BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?

Subject: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:21 PM

Does anybody here, [apart from Doug R), think that America & UK should declare war on Iraq?
I think we should not, as it will just kill innocent people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:38 PM

Thanks for honoring Peter T. with this thread John. I'd say no of course and my reasoning has been explained on some of the 50 or so other threads debating the reasons and motives of the US, the YK, and government, the UN and everybody else.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:47 PM

Is there really any normal people that think we should have a war? this stuff has been on the UK news a lot recently, and I have been talking to a lot of normal everyday folk about it, and every single one of them is against this war, also, many of my friends and neighbours are from Iraq, [hull has a lot of refugees living here), they are all concerned about their freinds/loved ones still their, at least one of the Iraqi people that i know has spent the last few days crying, and I can understand why, if America was threataning my country, i reckon I would be in a worried state as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:50 PM

No. Not only do I, as an American, not fear Iraq because they can't lop a missile this far, but I just plain don't give a shit about any of the Middle East. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on this foolishness. And I'm convinced the Bush administration is doing it's best to insure we will continue to be attacked by terrorists from third world countries until the next millenium, because of the asshole too many people voted for in 2000.

Europe hates Bush. The Arab world hates Bush. We need the Europeans and the Arabs to REALLY be on our side, not extorted into playing lap dog to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield. But because Bush is probably the worst president the US has seen in over a century, we are going to become even more isolated, with more people hating us than ever before, and fewer and fewer out there defending us, much less our interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:55 PM

The only place I've come across anyone who sees this looming war as anything but a bad mistake has been on the Mudcat.

And that includes people who have fought in previous wars, and who are in no sense lefties.

I don't count seeing people in the papers or on the telly as "coming across them". Unlike the case with Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 09:20 PM

No, no, a thousand times no. But too late, John. The only thing we can hope for now is that the major attack which the US and the UK are positioning for does not occur.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 10:03 PM

I support my country and President Bush. Contrary to what others may say, most of the people I know also support our country, and if there's a war- our decision to fight the war. No one wants war but no one wants murderers and terrorists either.

I blame Saddam Hussein for the war because he doesn't value human life.

I pray that Saddam will bow out, but I doubt it will happen.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: catspaw49
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 10:27 PM

Richie, thnaks for that post as I think it can help answer McGrath's question above.

Kevin, if I were to go into the county seat of Lancaster, a town of about 50,000 and located only 35 miles from a major city and the state capital of Columbus, and ask, "Should we?" the answer would be in at least 6 out of 10 cases exactly what Richie posted. Most of those people would add a few other things as well such as, "I hate to see it but I think we have to do something," and "I just hope our people do it quickly because I have a [insert friend/cousin/son/daughter/niece/nephew/etc] who's been activated and I can only pray they come home safe," or words to that effect.   

In the other 4 cases, you'll get three who are against it to varying degrees for a variety of reasons and one who wants to "nuke the fuckin' towelheads."

That's what I'd find I can just about guarantee.   Now if I were in some liberal area of Columbus, perhaps the numbers would drop to 4 or 5 out of 10 for going to war but still above 50% in a random "man on the street" sample. Now if you're at a peace demo, well.........But to be quite truthful, my scenario here is just about how the numbers would play out.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:24 PM

Here's a CBC story re the poets laureate Canada, the US and Britain's vote of NO to war, and how they're making their voices heard. Seemed an appropriate addition to this 'Catter's poll somehow.

Bitter and disappointed as Canada's George Bowering sounds, his encouragement to contine working for peace feels appropriate too.

Peace and hope

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 11:25 PM

Once a nation buiilt on the strength of thinking citizens; worn into unthinking supporters of a nation which has stopped thinking. Even if all Powell's claims about intelligence were true, why is a massive premeditated invasion the right approach? It is not. Men who understand only force, antagonsim, anger and coercion are thinking like obsolete lizards.

"Should" any group of humans set out to destroy another?

No.

I don't have a quick answer as to the best alternative path at this stage. I imagine the Iraqis firmly believe that they really need the most massive weapons they can come up with right about now. Anyone here able to imagine something that would act as a genuine incentive for disarmament by a mad Iraqi leader with a criminal record?

Tough question, I know....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: NicoleC
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:16 AM

No, Amos, but expecting a country to disarm while they are being attacked and have been repeatedly attacked for the last 12 years is plain silly. Part of me wishes to think that our administration isn't that stupid -- would you thrown down your gun while your house and family were being attacked? But the alternative is that they are wantonly evil and desirous to provoke a war that will slaughter tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians.

How to choose... how to choose...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:38 AM

It's 1939 again, folks. A war by a very big country on a very small one, in a world that is coming apart at the seams. But it's even more dangerous this time, because Hitler did not command B-52's and the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in the World.

Pray for a miracle, because that is all that is going to save the ordinary Iraquis and much of the rest of the World from this gang of scoundrels in high places, not to mention you and me...quite possibly. It's going to be precious hard to find any safe refuge from this one, I think, once it overflows the cup they have prepared.

If I was Iraq, I would arm myself with anything humanly possible at this point. Anything I could get. And then I'd bow to the eternal sky or God or whatever you choose to call it, and say "We who are about to die salute you."

Good luck, everyone. If we're still alive in 5 years, I hope to shake your hand and say, "Glad you made it, friend!"

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Chip2447
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 02:28 AM

Peace without warfare, such a grand illusion. While, I don't want a war and to see people on either side die. It will happen. If Saddam has his WMD or acquires them in the future and unleashes them, again on his own people, or one of his neighbors, the loss of civillian life will be attrocious, far worse than it will be with the upcoming US/UK war. You'll have highly trained professional people doing what they were trained to do and what they fully well knew that they may b ecalled upon to do when they volunteered.
    Lets just hope that Sadam pack his kit and gits, or his people toss his ass to the curb before he ignites the whole world in a conflaguration that we've never seen..


Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Stringman
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 03:41 AM

The way it's going let's just hope we are here on Monday, have a great weekend, Play it lound Play it cear.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 08:47 AM

The poll numbers Spaw cites proves two things. One, that propaganda works in brainwashing a lot of the people a lot of the time. The big spike in support for war with Iraq among "Americans polled" after Powell's speech at the UN proves that point perfectly.

Second, the poll numbers prove that despite widespread opposition among Americans over this war, the polling professionals keep devising ways of asking the questions that privleges the dominant, convervative Republican Beltway opinion over the people's opinion.

When you tune into the mainstream media, which of course not only is dominated by Beltway automatons, but also acts as the propaganda wing, rather than the Fourth Estate, of the US government, you get this sort of "false positive" opinion that the American public supports war in Iraq. Oddly, pollsters aren't asking the question, "Which is the more important priority for the Bush administration to attend to right now, 1) war with Iraq, or 2) the US economy, what do you suppose the result would be?

Here is an interesting article from TomPaine.com about the problem with the Fourth Estate as government propaganda wing:

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6693

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:00 AM

Unfortunately the Iraqi people are hostage to Saddam and his generals, and if Bush gives the final order for a massive invasion the consequences should be easy to predict. Whatever civilians survive the initial bombing and ground campaign will be at risk from whatever desparate efforts the Iraqi command makes to injure or kill as many "allied" troops as they can with whatever poisonous gas or germ warfare weapons they still have to deploy.

Still, I suppose, it's possible that the Iraqi command will surrender under threat of bombing and invasion. I wouldn't count on it.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:20 AM

I can't begin to express all my feelings on this without overwhelming everyone's patience. This whole action is a collosal example of what happens when two pig-headed psychopathic leaders collide. In the case of a barroom brawl with no weapons, we can all just watch in amusment. In this case, they have between them the power to bring down every shred of humanity on the planet leaving the roaches to go: "Um, what wuz that? Oh, well."

One thing (among the myriad other things) that occurs to me is: how are so many people who profess to so fervently value and defend the lives of the fetus-people able to completely deny the "right to live" of the millions of Iraqui people--regular folks, men, women, and already-born children--who will be bombed into unrecognizable dust by American bombs with their (and my!) names on them?

And then, of course, how could we with any reason at all expect their survivors to be our friends after that? And do we really think that the rest of the Moslem world will not unify in hatred of us? And the list of "why it's wrong" goes on for several more pages...

Good gawd, y'all. I hope and pray for all of you, my fellow musicians and cherished friends that I am totally wrong in my fear of the war itself and the horrible aftermath. We still have many songs to sing, and beers to drink. And I have never even met most of you! But this is the worst war scenario that humans have ever known given the ferocity of the players and the technology available. And nothing any of us can do right now can change any of that. If there be a God or God council, now would be a swell time for some intervention.

Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Beccy
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:56 AM

Yes, I think we should go to war. Do I like the idea? Hell, no! I don't know anyone who LIKES war.

However, I think it is my generation's responsibility to eliminate the threat to the world and his people that Saddam Hussein is. I do not want to pass the buck to my children after 10+ years of appeasement and containment. We all know how well that worked with Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ed.
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:58 AM

What threat would that be, Beccy?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:13 AM

Beccy:

I highly responsible and commendable and even courageous point of view. But I believe it is marred by questionable basis in fact.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peg
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:46 AM

saulgoldie: well said.

The unthinkable just may be about to occur. All those brightly-lit nightmares of my college days under Reagan, a doddering old fool who saw it as his manifest destiny to push that button, gradually faded and receded under Clinton (the first president since Carter to even consider any form of disarmament, and who matter-of-factly had a number of nuclear warheads decommissioned because of their age and lack of utility, and did not, unlike our current war-mongering moronic chief executive, see a need to build up the arsenal again).

What is it? Do these guys really WANT to go live in a bunker underground?

I can't think what to do beyond get in some supplies and go about my life as if not too much will change. Attending a peace rally at this point, even a big one, seems futile and sad. No one cares.

I've got some nice hash from India, a pantry full of dry goods, some steaks in the freezer and enough chocolate to share among my friends. I have tampons and cat food and candles. There's a foot of snow on the ground so maybe that means there will be enough water for everyone hereabouts. I am worried that this old house is heated with oil (though most of our heating oil comes from Venezuela I understand). I feel a bit like I did when people were stockpiling and hoarding in preparation for the Y2K disaster that never occurred (which would have come during some evil winter weather in Boston). When martial law kicks in, I know how to kick someone in the groin. I don't own a car so I don't care about long lines at the pumps or clogged thruways.

Get to know your neighbors now if you haven't already. We may all have to pull together in ways untalked of an unseen in our lifetimes...

Protect and Survive? How?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: JennyO
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:32 PM

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM

There are really big differences between Hussein and Hitler. Hitler had the strongest army in the world, the most advanced tactics, and the largest industrial infrastructure in Europe. Saddam has an army which was demolished by America when it was at full strength, and his infrastructure has been bombed and embargoed into oblivion. Saddam has not attacked any nation since Kuwait; if we ever had the right to oust him, it was then. Hitler was annexing countries at an increasing rate. Leaving Hussein alone isn't appeasement, it's letting the wasps nest alone because it's not near anything that you need to get at. Finally, the only way Saddam will use WMD's is if he is invaded. Using them guarantees his ouster, but there's no reason not to if he's already doomed, and his targets conveniently enter the 700 mile range of his missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: skarpi
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:37 PM

Halló all,
Well at last I some spare time to look into Mudcat.
I think we should be carful and not do any quick action at this
point , but we ( I ) should be worry very worry about N-Korea
proplems , they are gonna be first to attack the
us Army forces with nuclear weapeons that woory´s me alot
and god help us all if that goes off.
Is there a change to peace???
or must we go to war to clear up the proplems??
I wonder maybe we should go to war and clean up all this
evil forces witch are coming up these few year´s, remember
wat Nostradamus said in the book ..... from the east will
they attack the west and .... I have not get the book yet
but we should be worry about the coming future... lots of love and peace from Iceland, By the way the winter came at last we got
some snow and cold winds.
All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:50 PM

I wonder what would have happened in Germany if the German people had stood up to Hitler before he'd gotten too powerful.

I wonder what the people of the US will be thinking when all is said and done, and they (we) have to decide whether it was the Bush admisistration or Saddam Hussein who most resembled Hitler.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM

The Communist party almost won in Germany. By the time Hitler gained power, it was too polarized between right- and left-wing radicals for a democratic government. I think it's fairly clear that Bush resembles Hitler more, at least in his tactics. The biggest difference is that Bush's scapegoat lives, for the most part, outside his borders, so it's less profitable to start restricting their freedoms.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 01:21 PM

Many of my friends in the TA were mobilised this week, and I am likely to be in two weeks time.
I am not looking forward to it, but I do believe it is the right thing to do. I think the ordinary Iraqis will bless us.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 01:27 PM

"I think it is my generation's responsibility to eliminate the threat to the world. . . ."

Beccy, it is every generation's responsibility to eliminate the threat to the world, and the threat to the world is war itself. So far, every generation has failed. As the power of weapons increases, the threat increases. We have reached a point now where the threat of war may indeed cease because certain members of the human race who have retained disproportionate amounts of their reptile brains are in charge, are hell-bent on destroying each other, and, in the process, have the power to kill everyone. With weapons available now, the "collateral damage" can very easily be total annihilation of the human race and God knows how many other species along with it.

I have reached an age when most of my life is behind me, but I'm hoping for a few good years (decades, perhaps?) ahead of me. But I much prefer to die naturally in my sleep that to go out in a flash of nuclear fire or with some ghastly disease given me by a weapon of war. The events of the Sixties demonstrated that people do have the power to change things. If your generation has any sense of responsibility, then they will do what is necessary to stop this madness once and for all. Beginning NOW.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: KT
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 01:55 PM

The image that keeps replaying in my mind is one of the Columbia astronauts as they viewed the earth from afar. It must've appeared so small to them, and incredibly beautiful. And perhaps, even peaceful.... And knowing that the only humans who inhabit the universe are sharing that beautiful space, yet can't figure out how to do it.....If only we could all see it from afar......

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 02:04 PM

I believe it was Saul Alinsky who said it was nigh on impossible to make a man understand something that his paycheck requires him not understanding.

I think of that every time I hear military personnel and/or their loved ones claiming that they think war is bad, but still "the right thing to do".

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 02:34 PM

Guest, if you are referring to my post, my paycheck as a soldier will be even less than my teacher's salary.
When I said I believed it right, I meant that I believed it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 03:10 PM

I was referring to you and to others here who have said some similar thing to what you said.

A pay check is a pay check. A military man believes a military solution is the only solution, just like a surgeon believes surgery is the only solution.

It ain't rocket science. I'm not telling you that you are wrong. I am saying that you made up your mind a long time ago to do the bidding of any president on whether to go to war. You made up your mind to follow the orders of the commander in chief, regardless of whether you thought him to be right or wrong. Because that is what a soldier is trained to do, and paid to do. Someone who wasn't willing to do that wouldn't join a volunteer military. Not because the pay is lousy, but because the moral cost of joining is too high to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 03:13 PM

Carol C, that is a very disturbing thought. None of us wants to live in or be a member of a predatory nation... I don't know of any nation or coalition that at this point and perhaps for years to come, can destroy the US (externally). Given that, since it is the victors who write the history, how will all this shake down? I wonder if Bush, et al, will become a martyr hero in a doomed administration engaged in the pursuit of RIGHT or if down the line, this nation with its president will be known as the epitome of hubris, short sightedness and just plain stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 03:40 PM

Guest, a policeman also joins in the knowledge that he will be constrained to follow orders. But in a liberal democracy he knows that he will be a force for good. Likewise the soldier who volunteers to serve on behalf of a liberal democracy, rather than just enjoy the benefits of living in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 03:48 PM

Keith, there are plenty of mercenary cops and soldiers, and plenty of corrupt cops and soldiers, and plenty of cops and soldiers who are in it for the power, for the money and benefits they and their families receive...

In other words, it would be disingenuous to claim there is some universal truth about the motiviations of those who voluntarily choose to police and solider on behalf of liberal or illiberal democracies. Police and soldiers, at times even with good intentions, are often NOT a force for good. If that were the case, there would be no police brutality, no war crimes, no cover-ups, no corruption, etc.

Sorry Keith, but I don't share your view of soldiers and cops. Frankly, it strikes me as being pretty naive.

Or don't you remember that other George HW Bush debacle, Somalia?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 04:38 PM

We will have to agree to disagree here.
Last thought. Try to see through the eyes of the concentration camp prisoners as the liberating soldiers arrived.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 04:46 PM

spaw, you are no doubt right enough in your staftistics. But I'm living in Engand, and I haven't met anyone who's for the war.

I'm not denying they exist. There may possibly be some places where they are a majority. But I'd be inclined to doubt it. Scepticism about this goes right across the political spectrum. Leaving aside the professional politicians of course.

People arguing for the war, don't even claim that it's got majority support, They point out that the majority is sometimes dead wrong, whih is true enough, and say this is one of those times. Tony Blair even makes a virtue out of the fact thst he is defying public opinion.

There's never in modern times been a situation where this coutry went into a war war that was unpopular to this extent. Even the Suez adventure probably had greater public support. Fortunately the Americans pulled the rug from under the British Government that time.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 04:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

Mmmm ! There is a diference between being enthusiastic for war, which I hope nobody is, and recognising that war may be a neccessary evil.

In passing I beg to remind all 'Catters that Keith A is prepared to put himself in the front line, and thus his comments have a degree of reality.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peter T.
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:56 PM

I think it is much more curious why the British government isn't in bigger trouble given the poll numbers in Britain. I appreciate that Blair has a substantial majority in Parliament, but I would have thought that Labour was splitting into a million pieces. Can any of our British colleagues give us some sense of how a war vote would go (if there was one allowed, and the British and the Americans decided to go alone)? Is Blair out on a limb, or not? He seems pretty confident for a leader of the Labour party.
yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:59 PM

Keith, to suggest that we look through the eyes of the concentration camp survivors to see the liberating soldiers, is to suggest we look through their eyes without first seeing the soldiers who guarded the camp, tortured, raped, and murdered the inmates, etc.

Perhaps you need reminding that they weren't cheering when they saw the Russian and American soldiers arrive. They were quite sceptical and afraid of them. For good reasons. The very reasons I mentioned, in fact.

I really find it impossible to believe that you hold such a Pollyanna attitude about the abuses, excesses, and crimes committed everyday by police and soldiers, considering you are one. US military personnel and anyone who attends a police academy, receives training on these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM

Keith, this isn't WW2 you're going off to sort out. It is a war against one of the very few secular states in the middle-east; a war that will hugely destabilise another secular state - Turkey - which is infinitely more powerful, and 98 per cent Muslim.

(Gareth, Keith knows that if he gets involved it will be on the winning side. Maybe he'll play some part in consigning Iraqi civilians and conscripts to unpleasant deaths. Is this necessary for a "degree of reality"?)

Whatever Iraq's weapons capability, Britain and the US accept that it has no long-range means of delivery. If Iraq poses any threat at all, it is to Israel. If Israel thought Iraq was not going to be deterred by the huge military inbalance in Isreal's favour, Israel would be quick to take pre-emptive action, as it did in 1980 when it suspected that an Iraqi power station was cover for a nuclear weapons programme.

Maybe, Keith, you could just say what's so right about this particular war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 06:47 PM

Yet again Anon Shit hits the 'Cat.

My late father was one of the first British troops to enter Belsen camp in 1945

50 years later he would still wake up at night, crying, having dreams about what he saw in 1945.

If the victims did not cheer it was because they had not the strength, nor the hope, to cheer survival.

I have seen many stupid or unwise posts here but Anon Guest, yours takes the first prize.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 07:01 PM

Guest,

I saw a former Iraqi citizen interviewed on TV last night. He felt that the majority of the Iraqi people would feel liberated. To live uder Saddam's rule must be horrible.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 07:07 PM

Gareth, if the guest was pointing out that all armies behave badly in the right (ie wrong) circumstances, what's wrong with that? Or are Germans the only baddies? (The concentration camp was a British invention of course....)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 07:33 PM

Bicker bicker, pick a fight
Make your point and 'prove' you're right
Looks like war is home to roost
As passions argue, get your boost

And for my part I say "be kind"
Calm a troubled aching mind
Be it yours or be it hence
Talk it out, don't build a fence

But getting hot is problematic
By making great into fanatic
Prioritise your new obsession
Love peace and teach us all a lesson!
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM

Amen, so be it ttr
To practice peace instead of war
is oft to risk, to be the bait
of those who choose to hurt and hate

Yet such a venture heals the mind
of fev'rish fearsome angry rhyme
and builds the heart with hopeful grace
that Love prevail, in sacred space

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:03 PM

I know, I know...Mudcat has a problem with people using critical thinking writing eloquently, evocatively, or even just competently, about serious issues.

Better we all check our brains at the door, have a group hug, and pray for the sinners.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 09:50 PM

Well, danged, GUEST, there you go again. Hey, even in the middle of wars people need a little comic relief now and again. For the last two years we have had no shortage of seriousness and you know that most of us are up to the task of carrying on with the serious business at hand even if it should occur within a thread.

Sure, you could just say, "Hey, step out the door. There are plenty of other threads." But be doing so you might be missing my point which is that other side of the mask. Can't swim when the tides out. Don't fret. Folks are just doing what folks need to do with the sensory overload that the events of the last few days have brought.

And, no, I'm not playing "den mother". Just catching my breath. He who fights and runs a way lives to fight another day. Like I said, don't fret. Folks are just rechargin'. Might of fact, I'm gonna go beat up my old Martin. Maybe play so old Muddy Watres or Son House stuff. Yeah, that's what I need. Maybe a little Robert Johnson. Yeah, that's what I'm gonna do.

But we'll all be back. Guarenteed, my friend. Guarenteed.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,wdyat24
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:18 PM

Yes! Kill innocent people! Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?

wdyat24

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 10:30 PM

Assuming for the moment that this is a quick and dirty war with no WMD defensive retaliations and that the mid-East doesn't flare into a conflagration that engulfs and burns all of us, what then?

In the current Time magazine, Joe Klein writes:

There should be no illusions of the difficulty of Mesopotamian nation building. It has been attempted many times before, by many other superpowers, and none - none - has ever succeeded. The last one to try was England. Winston Churchill, a superhawk hero of the 20th centruy, ran the occupation, saw the futility of it and favored retreat. "We are paying 8 millions a year," he wrote his Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, in 1922, "for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Frankham
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 11:35 PM

No! As Pogo used to say, "We have met the enemy and it is us."

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:27 AM

wdyat24, Bush's interpretation of the Golden Rule is, "Those who have the gold make the rules."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:21 AM

Beccy, Yes, I agree with you. But you must keep in mind that most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities. Geeze, that's a long sentence isn't it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 01:42 AM

But, Doug, you mean that if there is a remote possibility that he might, we should go to war against him? Apply that same line of reasoning to all of the threats that we face and see how absurd it is.

Among other things, if Saddam indeed has a supply of anthrax or small pox or botulin or, for that matter, nuclear weapons, I can't think of a better way to guarantee that he would use them.

There are a lot better ways to go about neutralizing Saddam Hussein than to go to war. It's like the incompetent carpenter who only knows how to use a hammer. To him, every problem looks like a nail.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:06 AM

And Don, remember the creed of that typr of carpenter and craftsman..........."If the tool you're using doesn't work, try a bigger hammer."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Stewie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 02:18 AM

I don't normally contribute to non-music threads but, the other day, I saw a television clip of an American soldier training in Kuwait. He said something along the lines of: 'We've got the equipment, and we're ready to play with Saddam or whoever' - and then laughed gleefully. That just about sums up the stance of Bush and his coterie of war-mongering maniacs. God help us all and, more particularly, the innocent Iraquis who are already suffering the effects of Saddam's reign and cruel sanctions.

