the mass media and is more a function of technology rather than any fundamental shift in populist thought around today. In fact the number of people who puritanically just declare war to be evil and “unjustified” for any reason seem to testify to the fact that war isnt taken that lightly today at all. Certainly I’ve talked about Iraq in the pub with my friends and no-one was overjoyed that we were getting involved – no-one wants to go and fight, BUT, like I said, there is a job there to do and they’re the people paid to do it.
but as a human being, u must also realise that going to war is not like play counter strick. the ppl u kill wont be going home to their families, and they wont be ‘the bad guys’ either. most of them are just ordernary soilders like u. and like it or not, most of the ones who fight to the death wont be fighting to save saddam’s a$$, but to defend their homeland against a foriegn invadeer, as you would do if the UK came under attack by another nation.
PLA I think youre saying something that all members of the armed forces think about at some time. Could I kill someone else…someone who I personally have no grievance with. If the answer to that is a clear “no” you have no place in the uniform you have on. Also you have to remember that in this action we do not necessarily have to engage every Iraqi soldier…in fact thats the last thing we need or want to do. I still expect us to engage in a little bit of 16th century siege warfare to try and bottle the Iraqi Army up in the towns and cities that they are claiming they’ll retreat into to force the FIBUA battle they want.
I’m afraid though PLA if it comes to it though, with all the lack of nobility it entails, at the end of the day it comes down to the simple equation – one of theirs or one of ours and I vote for them to suffer first (or even better get rid of Hussein themselves!)
in short, saddam probably should go, but its not up to the US or Uk to decidde that. the UN and only the UN should have that right. also, what the UN says should be the final verdict, and not just used as a rubber stamp to ‘justify’ ur own agendas, and branded as irrelevent and brushed aside if the decision doesnt go ur way.
If the UN could be depended upon to take appropriate action based solely on the facts of the case then I’d agree with you PLA. However that is not the reality that any of us live in and Russia, China, France, Germany and a whole raft of others are as much interested in reining in the US’s superpower influence as they are with the Iraqi situation. Simply I believe the UNSC is rapidly getting towards a point where its too partisan to be of practical value. The question should be what do we create to replace it?
Snapper,
I appreciate what you’re saying and the experience you’ve had in the region. Likewise I respect your opinion on the issue. One question though – given continued economic sanctions on Iraq and the retention of power by Hussein do you think that military action, in the future, could be avoided? Straight question – I’m not trying to box you into any kind of directed answer!.
Regards,
Steve
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 25-01-03 AT 03:52 PM (GMT)]PLA,
Sure, saddam is probably the biggest a$$hole out there today, and the world would be better off without his ugle mug dominating the TV screen. but currently no one, especially not the US has any right to go to war with iraq(ie bomb the crap out of them).
I’m very sorry PLA but there IS a clear right to remove Hussein (not bomb the crap out of Iraq – this needn’t be Desert Storm II). 13 years ago Saddam Hussein signed articles of surrender stating that he would act in a certain fashion in return for a cessation of hostilities by the coalition forces. Now, and for the past few years, he has been in breach of those agreements. The last time we got to this position was Dec 1998 when the US kicked off Operation Desert Fox against his military capability. It seems that that was absolutely ineffective as a long term resolution so, now, we are faced with a need to create a permanent solution and the best one come up with is to decapitate the regime itself.
so waht if iraq had WMD? almost everyone eles does; sure he’s used them, but that was ok with he was on our side and used them on someone we dont like
Surely PLA you see the distinction in intent between using a chemical weapon in a military context against an enemy in a war (as bad as that is) and spraying civillians in a village with a non-persistent nerve agent. I cant name many nations who’ve used nerve gas against their own populace…well one does spring to mind but those parallels have already been drawn by others!.
taking that into consideration, can u really blame him for wanting to keep his WMD, if for no other purpose then to make sure he does wake up one day in a cage in cuba?
No and neither could I blame him for wanting nuclear tipped ICBM’s, 200 Su-30’s, 2000 T-80 and an Imperial Star Destroyer. I dont think that someone with his record, in the geographical poisition he’s in, should be allowed to posses or retain any of those things though.
well still no excuse for war, saddam may have ‘yanked’ the UN’s chains, but GWB said openly that if the UN if not with ‘us’, then its against ‘us’ and irrelevent. based on ur logic, should we start bombing washington after we finished with bagdad?
