View Full Version : Thoughts on the impending conflict
19th Dec 2002, 22:53
Without wishing to throw around to many gloomy thoughts at this part of the year, I had a couple of niggling ones which surfaced. If the gent in Bhagdad who it is generaly acknowledged to be a trifle ruthless has worked for so long and so hard and poured billions of dollars on his programs that were proved beyond any shadow of doubt to exist, what happened to them?
It has to have sunk into the minds of even the most hardened pacifist that the leadership of Bhagdad has prevaricated twisted and turned with the dexterity of a well oiled dervish for years. They demonstrated this time and time and time again in the past, why should they suddenly have changed now.
It also occurrs to me that the recent registration of certain nationals in the US is a precaution that is indicative of concrete action. That it has bought howls of indignation from those countries is laughable because the immigration and security precations in each of these other states is generaly many times more onerous
Another thought was that N Korea is in bad shape food wise, probably due to it's known financial priorities ie weapons and military over food??? and would be very amenable to a massive infusion of foreign funds and possibly information on Nuclear programs and bioweapons from a certain someone who had both, and who incidentaly was getting nervous about coming events. Said person who might just be glad of
a) a diversion of world and US attention by something such as a declaration of re-starting N Korea's nuclear program
b) a secure place to flee to, and guess what might have been a downpayment. The world is getting a very small place and N Korea remains one of the few places he could call a safe haven
Libya may well have been somewhere that has been sounded out but rejected, as the desert Col has been showing signs of backsliding ie seeking rapprochement with the West. Isolation apparently having done little to advance the Libyans.
The gentleman in Bhagdad has not got where he stands now by being totaly stupid and he will no doubt have felt a chill wind that is gathering force and certainly will blow him no good .
20th Dec 2002, 01:53
I keep hearing tantalising suggestions that the Americans know that Saddam has concealed WOMD because, being p*ssed off with the Iranian hostage taking, they supplied the things to him during the Iran-Iraq war. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" sort of thing.
Taking this suggestion a little further, the Iraqi Ambassador's comments on CNN this morning were therefore very interesting - diplomats are especially noted for their careful choice of language, so perhaps there is some truth in the rumour? It would also explain the "Coalition's" reluctance to follow the Iraqi army back to Baghdad in the first round of the conflict.
Through difficulties to the cinema
20th Dec 2002, 07:36
If you REALLY want to gage the 'if and when' the US will war with Iraq, watch Israel like a shark. Forget the Chicken Noodle Network. Even I would know how to easiley use CNN as a propaganda machine for my own strategicaly-timed purposes if I was S.H.
I mentioned in a thread some months ago that Iraq will hit Israel in any direct attack from the USA. I got howled down. I see that Rumsfelds speech earlyer this month vindicated my argument.
So, watch Israel.
And everyone knows exactley where Saddams weapons are but no one has the balls to go in and get them until Sharon gives the thuimbs up.
Again, watch Israel.
20th Dec 2002, 08:00
Spot on Slasher.
Sadman knows that his best chance of support from others could come from a common opposition to Israel.
To pinch Blacksheep's phrase, but to apply it to Sadman and the Arab nations, " My enemy's enemy is my friend. "
I'll qualify the above by admitting that I'm no expert, but it's just common sense, it seems to me.
20th Dec 2002, 13:04
Certainly a card he will play at the approriate time. A strike at the common enemy in both an attempt at diversion, and to build support in a time of crisis. A guess is that that would come when it is apparent that a strike is inevitable.
It is interesting though that the Palastinians who were his supporters in the invasion of Kuwait and were expelled in large numbers after Kuwait had been liberated, may now be a little more circumspect in their dealing with this 'friend' who as Arafat said the other day was hijacking the Palistinian cause for his own ends. One of course has no way of knowing how much tongue was in cheek on that particular statement.
There is a juggernaut building momentum, and it appears more and more, not a case of if, but when. The declaration made by Bhagdad has been declared as lacking, and it is in keeping with the leader in Bhagdad to take events right down to the wire. He seems to have a great deal of faith in the natural pacifism of populations in general and to have become accustomed to getting his own way most of the time, certainly within his own sphere.