--Stewie.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:19 AM

The result of a British TV [ITV] Poll this morning showed that 81% did not believe Powells speech on Iraq.
Sorry, US, but not one country in Europe backs your war, and an Australian poll also went against the US with 61% against , this was contrary to The New York Times which stated that the Australians were with Bush.
But the downside to this opposition is that some of those countries governments back the US, the economic gun to the head works wonders. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:33 AM

I don't do polls but I don't know too many folks in the US who beleive Powell either; not here at the Cat or in my area. And I live in a conservative area of the country. Night before last my wife received an email for the wife of a conservative member to the very conservative Loudoun County Board of Supervisor. They are both very worried about Bush and these folks are living in the 3rd wealtiest county in the US anfd he is a conservative politican. Go figure. I think that their is a chink in the armor.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:36 AM

Fionn, you have heard all the arguments put better than I could. It has been debated here and I have things on my mind just now. But I have always admired your posts as the most thoughtful and balanced on this forum, so i will not duck your direct question.
Saddam is a tyrant in the mould of Hitler and Stalin. He has dragged a country with the worlds second largest oil reserves into poverty through misrule, and embarking on disastrous wars against his neighbours.
Even under sanctions he is allowed to sell oil for food and medicines. Instead he squanders it on dozens of obscenely lavish and sprawling palaces, and on weapons programs, leaving his people in some parts to starve or die for want of basic medications.
Similar monsters such as chaucescou have been toppled because there were men and women willing to risk their lives to liberate their own countries. Few would be brave enough to risk the lives of their extended family as well, and to see their daughters gang raped and slaughtered before their own execution.
How loathed must he be to need to do this to stay in power?
How evil to stoop to it?
When a minister questioned one of his schemes, Sadaam casually shot him. Now every maniacal idea is hailed as his most brilliant and insightful, making him ever more unstable.
This man threatens the stability of the region.
He has ambitions to be a great Arab leader. Secular regime, but building mosques faster than any nation, and Saddam having himself shown at prayer, to aid his schemes.
There ara Islamic democracies. I do not believe that Arabs are congenitally unsuited to it, they have just never had the chance.
I say again, I think the ordinary Iraqi will bless us.
If I am wrong, I will grovel on this forum.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 08:56 AM

A minor point, but not insignificant. About the one thing most ofvthe people posting here, on whateber side of the argument, is that the presence of posts by anonymous GUESTs are an unwelcome distraction. Regardless of what they might say. The medium is the m essage in this case.

I think the bottom line in this is: What would "Bin Laden" want to happen in this situation? And it seems to me clear as daylight that what he'd want would be for the inspection teams to be pulled out, and for US and the UK to launch a massive attack on Iraq.

On September 11 massive destruction and loss of life was achieved and a potential division between "the West" and "Islam" was opened, by means of a few people taking advantage of American civiian technology.

If there's this war essentially the same thing will happen, on a vastly greater scale, making use of American military technology. Massive destruction and loss of life, and the enormous widening of that breach bettween "the West" and "Islam" .

Septenber 11 cost the lives of a couple of dozen supporters. The Iraq war will cost the lives of a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people who might possibly have become supporters if they had survived. An acceptable price.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:12 AM

Kevin, I hope and believe that you are wrong about the scale of the losses.
Last time his soldiers mostly were not prepared to fight for him. I do not think they love him more now. The attack on the Basra road was tragically not stopped in time, but I trust that lessons have been learned.
The eyes of the world will be on us, and Saddam ready to exploit every civillian casualty. That alone would force the allies to go to all lengths to keep the people safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:27 AM

Keith:

The US military has ellready purposely leaked their plans to drop 3000 bombs on Iraq in the 1st 48 hours. Yeah, in leaking this info they are trying to desensitize the public to the viciosness of their their battle plan. And that's just Step One.

Step Two calls for an armored and infantry assault on the Iraqi army which has allready told the world that it will retreat into the major population centers. Now we're going to see a street fight, building to building, Iraqi bi Iraqi. In the Wsahington Post this week there was a photo of some grsay haired old women woith Ak-47's. One looked as if she could be my grandmother! I was just thinking, "Man, how has it come to this?"

I don't agree about wityh PR that these folks will view the US troops as liberators. After two days of intensive bombings and every family in Iraq having lost a parent, sibling or child in the the bombings, one can bet that "grannie" ain't going to greet the troops with a plate of chocolate chip cookies. No, it's gonna be lead and lots of it.

Now what really pisses me off is that when I ask myself what has the current administration done diplomatically since it took office to promote peace in the Middle East I can't think of one danged thing. They came into office with their guns drawn and their tongues flapping and haven't taken so much as a breath since. That's the horror of this situation.

Resist insanity.

Resist Warmongering.

Resist the Bush Regime.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,withaya45220332
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 09:39 AM

I think, if not happen war will very well because to be not in trouble peoples. I do not want a war and to see people two sides die. What happens when two leaders collide? If the war occurs, will to affect all two factions no matter who will winner. Those are in trouble immaculate people. If no war, it will be very good. I believe that no war happen if two factions think more than this to immaculate people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: JennyO
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:17 AM

I live in Sydney, Australia - in fact I live in Bennelong electorate, our not-so-illustrious Prime Minister's electorate.

Here is part of an editorial in our local paper:

'Prime Minister John Howard has committed Australian Defence Forces in support of United States military in the Middle East as a threat to attack Iraq.

Fewer than ten percent of a survey in last Sunday's Sun-Herald supported the Prime Minister's stance. Most could not see it was so urgent as officials generally agree Iraq does not have the resources to use such weapons if they do exist for at least three to five years.

....The main argument the Americans have used is rhetoric with very little factual evidence. The "axis of evil" claim blew up in the president's face when one of his former speechwriters claimed authorship for it. And then President Bush withdrew his threats against North Korea even though they have claimed and are known to possess deadly weapons.

This can only further the cries by the sceptics that the oilfields of Iraq have a greater priority.

Our Prime Minister's chief concern appears to be by his own admission that it is to suck up to our prime defence alliance partner and friends. But you don't buy friendship. And certainly not with the blood of your sons and daughters in the services.

....Whether Iraq has terrible weapons of mass destruction isn't really an issue. We all know they've had them because the USA gave them to Iraq when they were supporting Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. USA's current big mouth Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally visited Saddam Hussein in the process. Now the Americans have swapped sides (as they have disastrously in other areas of conflict such as Afganistan). Any wonder many people are cynical and disbelieving?

A letter to The Times of London the other day by a former Army officer Simon Edwards said that among all his former officer friends and associates none of them supported a war with Iraq.

He quoted a Gulf War brigade commander Major-General Patrick Cordingley that "the knowledge that your country is behind you is as important to a serviceman as food and drink" - shades of Vietnam!

....In the same edition of The Times in the leading Letter to the Editor, Field Marshall Sir John Stanier says "It is my reluctant conclusion that until the United States shows herself to be a caring and committed participant in combating the woes of the world, her military options will only regenerate terrorism."'



This newspaper is also conducting a poll, and the result will be known in a couple of days.

There are 10 yes or no questions.

*Do you believe Australia should be sending troops to attack Iraq?
*Do you support Australian involvement without UN sanctions?
*With UN sanctions?
*Should Federal Parliament debate the issue first?
*Do you believe Iraq is a threat to world peace?
*Should more time be given to UN investigators?
*Have President Bush or PM Howard convinced you Iraq has so-called "weapons of mass destruction"?
*Should Saddam Hussein be allowed voluntary exile if he agrees?
*Is Iraq a bigger threat to world stability than North Korea?
*Is oil an issue?

The feeling I'm getting is that the number of people in Australia against the war and our involvement in it, is climbing daily as the prospect looms closer, and would be a higher percentage now than the 61% that Ard Mhacha heard of. The New York Times certainly got it wrong.

This is shaping up to be another unpopular war like Vietnam, but this time, the consequences are likely to be more dire.

Anyway, I'll be marching in a protest on Saturday, along with other members of my choir. But who knows - it might be too late by then!

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM

But you must keep in mind that most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities. Geeze, that's a long sentence isn't it?

Long and incredibly presumptuous. DougR, I'm getting a bit concerned about you. These days you sound like you think you have the omniscience of God. You're not about to start a DougR cult or something, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:42 AM

I hope I'm wrong about the scale of casualties. But even if it's true thta there's no will to fight onthe part of most Iraqis, it's very hard to surrender to an attacker who is hundred of miles away pressing buttons, or 70,000 feet up in the air.

But even setting that aside, I find it very hard to imagine an outcome to a war which won't strengthen the hand of the people who want a global Holy War. The US and the UK has in effect been hijacked by terrorists every bit as much as the airliners of September 11th were, and for the same purpose.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:59 AM

I think DougR is mainstream America. If he is a cult, maybe half the US is a cult.

Everyone is against war, and innocent people dying. You don't need a poll to find that out.

To get rid of Saddam now might save lives later. How does anyone know?
I pray for a peaceful solution but I don't think Saddam cares about anyone but Saddam.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peg
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:04 PM

In the last war in the Persian Gulf, we (USA) lost some 147 American military personnel.

85,000 Iraqis perished (most of them civilians).

These numbers are unacceptable.

I heard today that the first "campaign" of bombs in the forthcoming invasion will, in one day, equal the bombs used in the first 40 days of the Persian Gulf conflict in the 1990s. The name for this act of destruction? "Operation Shock and Awe."

I am shocked and awed, all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:05 PM

"To get rid of Saddam now might save lives later."

Or it might have precisely the opposite result. And nobody knows, and whatever side we come down on we might be wrong. We just have to use our best judgement. Most people around the world pretty clearly think the latter outcome is more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 12:08 PM

My post, Richie, was in reference to his apparent knowlege of what is in the minds of most of the people who post to the Mudcat on all issues. That's all.

Personally, I'm all for letting people speak for themselves. If we need DougR to speak for us, we'll start the DougR cult ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 03:59 PM

If elected to be leader of a cult, I shall steadfastly refuse to serve! I based my post on the many, many posts on the Mudcat that are critical of anything the Bush administration does. You want to question it Carol, have at it. Better yet, read your fellow Mudcatter's posts.

And Richie is right. I'm just plain old Doug like I've always been.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

Any terrorist who is looking for anthrax to use in the USA would do much better looking a lot closer to home. In fact he did didn't he?

And anyone looking for the makings of a nuclear weapon would be shopping around in the former Soviet Union.

This isn't about stopping terrorism, and the outcome is only to likely to promote terrorism. Leaving aside the question of whether the attack will in itself be an act of terrorism, which seems only too horribly probable.

Afghanistan involved more dead civilians than September 11, and I suspect that will be a pale shadow of what is coming up in Iraq. And that will be an enormous victory for "Bin Laden".

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,A Mad Trot who probably shouldn't be here...
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

I cannot emphasize enough how much I loathe Saddam Hussein's fascistic dictatorship. It is brutal and reactionary, and it must be destroyed.

But a war driven by British and American imperialism is not the way to go about it.

America couldn't care less for the Iraqi people. This is not a war of 'liberation.' Let's not forget that America helped put, and keep, Hussein in power, and indeed sold him the WMD that he may or may not have.

The argument of 'he's a threat to our safety' is nonsense. He might be a reactionary bastard, but he is still the ruler of a nation state. He cannot act in the same way as a terrorist organisation like Al'Qaeda. Saddam IS a threat - to his own people. And an American war will NOT act in their interests. Capitalism knows no compassion.

To give a parallel - last year, India and Pakistan were engaged in a conflict that threatened to turn nuclear. Both countries openly admitted to having WMD and even said they were prepared to use them. No-one advocated an American war as the solution to that conflict.

If any nation is likely to use WMD in the near future, it's America. Bush is a madman with his finger on the button, yelling with childlike glee 'can I push it yet? Can I push it yet?'

There is no conflict between opposing the war and opposing Saddam. Indeed, those who oppose Saddam should also logically oppose the war. Will America not, having deposed the Ba'athist Regime, not install a similarly dictatorial ruler who is merely more pro-West and will give them all their oil?

I am, for my sins, a passionate Trotskyist, and the people I support to overthrow Saddam is the Iraqi working-class. You might argue that 30 years of fascistic oppression has left them incapable of such a significant act, but one only needs to turn the clock back 12 years to the Gulf War, when there was an uprising against Saddam Hussein. America promised to back this uprising, but withdrew at the last minute. The uprising was crushed and the revolutionaries slaughtered. If America was really concerned for the welfare of the Iraqi people, would it have done this?

Perhaps international financial aid is needed for such an uprising to succeed, but a war that will act only in the interests of imperialist capitalism, a war that will murder hundreds of innocent people, is certainly not the answer.

-

Shalom Rubenstein (my god...that was long...sorry guys...)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:30 PM

Peg... 85,000 Iraqis perished (most of them civilians).

I thought it was closer to 400,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 04:44 PM

I'm going to keep this simple as I don't visit this forum enough to get into a feint-riposte with others who will disagree. There are valid points of view on both sides, but ultimately I have trouble with those who oppose the war.

1) Isn't Saddam Hussein a dramatically evil dictator with an unlimited budget?

2) Hasn't he demonstrably killed citizens of his own country with poison gas distributed by his own warplanes?

3) Has he not started more than one war with huge loss of life to his own people as well as those whom he invaded?

Those statements of course are simply stated and somewhat simple minded. But what's wrong with that?

I tend to follow the Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times. He had a good pro'n con on the issue which I won't copy into this space but is worth reading.

I don't think Britain and the U.S. are imperialist here. But that opens up a big can of worms over the definition of imperialism. Were we imperialist when we took over Japan for 7-8 years at the end of WWII and re-made their government? It was the right thing to do, and we're all better off for it.

I'm not a big 'W' fan. I'm full of personal misgivings. But he's the only president we've got (since the one we elected lost in the Supreme Court!)

The war will be the easy part.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 05:18 PM

1) Yes, Saddam is an evil dictator. His budget, however, is pathetically small.

2)Yes, he has killed his own civilians. However, remember that America has also used chemical and nuclear weapons on other nation's civilians, and its own armed forces.

3) Yes, he has, but Dubya has already started one war with huge loss of life for the civilians of the country he invaded. I don't think that the relatively small number of U.S. casualties makes it any better.

The problem is this: If the U.S. attacks Saddam, we send the following messages:

A) The U.S. has the right to invade any nation that possesses WMD's and has used them in the past.

B) The U.S. is above international law, as we fit into the previous category.

I think that to make such a declaration is incredibly arrogant and dangerous. It says that America can do whatever it wants, so long as it can provide a plausible lie as to motive. It will make us even more resented, both among Third World nations who fear that we will take the same stance against them, and industrial nations who will think that we intend to declare ourselves, in effect, the world's policeman, without any controls.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:10 PM

Where is it written that only the US should have and use WMD?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 06:22 PM

You want to question it Carol, have at it. Better yet, read your fellow Mudcatter's posts.

I have been reading them, DougR. So far, I haven't seen anything even remotely resembling this assertion of yours.

most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities.

If you can find posts from "most" of the folks here that state what you are asserting, I'll gladly capitulate.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,no way!
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 07:13 PM

Iraqis? IRAQ?! I thought we were nukin the Iroquois terrorists. Does anybody know how I can call that polling guy back? Oh, man, I can't believe this.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 07:19 PM

And is there anyone out there among those who support the war who actually believes that it isn't exactly what the people who planned September 11th hoped would happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:48 PM

Carol C: read Bobert's OBU's, McGrath's posts on the subject. Then everyone else's except mine, Teribus, Richie, Jed, and four or five others. That's about it. If you read something that proves different than what I have stated, then either you are not reading, or have some difficulty understanding what the majority on the Mudcat is writing. I can't be responsible for either.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:55 PM

DougR, it might be that most of us wouldn't consider that justifiable cause for war. That doesn't mean we're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:02 PM

McGrath,

I think the people who planned the 9-11 attack got their asses kicked in Afganistan. Where are their allies the Taliban now? Where is Bin Laden?

Do you actually think the terrorists have profited? Terrorism is a cowardly act of murder- that is clear. Bush also made it clear he would go after the terrorists and those countries that habored terrorists.

9-11 didn't help Bin Laden or terrorism.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:09 PM

So, how do we neutralise Hussein's power and weapons forever without going to war? Any ideas?

I'm agin' war, but am not sure how to accomplish what I have asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:25 PM

If there was intense unified international pressure against Saddam I think he could be forced from power. If the internationl coalition demanded Saddam leave and offered him a safe haven for exile there might be a chance.

The only other way to get rid of Saddam with out a coalition war would be if the Iraqi people overthrew Saddam. That seems unlikely given Saddam's iron rule.

Another possibility is Saddam might back-down in the face of sure defeat and give up his weapons. Then Iraq could be in similar situation as Castro and Cuba, an isolated country with strict sanctions.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:25 PM

most of these folks wouldn't agree that war was the way to settle the problem with Saddam if it were proven that he supplied the terrorist with the vial of anthrax that killed thousands of people in one of our major cities.

This scenario hasn't happened. I don't recall anyone saying what they would think about war with Iraq if it did happen. Other than that some people would have suspicions that it was the US government that was responsible for such an attack. But in the event that it was proven even beyond even these people's doubts that it was Saddam who did such a thing, the question just hasn't been addressed in these threads.

Prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:27 PM

Then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:41 PM

Walking Eagle

After Saddam is gone the coalition would try and assemble a group or party of Iraqis to assume power temporarily. This would be similar to the senario in Afganistan after the Taliban. The coalition would been responsible for stabilizing the new government for a period of time.

If Saddam remains in power with strict sanctions and close monitoring he won't be an immediate threat, but will continue his lies, deceits and eventually will become a problem again.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 12:27 AM

I don't think Saddam will become a threat again. He invaded Kuwait because he thought that the U.S. wouldn't get involved. He now knows that any aggressive action will be seen as a green light to bomb him into ash. He may be crazy, but he's not suicidal. I'd rather take the slight risk of inaction than the certain bloodbath of a war where one side is suspected of having WMD's and the other has declared their intention to use them if it feels they are necessary. If it really is necessary to eliminate Saddam, an assassination or airdrop invasion would have a much lower risk of large-scale WMD use than a land war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Dave M Australia
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:00 AM

Everytime I see Cheney or George W spouting off I am reminded of Phil Ochs lines We're the cops of the world.If the usa junked all it's weapons and put the money into a fairer deal for the world's poor we would all be better off. War isn't the answer to anything ecept"What is the most stupid activity you can think of"

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:28 AM

The USA and Britian have all ready decided to go to war, because if they don't want a war then why are the sending troops over to the Pershin Gulf.
What I mean is that they are preapring to go to war no matter what happens along with Australia.
I they don't want a war then why send the armed forces there in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:32 AM

And another thinng is if they wanted to get rid of Saddam and his friends then why didn't they do it 12 years ago, and then when they would of got rid of him, then we would be talking about war, it's a bit to late now.
As I say they should of got rid of him 12 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 02:56 AM

Short answers to the points made in the two posts above:

1. Command HQ set up and troops, ships and aircraft deployed to put pressure on Saddam Hussein - make the threat of military action credible. Also having the troops there ensures that they are aclimatised and "theatre fit" should they have to be used. Being there before hand also allows you to iron any bugs out of lines of communication and supply.

2. The UN coalition raised for "Desert Shield" and "Desert Storm" were tasked with the protection of Saudi Arabia and the liberation of Kuwait and the expulsion of Iraqi Forces from Kuwait. It specifically did not cover the invasion of Iraq or deposition of the government of Iraq. Coalition forces engaged and pursued Iraqi forces into Iraq only as far as they could be confident that no counter-attack could be launched.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 03:36 AM

Peg, what is the source for your remarkable figure?
This gives 20000 military and 2300 civilian.
source

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 06:26 AM

Now yoiu don't get me accusing you, Doug of being a murderous psychopath who really likes the idea of killing Iraqi woemn and children, because it wouldn't be true. But that's more or less equivalent to what you've just said about me.

As I've repeatedly said, I detest the Saddam govermnment, and did so at the time when the Americans and their allies were backing him up and supplying him with arms and all kinds of other stuff, and shrugging their shoulders at his use of poison gas against enemy troops and Kurdish civilians.

I've also pointed out that there has never been any credible evidence of his people having anything to do with the terrorists attacks of September 11 or Nvember 12, and suggested that it would make very little sense indeed for them to be involved in those kind of operations, because there would be no conceivable advantage to them.

To imply that I feel indifferent to the idea of terrorist attacks on people anywhere is just a lie. I happen to think that a war on Iraq probably makes such things more a lot more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 06:46 AM

And Richie - it seems to me that thinking in terms of people getting their asses kicked is to misunderstand what we are up against, and what makes them tick.

The people who planned Septemebr 11 were not the least bit worried about sacrificing their people, any more than a general is worried about expending ammunition, so long as there is plenty more available. Why should they worry about a few thousand more deaths in Afghanistan or the loss of a few training camps of dubious significance or the deaths of a few figureheads? Or real leaders for that matter.

They are surely working on a longer term plan than that. Whatever happens in Iraq, it seems pretty self evident that the level of fear and hatred of America will be exponentially greater in its wake. Every move forward America makes promises to increase this effect. Sooner or later - maybe in a couple of years, maybe in fifty years or more, America will withdraw back home. And what is fifty years?

Here's a quote from Chesterton's long poem about King Alfred, The Ballad of the White Horse. It's Alfred speaking, and as a Christian, but it gives a sense what it is like to think in those kind of terms. And when you are up against people thinking in those terms, a very different aproach is needed if you are to hope to overcome them:

"...on you is fallen the shadow
And not upon the Name;
That though we scatter and though we fly
And you hang over us like the sky
You are more tired of victory
Than we are tired of shame.

That though you hunt the Christian men
Like a hare on the hill-side
The hare has still more heart to run
Than you have heart to ride.

That though all lances split on you,
All sword be heaved in vain,
We have more lust again to lose
Than you to win again."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM

I think Kevin's contention regarding how Bin Laden views any forthcoming war in Iraq is immaterial. Al-Qaeda and other like minded groups have already declared their intent - the destruction of the way of life in the United States of America and the elimination of everything it stands for. It matters not one jot, what any American administration does, your avowed enemy will still be there as implacable as ever. The way they fight, the schemes they can draw together to carry-out their attacks do not rely on numbers, quite the reverse in fact - in a way large numbers actually work against them.

As for the various Polls - apart from the Boer War and the First World War, I can't think of a war that the polls weren't markedly anti prior to commencement of hostilities (Second War War especially)

Little Hawk says that this is 1939 all over again - its not, its 1934. Saddam Hussein has already been pulled up once and has refused to honour the demand of the international community that he disarm and unilaterally declare that the regime in Iraq relinquishes the development, manufacture and use of weapons of mass destruction. If left to his own devices, he will rearm and once rearmed he will be a much more difficult proposition to deal with at some time in the future - of that we can be certain. Left to his own devices he will continue to oppress the Shi'ite and Kurdish people within Iraq. Left to his own devices he will ensure that there never can be any peaceful settlement to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Does he support terrorist organisations that operate outwith his borders - yes he does and does so very publicly (He was the only national leader to applaud the events of 11th September). Is it outwith the bounds of possibility that he will not at some time support an international terrorist group intent on striking at some target in the West - I do not believe that that possibility does not exist - it therefore should not be discounted.

The United States of America did not put Saddam Hussein in power - he did that himself - the occasion was under a plan for the Ba'athist Parties in Syria and Iraq to unite to strike at Israel. Under the terms of this amalgamation Saddam Hussein had no part to play, so he took over as leader of the Ba'athist Regime in Iraq, in what was a fairly bloody internal Ba'athist coup that is very well documented. The United States of America did not sell, or supply Saddam Hussein with WMD - what the united States of America did supply him with were cultures intent on allowing Iraq to improve and develop counter-measures against chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons - the shipment was so massive that it was transported back to Baghdad as part of the Iraqi Scientists hand luggage.

A golden opportunity was missed 12 years ago, Saddam Hussein, and his ruling Ba'athist Party, have it solely in their power to avert this war - they seem extremely reluctant to do so - because disarmed and without the threat of mass terror they know that their days are numbered. If it has to be done, and I do believe that it has to be done - then do it now, preferably with UN backing. I look forward with interest to what Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohammed AlBaradei have to report to the UNSC on Friday.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Beccy
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM

Keith- My prayers go with you. Rest assured that there are a great many of us grateful to you for the sacrifice you're making. May God Bless.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

Yes, Teribus, and so do I.

Carol C: If you read the post in question more closely you will note in my example that I never claimed that it had happened. Nor did I suggest it had been discussed before. My example included a very large "if." Also, I was expressing an opinion. I think it has been accepted that we are free to have opinions on the Mudcat, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peg
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

Keith A: that figure was quoted by a journalist on CBS Sunday Morning...
seems to me 23,000 is a few too many as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:27 PM

Al-Qaeda and other like minded groups have already declared their intent - the destruction of the way of life in the United States of America and the elimination of everything it stands for.