I dont see the connection there PLA. Saddam Hussein signed documents stating that he would behave a certain way as a penalisation for waging aggressive war. Despite having 13 years to do this he hasnt and, instead, has used every trick in the book to squirm out of honouring his obligations. In the process he’s managed to play on the naivete and private agenda’s of various first-world powers to set them and the US against each other – look what he’s achieved now with the Germans and the US. The man must be laughing his arse off!.
What has the US said or done that compares in any way to that?. The President, a man accepted to be of challenged intellect, has made comments stating that anyone who isnt for the US is against it? OK, thats a statement, where is the threat in that though?. Is Bush threatening to bomb Berlin if Herr Schroeder doesnt toe the line. No of course he’s not. Bombing Washington, apart from the natural benefit you’d be giving to the US political scene, doesnt quite look appropriate yet does it?
please dont tell me u truely believe that. would u entrust ur life to someone who says he hate u and who has a seriouse grug on u cos u ‘tried to kill his daddy’?
If he’d openly gone out and divested his country of the chemical weapons he had he’s diminished his nations defensive capability to a small degree. In the process though he has politically armoured himself against all comers .
The world community is now in the position of debating what should happen to Iraq. If he’d made a clear declaration that there really are no weapons, given free access to Iraqs scientists and all the rest of the access that the UN inspectors are seeking there would be no such debate. Saddam would be being hailed as a reformed character by the French, Chinese, Russians and all the rest who really dont want to see the US taking a proactive lead on issues to their perceived cost.
The US/UK would have been absolutely powerless in that situation to do anything so it wouldnt be a matter of the Bone Ranger swinging into town shooting from the hip as that position would been utterly indefensible. Without the US/UK threat who does Iraq have to be afraid of in the near term – Iran, Saudi, Syria, Egypt…the Kuwait/Jordan alliance perhaps?. They all have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose by that kind of action. So what value does a limited stock of chem and bio weapons have for him in that situation?.
but of all ur remarks, what i find most disturbing is ur constaint ‘reminders’ that it would cost more lives to fight iraq tomorrow then today. did it ever occur to u that we may not HAVE to fight a war?
I’m sorry PLA but if you think that a second military intervention in Iraq isnt unavoidable you’re very much mistaken. What do you think is going to happen in another 10 years in Iraq if Husseins’ still there? Do you honestly believe, at some point, he’ll see the error of his ways and seek to rejoin the world community on honest terms and get his country straightened out? The man has proved year after year that he’s not interested in that and that, rather, he’s interested only in keeping his own position intact and as strong as possible.
wars used to be a seriouse matter, a decision not taken lightly. but now, its treated like a holiday or buying a new TV.
Thats probably an issue to take up with the mass media and is more a function of technology rather than any fundamental shift in populist thought around today. In fact the number of people who puritanically just declare war to be evil and “unjustified” for any reason seem to testify to the fact that war isnt taken that lightly today at all. Certainly I’ve talked about Iraq in the pub with my friends and no-one was overjoyed that we were getting involved – no-one wants to go and fight, BUT, like I said, there is a job there to do and they’re the people paid to do it.
but as a human being, u must also realise that going to war is not like play counter strick. the ppl u kill wont be going home to their families, and they wont be ‘the bad guys’ either. most of them are just ordernary soilders like u. and like it or not, most of the ones who fight to the death wont be fighting to save saddam’s a$$, but to defend their homeland against a foriegn invadeer, as you would do if the UK came under attack by another nation.
PLA I think youre saying something that all members of the armed forces think about at some time. Could I kill someone else…someone who I personally have no grievance with. If the answer to that is a clear “no” you have no place in the uniform you have on. Also you have to remember that in this action we do not necessarily have to engage every Iraqi soldier…in fact thats the last thing we need or want to do. I still expect us to engage in a little bit of 16th century siege warfare to try and bottle the Iraqi Army up in the towns and cities that they are claiming they’ll retreat into to force the FIBUA battle they want.
