 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should the Uk & US go to war with Iraq?
|
|
|
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 is for 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 And though the wisest of the wise teach war is obsolete; Still we march toward that vile dawn on shameless, Revisions made out of Thanks to Sandy Creek and McGrath of Harlow, and to Mudcat for hosting my 'work in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. |