And it does appear that with the Patriot Act and other such violations of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Bush administration is doing Al-Qaeda's work for them... speeding the process merrily along.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Peg
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:32 PM

I checked out that link you supplied. To offer a bit more information for those who are curious, it says:

Other Important Statistics
- More than 1,200,000 civilians in Iraq have died since the start of the Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 (Source: United Nations and Iraq).
- An estimated 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died during Operation Desert Storm between January 17, 1991 and February 28, 1991 (Source: News Reports).
 
Iraq: Original figures listed 100,000 Iraqi military dead, but more recent estimates place Iraqi dead at 20,000 military and 2,300 civilian. 
United States: 148 killed in action, 458 wounded. Also, 121 Americans died through non-combat incidents.

I think maybe that 85,000 figure may relate more to the civilian dead than the military losses. The 20,000 figure is referring to Operatin Desert Storm specifically. Since the US did not have any civilian losses from the Gulf War, I did not see any reason to make the distinction. Turns out the loss of civilian life in Iraq may be much higher if one looks at a wider range of time than just the main attack operations of the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM

Also, I was expressing an opinion. I think it has been accepted that we are free to have opinions on the Mudcat, right?

It certainly is an opinion. But it is an opinion about what's in the hearts and minds of others. You have a right to such an opinion, but that sort of thing isn't very conducive to friendly discourse. In fact, I would suggest that it is downright alienating. But if you want to alienate people, that certainly is your decision to make. I note, however, that you do protest when liberals do that sort of thing to you and your fellow conservatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 04:43 AM

CarolC,

The measures you mention that are "speeding the process on the way.", can be viewed as temporary. The alternative is to leave things exactly as they were pre-11th September and sit back, wait for and accept the attacks, and resultant casualties, for these attacks will occur irrespective of what President is in office.

While you, and others, in this forum seem quite content to accept that situation, whoever assumes the responsibility of the office of the President of the United States cannot. Your enemy is small, mobile and difficult to identify. Your enemy will use the freedom's, they so much despise, to their advantage in assisting in the planning and execution of their attacks. Your crimes, by the way, used to justify the attacks on innocents are:

1. The presence of infidels (American troops) on Saudi Arabian soil.

2. That American citizens pay taxes that are used to support these infidels and provide subsidies to Israel.

To your enemy it does not matter what you do in the future, you as an entire nation, have been adjudged and found guilty, this predates by years, any action taken by your current President or his administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:52 AM

More than 1,200,000 civilians in Iraq have died since the start of the Gulf War, when Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990 (Source: United Nations and Iraq) (cited by Peg)

I have often seen similar figures and wondered. If you go to the available statistics and look up the total population of Iraq and the death rate per thousand inhabitants you can calculate how many Iranians are expected to die within any number of years. For the time period the site Peg (and Keith) have cited uses, I did calculate 1,4000,000 expected dead assuming stable population. Since the population in Iraq actually has grown considerably within the last years, my estimate is bound to be too high. So it seems to me to be quite close to the 1,2000,000 cited above.

Could it be that someone just has added all dead persons in Iraq since the second gulf war and then gives this information in carefully worded juxtaposition, 1,200,000 dead civilians - since 1990, to make a cheap point?

Let me play with this type of argumentation:
3,700,000 German civilians have died since the (very moderately) left government came into power in 1998.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:51 AM

Good point Wolfgang, I must admit that something similar crossed my mind when I read the posts referred to.

Iraq's population, as pointed out by yourself has grown:
1989 - 18.1 million
1997 - 21.2 million
2003 - 23.3 million

From 1991 to 31.12.1999 - 1,200,000 deaths
2,300 civilian deaths directly attributable to Desert Storm Operations
20,000 deaths in Iraqi military attributable to Desert Storm Operations.
480,000 children dead due to effects of UN Sanctions (5000 per month since sanctions were introduced - 1991 to end 1999. Note, this figure is not verified)
717,700 Adult deaths in Iraq since 1991 to end of 1999, not directly attributable to Desert Storm. The cause of these deaths will range from:
Natural causes;
Shia fatalities relating to the time that Saddam put down their revolt after Desert Storm;
Kurdish fatalities in conflicts with Saddam and other Kurds;
Executions of criminal and political prisoners;
Female relatives killed by male relatives in the name of honour (perfectly allowable under a 1990 decree issued by Saddam and the boys);
Road traffic accidents & other accidental deaths;
Suicides;
Women accused of prostitution;
US & UK bombing related to No-Fly zone incidents and Desert Fox.

So in the time frame being discussed (1991 to 1999) the Iraqi population grew from 18.88 million to 21.9 million - or by 3.02 million, around 17%, despite 5.48% of the population dying during the same period.

Wolfgang quoted a figure (statistics?) relating to Germany since 1998.

These are ones I found
Population of Germany 31.12.01 - 82,440,300
Population of Germany 31.12.99 - 82,163,500
Population expansion in two years   276,800

Deaths in Germany between 1997 & 2000 - 3,905,462 not counting Abortion.
Deaths in Germany between 1997 & 2000 - 4,433,227 including Abortions.

Now not a lot of people know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:08 AM

Teribus, my impression is that you don't live in the US. If so, you're not really in a position to have any opinions about what my government should or should not do in my country. However, the fact is that if the US government would just inforce effectively the laws and regulations that are already on the books, our law inforcement agencies would have all of the tools they would need to do their jobs effectively. In the US, breaking the Constitution is TREASON.

Re: the crimes you say the US government is being held accountable for by the terrorists. Since we haven't tried NOT doing the things that are pissing them off... in fact we steadfastly INSIST on continuing to do them, it's no wonder they're still pissed off. If we want that to no longer be the case, we need to stop violating the human rights of people all over the third world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:22 AM

CarolC,

Thanks for your last posting. Please advise me ASAP with regard to what I can, or what I cannot have an opinion on.

The list should be quite interesting coming from someone who is constantly harping on about "peoples freedoms".

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:33 AM

Wolfgang has. and not for the first time, hit the nail on the head with an objective view.

Perhaps those "Usefull Idiots" who support the Iraqui Goverment would care to amend thier posters ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:33 AM

You certainly have more of a right to an opinion about how your government handles matters within your own country than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

"Constantly harping"

Interesting choice of words. Are you feeling threatened, Teribus? I find that when people think they're losing a debate, they often resort to using unflattering characterizations of their opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:52 AM

Gareth, anyone who suggests that opposing this war by demanding diplomatic solutions is "supporting the Iraqi government" is the "idiot" (your word choice).

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:07 PM

Sigh, sorry for interrupting this discussion again with one of my hobbies, scrutinising numbers (wherever they come from).

My guess is that the 500,000 dead children (mentioned in Teribus' post with caution; and in other threads before with less caution) come from a similar line of argumentation and that this number is the total number of children that have died from all causes in that period of years.

I have tried to check that speculation but have failed to find the necessary information, mainly due to the lack of information until which age a child is counted and whether stillborn babies are counted or not.

I do not doubt that for instance the UN sanctions have been one cause of death among children (BTW, think back how you personally have argued in the case of the sanctions against South Africa), but I have not seen yet reliable estimates. For that, you should compare infant mortality in Iraq in sanction years with infant mortality during the same period in similar countries or with infant mortality in Iraq before the sanctions. Best is you'd do both comparisons.

The 500,000 figure, I fear, is the grand total and completely meaningless. I'd be more interested to know how many children in Iraq have died due to the UN sanctions instead of since the onset of the UN sanctions. This number is bound to be much smaller, I'd think, though still much too high for leaning back and disregarding.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:35 PM

Obviously September 11 indicated that security procedures on airline were far too slack, and very likely in a lot of other situations as well. But jumping from that to an assumption that the whole gamut of other infringements of constitutional rights was appropriate is going rather further than the evidence suggests.

Just because one extreme - in this case the incredible lack of security that allowed the hijackings to take place - has been shown to be unacceptable, it doesn't mean automatically going to teh other extreme, even temporarily. (And a lot of temporary things have a horible tendency to turn permanent.)

But I can't go along with Carol C's suggestion that people should feel inhibited from criticising things that go on in other countries. Often I suspect it's easier for outsiders to see what is going on. There is perhaps a special responsibility to make an effort to get the facts right.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:41 PM

The distinction I'm making, McGrath, is that I don't see myself having any right to tell the people of Britain whether or not they should have a monarch as head of state. And by the same token, I don't think people in Britain have a right to tell people in the US whether or not our Constitution needs to be upheld.

You may, of course, see things differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 12:52 PM

As for the impact of sanctions - I always get uneasy when people throw numbers around in this kind of context. There are too mnay unknowns, and too many reasons for manipulating the figures up or down for political reasons.

And it can get quite complicated - for example I was reading a piece today which used figures about deaths from sanctions as a justification for a war against Iraq, arguing that in the long run (touch wood) that might mean fewer deaths.

That said, while accepting that there are people who might have reasons for exaggerating the imoact of sanctions, I'd feel very uneasy indeed about minimising the effect on civilians, especially children, of the kinds of shortages that sanctions have meant. It's important not to fall into anything that might shade into something analogous to holocaust denial, where some of the same considerations could apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:46 PM

The Iraq war will cost the lives of a few tens or hundreds of thousands of people

I always get uneasy when people throw numbers around in this kind of context.

(McGrath in this thread)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 04:58 PM

Diplomatic solutions require both sides to negotiate - this is not happening. If the Iraqui Goverment start meaningful negotiations it will have been forced upon them by the threat of war.

Anti war demonstrations merely strengthen Saddams stance, and make the likelyhood of war more certain.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

Excellent posts, Wolfgang and Teribus. All too often we probably don't look into the specifics of statistics given here on the Mudcat to support our positions.

On the question of UN sanctions and their effect on the population, it has been suggested that if Saddam had not diverted so much money that Iraq receives from oil supplies toward building his arsenal, Iraqi citizens would not have suffered so much. Had the money been spent instead on medical supplies, the death toll of the general population might not have been so high.

As to criticizing our respective governments, I side with McGrath on this. I've never seen a poster hesitate to criticize another's government if they didn't agree with the leadership's policy positions. Neither do I recall (before) one member criticizing another for doing so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:23 PM

You've never seen me criticize the British government for any policy postitions having to do with what happens within Britain, DougR, or in Northern Ireland, even. And the reason is, because I wouldn't do it.

So, although you may not agree with my position, you can't tell me I'm being inconsistant (actually, you could tell me that, but you would be wrong).

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:40 PM

Any time anybody says anything about the country I'm living in which is based on accurate information - which can be gathered in various ways - I can't see a problem with that.

Otherwise you end up with the ridiculous situation where you can't say anything disparaging about Saddam or Dubya because you don't live there.

(For example I'm all in favour of people from all over the world writing to the British Government, telling them that the new Licensing Law that threatens to penalise us for making music where there isn't a licence, is ridiculous and oppressive.)

Going off half cocked about something we don't know about, and recycling prejudices, that is something different.

And Wolfgang - I think there's a difference between speculative figures about what might happen, and reported figures about what has happened. By definition the first don't even set out to be accurate - and I'd think "tens or hundreds of thousands" indicates that pretty clearly. It's important to try to be as accurate as possible on actual figures. Not that easy - if someone doesn't get penicillin and they die, deciding for sure that they wouldn't have died anyway is not straightforward often enough, I'd imagine.

If the war goes ahead and the number of people killed is lower than tens of thousands I'd be grateful for a big small mercy. Going by the number of deaths last time it doesn't seem that likely, but who can tell?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 05:48 PM

Well, I don't even know if anyone will read and THINK about this post. I've posted to few "war" threads and, when I did, been chuffed off because I view the upcoming war as more a fight for human rights than anything else. Perhaps I am hopefull that the war is the beginning of something that will benefit all of us because of the possibility that the war will free people who are oppressed. I haven't read all the above posts. I just don't have the time. But, in case someone might really "read" my post this time, which, as I said, I have posted in various forms on other threads before, but, perhaps, without such a distinct example...

I taped SNL Saturday night and just watched it. The reason I taped it is because I wanted to watch The Dixie Chicks. Thank goodness that the Dixie Chicks were not born in Iraq or anywhere else but the good old USA. As fas as those who would think in any way that allowing the degradation in ANY WAY of women or minorities or ANYONE OR ANYTHING is the right of any state or any religeon because of cultural or religeous doctrine.... FUCK YOU>>> PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION.

And if you don't like it, step aside, duck and cover, because good men are about to step up and take care of business in the name of freedom, liberty and justice for all. And when it's over, don't one of you nayayers say that it was worth it becasue of the resulting freedom, justice and peace. NOT ONE FUCKING PEEP ! Just remember those that gave their lives come November 11... as I do every year.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:16 PM

Is "nayayers" just a typo, or is it meant as a neat way of describing people who can't make up their mind between "yes" and "no"?

And for all its faults and they are many, Iraq as a society is probably one of the least repressive of women in that part of the wolrd. Compared most especially to Saudi Arabia, which is as repressive of women as Afghanistan was under the Taliban (and still is today, most parts), when it comes to that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:36 PM

You flatter...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 06:52 PM

So, if we follow your logic gnu, then why aren't Muslim women free and liberated in Kuwait? In Saudi Arabia? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan?

All our best, strongest Arab allies and we've even liberated two of the above countries. All in the name of freedom, liberty, justice for all...and maybe even the Dixie Chicks.

You are the only person in the US whom I've heard claim this "liberation of Iraq" is actually intended to be a war of liberation for Muslim women. I'm finding it a bit difficult squaring that with the reasons our government is giving for going to war. Do you know something the rest of us don't, or do you just need your meds checked?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM

The U.S. degrades its women, too, just in the other extreme. Rather than prohibiting any sexual expression at all, it creates schizophrenic double standards for their sexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 07:25 PM

Danged, Forum Lurker, I was going there. Well, kinda. I was going to say something stupid like, "Hey, check out the way that Bubba trrats his wife up here in this Wes Ginny holler!"

gnu: You going?

GUEST: I heard that Bush wants to bring liberty and freedom to the Iraqi people. Well, danged. I better start to learn Iraqi because Bush is hell bent on ending it here in America, oh... unless you just happen to be part of the Christain Right, who are neither...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 08:00 PM

OK, I've re-read that Dixie Chicks rant three times now, gnu, thinking maybe I was missing something profound. Doesn't look like it. It does look like one of the least informed... just fucking idiotic statements I've heard in... well, weeks, I guess.

Since you parrot it so nicely, I'm guessing it was that anti-feminist article on the FoxNews site today got you all pumped up and bitchy, eh? The one that attacks liberals for not equating the brutal, but rather even-handed, treatment of women in secular Iraq, with the brutal, not-so-even-handed treatment of women in Taleb-controlled Afghanistan. Yeah, that makes sense.

And you know, genius, Iraq has it's own shitty pop stars without the Dixie Chicks. Yeah, that's right: They make music there, too. They make music in, oh, I dunno, EVERY country, believe it or not. But maybe it's nothing as impressive to you as the, uh, Dixie Chicks, and doesn't meet your incredibly high musical standards. Idiotic point. I wouldn't keep making it.

And who are these "good men are about to step up and take care of business in the name of freedom, liberty and justice for all?" YOU, you naïve fucking pussy? Oh, but you'll be cheering them on from your big ol' Canadian armchair, I know.

Seriously, dude, expand your fucking reading list a bit. And listen to some decent music. And stop watching SNL. It isn't fucking funny. And lay off the alcohol, dickweed.

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 09:21 PM

If I were a woman in Iraq or anywhere else, I would not want George Bush or a crowd of "fucking dickweeds" (what the hell is a dickweed?) defining freedom for me. Didn't we learn anything from Iran? gnu and lepus, make nice!

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 11:34 PM

Perhaps the Dixie Chicks could go to Iraq to negotiate a settle for the US.

Just a thought...

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 01:18 AM

Hmmm. I read Gnu's thread pretty carefully, and I read nothing that warranted Lepus Rex's attack on him. What gives Lepus Rex? Wrong time of the month or something?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 03:39 AM

Of course you didn't, Doug. :) As to "why?", because gnu is an idiot, and the garbage s/he's been writing lately has made me angry. Simple enough.

"Thank goodness that the Dixie Chicks were not born in Iraq or anywhere else but the good old USA...FUCK YOU>>> PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION...don't one of you nayayers say that it was worth it becasue of the resulting freedom, justice and peace. NOT ONE FUCKING PEEP !"

Seriously, I wish morons were a race, so I could wipe them out and call it "genocide," instead of just "tard bashing."

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 06:23 AM

CarolC,

As far as I am aware the legislation and proposed ammendments, that you are so vehemently opposed to, are being drafted, debated, voted upon and enacted by your elected representatives. That process is, presumably, both legal and constitutional - so where does your accusation of "Treason" enter into the equation.

With regard to personal opinions, irrespective of subject, or location, everybody has got exactly the same right to express their opinion as they themselves see fit, period, no qualifications, no governing rules. It is equally true, and logical, in most cases, that the opinions of those participating in any discussion who are closer to the subject, by location, personal experience and knowledge, have more weight because those opinions are more likely to better informed, and more factually accurate.

MGOH - "And for all its faults and they are many, Iraq as a society is probably one of the least repressive of women in that part of the world."

Really? How does that equate with this?

"Under Saddam Hussein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment."

Summary executions, without the remotest pretence of any judicial process. Torture and rape of female relatives of people held in custody. Sytematic torture and rape of female prisoners, with documented evidence that within the Iraqi prison service there are people whose job description is "violation of women's honour", or in other words, "a professional rapist".

I shudder to think what you would consider to be a really repressive regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:04 AM

Lepus Rex : The "..." you left out of that last quote sure makes it sound like something I did not write. Perhaps if you actually read it as written, and think about it for a few minutes, you may get the gist of it. You are correct in that I will be cheering from my armchair.

Saddam + WMD + Taliban + terrorists = the genocide you advocate and it might affect you if allowed to continue.

The Taliban were ousted. The terrorists were disrupted. Saddam is next. Then... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:39 AM

As far as I am aware the legislation and proposed ammendments, that you are so vehemently opposed to, are being drafted, debated, voted upon and enacted by your elected representatives. That process is, presumably, both legal and constitutional - so where does your accusation of "Treason" enter into the equation.

A law can be passed using legal and constitutional means that is, nevertheless, UNconstitutional. It has happened before, although rarely as blatantly and with as much damage to the constitution as the things being done under this Bush administration. And this government is using some less than constitutional means to promote some of its agendas, bypassing Congress entirely.

With regard to personal opinions, irrespective of subject, or location, everybody has got exactly the same right to express their opinion as they themselves see fit, period, no qualifications, no governing rules. It is equally true, and logical, in most cases, that the opinions of those participating in any discussion who are closer to the subject, by location, personal experience and knowledge, have more weight because those opinions are more likely to better informed, and more factually accurate.

Which is why I said "you're not really in a position to have an opinion on this matter", rather than "you have no right to have and express an opinion on this matter", although I would put your last bit a little differently, myself. I would add "those who are impacted most closely, and have a more vested interest" to what you said above.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:49 AM

What, gnu? I forgot to call you paranoid?

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:50 AM

"A law can be passed using legal and constitutional means that is, nevertheless, UNconstitutional."

The thing that is missing from the above is the addendum "..in the opinion of some." But, obviously, not in the considered opinion of those elected representatives charged with the responsibility of the legislature and governance of the country.

Carol, if you say to me "you're not really in a position to have an opinion on this matter". You are more or less telling me, "you have no right to have and express an opinion on this matter".

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 10:21 AM

"Under Saddam Hussein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment."

And where's that from? It could well be true, it's more or less the situation in Saudia Arabia, I believe, and elsewhere. But I remember the stories that were put about regarding the Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators, which were later shown to be unfounded propaganda. So give your sources, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 11:02 AM

Sources Kevin, certainly:

1. Revoulutionary Command Council Decree No. 111 of 1990

There were reports that this decree was repealled in 1997, but no UNHCR representatives were allowed to confirm this.

2. Reuters Report Dated July 1st, 2000:

Reported on a UN International Human Rights conference in Cuba. Where the UN reported that the practice of "honour killings" still existed in Iraq with exemption from prosecution for the male perpetrators.

3. Foreign & Commonwealth Office Report, "Saddam Hussein: crimes and human rights abuses" dated November 2002.

4. Amnesty International (2001)

5. Human Rights Alliance, France (2002)

6. The Iraq Research and Documentation Project Harvard University.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 11:09 AM

Guardian article about that topic (giving a slightly different angle).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 11:16 AM

From Wolfgang's Guardian article:

"Human Rights Watch also took issue with a key allegation in the report, which was used to show that women 'lack even the basic right to life'. In a section on the treatment of women, the report said: "A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without any punishment."

But Hania Mufti, the group's London director, said the decree was repealed months after it was imposed. 'The decree was introduced at a specific time after the end of the Iran-Iraq war when soldiers coming back from the front found their women had had sexual relations with other men, mainly Egyptian workers. Lots of the Egyptians were killed. The decree was an amnesty for these people and was repealed within months.'"

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 04:25 PM

Well, all I can say is that you ostriches should consider taking your heads out of the sand and sticking them up your a** because, in spite of your good intentions and convictions, wrongs are about to be righted and you will be better off for it. Saddam had better do the same becasue that will be a much safer place when the B-52's roll.

On a musical note, I like the B-52's as well as the Dixies, but I don't imagine they get much play in Iraq... At The Love Shack... in Iraq... BANG BANG. (You have to know the B-52's tune "Love Shack" to appreciate that joke. Oh, the other joke about the sand which you may have overlooked - it was estimated that as many as 240,000 Iraqi soldiers were buried alive in sand bunkers by b-52 bombing in the last little set-to.)

Lepussy.... you forgot to call me insensitive too.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:04 PM

GUEST Forum Lurker I enjoyed your answers to my post. I'd simply add that Saddam's budget is in no way pathetic. He's in control of a money making machine, and the UN sanctions were and are pathetic, porous even.

As for the U.S. being in violation of International Law, I share your misgivings, but international law is a developing frontier. I think that Russia and France, Germany and ??BELGIUM?? are setting international law back as the European Nations did with their lack of support for the League of Nations (Doing nothing while armed imperialist Italy ran rampant over unarmed Ethiopia).

After ten years of decreasingly effective sanctions and one month of conditional inspections (Remember when IRAQ said they were open to UNCONDITIONAL inspections at the end of '02) I don't see what the world has to gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:06 PM

I'd say that kind of talk would be music to the ears of anyone who wanted to stir up hate against America.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:30 PM

CarolC:

I agree with your opinion that much of the Patriot Act would in past years be struck down by the courts but if any of this stuff makes it to this current Supreme Court it will be 5-4 Bush, 5-4 Bush and more 5-4 Bush. We could see tha handwriting on the wall when the Supreme Court sided with Bush to call off the recounts in Florida.

This current court, while it used a loose interpretation to get Bush in the White House, are very much strict constructionists and if the constitution isn't perfectly clear then these justices will be sidingh with Bush. This is not a liberal court. Not even a moderate court.

Now as for legislation, Bush has discovered "executive order" and that is one way to cicumvent democratic discussion. He has used it ofr the voucher system for purchasing "Faith Based" services. No certification required. No accountability. Just hang up a shingle under a church's charter and you are in business.

Speaking of business, anyone realize that Bush snuck a lot of anti-environmental stuff in an appropriaitons bill this past week and the Dems never even protested. The way I understand it, after all that debate on logging, the logging industry got what they wanted. But don't look too hard for it in the media because environmental issues are passe in the media these days. The Oil drilling in Alaska was also snuck through. Go figure.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:38 PM

That could very well be the point of this war business. It's certainly regarded by some as a nice "fringe benefit." Slight-of-hand. A tried and true political ploy.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 05:51 PM

Robomatic, while the sanctions are feeble, Iraq's only source of income is oil, and that is much more limited than many other Arab nations. Despite his best attempts, Saddam still lacks significant industrial capacity. His oil revenues are not enough to develop a significant military.

As far as the U.N. is concerned, i will readily agree that it is ineffective. On the other hand, I would greatly prefer a weak, fractious world authority to a power monopoly run by America's wealthy. My concern is not that the U.S. violates international law, but that we try to create it, in a manner that it cannot restrain us.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Nemesis
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 06:51 PM

11.50pm Wednesday - Documentary film on conditions for Iraqi children on ITV right now..

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:25 PM

Mmmm !

2 old and tried thoughts.