I’m afraid though PLA if it comes to it though, with all the lack of nobility it entails, at the end of the day it comes down to the simple equation – one of theirs or one of ours and I vote for them to suffer first (or even better get rid of Hussein themselves!)
in short, saddam probably should go, but its not up to the US or Uk to decidde that. the UN and only the UN should have that right. also, what the UN says should be the final verdict, and not just used as a rubber stamp to ‘justify’ ur own agendas, and branded as irrelevent and brushed aside if the decision doesnt go ur way.
If the UN could be depended upon to take appropriate action based solely on the facts of the case then I’d agree with you PLA. However that is not the reality that any of us live in and Russia, China, France, Germany and a whole raft of others are as much interested in reining in the US’s superpower influence as they are with the Iraqi situation. Simply I believe the UNSC is rapidly getting towards a point where its too partisan to be of practical value. The question should be what do we create to replace it?
Snapper,
I appreciate what you’re saying and the experience you’ve had in the region. Likewise I respect your opinion on the issue. One question though – given continued economic sanctions on Iraq and the retention of power by Hussein do you think that military action, in the future, could be avoided? Straight question – I’m not trying to box you into any kind of directed answer!.
Regards,
Steve
JonesyRE: War or no war?
Kev,
I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t give a toss whether or not there’s a link to Al Quaeda in Iraq. Neither do I care much about his WMD as it stands at present – which he DEFINITELY posses – please dont be conned into thinking he’s squeaky clean.
What concerns me is that if he manages to squirm away AGAIN it empowers him to carry on the course he’s set now and that, for him, is in no way a logical one any way you look at it.
If he was smart he’d have made damn certain 3 months ago that he had no NBC weapons whatsoever, to the extent of wheeling all the slightly dodgy stocks he had left out into the desert and let the Syrian or Jordanian airforce bomb the sh1t out of them live in front of CNN.
If he’d done this we wouldnt be mobilising today and he’d probably have his foreign minister standing in front of the UN requesting a lifting of economic sanctions. He’d lose what WMD capacity he had stashed, and perhaps a little face, but he’d gain the financial capability, once the “heat” was off to put himself right back in the game by the turn of the decade.
Needless to say he didnt do this. The natural conclusion being that there is a reason for him not to have done. Now due to this were in the situation where he’s yanking the chains of the UN inspectors again and what penalisation is 80% of the world levying against him?
Theyre painting Bush and Blair as the bad guys and wanting to give even more room to Hussein to keep pulling the strings of various countries around the world. Countries who, in the main, are no more interested in Iraq than I am in the price of blow-up sheep but arent about to miss a damn good chance to take a swipe at US hegemony.
The concern for our troops your talking about is admirable but, IMO, youre looking far too near term at the issues. Saddam Hussein is not going to go away and, we can safely assume, short of divine intervention he’s not going to stray far from the course he’s successfully charted over the past 13 years. He is going to get miltarily stronger and, thanks to his perceived “mastery” of the myopic idiots in the UN, is going to get much stronger politically at home and amongst the Arab nations.
This is what we would have to try and tackle in 2010 and it really will mean a lot of our people getting killed. That worries me much, much more than a bunch of continentals flapping about telling everyone who’ll listen how terrible war is and how it should be averted “at all costs” when those cheeky f%ckers will be the last ones anywhere close to paying the costs when we eventually have absolutely no option but to go in and sort him out.
Regs,
Steve
JonesyRE: War or no war?
Kev,
I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t give a toss whether or not there’s a link to Al Quaeda in Iraq. Neither do I care much about his WMD as it stands at present – which he DEFINITELY posses – please dont be conned into thinking he’s squeaky clean.
What concerns me is that if he manages to squirm away AGAIN it empowers him to carry on the course he’s set now and that, for him, is in no way a logical one any way you look at it.
If he was smart he’d have made damn certain 3 months ago that he had no NBC weapons whatsoever, to the extent of wheeling all the slightly dodgy stocks he had left out into the desert and let the Syrian or Jordanian airforce bomb the sh1t out of them live in front of CNN.
If he’d done this we wouldnt be mobilising today and he’d probably have his foreign minister standing in front of the UN requesting a lifting of economic sanctions. He’d lose what WMD capacity he had stashed, and perhaps a little face, but he’d gain the financial capability, once the “heat” was off to put himself right back in the game by the turn of the decade.