"What is treason, merely a matter of dates"

" Trason never prospers, Whas the reason ?,
For if it prospers, None dare call it Treason."

Interesting thoughts on the question of international Laws and Treaties.

Belgium 1914

Poland 1939

Gareth in cynical mode.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 07:57 PM

'elected representatives'?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:02 PM

True, the League of Nations didn't stop Italy attacking a weaker country, but at least it wasn't bullied into actually supporting Italy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: boglion
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:15 PM

I thought the Question here was should Bush and Blair attack Iraq. No-one seems to have answered this question for the last n postings.

I say NO. War is always evil and can only be justified in the clearest of situations. This is patently not the situation here. Even a "clean" quick victory will produce far more problems than it solves. This war is a mistake of gigantic proportions. Tony Blair will lose his premiership over it and only the arms manufacturers and those who thrive on conflict - such as Bin Laden - will profit from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:24 PM

You know what? I'm beginning to think that the only way that America can reclaim itself from the current regime is for the current regime to just go ahead and show just how totally wrong they are in thinking that the US, with all its might, can solve world problems with one war fater another. There will come a point when the American people will not stand for any more of the killing. If not, then we might as well just blow God's little experiement the heck up right now!

Like, for you who want to go kill off some Iraqis, I'm here to say I'll make it easy for ya' Real easy. You wanta go? Fine! I'll pay the airfare for any Catter to Iraq. No questions asked.

(Oh, Bobert. Look at that long line outside your door...)

Like "echos-ville". Bunch of cowards. Come on, who wants to go. It *can* be arranged!

Well, hope you all get a big case of jollies...

... watching it on you TV's.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 Feb 03 - 08:29 PM

NO!

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 03:04 AM

Apropos women's rights - such a situation is common in many Moslem countries. Jordan, which is widely seen as being on "our" side, has a terrible record in this sphere, with the BBC estimating this week that some 10,000 women a year are murdered by family members on spurious charges of immorality. There are an awful lot of motes and beams in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 03:22 AM

Hi Wolfgang, thanks for the link to the Guardian article.

Lepus,

In your mail you lift the following from that Guardian Article:

"Hania Mufti, the group's (Human Rights Watch) London director, said the decree was repealed months after it was imposed. 'The decree was introduced at a specific time after the end of the Iran-Iraq war when soldiers coming back from the front found their women had had sexual relations with other men, mainly Egyptian workers. Lots of the Egyptians were killed. The decree was an amnesty for these people and was repealed within months.'"

In my post responding to Kevin's request for sources, I indicated that I was aware of the repeal of this decree on the part of the Revolutionary Command Council (Saddam Hussein). That was why I also quoted as a source the Reuters Report on the UNHCR Conference in Cuba.

If what was reported in the Guardian was true then the repeal would have been in effect from late 1990, or early 1991. Reports exist dating the time of the repeal to 1997, the UNHCR report states that the practice is still in force in Iraq and that was dated 2000.

So I suppose the best thing to do is to pick which ever suits your particular point of view and blithely ignore the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 04:59 AM

I agree with UN Resolution 1441. And I agree with it's enforcement by military means.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 06:54 AM

I just wish my moral compass pointed as unerringly as some of the posters around here.
The fact is, I still don't know.
My gut feeling is "no", but there are few black and white issues, and this one is greyer than many.
I am convinced that Iraq does not present a clear and present danger to the US, or to any of its neighbours in the Middle East. I don't believe that it possesses nuclear weapons. I don't believe that there is any significant link between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda.
All evidence presented so far by the US and the UK has failed to shift me in those beliefs.
Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein is clearly a despot who has brought ruination to his country, misery to his people and terror to his legitimate opponents. In that context, regime change would appear to be exactly what the people of Iraq most need. His use of poison gas and/or nerve agents on the Kurds at Halabja in the late 1980s, including the famous attack pictured by Iranian photographers in 1988 which more than 5,000 civilians, died lives in infamy Ð even though the Reagan administration refused to invoke sanctions because Saddam was then a useful ally against Iran.
Unfortunately, he is not alone. Similarly despotic regimes exist elsewhere in the world. Use whatever yardstick you like and you'll find another regime that fits the bill, be it the development of WMDs, the flouting of UN directives, the contempt from opposition, the abuse of human rights, the tendency to interfere with other nationsÉ the list can go on and on.
Which makes me wonder why there is such enthusiasm for intervention in Iraq, whereas other threats, say North Korea, can be dealt with by diplomatic means, and why the Bush administration in particular is so hell-bent on following a long line of doomed attempts to impose its will on Mesopotamia (my grandfather was awarded the MC in Mesopotamia in the Great War, but that's another story entirely).
I think the crucial point here is nothing to do with TWAT (The War Against Terror) and much to do with regime change, which has been a plank of the Bush administration since before the Al Queda attacks of September 11.
You can choose from a list of reasons, some the froth from the fertile imaginations of conspiracy theorists and some undoubtedly true; unfinished business, a desire to gain control of the world's second-largest oilfield, a need to continue the relentless military spending at home; burning $500 billion a year while other industries lose out to the Far East; a need for a satrapy in the region to act as a bulwark against militant and frightening Islam, imperialism or a simple messianic, crusading belief that the American Way is the only way.
Whatever the reason, Bush and his team of Texan oilmen want to change the guy in charge in Iraq.
To effect that, however, they need to convince the world of the justice of their proposal. Whatever one's feelings on George W Bush, the administration as a whole is not stupid, and it has marshalled its brightest and best to produce the evidence. I have yet to be convinced, and the lies and half-truths that have been set before us as "proof" have only served to deepen my suspicions.
I remember during the 1991 conflict when atrocity stories of Kuwaiti babies were thrown from their incubators by Iraqi invaders were published. A colleague and good friend was a journalist in the region who covered the story. He was completely convinced, and his belief in the barbarity of the Iraqis coloured his subsequent reporting considerably.
Later it was learned that there were no babies and no incubators, and that the tearful "nurse" who had revealed the atrocity tale to the media was a relative of a Kuwaiti politician who had been coached by a British public relations company to help "spin" the war.
In this coming war the spin is already becoming apparent. The ineptitude of Downing Street in getting four press and political administrators to surf the net like jackdaws and cobble together a dossier from any available source beggars belief, and worries me more when presented as a piece of crucial evidence Ð a whiff of cordite from the barrel of the gun, as it were.
As can be seen from the threads here on the Mudcat, there are many "facts" and many figures being bandied about, all with their passionate advocates.
The Foreign Office official line is:
The Iraqi regime has admitted hiding its weapons programme in the past. It did all it could to hinder the UN weapons inspectors until they were forced to leave in 1998. Since then, no one has been able to check up on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
But our intelligence has shown that since 1998 Iraq has persisted with its chemical and biological weapons programmes, and that it is developing ballistic missiles capable of delivering these weapons to targets beyond the 150km limit imposed by the UN. This would allow Iraq to hit countries as far away as Egypt, Greece, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.
We know too that Iraq still possesses all its nuclear weapons expertise and that it is actively attempting to rebuild its nuclear programme and obtain the materials to develop nuclear weapons.
Éat the end of 1998, Iraq's persistent obstruction of the work of the UN inspectors finally forced them to leave. The inspectors were still unable to account for:
*up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals (approximately 300 tonnes of which, in the Iraqi CW programme, were unique to the production of VX nerve agent)
*up to 360 tonnes of bulk CW agent (including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent)
*over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents
*large quantities of growth media acquired for use in the production of biological weapons - enough to produce over three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits to having manufactured.
Yet Scott Ritter, a former UN inspector and one of the few with first sight of Iraq's programme, states:
From 1991 to 1997, weapons inspections were able to achieve a 90-95% level of verified disarmament concerning Iraq's proscribed weapons programs, according to Rolf Ekeus, the former Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission, or UNSCOM, the predecessor to Hans Blix's United Nations Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC. This level included all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction production facilities, and the associated manufacturing equipment.
Hans Blix has refuted Powell's claim that Iraq has mobile bio-weapons laboratories, and now France and Germany, with Russian backing, are starting to ask why the UN process cannot continue and something that Blix himself wants.
Iraq, we are told, is an economic and industrial basket-case, ill-equipped to export war and terror anywhere and in desperate need of aid. Saddam himself is a crazed gambler and psychopath, but he wonÕt use his weapons on anyone else, rather he seems them as negotiating chips and a safeguard against an increasingly hostile outside world. And, anyway, it's not our business to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign states.
Then there are the possible consequences of attacking Iraq unilaterally. An Islamic world already mistrustful of the US and the UK would be furious, and would be prey to the sort of jihad-rousing rhetoric that bin Laden delivers so well. Coupled with Americas support for and arming of Israel and its apparent sanctioning of Israeli breaches of UN resolutions, accepted human rights and international morality, that would make the US seem pretty sinister in the eyes of many in the Middle East.
The corrupt, decadent and despotic dynasty currently ruling Saudi Arabia would be very vulnerable to an Islamic revolution (remember bin Laden's causus bellum & that the US had committed heresy by stationing its troops on sacred Saudi soil). Other regimes which now support the US would become more cautions, aware of the dangers at home. The old Cold War domino theory (remember Vietnam also started with a PR-orchestrated untruth) could be put into practice, and where would that lead us?
That sounds reasonable to me, and I haven't even began to imagine the additional cost in human lives, whether exacted by "smart" bombs and high-tech kit, by the bullet of a penny jezail or from malnutrition and cholera. So much so that I'm worried about being branded a cheese-eating surrender-monkey.
So in answer to the question "should" my gut feeling is still "no". "Will" is another matter entirely, and one in which our own Mr Blair is playing a fascinatingly risky roleÉ

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 08:31 AM

Have to say ,I told you so,
The US has warned France that their trade with the US will take a nose-dive because they refuse to kill Iraq civilans and Germany has also been warned that US bases there will be moved to other eastern European countries.
It`s my ball and you can`t play, what a country, the carpet-bombers have spoken. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 08:41 AM

Gervase, like you, although having come to a decision, I have plenty of doubts. Being in the minority on this forum certainly gives me pause for thought.

To pick up on one of your points;   After the gulf war, most of the provinces of Iraq rebelled against his regime. As we know, they were then abandoned by the allies, and Saddam murdered and tortured his way back into control.
If, as many think, the Iraqis welcome his overthrow and welcome their liberators, on what grounds can the muslim world feel fury?

Of course, the other dictators and Royal Houses wil be worried if a major Arab nation moves towards democracy, but who will weep for them?.
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:06 AM

Keith, as you know, I respect your decision and salute what you're doing.
Although I don't believe we should go to war, I believe we will.
On that basis, Britain's involvement is perhaps understandable.
The Bush administration is clearly bent on implementing "regime change" come what may, and that the UN, France, Germany and a growing tide of opposition isn't going to stop them.
Depending one's stance, either those planning the war are so convinced of their own rectitude and the benefit to the Iraqi people and the wider world that they cannot comprehend the anti's stance or they are deliberately misleading the public to line the pockets of the multinationals and oil companies in which they all have a stake. Whatever, the course is set for war.
As I said earlier, however, the US administration is not stupid. It may be extremely naive in diplomatic terms, overweeningly arrogant militarily and simplistic politically, but it isn't stupid & it knows how to sell.
Thus the American public is already largely in favour of war, thanks to a broadcast media that has been largely supine in the face of the march to arms. The administration cares deeply about what the American public thinks, and with Bush riding at a record level for a president thanks to September 11, what better time to push for regime change. If a link can be hinted at between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 so much the better.
Guaranteed that it will play well in Peoria, Bush has little to lose at home by going to war. Unfortunately the rest of the world has a lot to lose.
This is where I may be making one of the daftest misjudgements of many (and if I am wrong, I too will grovel on this forum), but I believe that Blair's self-appointed mission is to ensure that the rest of the world loses as little as possible.
Faced with the world's only superpower lurching towards war like a drunk to the edge of a station platform, Blair was aghast.
Like the Greeks to the Romans, Britain regards itself - rightly or wrongly and to the infuriation of others - as the faded font of civilisation for the newer, brasher rulers; wilier in the ways of the world and more attuned to the consequences of any action, and well-practised in the black arts of diplomacy, negotiation, realpolitik and the use of the military.
The "special relationship" would appear to be special only on this side of the Atlantic, with America little disposed to help the UK unless it acts directly in the US interest.
Thus Blair could not "call in a favour" and get America to rein back, and if he protested his objections would be swept aside as easily as a gadfly (remember the illegal steel tariffs introduced by the US a year or so back, banged on in the face of protest from the UK after Bush had said there was no firmer friend to the US than Britain?).
Blair knows that the safest world is one where America co-exists with other nations, and where militant Islam is not inflamed by the infidel's arrogance; one where old fashioned rules of fair-play and diplomacy can be invoked to keep things "civilised". If America were simply to crash into Iraq and change the regime unilaterally, the consequences could be disastrous. The "war" part would be over quickly and with little loss of US life, but the knock-on effects could threaten us all.
Blair had already nailed his colours to the mast post-September 11 in the face of global terrorism, which was, is and will remain a real threat to the UK. Afghanistan had seemed simple & Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks, was based there and his operation (Al Queda simply means "the base" in Arabic) was focused there. The Taliban were overthrown and the country went back to the sort of chaotic factionalism that had prevailed for decades. So far so good.
Then George W says he's going to go for Iraq.
It's a tough call for Blair. Reason says the plan is dangerous, but reality says it can't be stopped. What Blair has done is bring some of the derided "Old Europe" into the planning. By linking with Bush, he gets a word in the ear of the planners, urging restraint and advising diplomacy while still appearing bellicose enough to be "on message" in the eyes of the Oval Office.
Without Blair, I am convinced that the Rumsfeld/Wolfovitz axis in the White House would have launched the war already. As it is, thanks to the delay and talking, US forces are still not all in place and the UN inspectors have been given an audience. There probably will not now be an attack until the UN debates a second resolution in the wake of 1441 & which might just allow time for Saddam to grovel and for the UN to show such proof that invasion becomes unthinkable.
Blair knows his position as poodle-in-chief makes him unpopular and he almost seems to squirm visible when it is mentioned, yet this man who has built his career on being liked clings on to the hawks' tails. He is also said to be a man with a strong moral core; a man with no firm ideology but a genuine Panglossian belief that all could be for the best if we could just get on, guys.
Perhaps he really is prepared to stake his reputation and his future on reining in America. If he is, he can't actually tell us so. It would not be diplomatic to say: "I don't want to have to use these soldiers I'm sending. I think American foreign policy is Neanderthal and threatens the security of the world, and this is all I can to civilise it."
We shall see when the guns start firing, because at that moment his strategy, if strategy it is, will have begun to fall apart. I don't think the guns will fire for that long if they do, because 1991 showed that the Iraqi army was little match for modern kit, but the consequences could be very long-lasting.
Is he right to do this, to stand beside Bush above the abyss and attempt to be the restraining influence in the face of an inevitable movement forward?
Again, I don't know. I do know, however, that mass protests around the world at the weekend will not change the American resolve. There is a rumbling anti-war movement within the US, with some big names attached, but they only get attention in the print media, not the more influential TV news. The administration don't give a toss about "Yurp" other than to call them Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys (bless Matt Groenig!)
My hunch is that Blair's is the only approach, but it's brinkmanship of the most dangerous kind. And good luck and godspeed to all those involved - including you, Keith.
For some reason I'm minded of Kipling's words to America in the early days of US expansion:
Take up the White Man's burden-
Send forth the best ye breed-
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild-
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
...
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden!
Have done with childish days--
The lightly-proffered laurel,
The easy ungrudged praise:
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years,
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

It's a huge burden, and not one to be hefted lightly or without great care for the consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:19 AM

gervase,

what's the significance of all the 'O's & 'D's?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,FAIRWTHRBUM
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:43 AM

THE FIRST AND FOREMOST QUESTION IN DETERMINING A NEED FOR A WAR IS WHY? THE ANSWER WAS SIMPLE IN WWII. AS A MATTER OF FACT IT COULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED THREE YEARS AHEAD OF PEARL HARBOR. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE FRENCH HELPED US GAIN OUR INDEPENDANCE AND HAD A LEGITIMATE NEED FOR AN AMERICAN ALLY. HOWEVER, THE SITUATION WITH IRAQ SHADOWS IN COMPARISON TO THAT OF WWII GERMANY. IF IT CAN BE COMPAIRED AT ALL. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT RHETORIC. IF YOU LISTENED TO COLLIN POWELL'S PRESENTATION TO THE UN VERY CAREFULLY YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD A LOT OF "COULD BE LINKED TO OR HAS THE POTENTIAL OF TYPE STATEMENTS". THIS IS NOT FACT AND CERTAINLY NOT INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. THE QUESTION REMAINS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES DOES HAVE BONA-FIDE EVIDENCE OF WMDS. IF IT DOES THEN WHY IS IT SO HIDDEN FROM EVERYONE? I'M EVEN WILLING TO ENTERTAIN THE THOUGHT THAT IRAQI INSIDERS LIVES ARE AT STEAK AND THUS PREVENTING THE RELEASE OF THIS INFORMATION TO THE PRESS. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE AT FIRST BUT BECOMES UNBEARABLE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHY THE UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS ARE SO MISINFORMED. IF WE ARE HELL BENT ON A MISSION THATS OUTCOME IS SOLELY TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM THIS "AXIS OF EVIL" THEN WHY THE CLOAK AND DAGGER WHEN IT COMES TIME TO WORK TOGETHER? FURTHERMORE IT SHOULD BE AKNOWLEDGED THAT WE HAVE NEVER LEFT IRAQ. WE HAVE BEEN BOMBING AND SURVEYING THEM FOR OVER A DECADE NOW. IF WE ARE TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE WE SOON SEE THAT WE SHOULD BE OVERFLOWING WITH FACT ON THE ISSUE. AMERICAN AWACS AND U2 SPY PLANES HAVE BEEN FLYING MISSIONS OVER IRAQ EVERY DAY FOR TEN YEARS. THIS IS THE TOP OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL FOOD CHAIN AS FAR AS EAVES DROPPING GOES BUT HAS YET TO PRODUCE DEFINITIVE LOCATIONS AND WEAPONS SIGHTINGS. THUS I FIND THE CASE FOR A WELL ARMED IRAQ TO BE INCREDULOUS. IT IS NOT A STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION TO SAY THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS USING SMOKE AND MIRRORS AND IS EQUALLY PRUDENT TO SAY THAT IN THE PROCESS OF, IT IS ALIENATING MANY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. THE GERMANS AND FRENCH FOR EXAMPLE. THIS IS PURE ASSUMPTION ON MY PART AND MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN SUPPORT ME ON THIS BUT AREN'T THE FRANCS AND GERMANS BETTER EDUCATED PER CAPITA IN COMPAIRSON TO THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN? MY POINT IS THAT BUSH AND HIS ENTOURAGE AREN'T INTERESTED IN A THOUGHT OUT SYSTEMATIC APPROACH. THE ANSWER IS WAR AND WAR ONLY. NOT TO MENTION IT NEEDS TO BE STARTED IMMEDIATLY. HOWEVER, I DIGRESS AND WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON AN INTRESTING ARTICLE I HAD READ IN THE WASHINGTON POST THIS PAST WEEK. IT SEEMS THAT THE WAR MONGERS HAVE STARTED UP THE ECONOMIC SANCTION MACHINE AND ARE POINTING IT DIRECTLY AT FRANCE AND GERMANY. I WILL START WITH THE FRENCH. WE ARE THREATNING TO LEVY A TAX ON ALL INCOMING FRENCH BOTTELED WATER AND WINE. IN ADDITION TO THIS JAW DROPPER THE U.S. HAS ALSO THREATENED TO MARK FRENCH WINE BOTTLES WITH A FLORESCENT RING DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS PURIFIED WITH BOVINE BLOOD. ONE FRENCH CRITIC COMMENTED THAT THIS IS "THE EQUIVILENT OF A MR YUK STICKER". AS IF THIS WASN'T ABSURD ENOUGH GIVEN THE SITUATION AND NATURE OF THE DISCREPANCY WE ARE ALSO THREATNING TO WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS FROM GERMANY. I HAVE TWO POINTS ON THIS ISSUE. ONE, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AND TWO, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO THREATEN SOMEONE WITH A GOOD TIME? THESE ARE SHALOW, JUVENILE, PATHETIC LAST DITCH EFFORTS THAT SHOW THE ADMINISTRATIONS TRUE COLORS. TO SAY THAT DRITY POLITICS IS NOT NECESSARY WOULD BE A COLLOSAL UNDERSTATEMENT. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT KNOWN ENEMIES OR RELATIVLY INSIGNIFICANT SMALL COUNTRIES HERE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EXTREMELY PROGRESSIVE NATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED OUR FRIENDS FOR A LONG TIME. THIS IS HOW WE TREAT THEM WHEN ALL THEY ASK FOR IS SOME THOUGHT DEVOTED TO OTHER OPTIONS? IT IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE EVIDENT THAT AMERICA IS THE NATION THAT IS BACKWARDS THINKING AND MOST LIKE A SADDAM LED DICTATORSHIP. THESE ARE STRONG WORDS INDEED BUT IF THE SHOE FITS..... IN CONCLUSION, WAR SHOULD NOT BE EVIDENT.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,FAIRWTHRBUM
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:56 AM

SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS AND THE PUNCTUATION. I CERTAINLY WASN'T TRYING TO YELL.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:16 AM

The 'professional rapist' in Iraq is according to several international organisations like Human Rights Watch another British propaganda blunder. A wrong translation from an identity card: The man in case was accused of rape which in the translation came out as 'job description'.

Sounds true to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 10:53 AM

Thanks for drawing that to the fore Wolfgang, in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's file it appears as "activity" which as stated by Humans Rights Watch could be taken as "Charge". As you say sounds logical.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:11 AM

For information - a graph summarising opinion polls on this in 15 European countries, taken in January. (The figures have moved on a bit - for example the graph shows for the UK 15% as unwilling to go to war even with UN support. The most recent poll last week has that as risen to 45%.) From the BBC site.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:24 AM

1846: President Polk says that American blood has been spilled on American soil... Hmmmmmmm? Just where were the Americans? In mexico, that's where. ****The Big Lie****

Result: The US steals New Mexico, Arizona and parts of California from Mexico in 1848;

Fast Forward...

The Battleship Maine sinks in the Havana harbor. Who sunk it? TR says the Spainish. Hmmmmmm?   ****The Big Lie**** (We learn later that there was an explosion in the engine room). And what was a battleship doing in the Havana Harbor, anyway.

Result: The Sainish American War.

Fast Forward:

Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam: US naval ship fired upon by North Vietnamese. **** The Big Lie****. Never happened:

Result: You know..

Fast Forward:

Bagdad, Iraq: US accuses Saddam Hussein of plotting to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction. The ****Big Lie****. After every attempt to provide any evidence of that claim, facts come to light to prove otherwise:

Result: Stay tuned

..... Hey, folks. The government is ***lieing***. You have oilmen in power and this is about oil. Just like Vietnem was about rubber, tin and oil. It's about stealing resources. And land. It has *nothing* to do with any threat of attack!

None!

Now go to war if you will but don't do it in my name and don't friggin' ***lie*** to me about your motives.

Resist insane foriegn policy built on greed and not security...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Thanks, McGrath. It's a pretty important poll. Looks to me like the majority of most of the countries, esp. France, are NOT against military intervention provided we act under the UN mantle. That's exactly what U.S. policy should pursue. Funny that the French government isn't representative of its own people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 01:14 PM

"Funny that the French government isn't representative of its own people."

I don't see how you get that, robomatic.

On that poll 85% of the French are against a war unless there is a specific new resolution carried through the Security Council authorising it.

That can only happen if the French Government votes in favour of such a resolution, or at least abstains (and if at least nine countries in the Security Council vote in favour of it, and none of the other countries with vetoes vote against it.)

I've heard no indication that people in France, or for that matter anywhere else (with the possible exception of the USA), want that kind of resolution to go through, or believe that it would be justified on current evidence.

And unless the Security Council passes such a resolution, any country going to war (unless it is under attack by the country it is going to war against, and the situation has not yet been brought before the Security Council), is in clear and flagrant breach of the Charter of the United Nations, which it has committed itself to uphold, and is in breach of international law. A rogue state, in other words.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. (Chapter One, Article 2, Paragraph Four, Charter of the United Nations)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 01:47 PM

The weakness in your argument I believe, McGrath, is there already IS a UN Resolution that calls for war if Iraq does not comply. It's called Resolution 1441.

Wolfgang: that's hilarious! (I suppose it wasn't to the man charged with rape though).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 03:52 PM

No it doesn't. Whatever the pundits and the politicians say, it doesn't. The resolution contains nothing that can fairly be interpreted as authority for anyone to go to war.

Here is the passage that is being used to assert that it does. In Section 13, at the end of the resolution, it says that the Security Council "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

The only body with authority to decide whether, in the light of the inspectors' report and any other evidence, Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 1441, is the Security Council.

And if it does decide that Iraqis have so failed, the only body with the authority to determine what the "serious consequences" should consist of would be the Security Council. An instant war is by no means the only thing that term could mean. It could just as well mean an expanded and more rigorous inspection, or a continuation of sanctions, and that doesn't exhaust the listvof possibilities.

Anyway - here is the whole resolution. A bit wordy, but nothing whatsoever authorising any country to go to war:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

          The Security Council,

          Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

          Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

          Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

          Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

          Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

          Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

          Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

          Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

          Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

          Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

          Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

          Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

          Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

          Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

          Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

          Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

          Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

          Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

          2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

          3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

          4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

          5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

          6.       Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

          7.       Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

      – All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

      – Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient United Nations security guards;

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

      – UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

          8.       Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

          9.       Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

          10.    Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

          11.    Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

          12.    Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

          13.    Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

          14.    Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 04:16 PM

Wow!! Nothing like backing up a statement with facts! More people should try that. But then, facts are so damned inconvenient, aren't they?   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 07:21 PM

The problem is Kevin, no matter what facts, or decisions are produced there are those who will not acept any decision inconvenient to thier own prejudices.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 08:56 PM

That's always a problem. But that is the reason all those agreements were reached, and they are meant to bind us.

Our countries have promised to abide by the United Nations Charter, and this war is going to be a clear breach of that Charter, unless it's backed by at least nine members of the Security Council, with no vetoes.

Attempts to bully countries into voting the way they don't believe is right, on the grounds that, if the UN doesn't back the war, Bush is going to go to war anyway, so it's better if it's made legal - that seems to me, to use a word that has been thrown around rather loosely recently, a kind of appeasement. It's saying might is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:27 PM

Carol, if you say to me "you're not really in a position to have an opinion on this matter". You are more or less telling me, "you have no right to have and express an opinion on this matter".

I can see a distinction between those two different statements. Perhaps you cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Feb 03 - 09:34 PM

The thing that is missing from the above is the addendum "..in the opinion of some." But, obviously, not in the considered opinion of those elected representatives charged with the responsibility of the legislature and governance of the country.

The legislators are not generally constitutional scholars. They are politicians. There is a very big difference. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to make sure that when the legislature passes laws that are unconstitutional, there is a means of redress. Unfortunately, with some of the changes that will be made under the Patriot Act, there will be people who will not have access to the courts, and there will be no way for the Supreme Court to make any kind of ruling on the constitutionality of those laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:48 AM

"Wow!! Nothing like backing up a statement with facts! More people should try that. But then, facts are so damned inconvenient, aren't they?   

Don Firth"

The above was posted in response to MGOH's post on UNSC Resolution 1441. OK so let's take a look at it:

The preamble lists the previous resolutions passed by the UNSC with regard to Iraq subsequent to their invasion of Kuwait up to the date of the signing of resolution 1441. Iraq's total compliance with the resolutions passed formed the basis of the "CEASE FIRE" agreement that brought "Desert Storm" hostilities to an end. The preamble also clearly states that Iraq has not complied.

Therefore the fact, Don, is that Iraq has broken the terms of that cease fire agreement.

So much for the preamble, now let's look at the detail of UNSC Resolution 1441.

          "Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

          Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

          Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

          1.       Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);"

Basically outlines the status: "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions,"

         " 2.       Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"

"..to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the council;" are the operative words, i.e. it is Iraq's responsibility to disarm and to do so fully in such a way that it can be verified by the UN's enhanced inspection regime - Note this does not mean that the enhanced inspection regime has to go into Iraq to play hide-and-seek.

          "3.       Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;"

UNSC Resolution 1441: NON-COMPLIANCE No. 1
Their declaration delivered to the UNSC on 7th December, 2002 was not "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration" according to Dr. Hans Blix of UNMOVIC. Again this point emphasises that the inspectors are not there to engage in the detective work required to unearth WMD.

          "4.       Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;"

Consequences clearly defined and stated - Non-compliance No. 1 above is a Material Breach by UNSC's own definition. MATERIAL BREACH No. 1
NON-COMPLIANCE No. 2 - Iraq is required to cooperate fully - Failure of Iraq to cooperate fully was reported to the UNSC by Dr. Hans Blix on 5th February, 2003. Under the definition given above this constitutes MATERIAL BREACH No. 2.

          "5.       Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;"

This paragraph clearly sets a time frame to establish the commencement of inspections and to update the UNSC of status and degree of Iraqi cooperation, the date of that report was 5th February, 2003.

NON-COMPLIANCE No. 3 - On 5th February, 2003 both Hans Blix and Mohamed AlBaradei both reported only partial cooperation on the part of the Iraqi authorities, and, non-cooperation with regard to the interviews as detailed in UNSC Resolution 1441 - MATERIAL BREACH No. 3.


          "7.       Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq, to facilitate their work in Iraq:

      "– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;"

NON-COMPLIANCE No. 3 - MATERIAL BREACH No. 3.

      "– UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;"

At the time of making his report to the UNSC (5.02.03) Dr. Hans Blix reported that Iraq was in non-compliance with this requirement.
NON-COMPLIANCE No. 4 - MATERIAL BREACH No. 4

          9.       Requests the Secretary-General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Again this gives a time frame - Iraq did confirm within the seven days stipulated - again Iraq failed to honour the undertakings it agreed to in that:

- It has fully complied as directed to do from the outset of this inspection programme.

- It has not cooperated fully, unconditionally and actively as directed to do from the outset.

Readers Note: That is not opinion, those are facts as reported to the UNSC by the heads of the inspection teams.

          "10.    Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;"

This is a mechanism by which verification can be cross-checked. It does not, and should not, be used to encourage a sophisticated game of "hide-and-seek". Everything above clearly defines that it is Iraq that must disarm in a manner that can be verified without doubt in the opinion of the UNSC.

          "11.    Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;"

Dr. Hans Blix has done so.

          "12.    Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"

UNSC has done so and decided to give Iraq a final, final chance.

          "13.    Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

The repeated warnings by Council have been largely ignored by Iraq as, experience has shown, there is every possibility (if the UN runs true to form), there will be many, many more final, final warnings issued so that the threat of facing serious consequences will vanish entirely.

          "14.    Decides to remain seized of the matter."

Yes, Right. This is UN jargon for "We will do nothing in the hope that the situation gets forgotten and we can resume or well funded and ordered lives back in sleepy hollow". Unfortunately for the UN the member state responsible for bringing this outstanding matter to their attention, is one of, if not, the most powerful state in the world, and that state perceives a clear and growing threat should this matter remain unresolved - They will not be able to put this to bed quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:57 AM

A correction to my post reviewing UNSC Resolution 1441

At point 9. where my original post states:

"Again this gives a time frame - Iraq did confirm within the seven days stipulated - again Iraq failed to honour the undertakings it agreed to in that:

- It has fully complied as directed to do from the outset of this inspection programme."

It should of course read:

- It has NOT fully complied as directed to do from the outset of this inspection programme."

Further most of the conditions outlined in paragraph 7 of the resolution that I have not commented on specifically are meaningless without full and active cooperation on the part of the Iraqi Authorities.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 05:47 AM

Further correction:

With regard to UNSC Resolution 1441, there are five instances of Iraqi non-compliance, that, at the time of the Weapons Inspectors report of 5.02.03 constitute Material Breaches, they are:

1. The Iraqi Declaration

2. Lack of Iraqi cooperation

3. Iraqi obstruction with regard to interviews

4. Failure to supply UNMOVIC and IAEA with lists of personnel engaged on work (previously or at present) related to WMD programmes and programmes where dual use materials and equipment are used.

5. Unrestricted use of aircraft.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 06:04 AM

The only body with authority to decide whether Iraq's behaviour is such that "serious consequences" are required, in the light of the report beging made by Mr Blix is the Security Council, not you or me or Mr Blair or Mr Bush.

And if it does so decide, the Security Council is the only body with authority to determine what those "serious consequences" should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:04 AM

Kevin, as far as I am aware I did not mention Mr. Bush or Mr Blair in regard to the process of determining Iraqi non-compliance, what constitutes a material breach of resolution 1441, or, with regard to what the term "serious consequences" in effect means. All those as you correctly state should be the sole preserve of the UNSC, as advised by Dr's Blix and AlBaradei, and I did refer to both those gentlemen in my post.

You went to the effort of detailing the precise contents of UNSC Resolution 1441 in order that there could be no misunderstanding of what was being discussed - for that, on my part I am most grateful.

The basis of my comments with regard to Resolution 1441 are that terms, conditions, stipulations, call them what you will, came into force in their entirety the day thet Iraq agreed to them. Not "We (Iraq) will comply in part if they (UNMOVIC/IAEA) bring up such and such a point on such and such a date". Then "We will concede on such and such a matter if the UN takes such and such a stance over this issue." - That is not the way that the process was meant to be implimented. Under the terms of Resolution 1441 there are demonstrably five instances of Iraqi non-compliance that could be viewed as Material Breaches. It remains to be seen what the UNSC intend to do about them after this final, final opportunity.

Initially neither France, Russia or China wanted UNSC Resolution 1441 - In fact they argued vehemently against it.

UNSC Resolution 1441 was a greatly modified version of the USA & Britains original draft resolution - blocked by France, Russia and China. Now lo and behold look what Germany and France (backed by Russia) have come up with - The Mirage Proposal - The original US & UK draft that they blocked. Pity it wasn't adopted back in September of last year - it might have ensured Iraqi co-operation from the start.

Fact - Iraq must disarm and renounce its policy on WMD, and prove to the world that it has done so.

Fact - The only way that this can be done is for the Iraqi's to do this themselves.

Fact - If they refuse to do so they must be compelled to do so. The word of the current Iraqi regime cannot be relied upon. Sanctions do not work. The only stumbling block to this situation being resolved is the current Iraqi regime, therefore if Iraq must be compelled to disarm - That regime must go.

Back the US & UK stance and the "serious consequences" will ensure that the matter will be resolved.

Back the French and German stance and the "serious consequences" will ammount to a "severe talking to" as a result of which nothing is resolved and the UN is shown to be precisely the paper tiger its predecessor the League of Nations was - i.e. totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the UK & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:48 AM

The reason I mentioned Blair and Bush as well as you and me, Teribus, is that it appears that they believe that their views on this matter are what matters, and that, if the Security Council does not back them up, they will go to war regardless.

Such evidence as I have seen seems to indicate that, on the basis of what has happened so far, the inspection team believe that considerable progress has been made, and that more time is needed to discover whether the Iraq claims that they have got rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction are true or false.

If "serious consequences" should be required, on the grounds that the Iraqi authorities have been less actively cooperative in the inspection process than is required of them, and that there are still reasons to doubt their claims, then the proposals put forward by the French, Germans and Belgians are on the table.

These amount to a great deal more than "a severe talking to". Admittedly they do not include a massive series of air attacks on Iraq and an all out invasion. However they do envisage a greatly increased level of surveillance of Iraq, with a greatly enlarged inspection force, backed up by expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground.

This way of proceeding seems to me something that should not be dismissed out of hand. It is far more consistent with the United Nations Charter than the alternative presented by the US and the UK Governments of immediate and massive war.

The obligation of those who think that war is justified is to persuade the Security Council that war is a more satisfactory way of proceeding, and that the Franco-German plan has no prospects of assuring that Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, if indeed it has any at present. If they cannot succeed in doing this, such a war will be in breach of our solemn commitments, and of international law.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 08:47 AM

Excellent thought Kevin - and how are we to get all thouse thousands of NEW weapons inspectors into Iraq ?? By Force ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 08:57 AM

The entire "resolution" is a joke anyway! Remember back a few months ago when Bush was warming up his fuff-n-puff foriegn policy? Then came the massive letter writing campaign and mobilization of the anti-war m0ovement. Opps. Minor miscalclation...

So then Bush huddled with his advisors and they came to the conclusion that the US and world had a longer check list in mind before military options would be used. But duriug this entire process Bush had his usual 4 to 5 temper tantrums a week and continued threatening to *whack* this guy or that guy.

The resolution was written more to appease a threatening madman than trying to disarm Saddam, who until Bush decided was going to take over bin Laden's role od bogieman de-jour, was no particular threat at that point in time.

Well, all the resolution did was create a little time for Bush to re-think his position and for the world to try to push diplomacy into the mix. It was deemed to fail from the very beginning since Bush is Hell bent on war and the Commander of Chief of the worlds most powerful military can huff-n-puff his way into any war he wants.

Congress threw up their arms and their "constitutional" responsibilities on the deal because they looked around the room an discovered that their composition was heavily weighted with Repub hawks. Who expected anything different. That's Congress for ya.

So, now it's down to quibbeling over the language of the resolution. Forget it. We need to be looking at the bigger picture and allow the magican to fool us with the slight of hand in focusing on details of the document. It comes down to war or peace. You can only have one! Not both.

Diplomacy of DU's tank killers that also poison our environment. You can't have both.

Security or the creation of an entire generation of terrorists. You can't have both.

Resist war today!

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:20 AM

It should of course be recognised that left eniterly to the auspices of the United Nations absolutely nothing would ever have been done.

The only reason that there are weapons inspections teams currently present in Iraq today is due entirely to the efforts of the current American Administration.

Kevin contends that:

"...it appears that they (Bush and Blair) believe that their views on this matter are what matters, and that, if the Security Council does not back them up, they will go to war regardless."

President Bush's concerns do matter and the views of the USA and the UK matter as much as the views of the other members of the UNSC matter.

"...on the basis of what has happened so far, the inspection team believe that considerable progress has been made, and that more time is needed to discover whether the Iraq claims that they have got rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction are true or false."

UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections teams are only in Iraq today because the current US Administration forced the issue - no other reason. The progress that you speak of has been made inspite of grudging co-operation, given in fits and starts, by an Iraqi regime that is being constantly reminded of what consequences might be by the presence of a credible threat.

"If "serious consequences" should be required, on the grounds that the Iraqi authorities have been less actively cooperative in the inspection process than is required of them, and that there are still reasons to doubt their claims, then the proposals put forward by the French, Germans and Belgians are on the table."

You conveniently ignore the requirement that full co-operation was required from Day 1 - it was never meant to be gradual. I also take it that you refer to the French and German proposal that has been backed by the Russians and latterly the Chinese - the French, German and Belgian reference relates to planning involving increased Patriot missile defence for Turkey in the event of a war in Iraq.

"These ("serious consequences") amount to a great deal more than "a severe talking to". Admittedly they do not include a massive series of air attacks on Iraq and an all out invasion. However they do envisage a greatly increased level of surveillance of Iraq, with a greatly enlarged inspection force, backed up by expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground."

So serious consequences comes down to increased surveillence, more inspectors, expanded air inspections and UN troops on the ground. All of which still mounts to nothing if the Iraqi's are not co-operating. Where do the additional inspectors come from? The type of experienced specialists required are not exactly thick on the ground. Dr. Hans Blix is having trouble sourcing an additional 12 inspectors, France of course can supply an additional 250 at the drop of a hat - Reality, this is merely a sound byte for the assembled press corps. The Iraqi's have already refused to have "UN troops on the ground" so how would the UN go about compelling the Iraqi's to reconsider?

"This way of proceeding seems to me something that should not be dismissed out of hand. It is far more consistent with the United Nations Charter than the alternative presented by the US and the UK Governments of immediate and massive war."

The French the Russians and the Chinese dismissed this proposal out of hand last September when it was proposed by the USA & UK - So what is so great about it now? The greatest difference of course is that back last September, had it been adopted, it could have worked. Now being introduced as the "serious consequences" it is impractical and ineffectual - If that was presented to Saddam Hussein as the "flesh and bones" of "serious consequences", he would laugh out loud, or if he was feeling really conciliatory merely shrug.

"The obligation of those who think that war is justified is to persuade the Security Council that war is a more satisfactory way of proceeding, and that the Franco-German plan has no prospects of assuring that Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction, if indeed it has any at present. If they cannot succeed in doing this, such a war will be in breach of our solemn commitments, and of international law."

Well, ultimately, even following the Franco-German Plan, "serious consequences" will come down to military intervention. The French and the Germans, unless they are only looking at the situation through rose-coloured glasses (which is, in all probability true, as neither they, nor, the UN wanted to do anything about this anyway) must recognise this as a possibility. A UN coalition led by France, Germany and Russia - I couldn't think of a better recipe for disaster.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:38 AM

Hey there folks,

In the midst of a fairly well conducted, civilised debate on issue and fact - The comedy break, in the form of a groundless, totally inane, hysterical rant, was brought to you by Bobert, whose needle seems to be stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:47 AM

Stuck needles? I think yours, Teribus, is stuck in that "Teribus gets his facts wrong, and is almost immediately shot down by McGrath" groove. Personally attacking Bobert isn't "well conducted, civilised debate."

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:08 AM

Hey Lepus - What me personally attack Bobert - Hell no ize jes' funnin y'know - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Oh and re: "Teribus gets his facts wrong, and is almost immediately shot down by McGrath" - Shot down - Hell he hasn't even come close to syngeing my tail feathers - not one thing so far in the discourse on Resolution 1441 that I have stated as being fact has been challenged, let alone refuted. But, there again, you are always welcome to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:16 AM

Wow, another personal attack on Bobert. You're on a well conducted, civilised roll, dude.

And if you can't see that not only has McGrath shot you down, but he's skinned, gutted, and roasted you, well, you're delusional, and nothing I can say will convince you. But don't waste your time with me... Watching your arguments fail is good, reliable entertainment. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:19 AM

"How are we to get all those thousands of NEW weapons inspectors into Iraq ?? By Force ???"

What I assume the countries pushing that envisage is that, if Iraq does not volunteer to allow this, there should be a binding resolution which would require him to accept this. Should Iraq fail to accept it, the case for the UK/US alternative would be strengthened. It would only take a few days to get clarification on this - in fact I strongly suspect that before publishing the proposal the governments concerned will have done their homework, and have reason to believe that their proposals would be accepted by Iraq.

However in the existing climate I would expect that the UK or the US would be only too likely to veto such a resolution. I'd call that an unreasonable veto.

The real question is, why is there such a desperate hurry? And the answer to that is that once a war machine has been put into action it is awkward to stop it or pause it. That is generally given as the dynamic that caused the Great War in 1914.

Well, waiting a few months would be inconvenient, and it would be expensive. But so would a war. And there is no reason to think that a wait would strengthen Saddam's military position - if anything the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Wotcha
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:22 AM

My mathematics is a bit off but the 600+ Kuwaitis who were kidnapped or otherwise unaccounted for after Saddam's troops retreated might have something to say about this impending conflict: interesting that no Mudcatter has bothered to mention that an ongoing UN Resolution requires full accounting of these people.

If an equivalent number of Americans had been kidnapped (600,000), we wouldn't have waited 12 years to do something about it. Saddam's regime never made any effort to deal with this issue over the years: too bad that his people have to suffer, but that is the price to pay for being the aggressor.

Nobody wants war, since in Ben Franklin's words "there was never such a thing as a good war or a bad peace ..." Saddam knows what he has to do to avert it ... he has no legitimacy and must go, even if we have to go in and get him out. To do otherwise is a grave abdication to a tyrant.

Cheers,

Brian

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 12:31 PM

Written in sorrow, Feb 14, 2003

WAR

War is for neanderthals
who brandish bloody clubs;
and roaring insane battle calls
smash kinder hearts to pulp.

War's roots lie deep in avarice
in hatred and in lies
and suck the bile of ignorance
that their deathly fruit survive.

O hither come the blokes of war
See how they foam and rage!
They're howling just outside my door
"Join the tyrants of this age!"

And though the wisest of the wise
teach war is obsolete;
Still we march toward that vile dawn
on shameless, guilty feet.


:-(   daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ringer
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 01:08 PM

No resolution of UNSC will change the rightness/wrongness of invading Iraq. That would be true even if the UNSC were perfectly omniscient and perfectly impartial. But the UN is a talking shop filled with placemen seeking their own countries' political advantage and far from perfect. It is almost irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM

While agreeing with what you are saying daylia, I think it's a bit unfair on neanderthals. There is absolutely no indication that they were particularly bloodthirsty or anything like that.

The neanderthals were displaced by the ancestors of human beings (Cro-Magnons), when they arrived in Europe. It seems pretty likely that they were victims of the first recorded genocide. And it was our people who did it.

No resolution of UNSC will change the rightness/wrongness of invading Iraq. True enough.

But that's like saying no verdict brought out by a court will change the fact that someone has or has not done a crime. and thta is true too - courts get it wrong sometimes. But replacing the decision of the court by the opinion of the strongest bully on the block is not an improvement. Without a resolution authorising an attack on Iraq that attack will literally be a criminal act, a kind of international lynching.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 02:18 PM

Oh such sad lyrics, Daylia, and sadder because it's true. People are so consumed with arguing over how many angels will fir on the end of a pin, that they absolutely *refuse* to open their eyes to reality that very little has been done by the US to find peaceful solutions to complex problems.

Teribus is a prime example. T writes volumes about details and details of details but nothing about, absoltely nothing about the real possibilities for mankind with another tact. He accuses me of being a stuck record but doesn't see that the Bush administration has been telling the same *big lie* over and over and over for a year now. And when the polls say that folks don't believe the *big lie* they tweek it a tad or replace it with another *big lie*.

Well, the discussion needs to be moved from the center of the magnifying glass to the big picture.

And in the "big" picture, mankind (especially Bush and Co. who seem to be the only ones that really don't get it) *exhausts* diplomacy. All we're getting now is "Well, we tried it..." and then its back to the incesant pounding on the drum. Well, no, we haven't tried it.

You give me the White House and 20% of the anticipated costs of invading Iraq and I'd get the Middle East calmed down and on track. No, that wouldn't mean we'd be able to steal anyone's resources or kill anyone but that shouldn't be the cornerstone of a foriegn policy.

And, no, I'm sure the soft and hard money to get re-elected would dry up but who cares because I'd be working on real campaign finance reform and publicly finacned elections and TV debates like we used to have in the 50's and the corporations would be there for making products and not public policy...

So go ahead, Teribus, and tell me that "We've tried that." for the 10,000th time. What ever floats your boat... Don't make you right...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 03:00 PM

Everone here is exactly the same John, they resent the US government and I mean Bush and the warmongers feeding him this lying propagenda.
Apart from a small minority on the Mudcat we all seem to be against this war.
I was talking yesterday to a friend just returned from Las Vegas and he told me that the vast majority there were all for the war, he said it was that silly"lets kick ass" sentiment being expressed all over Las Vegas, so any other US towns of a like nature?,. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:23 PM

I posted this on another thread, but I will also post it here

Unfortunately, there are not very many politicians, Republicans or Democrats, who seem have the guts to stand strongly for peace against the powerful forces that wish to lead us into war. I'm proud to say that my congressional representative (Washington State, 7th Congressional District), Jim McDemott, is one who is willing to speak out and to keep speaking out.

I'm not sure that THIS will accomplish anything, but he's certainly on the right track, and he doesn't give up easily. It's people like him who maintain my often waning faith that there may be hope for our political system in spite of all.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 04:37 PM

Here is a link to a page with a video link (BBC) to various speeches today in the Security Council (click on "Iraq's weapons: Full UN report and reaction"). It seems pretty up and down to me, there can't be a UN backed war now, until at the very least the inspectors have had some more time.

That's on the basis of the speech by Blix and his colleague, and the French and Russian response, for a start. (Especially the French one. Brilliant.)

I think if Bush wants a war he might well have to go on his own. Except of course. he won't do that. He'll send the poor sods in the services. I wouldn't bet on Blair being able to deliver the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 05:15 PM

On a musical note, I like the B-52's as well as the Dixies, but I don't imagine they get much play in Iraq... At The Love Shack... in Iraq... BANG BANG. (You have to know the B-52's tune "Love Shack" to appreciate that joke. Oh, the other joke about the sand which you may have overlooked - it was estimated that as many as 240,000 Iraqi soldiers were buried alive in sand bunkers by b-52 bombing in the last little set-to.)