Needless to say he didnt do this. The natural conclusion being that there is a reason for him not to have done. Now due to this were in the situation where he’s yanking the chains of the UN inspectors again and what penalisation is 80% of the world levying against him?
Theyre painting Bush and Blair as the bad guys and wanting to give even more room to Hussein to keep pulling the strings of various countries around the world. Countries who, in the main, are no more interested in Iraq than I am in the price of blow-up sheep but arent about to miss a damn good chance to take a swipe at US hegemony.
The concern for our troops your talking about is admirable but, IMO, youre looking far too near term at the issues. Saddam Hussein is not going to go away and, we can safely assume, short of divine intervention he’s not going to stray far from the course he’s successfully charted over the past 13 years. He is going to get miltarily stronger and, thanks to his perceived “mastery” of the myopic idiots in the UN, is going to get much stronger politically at home and amongst the Arab nations.
This is what we would have to try and tackle in 2010 and it really will mean a lot of our people getting killed. That worries me much, much more than a bunch of continentals flapping about telling everyone who’ll listen how terrible war is and how it should be averted “at all costs” when those cheeky f%ckers will be the last ones anywhere close to paying the costs when we eventually have absolutely no option but to go in and sort him out.
Regs,
Steve
JonesyRE: War or no war?
I’m not going yet, it seems, the RN deployment so far probably doesnt warrant much of an RNVR call up – certainly I’ve not heard of much out of the ordinary and I’d need some refresher training at Collingwood before I could deploy anyway. I dont quite see the relevance of your question though Kev – do I have to be a serving member of HM forces to have an opinion contrary to yours?!.
If a travel warrant comes through the door though I will be reporting and I’ll have no concerns about “justness” or “goodness” of the action – the job needs doing and it’ll get done.
This said two lads I know are going on HMS Ocean, one of my RAF and another two of my Army mates are down to go. I have no desire to watch any of them buried with military honours. This is one of the reasons I’m much happier seeing them go in now than in 5 or 10 years time when a load of prevaricating happy-clapper, hand-wringing idiots have given Hussein the time and space he needs to build up his armed forces such that they pose a significant threat to their safety.
I just wish more people would have more concern about our lads than the political sensibilities of certain foreign nations. Maybe I’m still not quite civvy enough for that though.
JonesyRE: War or no war?
I’m not going yet, it seems, the RN deployment so far probably doesnt warrant much of an RNVR call up – certainly I’ve not heard of much out of the ordinary and I’d need some refresher training at Collingwood before I could deploy anyway. I dont quite see the relevance of your question though Kev – do I have to be a serving member of HM forces to have an opinion contrary to yours?!.
If a travel warrant comes through the door though I will be reporting and I’ll have no concerns about “justness” or “goodness” of the action – the job needs doing and it’ll get done.
This said two lads I know are going on HMS Ocean, one of my RAF and another two of my Army mates are down to go. I have no desire to watch any of them buried with military honours. This is one of the reasons I’m much happier seeing them go in now than in 5 or 10 years time when a load of prevaricating happy-clapper, hand-wringing idiots have given Hussein the time and space he needs to build up his armed forces such that they pose a significant threat to their safety.
I just wish more people would have more concern about our lads than the political sensibilities of certain foreign nations. Maybe I’m still not quite civvy enough for that though.
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-01-03 AT 05:47 PM (GMT)]Although Steve certainly has a point about Saddam trying to become a regional nuisance (…not really comparable with a global threat…)
How can this be a regional threat when it incorporates a fairly substantial part of the Persian Gulf oil fields. I would expect that, where the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields suddenly rendered inaccessible that the economic consequences and, shortly afterwards therefore, the political ramifications would be globally felt!.
Steve’s excuse also works perfectly well against Iran. After all, it’s one of the spokes on the Axis of Evil.
Steve’s excuse will also work perfectly well against Saudi Arabia. Although i’m not an expert on the matter, i don’t think it’s unlikely that SA will turn against the US far, far worse than Iran after the revolution.