Lepussy.... you forgot to call me insensitive too. gnu

Now me, I wouldn't call you 'insensitive', gnu. No. I call you 'scary'. These times bring out facets and features in some Mudcatters that I would not have guessed.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 06:15 PM

Written and revised in sorrow, Feb 14, 2003

WAR

War is for neanderthals the brutish few
who brandish bloody clubs;
and roaring insane battle calls
smash kinder hearts to pulp.

War's roots lie deep in avarice
in hatred and in lies
and suck the bile of ignorance
that their deathly fruit survive.

O hither come the blokes of war
See how they foam and rage!
They're howling just outside my door
"Join the tyrants of this age!"

And though the wisest of the wise
teach war is obsolete;
Still we march toward that vile dawn
on shameless, guilty blessed feet.



Revisions made out of fairness to neanderthals, and in respect and gratitude to all the veterans of past wars who have, I'm sure, enough to deal with without being judged 'guilty' of circumstances largely beyond their control. And I'm feelin better now!   :-)

Thanks to Sandy Creek and McGrath of Harlow, and to Mudcat for hosting my 'work in progress'.

Peace and hope

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 06:47 PM

I think Blix is just an empire builder. Sure he wants to continue inspections! Who doesn't want job security? He would probably propose continuing inspections into the next century.

Lepus: If you think Kevin has trumped Teribus on his #1441 threads, I question whether you are fully reading both threads.

As for his "picking" on Bobert, he's just giving him a taste of his own medicine. Bobert is a big boy and I'm sure can take care of himself okay.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:30 PM

I was talking yesterday to a friend just returned from Las Vegas and he told me that the vast majority there were all for the war, he said it was that silly"lets kick ass" sentiment being expressed all over Las Vegas, so any other US towns of a like nature?,. Ard Mhacha.

Ah, but that's a town chock full of gamblers. Shouldn't that tell us something?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:30 PM

You're delusional, too, Doug? Say it ain't so! I read everything, dude. Needless to say, I, and, I think it's safe to say, a large number of others here, disagree. And as usual, I'm right. Life is swell. :)

I targeted Teribus because he's a hypocrite, not because I thought Bobert needed saving. If he's going to claim to be taking part in a "well conducted, civilised debate on issue and fact," it might be best to avoid insulting and mocking his fellow debaters, eh?

And maybe I missed something, but I don't recall Bobert attacking Teribus (before being attacked himself, that is). So how does this "good for the gander" and "taste of his own medicine" thing work out for you?

---Lepus Rex

PS---Oh, yeah: And I'm against a war on Iraq. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:48 PM

Best to avoid personal attacks, even when they are counter attacks. They just get in the way of an argument - and they give the person you are arguing with an easy way of avoiding the issue.

"I think Blix is just an empire builder." Well I imagine that's the kind of thing people will say now he's failed to deliver what was needed. In fact I known it's very mild compared to some of the things that have already been said.

I don't think it sounds very likely though. Hans Blix is 74, and I'm sure he'd much sooner be back home in Sweden than involved in all this malarkey, and would like to get the job done as soon as he honestly can. He'd have to be crazy not to, and he didn't look the least bit crazy to me.

But I'd really have thought Doug would be pleased at indications that all the pressure is starting to pay off, and that it could be possible to ensure that Saddam doesn't have any "weapons of mass destruction" without having to have a war. Isn't that what you were predicting would happen all along Doug? And that's not me being sarcastic, I mean it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 07:59 PM

Lepus,

What do you do with a murder like Saddam who has broken the rules and has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction? How long should we give him? What do we do to keep him from breaking the rules?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 08:23 PM

Don et al:

The suit brought aginst Bush is a great idea. Hey, it might just take hold. Can you imagine the judge slapping an injunction on the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld war regime!?!?... Then Ramsey Clarks group fololws up with a move to impeach and maybe, just maybe, the American people can distract the warmongers long enough to rescue democracy.

And thanks, folks, for whatever assistence you have provided with the T-Bird (Teribus) but Teribus doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have T figgured out. T thinks that volume is all it takes to hold a position. Wrong, that just make T, ahhh, more wrong than someone who doesn't feel *compelled* to write "Tropic of Cancer" length rebuttals.

Plus, T is all details and can't see the forest though the trees. That is very much apparent. Hey, I'm not trying to be personal here. Just making observations that a lot of folks have allready figured out.

Ahhh, back to Bush. Seems he had a bad day at the office with Hans Blix telling the world that Saddam is pretty much being a good little prisoner...

Now what's Bush going to do. The world is growing bored with his temper tantrums and that's all he knows being the rich frat brat that he is. Even his mom has said that he was a pain in the butt...

Doug:

Well, I've avoided you fir about three or four days now for saying that me and Saddam were buddies and I'm missing ya so if you wanta go back to saying that me and Saddam are buddies, well, go ahead, dangit, as long as we both know it ain't true.

Deal?

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 09:39 PM

Does anyone know the French and German oil interests in Iraq? What about their financial dealings with Saddam?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Susan A-R
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:14 PM

Should the UK and US go to war with Iraq? In a word, NO

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:20 PM

Awwwww, Geeze, Susan A-R... You're no fun. I mean Colin Poweel says that if we don't then next thin ya' know there will be a big mushroom cloud rising above America. Don'tcha think that would be real bad?

Jus' funnin'...

But I was real disappointed with the Cond Rice "Mushroom Cloud" *Big Lie* gettin' another shot. I thought that the drum beaters had buried that one forever. But, hey, Powell is running out of material so we'll forgive him for this Golden Oldie of Lies...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 07:02 AM

Ebbie... perhaps t'was a bit much for this venue, but I'm a forty-six year old male brought up in a military family and it was pretty tame actually. Nothing worse than seen on The Daily Show or The Tonight Show or....

In my heart of hearts, I hope war is averted. However, that burden is now with one man, and I fear he will continue to choose war. Again, I believe, along with most of the UN, that 1441's military option is a last resort and also that it must be imposed if Saddam chooses it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 07:21 AM

MGOH was asked a question relating to implimentation of the Franco-German proposal.

""How are we to get all those thousands of NEW weapons inspectors into Iraq ?? By Force ???"

What I assume the countries pushing that envisage is that, if Iraq does not volunteer to allow this, there should be a binding resolution which would require him to accept this."

Ah! - So that's where everybody at the UN has been going wrong all these years - What we need are BINDING Resolutions - I'm amazed that that hadn't occurred to them before.

As far as the French and German governments are concerned "serious consequences" will only ever mean "we'll give them a stiff talking to". Why? because the lack the will, means, moral courage and strength of purpose to do what they know is required.

Should this situation develope to the point where military intervention becomes necessary - just watch the French scramble like hell to jump on the band wagon - they have already started. My reason for saying so? - take a look at where the France's aircraft carrier is heading.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 08:10 AM

Why doesn't America and UK go to war with Israel, because they are not obeying resolution 1441 with the help of America, and who was were the countries that sold Iraq the weapons, America and UK. Should America and Uk go to war, I think that they shouldn't but they're going to war with or without the UN backing.
And as I said in my two other posts, America, UK and Australia are going to war or else they wouldn't be sending their troops over there.
And also their Speical forces either to lay the ground for the troops to go in.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 09:44 AM

As has already been mentioned in the hypocricy(sic) thread, there are very distinct legal differences between the resolutions against Israel and those against Iraq. Also, a war against Israel would be very difficult to tie into the war on terrorism, and would definately reduce support for the Bush regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 02:08 PM

Mmmm ! "and who was were the countries that sold Iraq the weapons, America and UK. "

Errr ! Don't you mean France and Germany ???

France. Nuclear technology, Mirage Aircraft.

Germany Nuclear technolagy and biowarfare technology, and chemical raw materials and equipment.

Get yer facts right !


Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:40 PM

Gareth: our friend from Scotland probably got his information from one of the threads here on the Mudcat. Bobert? Didn't you post that one time? (about where Iraq got it's weapons).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:46 PM

If Bush knows what weapons Saddam has, it's because he has the receipts.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:58 PM

Don... and that's why the US and the Commonwealth will be going in first and alone.... to mop up the mess. It's only fair to the rest of our allies that we take responsibility for selling Saddam the nasty stuff he is about to defend himself with. Thoughts and prayers to all sides in this, if Saddam chooses war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 06:23 PM

Iraq got its weapons from just about everywhere. Including all those four countries. And the sooner people stop selling weapons like that the better. Can we all agree on that anyway?

"Serious consequences" can means just about anything, and was intended to. And meaning anything it means nothing. That was the intention of the people who fudged the resolution, so that different people could claim it meant different things.

"War" is a much shorter and less ambigious word. If a resolution is intended to authorise war, that's the word it should use. Or maybe "miitary action" since they don't much like short words.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Mexican
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 06:25 PM

Yes!!!
Flush the crap down the toilet.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 06:26 PM

"Thoughts and prayers to all sides in this, if Saddam chooses war."

With all due respect Gnu, my gut feeling is that this war will happen no matter what Saddam chooses to say or do, if GW Bush gets his way. Because oil interests are the bottom line here, WMD and so-called 'terrorism' only a smoke-screen, an attempt to legitimize war in the eyes of the American people and of the rest of the world.

Somehow I really wish I'm wrong though ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 07:02 PM

Gareth sez:
   "Diplomatic solutions require both sides to negotiate - this is
   not happening. If the Iraqui Goverment start meaningful
   negotiations it will have been forced upon them by the threat
   of war."

Hmmmmmm. So "meaningful _negotiations_" will have to be
"forced" on them, eh?

My, what a new world we live in, with an abundance of
neologisms and boundless possibilities for imaginative
use of the English language.

Cheers,

                           -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:43 AM

Well who sold Irag the weapons when he was at war with Iran, eh!The facts are America and the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:07 AM

bbfSS,

The Iraqi armed forces in terms of organisation are based on the UK.

Their military hardware with respect to their army units is Russian/ex-Warsaw Pact.

Their Airforce is equipped with Russian aircraft, during the Iran - Iraq war it was a combination of Russian and French aircraft, many of the latter flown by French mercenary pilots

Missiles from China, North Korea and Russia.

If you doubt any of the above go to the internet and look through pictures of Iraqi military equipment - you will see T-72, T-60 and T-55 tanks (Russian), you will see BMP personnel carriers (Russian), Lots of AK-47 or SK-74 Assault rifles (Russian/Chinese), MIG-21, MIG-23 and MIG-29 aircraft (Russian). You will not see any British of American aircraft, you will not see any British or American armoured vehicles, you will not see any M-16, SLR or SA80 assault rifles. Their artillery is all Russian.

If you hold to your contention that Saddam was armed by the UK and USA please provide some examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:25 AM

I'm not to sure but here's a web site all about the Iraq weapons and the company's that gave iraq.

www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers
This is the website that has all the informtion

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:27 AM

www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:36 AM

And If I am wrong then I'm sorry, i just asumed that the Yanks and th Brits gave Iraq their weapons, and as I say This website that I have just posted might be the one that you are looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 02:08 PM

No appology needed bus bitter.

To misquote Orwell "£ Just because some fool postes his/her prejudices on the 'Cat doesn't make them true".

Aren says Hmmmmmm. So "meaningful _negotiations_" will have to be
"forced" on them, eh?"

Yes mate, would there be any weapons ionspectors in Iraq without the threat of force ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 02:23 PM

Iraq's conventional weaponry is mostly Russian in manufacture, which is true of many Third World countries. Their chemical and biological weapons, on the other hand, were initially supplied by America for use against Iran. That's part of the reason that the inspections can't turn up absolute proof that Saddam made WMD's. They can't be sure whether he was using his own materials or what we gave him.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 02:55 PM

Here's an article about the US involvement in those kind of things during the First Gulf War (the one that started when Iraq invaded Iran). It was first printed in the San Francisco Chronicle, which I believe is not a particularly far left publication.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 03:25 PM

Gareth, you really do believe that America and Uk didn't supply Iraq with weapons, please read the post by both myself with that website, and also form lurker and what they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 03:28 PM

If I am wrong I'm sorry, however there is that website that I have posted.
Please read it and then tell what you think

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 05:40 PM

I think that the alliance that includes the US, UK, Spain Italy and other European countries we should remove Saddam Hussein from power. We should give the UN a few more weeks to uncover the WMDs and then attack the regime even if they haven't found them yet.

I think we should do everything possible to protect the Iraqi people from the massacre Saddam has planned for them. I think we should try to prevent him from torching the oil wells, blowing the dams, bridges, power plants, water treatment facilities and other parts of the infrastructure so that the Iraqi people will not suffer after the regime change.

I believe that we should take and see that the income from the oil produced by Iraq goes to benefit the people instead of going to Saddam's 50 or more palaces and his secret weapons programs.

Then I think we should be proud of liberating another country and hope that the seed of Democracy will grow and spread to the surrounding countries.

I think that is the plan of the administration and I support that plan.

If more than half of the world's population thinks that is wrong I may reconsider.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 06:08 PM

I think the rest of the world is a bit doubtful whether that is quite what Bush has in mind, and even more doubtful about whether that is how it will work out, Old Guy.

For example, up in the part of Iraq where most of the Kurds live, for the past few years Saddam has been kept at bay, and his rule doesn't operate there. What they are worried about now, from what I've read, is that in an invasion the Turks will be given a free hand to come in and repress them, the same way they've been repressing their fellow Kurds in Turkey for generations.

"We should do everything possible to protect the Iraqi people from the massacre Saddam has planned for them" - I assume that would be the mass slaughter of civilians that can be anticipated as the attacking forces drive into the cities, and from the covering air and missile attack, assuming Saddam's troops do not stay out of the cities.

The point about WMDs is, as Blix pointed out, the fact that they have not been discovered is not an absolute proof that they exist. It could be that Blix will find convincing evidence that what may have existed at one time has been destroyed. And until he has reported on that, any suggestion of an attack would be a bit premature.

Of course, if he is able to show that that is the case, there will be nothing anyone can do to stop America attacking Iraq - but at least they might be able to find it easier to reduce civilian casualties.

I occurs to me that thinking like that might be a very strong motive, from the point of view of Saddam, for keeping people guessing. He must wish he had been able to fool America that he actually did have all that stuff ready and primed for use. If he'd done that there'd be minimal chance of an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:18 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:48 PM

Mr. McGrath:

What do you think the plan of the alliance to depose Saddam Hussein is?

What do you think is the plan of Saddam Hussein to defeat them?

All I hear is bombs are going to be dropped on innocent old people, women and children. What kind of bombs? When Where? What are the rules of engagement? There is a knee-jerk reaction saying "Millions" of people will die. How would that possibly get rid of Saddam?

I don't believe for a second that any one in the military or the administration is doing anything but trying to figure out a plan to avoid civilian casualties.

Protestors think everybody in authority has a secret agenda. I don't see it. I think their agenda is to have a place to live where they are safe from terrorist attacks. I think we have some faith in the plans of the administration. Enumerate their failures and history of lying.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:10 PM

Modern wars kill civilians. I don't suppose the Israelis really set out to kill ten thousand or so civilians in the air attacks on Lebanese cities, but that's what happens.

Percentage of Civilian Deaths:
World War I: 14%
World War II: 67%      
Wars of the 1980's: 75%
Wars of the 1990's: 90%

(The Second Gulf War - the one involving the Kuwait occupation - had an unusually high proportion of miltary casualties because of the numbers killed in "the turkey shoot", far from any cities.)

(But if that wasn't what you were talking about, Old Guy, what was this business you referred to about Saddan planning a massacre of his own people?)

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 08:54 PM

Mr. McGrath:

I will answer your question. The massacre Saddam is planning for his own people is to position his military with in residential areas where the population is concentrated. That way when we attack him if any of them get killed it will be the fault of the alliance. Also when he retaliates with the WMDs that he "dosen't have". his own people will bear the brunt and that to will be the fault of the Alliance.

If any human shields show up they will indeed become human shields, probably even hostages.

Likewise when the oil wells are torched and the infrastructure is destroyed at his command that will be the fault of the Alliance forces.

Quite a man of honor he is, deserving the respect of all peace lovers everywhere.

I think he is in for a big surprise when weapons that have been improved by tenfold in accuracy, wipe out his Military infrastructure, command and communication and capabilities. Most of these weapons will not be explosives. They will be E-bombs that emit high power electromagnetic radiation to ruin any electronic equipment with a pretty wide range and carbon fiber "bombs" that short out electric power facilities with out ruining them permanently.

Can you answer any of my questions? What is your scenario of what will happen?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:14 PM

" Quite a man of honor he is, deserving the respect of all peace lovers everywhere."

The Humanist Movement, whose members organized the peace rally I attended yesterday, is also presently active in Iraq (and 58 other countries worldwide) working against Saddam and his regime, on the same humanitarian grounds that they are opposing this war.

How could any 'peace lover' do otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 09:33 PM

Unfortunately Saddam doesn't understand anything but force. Only by getting tough with him were the inspectors allowed back in. only by getting tough has he cooperated at all. He thinks and hopes the peace movement will bail him out.

Will it?

I realize the protesters don't want Saddam to continue his brutal treatment of his own people but that will be the result if he stays.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:14 PM

Oldguy, the problem is that the American administration has already given us plenty of reason to believe that it is, at leastin part, out for personal gain rather than the benefit of the nation. Bush believes, and may be right, that he will gain politically if he succeeds in ousting Hussein. It is certainly the case that he will suffer politically if he fails.

As to the supposed accuracy of American weapons, recall that in Afghanistan, in rural combat situations, American and Canadian troops were killed by state-of-the-art smart weapons. The collateral damage will be far higher in urban warfare. Also, it is not as unreasonable as you imply for Saddam to retreat to his cities for fighting. It makes just as good military strategy for an outnumbered and outgunned force as it does political propaganda.

Richie, no one disagrees that Saddam's rule is bad for his people. The only contention is that American aggression will not only cause considerable suffering to the Iraqis in the short term, but it also threatens to tip the balance of political power, either by creating a backlash against the U.S. or giving it too much authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:33 PM

I believe that the protests are largely a reaction to a perceived US display of authority. That the US as a superpower has no right to force Iraq to comply the UN resolution.

Is the US a bully? Is that it?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:29 PM

The Us and the UK and several other European countries are attempting to do what the UN does not have the will power to do.

I suppose The use of his people as a shield is a good thing. That should make us leave him alone until he can use an entire neighboring country as a hostages.

Yes, let's not do anything difficult. Let's take the easy route. Let's just pass the situation on to the next generation. It will be easier to solve then.

I have respect for authority and I support the administration. I do not see the President building 50 palaces to hide in so no one can assassinate him, using money diverted from the citizens.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:02 AM

Guest Old Guy: I don't know how old you really are, but you have cajones, that's for sure. You cut to the chase and don't bandy words, and in my opinion, that's good. You are facing an uphill battle in this forum, but I encourage you to continue. Just don't confuse these folks with too many facts. They find that very hard to digest. Common sense is a scarce commodity here too, but that's just my opinion of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:05 AM

Doug:

I just use simple logic to decide what needs to be done, what is good and what is bad. I can't understand how so many people can take a good thing and turn it around to be a bad thing.

They have George Bush as a villain and Saddam as the victim. They get all emotional and start using bad language and carry things to the extremes. It is extremists that cause trouble. The same way the Islamic extremists cause problems. They never solve anything. They make matters worse. They never have any long range solutions.

Can anyone here define a long range plan for a lasting solution to the terrorist problem?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:15 AM

There are two ways to solve the problem of terrorism: eliminate the root causes or make it impossible to conduct. Eliminating the root causes would require that all countries be brought to economic near-parity, to get rid of class-based hatred, and ensuring that all political disputes, especially in matters of occupation, can be resolved in a fair and effective manner. While this would be incredibly beneficial, I don't see it happening anytime soon, given the nature of humanity. Making it impossible to conduct requires a police state of incredible proportions. While much easier to execute, this plan eliminates many of the human rights which we consider worth defending. I think it's a good idea to look at which of the two our president seems to prefer.

I certainly don't claim that Saddam is a victim. I think the world would be a much better place if someone pt a bullet or three through his head. I simply believe that an American war of aggression, and quite possibly conqest, will create many more problems than it solves, especially if Saddam really does have WMD's. I'd be interested to see how the incasion of Iraq constitutes "a long range plan for a lasting solution to the terrorist problem."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:33 AM

bbfSS,

Thanks for the link (ww.thememoryhole.org). At first glance it appears fairly damning, but did you go to the links supplied to the articles from the "Independent", "Financial Times" and "Guardian". No mention of German companies being Iraq's most numerous supplier, the way the front page of your link has it that is the USA with 24 companies named - the number of German companies is 80. The articles go on to say that American companies stopped dealing with Iraq in the mid-eighties, the German companies have continued up to the present day.

They reckon that the names were leaked by Iraq to embarass the US, German, British and French governments with the information. Much of the story contains old news, 1975 to 1985, and large sections relate to so-called "Dual Use" material and equipment.

On the subject of "Dual Use" equipment, here's an example:
"American weapons experts have recently voiced concern that the German Government has permitted Siemens to sell Baghdad at least eight sophisticated medical machines which contain devices that are vital for nuclear weapons. The machines, known as "lithotripters", use ultrasound to destroy kidney stones in patients. However, each machine contains an electronic switch that can be used as a detonator in an atomic bomb, according to US experts. Iraq was reported to have requested an extra 120 switches as "spare parts" during the initial transaction."

From Forum Lurker:

"Iraq's conventional weaponry is mostly Russian in manufacture, which is true of many Third World countries. Their chemical and biological weapons, on the other hand, were initially supplied by America for use against Iran."

I served in the Royal Navy mid-sixties to mid-seventies, in all that time I never once saw any reference to the handling of chemical, biological or bacteriological weapons or ordinance, we had procedures for everything else (Armour Piercing, Semi-armour piercing, High Explosives, Star Shells, ECM rounds or "chaff", various types of missiles - but nothing relating to CB weapons). I think it was Harold Wilson's Government that officially and unilaterally renounced the used of such weapons years ahead of the 1972 Convention. Our RFA's supplied US Navy ships - again no special instructions for the handling or storage of such munitions. The Russians were supposed to have signed up to the Convention but didn't. UK had already given them up, the United States kept their existing stockpiles until they decayed or were destroyed. The US and NATO (cold war NATO that is) never went down the road of chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons because they are totally indiscriminate and terribly unreliable. The NATO response had Russian and Warsaw Pact forces attacked the West with CB weapons was the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons - that proved deterrent enough.

MGOH's link again reads more into the situation than there actually is. While US, UK and NATO do not have chemical, biological and bacteriological weapons, they have to carry-out research in order to develope means of protecting their forces against the effects of those agents. That requires developing cultures and samples - that is what the US sent to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war - they did not send weapons. There are currently 180 registered centres in the world that deal with these materials, most are signatories of the non-proliferation treay - there are thirteen countries who have this stuff as weapons systems who are not signatories.

Of the middle-east countries today, the best organised, most efficient and best equipped armed forces are those of Israel. The largest armed forces in the region still belong to Iraq - even after the Gulf War. Their main suppliers as previously stated are:

Armour - Russia and China
Aircraft - Russia, China and France
Artillery - Russia and China
Missiles - Russia, China and France
Small Arms - Russia and China

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:03 PM

Lurker:

In my opinion you have the right idea. I think the aims of the Adminstration is to put at least on bullet through Saddams head. And hopefully none through the heads of the civilians Iraq.

If the government is changed to a democratic form (which will take a generation at least) It would bring about the conditions that you describe. Economic parity. The necessity or willpower to conduct terrorism.

The current forms of government in the area lead towards a growing number of discontented people. They do not feel equal to other people in the world. They feel like they are being taken advantage of by more affluent countries for which the USA is the Icon. This feeling would not exist in a demoractic country.

From the way people talk about Bush on this forum. an uninformed visitor would think he is an evil dictator that has stripped us of our basic right and human dignity. If that is the case how are we even conducting this forum?

We have it so good in this country that people risk their lives to come here. But we whine about having to go through security at an airport which is an effort to keep us safe. Then there is a group claiming the government is not doing enough to keep us safe.

Is there some magic way to keep us safe without causing any inconvenience or without invading some personal privacies? I don't think so. I am willing to have my privacy invaded and to be inconvenienced to Keep me safer from terrorism. I am not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to fear.

Let the voting begin.

Old guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:28 PM

That's what I thought you meant Old Guy, but in what you wrote you seemed to be saying you thought it would be possible for the invading forces to avoid killing enormous numbers of civilians.

Now you must know perfectly well that people who are against the war do not admire Saddam Hussein, so why do you keep saying they do?

I don't suppose it is exactly an intentional lie - it seems to me it must be the same kind of thinking that Stalin and his cronies used when they accused people who were suspected of being opposed to his rule of, "objectively", being supporters of Hitler (that was in the days before he decided to cosy up to Hitler himself).

Essentially that is the logic that says "Since I believe that what you propose will lead to certain consequences, I am entitled to say that it is your wish that those things should happen". On which basis I would be entitled to say that Old Guy wants to see thousands of children burnt alive or blown to pieces. But I don't say that, because I know it would be a lie.

There seems to me, on the basis of the reports we heard on Friday from Blix and el-Baradei, that there is still a fair chance that the inspection process is going to ensure that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of Saddam. And neither of those men are taking about an open-ended process of inspection to stretch on for ever. Going ahead down this road, rather than starting a war with incalculable effects at this time, seems a pretty sensible thing to do.

So it will cost a lot of money and cause a lot of inconvenience to hold off on an assault for a few weeks or a fe months? So what, if there's a hope that there might not need to be any assault at all? It's only money.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:33 PM

Doug and Old Guy, it's no surprise that you two are following the party-line by saying that those who oppose the war consider Bush the villain and Saddam the victim. Everything is black and white to the two of you. Nobody here considers Saddam any kind of victim and you know it. Same tired old argument. "If you oppose Bush, you're un-American." Hogwash! You can oppose what Bush wants to do without having any kind of sympathy for the likes of Saddam. Considering the various ramifications and consequences of the mess Bush's bellicose adventurings can get us unto, it's un-American not to oppose him.

In the meantime, to make it easier to check out the website that busbitterfraeSaltcoatsScotland is referring to, here's a LINK. Most enlightening.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 04:45 PM

Don,

I don't have a problem with those that oppose Bush. I just have a problem with those that compare Bush to Hitler or make derogatory comments about him. Even if you disagree he's trying his best- to make the world and the US a safer place.

There is no comparison between Saddam and Bush- none.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:04 PM

Of course there's a comparison between Saddam and Bush.

There's a comparison between any two leaders, or any two human beings for that matter. If you couldn't make those kind of comparisons, you couldn't a basis for criticising anybody for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:07 PM

I guess I am making a mistake by accusing all antiwar protestors of being pro Saddam. However I am saying that the antiwar protestors are unwittingly playing into Saddam's hands. They are helping him to defeat the purpose of the last UN resolution.

In addition they are helping to allow the continued oppression of the people living under Saddam's brutal rule.

They are in effect allowing the torture, rapes, decapitations, amputations, acid baths and worse to continue indefinitely.

Think about it. A father is forced to watch helplessly while his children are tortured and his wife raped. Can there be anything worse than that? Put your self in their position. Wouldn't you welcome an attack on the government that does this?

Instead of solidarity with these people I see hatred and slanderous remarks aimed at the one person in the world that gas the guts to try to end this suffering.

I am with this one guy. It is not a party thing, I am not a member of any party, I vote for the person I consider the best leader and I am extra glad I voted for him.

You can call me anything you like and make any accusation you want but I know wrong from right and I know good from bad.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Richie
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:10 PM

McGrath,

You are right. You can compare apples and oranges but don't say an apple is an orange if it isn't.

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 05:48 PM

Couldn't agree with you more Richie. It's important to use language carefully, especially when we are communicating just through words.

But Old Guy, as I see it, those who are backing the inspectors to continue their work at this time are the ones who have much better claim to say they are supporting that last UN resolution. And those who are trying to jump start a war before the inspectors have had a chance to complete their task are the ones who are trying to frustrate it.

Saddam is a horrible ruler, and he was a horrible ruler at the time when he was being backed to the hilt by the US and UK governments. All the atrocities Old Guy rightly finds so terrible were happening back then, and nobody seemed to give a damn, except the same kind of peoiple youi find marching agains the war today. Donald Rumsfeld certainly didn't have any qualms about sitting down and arranging to help Saddam get weapons and money and backup for his biological and chemical production facilities.

That doesn't end the argument of course - there's a case for saying that if you have armed a murderer and employed him to carry out murders on your payroll, the least you owe to the world is to try to stop him continuing to kill. In fact, Clinton argued as much when he addressed the Labour Party Conference last autumn.

But people who have that kind of blood on their hands ought to be a bit cautious about laying down the law as to how their protegé ought to be dealt with, when the lives of enormous numbers of innocent people are on the lines. I just don't trust the likes of Donald Rumsfeld - or anyone who employs him for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 08:11 PM

Teribus, you should try reading some of the books that have been published by the Department of Defense's former researchers. Even in what isn't classified, they admit to having developed biological and chemical weapons for tactical and strategic uses, and created battle plans for using them. It is also common knowledge, admitted by the U.S. government, that they supplied Saddam with the chemical munitions he used against Iran.

Oldguy, in answer to your scenario, yes. There is something worse: watching the people who claim to be liberating you drop bombs on your home, killing your wife and children, then shoot you because you were drafted. I would welcome an attack only if it were constrained to those actually responsible for atrocities. Also, I'd like to know where you're getting some of this information. It sounds a lot the the "incubator babies" story that was circulated during Gulf War I.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 09:01 PM

if gw bush & rumsfeld &tony b. liar & their chums go off by themselves to wage war in iraq- could we b killing 2 birds with 1 stone?

they could join the politicians spin militia- a pals brigade like in the good old days.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Cluin
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:59 AM

Well, if the UK & US go to war together, the Canadian soldiers had better cultivate their "staying the fuck out of the way" skills. Their history so far in wars led by those two powers compares with the red-shirted guys in the Star Trek episodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 11:17 AM

Forum Lurker:

"Teribus, you should try reading some of the books that have been published by the Department of Defense's former researchers. Even in what isn't classified, they admit to having developed biological and chemical weapons for tactical and strategic uses, and created battle plans for using them. It is also common knowledge, admitted by the U.S. government, that they supplied Saddam with the chemical munitions he used against Iran."

When? - I believe that might have been true a long, long time ago. They would analyse and research the effectiveness of such weapons and look at tactical and strategic applications of them, in order to develope counter-measures - they did Tactical Nuclear weapons. The US and UK have NO chemical, bacteriological, biological weapons.

MGOH:

"Saddam is a horrible ruler, and he was a horrible ruler at the time when he was being backed to the hilt by the US and UK governments. All the atrocities Old Guy rightly finds so terrible were happening back then, and nobody seemed to give a damn, except the same kind of peoiple youi find marching agains the war today. Donald Rumsfeld certainly didn't have any qualms about sitting down and arranging to help Saddam get weapons and money and backup for his biological and chemical production facilities."

He was also backed to the hilt by the Russians, Chinese, French and Germans. If memory serves me correctly I cannot remember any anti-Saddam marches during the eighties. The assistance given by the US during the Iran-Iraq war in relation to CB weapons was intended for use in programmes to improve Iraq's capacity to withstand attack by such weapons and to improve passive counter-measures should any of Iraq's own production facilities and weapons storage areas were hit (Saddam's CB weapons capabilities were supplied by others).

In all the articles supplied as providing proof that the US supplied Iraq with CB weapons, not one actually states that. As I have said earlier in this thread - the UK has not had any such weapons capability since the mid-1960's, but we did develope extremely effective passive counter-measures to enable our troops to withstand such attacks.

The focus on all the threads related to this subject and many more is anti-Bush, pure and simple, without any regard for objective analysis in relation to world events. To his most vociferous detractors - you have an election coming up in 2004. Personally I believe he is doing a good job, a necessary job, for the benefit of all - with the exception of terrorist groups thinking of going international, and Saddam Hussein.

Last night the national leaders of the countries comprising the EU agreed that inspections should continue on the premise that the inspections were not open-ended - i.e. there is a time limit. Again personally I think the UN should give Saddam a clear deadline for full and verified compliance, after which he must be left in no doubt that military action will follow immediately. That action would be taken with two clearly defined objectives - firstly, the removal of Saddam Hussein from power combined with the abolition of the Ba'ath Party and its apparatus of terror - secondly, the total disarmament of Iraq.

The same thing happened to Germany at the end of WW II - the results I believe proved to be beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:51 PM

That was good news coming out of the EU meeting, Teribus, but the unfortunate thing is they refused to set a deadline for the end of inspections.

Some on this forum are under the impression that the inspections are working. It seems to me that all that is happening is the Iraquis have been successful in hoodwinking the inspectors.

Would someone who thinks the inspections are working please explain to me how they are working?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 12:57 PM

Would someone who thinks the inspections are working please explain to me how they are working?

Hans Blix's briefing to the security council

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:40 PM

I don't know about England, but America has created and tested chemical weapons for use, not only passive defense. Further, they have provided far less evidence than Saddam that any such weapons were destroyed. If we don't believe him, why do you assume the best of such noteworthies as Reagan?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 01:49 PM

Well, he wouldn't have remembered either way, would he? Even when he was President.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:46 PM

"The US and UK have NO chemical, bacteriological, biological weapons."

Then tell me, what's in all those canisters stored in bunkers outside of Umatilla, Oregon?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 07:02 PM

Teribus, have a look at these:—

Umatilla, Or.
Other places.
More of Same

And this took me about five minutes of googling through cyberspace. Now, tell me again about how the US doesn't have any chemical/biological weapons. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 07:07 PM

Teribus, have a look at these:—

Umatilla, Or.
Other places.
More of Same

This took me about five minutes of googling through cyberspace, and these are only three of the hundreds of pages I found. Now, tell me again about how the US doesn't have any chemical/biological weapons. . . ?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 07:49 PM

When Dr Blix is finished in Iraq, the Security Council really should send him across the Atlantic. I can't imagine who could possibly want to veto a resolution insructing him to do that.

It'd be the best way of sorting out who is right in this. And a good way to show that there aren't any double standards in operation over such matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 10:40 PM

GUEST Forum Lurker

I don't read books by the department of defense. I would not know how to get them if I wanted to read them. Have you read any or are you quoting what others said is in the books.

My information was taken form various news casts by various networks. My main printed source of news is Time magazine.

Unless there is a big sinister plot to twist the minds of the American public I would say one balances the other. I see a lot of antiwar protesters on the news casts so they are getting equal time. I could get Al Jazzera TV on the dish if I wanted to pay extra but I don't speak or read Arabic so it would not do me any good.

I would have a hard time pinpointing exactly who said what when but I know it was said and shown. I think we all know these atrocities are going on but it is too uncomfortable for some of us to think about.

If they were going on when we were backing Saddam it was wrong. Does that mean we should not do anything now? People point to a thing like slavery as if that means we should never do anything to try to correct anything again. There was a civil war and people died. Was the war worth it? Were the slaves liberated?

Some people died in Bosnia. Was the end result worth it? Should the fact that people died in Bosnia keep us from fighting in Serbia and Kosovo?

A hoax pops up sometimes like the incubator story in Kuwait but eventually they are exposed.

Nobody believed what was happening in the concentration camps in Germany until the war was won. Then the evidence was so horrific that people were ashamed they had not acted sooner.

The most horrible person you could imagine is embodied in Saddam Hussein. His favorite movie is the godfather. His male role model is Stalin. Executing a son in law, no problem for him

Did I tell you the one about the cab driver that escaped to northern Iraq? His daughter had been tortured in the prison for children in Baghdad. Her legs were crooked from the torture and she walks with great difficulty. The cab driver had to transport a dead baby in a coffin on top of his cab. Saddam has been storing up all of the dead babies and keeps them in a cooler for parades and as props incase a war begins. The dead babies can be placed around the residential areas and filmed as victims of the American attack. He said the stench was horrible because of the decomposed condition of the corpses.

I know this sounds over the edge but I believe it to be true. I saw the information, I considered all sides of the story and I came to my own independent conclusion. I did not attend some sort of rally where people are shouting and chanting and telling me this stuff.

I do not have any hidden agenda or sinister plan to twist minds. I do not work for any government or anybody for that matter. In fact I pay money to the government.

Sure there are chemical and maybe some bio weapons here in the US. I don't think they are earmarked for the citizens of Baghdad or anybody anywhere.

McGrath of Harlow:

Hans Blix has traveled here many times recently. What is he supposed to do here? If he wants to see some chemical weapons here I am sure he could find them real easy. He would not have a staff of thousands trying to keep him from finding them. It is the intentions of the possessor of a weapon that is the crux of the matter.

He could probably find some in Russia, Red China and maybe the UK but that does not worry me. What worries me is the WMDs that are in the hands of ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein and possibly the followers of UBL.

If the US gave them to Saddam, it was a mistake. We should try to correct that mistake.

To all of the others trying to villianize America and say that conditions in Iraq are acceptable I say; If this place is so evil why are people risking their lives to come here while people are risking their lives to escape from Iraq?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 03:14 AM

Thank you, now I will leave you all in peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 03:37 AM

Thanks for the links Don,

From the third link posted:

"The mission of Dugway is to test U.S. and Allied biological & chemical defense systems; perform Nuclear Biological Chemical survivable testing of defense material; provide support to chemical and biological weapons conventions; and Operate and maintain an installation to support test mission."

From the Second the map lists sites as either places where Chemical Activity takes place or as Chemical depots - that does not mean that these sites are being used to store the stuff for offensive purposes.

The Umatilla site mentioned in your first link has incinerators and is mentioned in the second as a site for storage and disposal.

The UK used the MOD site at Portendown for its chemical and bacteriological research - they had CB agents there - no weapons.

In late 60's and early 70's it was expected that Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries would sign up to the convention banning the use of such weapons - they didn't. UK had already given that undertaking and had destroyed whatever weapons it had. The US said they would stop weapons development, but would retain stockpiles until such time as they decayed or required controlled disposal.

Nothing you have shown me convinces me that the US or UK has any offensive weapons capability in terms of CB weapons. The weaponry of both countries and their strategic and tactical planning has no use for such unreliable weapons, used offensively they hinder more than help - NATO worked that out about forty years ago. For the US to suddenly revert to their use would be as much of a retrograde step as to issue their infantrymen with muzzleloading muskets.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:47 AM

There are a lot of books out by DOD researchers, detailing our Cold War weapons programs. I found a half dozen in my school library. I've read some of them, and they've told me that we still keep a fair stockpile around. Teribus, I note that you don't deny that the U.S. has massive stores of nuclear weaponry. If we're so horribly worried about the potential that Saddam might be trying to build nukes, why shouldn't we be worried about an aggressive, militant country with thousands of nuclear weapons, and the delivery systems to land them anywhere in the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:05 PM

Forum Lurker,

We have lived with thousands of nuclear warheads and first, second and third strike delivery systems that could deliver those warheads anywhere in the world for the best part of fifty years.

If you are trying to infer that the US is "an aggressive, militant country" then the description based on their track record just does not hold water. The US has been involved in a number of conflict situations since the end of World War II - not once has it resorted to the use of nuclear weapons.

Saddam Hussein on the other hand has used what WMD he possessed in the past - if he had had nuclear weapons I have no doubt in my mind that he would have used them.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:11 PM

Forum Lurker: I assume the "aggressive" country you refer to is the United States. If so, get real.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:27 PM

Teribus, what do you think George W. Bush would insist on doing if UN inspectors were to find similar facilities in Iraq?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Oldguy
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 12:30 PM

Teribus:

What country supplies the most aid to the Palestinians?
What country has done the most to try to get the two sides to make a peace agreement?

I might be mistaken but I understand that the Palestinians were kicked out of Lebanon because they were trouble makers. They went to Jordan and were kicked out of Jordan for being trouble makers.

I do not agree with Israel 100% and I don't like the amount of aid that they receive. I think they will have to give up the settlements in Palestinian territory before there can be peace.

I don't think the settlements shold not have been built in the first place.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:38 AM

Yes

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:58 AM

Teribus: "The US has been involved in a number of conflict situations since the end of World War II - not once has it resorted to the use of nuclear weapons."

I love that - we've got loads of nuclear weapons and we have never used them (since the last time we used them - which is the only time anybody has EVER used them)...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:45 PM

Here is a link to an article in today's Guardian by an anti-Saddam Iraqi exile - very strongly against this war, and very sceptical indeed about it actually being in the interests of his compatriots back home.

"Having failed to convince the British people that war is justified, Tony Blair is now invoking the suffering of the Iraqi people to justify bombing them...The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been known, and its worst excesses took place 12 years ago, under the gaze of General Colin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when Saddam was an Anglo-American ally; and almost 30 years ago, when Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdish nationalism to further US power in the region at the expense of both Kurdish and Iraqi democratic aspirations....The regime in Iraq is not invincible, but the objective of the US is to have regime change without the people of Iraq".

My point about calling in Blix to check up on the US was that there seems to be some disagreement expressed on the thread as to whether the US has stocks of chemical and biological warfare munitions. Who better to sort out the true facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:55 PM

Well let's see how successful he is in Iraq first McGrath. So far he doesn't seem to be accomplishing much. Why? Because the Iraqis are not fully cooperating!

Inspections are a waste of time and money in Iraq.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:21 PM

Doug:

Let me ask you a simple question>

Let's say that you and you're neighbor get into an argument. Well, that probably wasn't a good idea because your neighbor has a house full of guns. But it happened and now you're neighbor has been going around telling anyone who will listen that he is going to whack you. Right? Ya' with me so far?

Now you have a couple of old .22 rifles and half a box of ammunition in the closet. No this isn't multiple choice so pay attention to the next part.

Okay, so you wake up one morning and your neighbor now ahs a few of his buddies in yer front yard and he yells at you, "Throw out the, twp .22's ya got, Doug, or me a couple of my buddies are gonna whack you!"

Hmmmmmm?

How is this any different that what is going on? No, one doesn't have to over comlicate it with pages and pages of details. This is the game, right now.

I'mm not saying that Saddam has a couple old .22's and half a box of ammunition and fir the life of them, after a $20 PR campaign, Bush and Co. can't either. But if he does, don't you think he'd be a candidate of the year for the *Stupmo Awards* if he threw em' out the window?

Yeah, I'd really like yours or anyone else response to this question.

And keep in mind that they are still accepting applications for the *Stupmo Awards.*

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:24 PM

I call the U.S. an aggressive country because, in the last two years, it has launched one war which was intended to and succeeded in demolishing the government of the country attacked, and is threatening to begin another. As to the potential use of nuclear weapons, Bush explicitly did NOT rule outh their use against Hussein, even if Iraq used only conventional weaponry. If a smaller nation did that, we'd call them a rogue state.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: 53
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:21 PM

of course they should

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:21 PM

Here it is, Kevin.

Storage facilities for chemical/biological weapons HERE. Where the anthrax that hit the post offices awhile back quite probably came from HERE, not Saddam or Osama. More of same href=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/dugway.htm>HERE.
Those who keep saying that the US does not have chemical/biological weapons stockpiled need to have a piece of Plexiglas installed in their abdomens so they can see where they are going.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:30 PM

Sorry. Goofed the third link. HERE.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:21 AM

No one. I repeat, no one, has explained why they think inspections are working. McGrath uses the testimony of Blix to support his claim. That does't hold water. Blix didn't say the inspections were working he just asked for more time. Nicole C. says she thinks they are working, but hasn't supplied any evidence to support her claim. Anybody else?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 03:23 AM

Apart from 53 and Doug R who else are warmongers?

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:33 AM

Don asked me the following question:

"Teribus, what do you think George W. Bush would insist on doing if UN inspectors were to find similar facilities in Iraq?

Don Firth"

If UN inspectors were to find similar facilities in Iraq? - If they were exactly the same in condition, purpose and intent - George W. Bush and the rest of the world (particularly Saddam's closest neighbours) would be extremely relieved and would do nothing.

Absolutely everything you have posted relating to the US having an operational CB warfare capability actually proves the reverse when you read the content - That has been my contention from the onset of this dialogue:

"The United States stockpile of unitary lethal chemical warfare munitions consists of various rockets, projectiles, mines, and bulk items containing blister agents (mustard H, HD, HT) and nerve agents (VX, GB). About 60% of this stockpile is in bulk storage containers; 40% is stored in munitions, many of which are now obsolete. The stockpile is stored at eight sites throughout the Continental US (Edgewood Chemical Activity, MD; Anniston Chemical Activity, AL; Blue Grass Chemical Activity, KY; Newport Chemical Depot, IN; Pine Bluff Chemical Activity, AR; Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO; Deseret Chemical Activity, UT; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, OR) and at one site outside of the Continental US on Johnston Atoll."

As it says above in the text 60% bulk (i.e. not weaponised, hence cannot be used offensively), 40% in munitions much of which is obsolete. That I have cross-checked and found that out of the lists of munitions stored at the sites listed the only munitions that could possibly be used, provided the gun systems are compatible (which I would doubt) are the 155mm shells. The inventory dated in 1997 shows that no CB land mines remain, M55 Rockets (obsolete), 105mm shells (obsolete) - the hardware that was supposed to have fired this stuff disappeared from the US Army shortly after the end of the Vietnam war. The CB stocks on Johnstone Island had been totally destroyed by the time of the 1997 report - Audited, verified fact.

"In 1985, the Congress passed Public Law 99-145 directing the Army to destroy the US stockpile of obsolete chemical agents and munitions. Recognizing that the stockpile program did not include all chemical warfare materiel requiring disposal, the Congress directed the Army in 1992 to plan for the disposal of materiel not included in the stockpile. This materiel, some of which dates back as far as World War I, consists of binary chemical weapons, miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel, recovered chemical weapons, former production facilities, and buried chemical warfare materiel. In 1992, the Army established the Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel Program to dispose of the materiel."

The sites you continually keep referring to are for the disposal of CB Agents and weapons - that is all and supports what I have contended from the outset.

"In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002."

So, backed up by material that you, yourself have provided me with, I will say once more that:

"The armed forces of the US and UK have no operational, offensive, Chemical, Biological or Bacteriological weapons or weapons systems"

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:03 AM

Hmmmmm? Didn't think you'd answer the question, Doug...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:20 AM

"Blix didn't say the inspections were working, he just asked for more time."

As I read him, and most people seem to read him - leaving aside the White House and Downing Street - what he was saying was that the signs were that they were working, but that they need more time to be sure that they are working and to complete the job.

And the distinct inpression, especially so far as the White House is concerned, is that they don't actually want the inpection process to work and for Saddam to be disarmed of any WMDs he has without a war, because that would deprive them of the justification for a war.

As the saying goes "They've shot our fox."

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:15 PM

What question Bobert?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:25 PM

Teribus.

I know of what I speak when I say your are 100% wrong about operational "devices"

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/ductapeer.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 12:55 PM

Then prove it Donuel - Prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:09 PM

There's a Hole in your Argument,
Dear Teribus, Dear Teribus,
There's a Hole in your Argument,
Dear Teribus, a Hole.

Then Prove it, Dear Donuel,
Dear Donuel, Dear Donuel,
Then Prove it, Dear Donuel,
Dear Donuel - Prove it...

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:20 PM

LOL!!!

BZ - MGOH

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM

Teribus, there is an old story about a company that had two divisions. One division made armor plate and the other division made armor piercing shells. Whenever the division that made armor plate felt they had something that was impenetrable, soon after it would be returned to them with a hole in it. So they would go to work to improve it. When they had another new improvement, soon after they would be presented with yet another test sample with a hole in it. So they would go back to the old drawing board, and. . . .

Across the company's proving ground, whenever the armor piercing shell division felt they had something that would punch through anything, they would soon be presented with a piece of armor plate with, maybe a dent, but no hole in it. So they would go to work to make it even more armor piercing. And then, of course. . . .

That's what's going on here. How can you test your defensive measures without having the offensive weapon they're supposed to defend against with which to test them? And, of course, how can you tell how effective an offensive weapon is unless you can try it against possible defensive measures? Thus, we leap-frog toward perfection (!)

For decades, Dugway in particular has been a secret testing area for exotic weapons, and it still is. Yes, the United States does have chemical/biological weapons. But of course, all our weapons are strictly defense.