Crikey Arthur what do you say we deal with problems that exist first before inventing some new ones! 🙂
And on a second note, an attack on Iraq will definately antagonise a whole lot of people who will be more than happy to fly some Boeing into the Sears Tower, Seattle Space Needle, Big Ben, Tour Montparnasse, just name them.
So we should be afraid, into inaction, of antagonising people who’re already stirred up enough to martyr themselves in committing an attrocity like the WTC attack? I think they probably already have all the justification they believe they need to do whatever the hell they like!. Also, if we do follow that path, what is the next step? telling the Israeli’s who they must elect next time round so as not to offend Al Quaeda!?!? How much power and recognition do we want to afford those kinds of people?
On a short notice an attack with regime-change in Iraq it will indeed remove the (currently hardly existant) threat on the oil fields in the region.
Like I said his military capacity is going one way – upwards I think thats a generally recognised fact. Why wait until that threat to the oil fields is a real tangible one laid on the table by Hussein himself.
It’s nice to remove the percieved Iraqi threat against Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields, but if you in the process piss off the bulk of the Saudis and Kuwaitis (amongst others), you’ll be creating a completely new threat to those very same oil fields. A new threat which has far easier access to those oil fields.
As opposed to the happy and content Saudi and Kuwaiti citizens in that country today? Removing Hussein will do little more than polarise existing views in those countries with those who want to see the back of Hussein cheering and those who simply oppose the west ranting. Little different than the situation is today.
When Saddam is gone, everything’s fine. Yes? If you believe that, go and have a holiday in Afghanistan. Outside of Kabul. The peacce and stability Allied Force brought to Afghanistan is less peaceful and less stable than the Taliban regime.
The saying goes Rome wasnt built in a day…..why would you expect Kabul to be a bustling modern metropolis 12 months after the Taleban were ousted? It takes time and the UN police force is doing a solid job on the ground. So good in fact that I’ve seen and heard interviews with Afghans pleading for it to be expanded to the rest of the country and openly praising UN soldiers for the job theyre doing. Those people want stability and prosperity no different from anyone else and, in the reports I’m aware of, seem relatively pleased that they might be able to make a start down that road.
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-01-03 AT 05:47 PM (GMT)]Although Steve certainly has a point about Saddam trying to become a regional nuisance (…not really comparable with a global threat…)
How can this be a regional threat when it incorporates a fairly substantial part of the Persian Gulf oil fields. I would expect that, where the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields suddenly rendered inaccessible that the economic consequences and, shortly afterwards therefore, the political ramifications would be globally felt!.
Steve’s excuse also works perfectly well against Iran. After all, it’s one of the spokes on the Axis of Evil.
Steve’s excuse will also work perfectly well against Saudi Arabia. Although i’m not an expert on the matter, i don’t think it’s unlikely that SA will turn against the US far, far worse than Iran after the revolution.
Crikey Arthur what do you say we deal with problems that exist first before inventing some new ones! 🙂
And on a second note, an attack on Iraq will definately antagonise a whole lot of people who will be more than happy to fly some Boeing into the Sears Tower, Seattle Space Needle, Big Ben, Tour Montparnasse, just name them.
So we should be afraid, into inaction, of antagonising people who’re already stirred up enough to martyr themselves in committing an attrocity like the WTC attack? I think they probably already have all the justification they believe they need to do whatever the hell they like!. Also, if we do follow that path, what is the next step? telling the Israeli’s who they must elect next time round so as not to offend Al Quaeda!?!? How much power and recognition do we want to afford those kinds of people?
On a short notice an attack with regime-change in Iraq it will indeed remove the (currently hardly existant) threat on the oil fields in the region.
Like I said his military capacity is going one way – upwards I think thats a generally recognised fact. Why wait until that threat to the oil fields is a real tangible one laid on the table by Hussein himself.
It’s nice to remove the percieved Iraqi threat against Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields, but if you in the process piss off the bulk of the Saudis and Kuwaitis (amongst others), you’ll be creating a completely new threat to those very same oil fields. A new threat which has far easier access to those oil fields.
As opposed to the happy and content Saudi and Kuwaiti citizens in that country today? Removing Hussein will do little more than polarise existing views in those countries with those who want to see the back of Hussein cheering and those who simply oppose the west ranting. Little different than the situation is today.
When Saddam is gone, everything’s fine. Yes? If you believe that, go and have a holiday in Afghanistan. Outside of Kabul. The peacce and stability Allied Force brought to Afghanistan is less peaceful and less stable than the Taliban regime.
The saying goes Rome wasnt built in a day…..why would you expect Kabul to be a bustling modern metropolis 12 months after the Taleban were ousted? It takes time and the UN police force is doing a solid job on the ground. So good in fact that I’ve seen and heard interviews with Afghans pleading for it to be expanded to the rest of the country and openly praising UN soldiers for the job theyre doing. Those people want stability and prosperity no different from anyone else and, in the reports I’m aware of, seem relatively pleased that they might be able to make a start down that road.
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-01-03 AT 03:54 PM (GMT)]Yes, I am right behind the removal of Saddam Hussein and if that takes a war so be it. That feeling is quite prevalent amongst the lads I’ve spoken to in the Mob and the “Green Machine”.
This isnt for any magnificent reason such as to free the humble downtrodden masses in Iraq or even to put Iraq’s oil stocks back in to play on the world market (although that is important ofc – I, personally, dont want to see my petrol prices going back to £1 a litre and neither do any of you).
Simply put this is because Hussein has made a laughing stock of all of us. He, under the dubious belief he could annex a neighbouring resource-valuable state with impunity, got caught with his pants around his ankles when the coalition attacked in 1991 and was forced into surrendering. He made assurances to the coalition and the world community at large at that time that he would disarm his country, apart from those forces required for territorial integrity, and would accede to UN resolutions as levied against his country.
He’s now had 13 years worth of grace and has he abided by ANY of those surrender conditions? – no (apart from the fact that he’s not tried to invade anyone for a while of course – nice chap!). For the past three or four years in fact he’s been working tirelessly clandestinely to rebuild his forces to the highest readiness he can get them to. I take it many of you are familiar with Tom Coopers’ report over on ACIG regarding Yugoslav links with the Iraqi AF and Air Defence Command?.
Furthermore he’s clearly stated that the UN mandated no-fly zones are illegal, after accepting them as part of the ’91 surrender terms, and has made every effort to engage US and British combat aircraft engaged on UN-sponsored duties! Is this suddenly ok just because the jets are only USAF and RAF ones? Only a couple of days ago his forces brought down a Predator UAV in further direct contravention of the UN agreements he’s signed on to!
Essentially the man has had 13 years to put his house in order to be acceptable to the World Community – not just the US and UK and he has not done that. Where does the belief stem from that he’ll have a change of heart, see the error of his ways, and be a nice Mr Despot from here onwards?
Like it or not Hussein finds himself smack bang in the middle of a region essential to the world economy, this is why he’s being “unfairly” picked on when you consider the greater deviancies of the North Koreans or the equally despotic actions of the Mugabe’s of this world. Picture the scene where a desperate Hussein manages to reassemble his nerve-gas stocks and, has to hand a couple of carrier warheads for his remaining Scuds that – ho hum – just happened to have been overlooked on his accounting sheets. In order to have the issue of economic sanctions re-examined he threatens to dump a few tons of persistent nerve-agent over the larger Saudi oil installations. The world economy will go into a tailslide on the merest threat and that is the very least he could do if the status quo, including economic sanctions, is allowed to go on for the next 13 years.
In my opinion its best to deal with him while he’s relatively, compared to where he’ll be in a decade at current rates, weak and prepare to take him out while we have observers in-country that can provide some estimation of his ability to hit logistics areas and forming-up points in Kuwait before were ready to roll-in after him. Not very sporting, I admit, but then sporting means he has a chance and who the fu*k wants that?!
Steve
JonesyRE: War or no war?
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-01-03 AT 03:54 PM (GMT)]Yes, I am right behind the removal of Saddam Hussein and if that takes a war so be it. That feeling is quite prevalent amongst the lads I’ve spoken to in the Mob and the “Green Machine”.
This isnt for any magnificent reason such as to free the humble downtrodden masses in Iraq or even to put Iraq’s oil stocks back in to play on the world market (although that is important ofc – I, personally, dont want to see my petrol prices going back to £1 a litre and neither do any of you).