(Oh! But what was that Bush was saying about pre-emption?)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:33 PM

The difference is that a defense against new, improved AP rounds is effectice against all kinds of ammunition. Developing nerve agents so you can develop defenses against them doesn't protect at all from any research that someone else is doing on a different category of nerve agents. Also, you don't need stockpiles nearly the size of ours for research alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:43 PM

Don,

Your story holds good for conventional weapons - it does not hold good for CB weapons or for the process of developing counter-measures, which against CB weapons are passive - design and durability of suits and respirators for use by personell, filtration systems and gas tight integrity for vehicles, 'Citadel' tests for ships and structures.

Not once in my time in the service did I ever come across any US or NATO reference to the use of CB weapons by US or NATO. Not once did I ever see any CB munitions. Soviet Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries had them - take a look at the organisation of their armed forces required to support that capability - and all for a weapon that was considered to be extremely unreliable and unpredictable in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 01:48 PM

They existed then, and still exist now. Plans were made for their use, both tactically and strategically. If you doubt it, look for books about chemical and biological weapons in your local library. You should find something that makes reference to development and testing. For policy, I don't have that many sources, but try the book "The Third World War," written by a former NATO general. Somewhere in there, you will find predictions, by a policy-maker for NATO, that chemical munitions would be used by NATO in a large-scale war.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:08 PM

I have read the book you refer to. "The Third World War" written by General Sir John Hackett, published by Macmillan in 1985. It was published in two versions as the original was originally manuscript was written when the Shah was in power in Iran. The second or modified version reflected the realities imposed by the Sha's downfall.

It has been some time since I read it, but I cannot recall any resort, on the part of NATO to use CB weapons. When I get the chance I will go back and check.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 02:38 PM

Don has supplied some very interesting links Forum Lurker - you really should read them:

What Dugway does in relation to CB weapons:

1. The mission of Dugway is to test U.S. and Allied biological & chemical defense systems; perform Nuclear Biological Chemical survivable testing of defense material; provide support to chemical and biological weapons conventions; and Operate and maintain an installation to support test mission.

2. Today DPG continues its role in the testing of chemical agents, pathogens, and toxins, now conducted in sealed containment chambers (rather than open air testing as in the past).

3.   The Department of Defense has designated U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground (DPG) as the primary chemical and biological defense testing center under the Reliance Program.

4.   Testers here determine the reliability and survivability of all types of military equipment in a chemical or biological environment. The chemical laboratory, permitted storage area, and many test related activities are operated under contract.

5.   The Reginald Kendall Combined Chemical Test Facility (CCTF) is a state-of-the-art 48,000 square foot chemical laboratory facility designed to support testing of chemical warfare defensive equipment. Specific areas of the mission include evaluation of chemical agent detectors, testing of personnel and collective protective equipment (e.g., masks, clothing, shelters, etc.), testing of decontaminants, evaluation of military equipment for NBC survivability, analysis of waste and environmental samples, and safety air monitoring.

NOTE: In the above, or alternatively, read in the text contained in the links as supplied by Don - you will not find any reference to the testing of any CB weapons systems or munitions. Which is not really all that surprising since:

"In 1993, the United States signed the UN-sponsored Chemical Weapons Convention. In October 1996, the 65th nation ratified the convention making the treaty effective on April 29, 1997. Through ratification, the United States agreed to dispose of its unitary chemical weapons stockpile, binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities by April 29, 2007, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel by April 29, 2002."

Yes you do have stockpiles of CB Agents and some obsolete munitions and at present they are being stored for controlled and audited destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 05:22 PM

Yes, if it's necessary.

Yes, we all 'know' [note the quotes, please] that Bush is only after the oil & Blair is nowt but a poodle. It doesn't matter whether that's true or not, because many of you are determined never to believe anything else, no matter what 'evidence' [note the quotes, please] is presented. (Me? I don't believe the politicians, but I don't believe the anti-war league either. I'm neither absolutely for nor absolutely against - I've seen very little convincing evidence either way)

So war's ruled out because it's inherently immoral & innocent people will die. OK.

'Scuse me, but best estimates suggest rather more than a million Iragis have died since Gulf War I...

Ah sorry, forgot - that's all the West's fault because of immoral sanctions...

OK, so we lift sanctions. And presumably Saddam, busy laughing up his sleeve, goes back to the grosser & more unsubtle methods of slaughtering those who are unfortunate enough to live within the borders of modern Iraq...

Is it just me, or have the anti war muppets not actually offered a single solution to the problem of Saddam? If we don't go to war, the vast majority of you will have forgotten him in 6 months time.

BUT 'INNOCENT' IRAQI's WILL STILL BE DYING!!!!

I don't like the idea of going to war against Iraq, I certainly don't trust the motives of Bush & his cronies (or paymasters, depending on your p-o-v), but Saddam is pure-bred excrement. Bush Sr bottled & botched the job last time round. Sanctions have failed to topple Saddam's murderous regime.

What *exactly* is your cure for the problem, you who so vehemently oppose war? It's easy to knock, but what will you do to rescue Iraq from Saddam? Sadly, at the moment I can only conclude that the US & UK are going to wind up fighting the right war for entirely the *wrong* reasons... :(

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:08 PM

You don't exactly sound undecided, Raedwulf.

Here is a thread that is trying to get into the Saddam shifting side of things that you raised just now.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:09 PM

Assassination. It's simple, effective, and doesn't kill thousands of innocent Iraqis, Americans, British, etc. Failing that, resume military operations targeted solely at isolating and removing Saddam and the Ba'ath from power, on the grounds that the cease-fire agreement is invalidated. Just don't call it pre-emptive, and don't say it's just for the good of the Iraqi people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 05:52 AM

Forum Lurker,

Unfortunately just killing Saddam Hussein would not remove the Ba'ath Regime from power in Iraq - Saddam's son might posibly replace him (As Assad's son replaced him as President and leader of the Ba'ath Party in Syria), or another senior member of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party would take over (probably Tarek Azziz).

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 10:51 AM

Which is the problem, the regime, or Saddam? I have heard plenty of people say Saddam's a madman, and I agree, but is the rest of the Ba'ath part just as bad? If so, then see option two. It's not what I'd prefer, but a surgical strike executed by airmobile troops ought to be able to seize power fairly quickly and thouroughly. While it won't give Bush the satisfaction of capturing Hussein and executing him for war crimes, it should achieve all of his legitimate goals, and with less loss of life on both sides than a land-based invasion which operates on the basic principle of destroying their entire defensive infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:40 AM

Forum Lurker, when you say:

"Which is the problem, the regime, or Saddam? I have heard plenty of people say Saddam's a madman, and I agree, but is the rest of the Ba'ath part just as bad? If so, then see option two. It's not what I'd prefer, but a surgical strike executed by airmobile troops ought to be able to seize power fairly quickly and thouroughly."

You are jesting - aren't you??

The Republican Guard, the Special Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam exist solely to keep this man safe and in power.

The Special Republican Guard alone has 4 Brigades located largely within Baghdad. That is 14 Battalions, an armoured brigade and an air defence command with elements to secure Baghdad's ground-based air defences against any attempt such as you propose - or against any attempted coup by the Iraqi Army.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:52 AM

If they are really that effective, is it going to help that much if we bomb half of the city apart? If he's that secure, how are we going to find him in an invasion? The idea of a surgical strike is to hit specific targets, not necessarily the leaders themselves, with quick and overwhelming force. Attacking the military command centers is just as, if not more, effective than the leadership itself. I don't know exactly how many people 4 brigades constitute, but I can be fairly sure that you can't put all of them into one place at a time. If Saddam's defence forces are as large and capable as you seem to imply, it would be much more effective to hit them quickly and precisely than to wear them down in a war of attrition.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 02:11 AM

Forum Lurker,

"...is it going to help that much if we bomb half of the city apart?"

I don't think that any city is going to be bombed to that extent - none were the last time.

"If he's that secure, how are we going to find him in an invasion?"

We actually need to find him?? My guess is that should this start, the result will be inevitable and he will probably be assassinated by members of the Ba'ath Party.

"The idea of a surgical strike is to hit specific targets, not necessarily the leaders themselves, with quick and overwhelming force."

In your post you mentioned doing this with "air-mobile troops" - considering the forces Saddam has in Baghdad, this air-mobile operation you propose would have to greater than Arnhem and the chance of success even then would be doubtful.

"Attacking the military command centers is just as, if not more, effective than the leadership itself."

That is what they did the last time - completely destroyed Iraq's air defence systems and their command and control centres - then defeat in detail whatever units actively oppose you. Apart from some fairly obvious concerns, Saddam also fears a coup by his army - he always has, that is why the Republican Guard were formed. He then thought that they too could turn, so the Special Republican Guard were formed. One of the results of this paranoia is that his army's means of fighting for any great length of time are strictly controlled, ammunition is held back - this makes his lines of supply extremely vulnerable once command of the air has been established.

"I don't know exactly how many people 4 brigades constitute,"

A Special Republican Guard Brigade consists of around 2,500 men, so 4 Brigades would be 10,000. As well as SPG units in Baghdad, there are also RG, FS and Regular Army and Air Force units.

"If Saddam's defence forces are as large and capable as you seem to imply, it would be much more effective to hit them quickly and precisely than to wear them down in a war of attrition."

Saddam's forces are large, but, compared to the forces they will be up against, are not as capable. "Desert Storm" was not fought as a war of attrition - neither will this one, should it happen. And I keep saying that because war is not inevitable - even at this juncture - All Saddam has to do is co-operate with the disarmament process and comply with UNSC Resolutions. He may do this, he may not - one of his main reasons for not complying is that without his weapons he cannot exercise the control over his civilian population that he requires to stay in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 08:43 AM

So, if we invade, the people against whom all of Saddam's security precautions were taken will be able to assassinate him, yet we can't do it ourselves? What if that does happen? If Saddam is dead, then our stated reasons for invading go away. We can only watch whatever government takes over to make sure they obey UN resolution 1441. As to not being a war of attrition, I have difficulty seeing any other way when tens of thousands of troops are being attacked in their home city. That's the kind of fighting that looks like Stalingrad. The reason Desert Storm never got to that point is that Saddam's forces were defeated and destroyed in detail well outside of any cities. That's not going to be the case this time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Forum Lurker,

"So, if we invade, the people against whom all of Saddam's security precautions were taken will be able to assassinate him, yet we can't do it ourselves?"

Why does that matter? Do you particularly want "it" to be done by "ourselves"??

"If Saddam is dead, then our stated reasons for invading go away. We can only watch whatever government takes over to make sure they obey UN resolution 1441."

Not in the slightest, the premise for going in will be specifically to enforce outstanding UNSC Resolutions.

"As to not being a war of attrition, I have difficulty seeing any other way when tens of thousands of troops are being attacked in their home city. That's the kind of fighting that looks like Stalingrad."

I can vaguely remember a previous thread where this was discussed at length, for a great many reasons concerning the troops that Saddam can count on and their normal role within Iraq, there will be no Stalingrad. To those that Saddam can depend on most Baghdad is not their home city.

"The reason Desert Storm never got to that point is that Saddam's forces were defeated and destroyed in detail well outside of any cities. That's not going to be the case this time around."

The reason "Desert Storm" never got to that point was that the UN Resolution, upon which the coalition was based, called for the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait - nothing more nothing less. The only Iraqi forces defeated and destroyed in detail were, in the main, regular army formations making up the occupying garrison forces in Kuwait itself and some other units in the forward areas on the Iraq/Kuwait/Saudi borders. Only very few Republican Guard elements were engaged - The Iraqi Army remembers that. And you are right in saying that will not be the case this time round - I reckon they will pack it in a damn sight quicker than they did the last time round.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

You think that troops defending their own country will surrender faster than those occupying a neighbor? Why is that? While Saddam's troops might not be fanatically loyal to him, I still have difficulty believing that they will simply give up at the first bomb, especially given that said first bombs are going to be droppen on Baghdad proper. Bombing the capital didn't work all that well for Hitler, and he did it for a lot longer than Bush plans to.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 12:44 PM

Forum Lurker,

From your posts relating to this subject, you possess very little knowledge with regard to military matters, logistics, strategy or tactics.

By way or research - Do a bit of reading

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:16 PM

I've done quite a bit of reading, on a wide variety of military subjects. How exactly is the idea that soldiers tend to put up a stronger defense on home territory based on an ignorant perspective? I think that it is taken as a given by most military strategists that battles fought in a city will tend to be slower and bloodier than those fought in open country. I think that our experience with guided weapons in Afghanistan has taught us that they are not always perfectly effective in damaging only the target that they are aimed at. What you seem to be saying is that our overwhelming military force will make the Iraqis simply surrender. While I can't speak knowledgeably on the morale of Iraqi troops, I can say that there are innumerable examples of technologically or numerically superior armies being defeated or greatly damaged in conflicts similar to this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:48 PM

I think it was from Voltaire we got something like:-

"God is not on the side of the big Battalions - He is on the side of the best shots."

While you are doing your reading Forum, read up on why the Republican Guard was formed, read up about the specific role of the Special Republican Guard inside Iraq, read up on the specific role of the Fedayeen Saddam.

Having done that, put yourself in the position of an ordinary Iraqi, who for years has been living under the threat of terror those detailed above could visit on your family, your friends or indeed even yourself. Now, having done that, ask yourself how you would behave towards them if all of a sudden it was them in a tight corner - would you do everything in your power to assist them - or would you just turn your back on them - I will leave it to you.

"What you seem to be saying is that our overwhelming military force will make the Iraqis simply surrender."

Did the last time units of the Iraqi Regular Army surrendered in droves.

"While I can't speak knowledgeably on the morale of Iraqi troops, I can say that there are innumerable examples of technologically or numerically superior armies being defeated or greatly damaged in conflicts similar to this one."

But generally it there are far more examples of it going the other way - consul a bookmaker, he'll give you odds.

A short story - During the break-out from the Normandy beach-head a German SS Division almost got caught around Caen - they were subjected to extensive bombing - they managed to escape. The experience, according to their commanding officer, was such that any time thereafter, those who had survived the fighting round Caen, when faced with even the prosect of repeating that ordeal - would run. They would do anything other than stand - and these were guys who had been fighting hard for four years.

What chance an Iraqi conscript barely out of basic training, whose Officers and senior NCO's have gone through a similar experience to that of those Germans. Talking of conscripts, and the Iraqi armed forces are largely manned by conscipts, take a look at the demographic make up of Iraq. Now put yourself in then place of a Shia Muslem, or a Kurd - who has been trapped into joining up - are you going to fight the infidel invader to the last bullet, the last drop of your blood to save Saddam - Don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 02:00 AM

I wonder how many more times the fact that the U.N. did not authorize the troops to take out Saddam during Desert Storm will have to be posted before people believe it?

The argument that the U. S. just wants to take over the oil fields in Iraq simply doesn't hold water. It would have been a simple matter to seize the oil fields in Iraq or Kuwait or both the first time around, and we didn't. That'a pure horse pucky Bobert.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 08:37 AM

Will those people here that are saying in essence that "it is about oil" please explain where the oil is in Afghanistan, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia? None of those places have any abundance of natural resources to usurp.

Explain how the opportunity to control the oil in Kuwait was missed? All those evil, conspiring oil men were in power then.

Why didn't the current group of greedy oil men in power phony up a plan to "drop thousands of bombs on millions of innocent people" in Venezuela and take over their oil?

Anybody want to step up to the plate?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:25 PM

I'll take on this one...

Why didn't the current group of greedy oil men in power phony up a plan to "drop thousands of bombs on millions of innocent people" in Venezuela and take over their oil?

The preferred method for accomplishing regime change in South America is CIA covert operations. There is no proof that I know of at this time of that (which doesn't prove anything one way or the other), but there is quite a lot of cirumstantial evidence that the US government is very much behind the turmoil that is going on in that country over oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 07:00 PM

A large part of the reason that the U.S. stepped into the Gulf War was to keep the region stable, because instabilities in the major oil-producing countries tend to have a negative effect on the economy of America, and indeed the world. It's not necessarily that Bush plans to occupy Iraq and leech every drop of oil from the sand, simply that the economic impact is taken into consideration. As I said before, simply ending the embargo would provide considerable gain for U.S. oil companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 02:34 AM

Then I suppose you would agree, Lurker, that Bush couldn't possibly be motivated to invade Iraq because he only wants to fatten the pocketbooks of the oil companies then, right? All he would have to do to do that is end the sanctions (embargo)!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:52 AM

Except that Saddam would never trade with him. I doubt he'd trade with any American companies, because it woud weaken his anit-American stance and out of spite. I would agree that it's not Bush's primary motivation, but I definitely think it enters into the equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 09:37 AM

America imports over a million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. As much as 90 percent of the oil produced by Iraq ends up in America. It is sold to Russian traders who sell it to US oil companies. The Russians are afraid that they might loose their place as middlemen if the Iraqi regime changes.

Hence the Russian stance against the war. In the sense that American oil companies will have more direct franchises on the oil coming out of Iraq, it is about oil. But oil is also preventing the war.

The price of oil is inflated because of a "shortage" caused by Middle East tensions and traders marking it up due to this "Shortage". Iraq can produce 2 or 3 times the oil they are producing now. The quality of life in Iraq would be improved many times over if the regime cared about them instead of personal visions of greatness.

Why in hell does Saddam spend money on more palaces and weapons instead of investing the millions of dollars flowing into Iraq every day on infrastructure? That will never change unless someone takes forceful action.

The diplomatic efforts to make a change have been going on for 12 years while the situation grows worse.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Beccy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 10:16 AM

While I think we all can agree that Saddam is an evil bastard, I think we can probably all also agree that he's not in this alone. There is NO possible way he could have committed the atrocities he has commited on such a grand scale by himself. In addition to being the puppetmaster of the Ba'ath regime, he has groomed his own sons their entire lives for taking over his job. He took them, as small children, to torture chambers with him in order that they might understand their duties should he be unable to continue as dictator. How about asking his daughter how she liked having her husband killed because he disagreed with dear old pater-in-law.

I posit that- in accord with my opinion that we are not only justified but obligated to remove Saddam- we are also obligated to remove the rest of his regime. In order to do this, the "just assasinate Saddam" idea is pointless.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 10:37 AM

I agree.

I think that when we refer to Saddam we are referring to his sons their cadre of dictatorship.

It is easier to type Saddam instead of the Iraqi Regime.

His sons would be even worse of that could be possible.

Saddam has one of his son's father in-law under house arrest because he fears a coup in the works.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 11:56 AM

Oldguy-It's not actually a crime to spend national funds on projects that only help you, your family, and your friends, even at the expense of your nation's well-being. If it were, we'd have our own regime change to worry about.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:23 PM

Give us an example.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Mar 03 - 05:41 PM

Oops, Old Guy, that might be quite a challenge.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:27 AM

Porkbarrel legislation is a fact of life. When an interim senator was appointed after Wellstone's death, he publicly stated that he would use this opportunity to obtain as much money as possible for Minnesotan companies. Bush's regressive tax cut obviously benefits his friends and family far more than it does the average American, and anyone who's ever heard of Keynes can tell you that reduced government spending doesn't help the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:30 AM

That is if you believe in the Keynesian theory of economics.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:36 AM

I've never heard any theory that explains how less money circulating can mean more money for an individual to circulate. If you have such a theory, I will gladly listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 02:58 AM

Thanks, Lurker. President Bush has proposed such a plan. It has been introduced in the House and will make it's way to the Senate, hopefully in the near future. It's called tax cuts! Surprise, surprise! Thanks for listening!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bugsy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 03:28 AM

I haven't been following the threads on the USA/Iraq conflict so this
may have already been psoted somewher on the 'Cat. Be that as it may,
it's still worth another airing here.
This was sent to me by a friend a week or so ago.


Sorry if it is a little long.



The United States of America Has Gone Mad
by John le Carre

The Times, UK - January 15, 2003 America has entered one of its periods
of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than
McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term
potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have
hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms
that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically
eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate
interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing
out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East
Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was
he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still
be trying to explain such tricky matters:- as how it came to be elected
in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the
already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the
ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties.
They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its
continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies
are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are
told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to
around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in
the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of
Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how
long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the
American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost - because most of those 88 per
cent are thoroughly decent and humane people - in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin
Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring
tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one
in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on
the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being
misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and
fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his
fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with
the enemy. Which is odd, because I am dead against Bush, but I would
love to see Saddam's downfall - just not on Bush's terms and not by his
methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy. The
religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps
the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an
arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God
appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God
appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy,
and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b)
anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are
equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers
one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor
of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive,
Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior
executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief
executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000:
senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil
tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations
affects the integrity of God's work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the
ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating
them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that somebody was
Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: That man tried to kill my Daddy. But it's
still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still God's
work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed
Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and
Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family
and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is
the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis
of Evil but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to
sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who
helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't
won't.

If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his
heart's content. Other leaders do it every day; think Saudi Arabia,
think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and
none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he
has still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel
or America could hurl at him at five minute's notice. What is at stake
is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic
imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to
demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and
China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to
show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America
abroad.The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all
this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it.
He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice.
Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't
get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself
against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a
glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our
Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply
shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal
survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an
improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his
holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy
rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us
into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been
there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more
democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN.
By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the
Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke
unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in
the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN
approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special
relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's
sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties
about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how
he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault
on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf
of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and
because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp
David, Blair has to show up at the altar. Last Friday a friend of mine
in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car
saying: Peace is also Patriotic. It was gone by the time he'd finished
shopping.




It's basically what I have beleived from the start but have not been
able to put across in a discussion.


Cheers

Bugsy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

DougR-Explain to me how the $61.04 that I get under Bush's plan counters the reduction in government services, or the slowdown in the economy which inevitably results whenever more money is saved instead of spent. As far as I know, the federal government spends every cent in it budget, where private citizens often place a great deal into savings accounts, especially when the economy is looking sour.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 12:48 PM

Here's a link to Bugsy's article just in case we need it...

The United States of America Has Gone Mad by John le Carre

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 01:04 PM

Forum Lurker:


Explain where the $64.01 figure came from and give us an example of "It's not actually a crime to spend national funds on projects that only help you, your family, and your friends, even at the expense of your nation's well-being. If it were, we'd have our own regime change to worry about."

Bugsy:

You are right, it is too long and after the first few sentences all credibility is lost and it seems a waste of time to read the rest.
If you want to hear some really outlandish anti-American propaganda, listen to Ramsey Clark.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 03:48 PM

FL:

At least we agree on the pork barrel and reduced government spending except I think pork is wrong.

There was a bill proposed to enable line item veto power to the president so he could veto parts of a bill. It did not pass.

Maybe line item veto is giving more power to the pres. but I think each appropriation should stand on its own merits. The ridiculous things that ride on the back of more important bills are in effect blackmail


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 06:32 PM

Line item veto is definitely too much power for any one person to have, even if I trusted the president. I agree that each appropriation should stand on its own merits, and ideally a bill should not contain appropriations or clauses not germane to the initial concept of the bill.   Unfortunately, the same people who would determine what was germane are the people making the porkbarrel in the first place. The $64.01 was my rebate.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 07:50 PM

The line item veto was, in fact, passed into law and signed by President Clinton (I believe this was during his second term in office):

Line Item Veto passed by congress and signed by Clinton

Here's some information on how it was first used:

Clinton's first use of the Line Item Veto

In 1998, the Supreme Court stuck down the law, declaring it unconstitutional.

Line Item Veto stuck down

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 09:30 PM

CarolC:

Now you are teaching me things. I must have been thinking about an earlier attempt at line item veto that failed. Also it confirms a thought in the back of my head that Congress can over ride a veto.

I think it points to the fact that another attempt at line Item veto should be made. If the people in Congress are too busy to vote on a lot of bills, let them work 5 hour weeks like their constituents do. They are sure as hell able to vote raises for them selves with no problems.

Robert Byrd is a reformed member of a terrorist organization called the KKK and uses the N word at will. With out pork he would be toast.

I have heard several people say that the current budget has more pork than ever.

I thought everybody got a $600 rebate in 2001.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:09 PM

Nope. I actually didn't get the money at all, since I'm still a dependent on my parents' tax form, but it would have been $64.01.

Subject: RE: BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
From: Bugsy
Date: 02 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

GUEST,Oldguy, you are, of course entitled to your point of view, as I am to mine.


Cheers


Bugsy