Simply put this is because Hussein has made a laughing stock of all of us. He, under the dubious belief he could annex a neighbouring resource-valuable state with impunity, got caught with his pants around his ankles when the coalition attacked in 1991 and was forced into surrendering. He made assurances to the coalition and the world community at large at that time that he would disarm his country, apart from those forces required for territorial integrity, and would accede to UN resolutions as levied against his country.
He’s now had 13 years worth of grace and has he abided by ANY of those surrender conditions? – no (apart from the fact that he’s not tried to invade anyone for a while of course – nice chap!). For the past three or four years in fact he’s been working tirelessly clandestinely to rebuild his forces to the highest readiness he can get them to. I take it many of you are familiar with Tom Coopers’ report over on ACIG regarding Yugoslav links with the Iraqi AF and Air Defence Command?.
Furthermore he’s clearly stated that the UN mandated no-fly zones are illegal, after accepting them as part of the ’91 surrender terms, and has made every effort to engage US and British combat aircraft engaged on UN-sponsored duties! Is this suddenly ok just because the jets are only USAF and RAF ones? Only a couple of days ago his forces brought down a Predator UAV in further direct contravention of the UN agreements he’s signed on to!
Essentially the man has had 13 years to put his house in order to be acceptable to the World Community – not just the US and UK and he has not done that. Where does the belief stem from that he’ll have a change of heart, see the error of his ways, and be a nice Mr Despot from here onwards?
Like it or not Hussein finds himself smack bang in the middle of a region essential to the world economy, this is why he’s being “unfairly” picked on when you consider the greater deviancies of the North Koreans or the equally despotic actions of the Mugabe’s of this world. Picture the scene where a desperate Hussein manages to reassemble his nerve-gas stocks and, has to hand a couple of carrier warheads for his remaining Scuds that – ho hum – just happened to have been overlooked on his accounting sheets. In order to have the issue of economic sanctions re-examined he threatens to dump a few tons of persistent nerve-agent over the larger Saudi oil installations. The world economy will go into a tailslide on the merest threat and that is the very least he could do if the status quo, including economic sanctions, is allowed to go on for the next 13 years.
In my opinion its best to deal with him while he’s relatively, compared to where he’ll be in a decade at current rates, weak and prepare to take him out while we have observers in-country that can provide some estimation of his ability to hit logistics areas and forming-up points in Kuwait before were ready to roll-in after him. Not very sporting, I admit, but then sporting means he has a chance and who the fu*k wants that?!
Steve
JonesyRE: how fast have you personally been
I can confirm the high speed potential of the Mini City for you Snapper. A mate of mine lived and breathed the things and had a Stage 3 racing head put on his, slightly-aged, Mini City and on a long AND steep downhill run we once got the needle nearly to the “E” mark of the fuel guage. At that point the wing mirror parted company with the rest of the vehicle and fell out of formation to the rear very quickly.
We kind of lost our bottle a bit after that, and my mate later crashed the Mini into a Toyota Celica containing 4 very large gentlemen of West Indian extraction in the Salford area of Manchester some months later, so we never got chance to repeat the stunt with a pace car more’s the pity. Like you said though, it would have been nice to know just how fast we did get up to on that hill!
Steve
JonesyRE: how fast have you personally been
I can confirm the high speed potential of the Mini City for you Snapper. A mate of mine lived and breathed the things and had a Stage 3 racing head put on his, slightly-aged, Mini City and on a long AND steep downhill run we once got the needle nearly to the “E” mark of the fuel guage. At that point the wing mirror parted company with the rest of the vehicle and fell out of formation to the rear very quickly.
We kind of lost our bottle a bit after that, and my mate later crashed the Mini into a Toyota Celica containing 4 very large gentlemen of West Indian extraction in the Salford area of Manchester some months later, so we never got chance to repeat the stunt with a pace car more’s the pity. Like you said though, it would have been nice to know just how fast we did get up to on that hill!
Steve
JonesyRE: Check this out-totally hilarious
Good one SOC!,
Just tried Margaret Thatcher and got the question:
“Are you a cranky and bitter old woman -yes/no”
Classic!!!!!
I’ve only just picked myself up off the floor!!!!
Steve
Sign In