It is an interesting thing to observe how certain people who have a deepseated belief in the goodness of human nature coupled with a strong will can produce a man such as Ghandi, and who will passively endure great tribulation in support of his or her beliefs. They will demonstrate and endure beatings and imprisonment, even death for their cause. This can have a powerful effect which can produce good results, if painfully won. Such behaviour in the face of complete Dictators who are psycopathic and have created a state machinery that supports them in a like manner, would seem to become at a certain stage, self defeating. Such people can end by being completely subjugated and the Rulers if they become large/powerfull/ or have appropriate force mulitiplication to hand will reach a stage where they will start having a Global impact.
Each situation contains it own particular volatile chemistry and historicaly we have in the last century been witness to some that have boiled over pretty catasrophicaly. The pot has been bubbling quite energeticaly and there have been some fairly virulent components added recently. The coming events may well be an attempt at a 'controlled explosion' to try and prevent a larger and more violent one at a slightly later date.
We are reaching that sort of situation and some fairly big decisions are being contemplated. Like the unpleasent events that have preceded it, it will effect us all, wherever we are, some sooner than others.
20th Dec 2002, 19:48
Do we really want to go to war because of Israel?
Because that is what this is all about!
First off Col Blimp,
We have been at war in Iraq non stop for 10 years. To think otherwise is to pay grave disrespect to the US and British Airmen that patrol and fight in the no fly zone on a daily basis. It is a miracle that we haven't lost anyone yet over Iraq. Just a flame out would do it! You should honor your own armies and recognize the risks and sacrifices they are taking for you.
On to the next, Why do you say this is about Israel? Israel doesn't give a crap about Iraq. They dealt with the only threat to Israel way back in 1980 or so when they blew up the reactors that the french were building there.
Others say this is only about oil, and I doubt that as well.
How about this is a very evil person, who likes to invade his neighbors, destabilizing an area of the world that is very important to the stability to the world's economies? A man willing to do evil things, strictly for his own jollies? A man who uses poison gas on many ocasions? WHo uses weapons of mass destruction offensively, not defensively? The penalty for using them must be harsh. The barest minimum is to lose the weapons. Saddam should lose his head as well.
IS that too hard to accept?
Tell me how the USA and Britain attacking Iraq would benefit Israel? Is there a common border? Could Iraq attack Israel directly? Now if you said the USA attacked lebanon and Syria to aid Israel, you might make that case.
But most importantly If Israel felt threatened, don't you think they could defend themselves?
So exactly how is this all about Israel blimp?
And again, for those beating the drum beats of war. As yet no USA reserves have been called up. the CRAF has not been activated. We are no closer to a ground war in Iraq now than we were 1 year ago. It takes time to train an position 300,000 troops and it hasn't even begun.
20th Dec 2002, 20:59
Just out of curiosity, what are the no-fly zones for exactly?.
And just for good measure in Paterbrat speak,
It has been argued that those, who express what could be seen as an opinion or presentation of facts, would be seen to facilitate a more favorable view from those, who the litterary efforts are intended, if indeed a minimum of reseach into the thosen subject had been conductet.
This argument, which could possibly be debated, have been put forward on a number of occasions by individuals who does appear to hold some ability to sway the general oppinion.
Now I haven't said anything, have I.
20th Dec 2002, 22:25
My appologies Techman, your comment is well taken, and yes you are right, you didn't say anything.
I have, as people do here, put forward thought and opinions, my manner appears to have either offended you, or simply got up your nose, a matter easily cured. Simply ignore it or don't read it and the irritation will not occur. On the other hand you have a number of times on other threads expressed reservation about US policy so I do not find it surprising that you should be irritated with my opinions.
My impression on the purpose of the no-fly zones, without reference to any particular material on the subject, would be that it was a condition imposed by the coalition that forced Bhagdad to leave Kuwait. Probably in order to be able to closely monitor Iraqi forces near border areas. Provide a credible and immediate deterent to any further military moves Iraq might have wished to make in those areas. Retain coalition air superiority at strategic points in the event further military moves should become neccessary.
Now hopefully Techman you didn't read that, because I doubt that would have satisfied your curiosity as that was pure conjecture on my part, something that happens on these threads and of course you would probably have reservation about the need for any of those actions?
Beating the drums of war, or simply observing what is happening Wino?
20th Dec 2002, 22:53
I believe the no fly zones were set up initialy to protect the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south from Saddams brave fighter jocks, those that didn't run away to Iran that is.
Its also handy for us to pop a Harm or Alarm at them if they happen to paint our chaps with Radar. ;)
20th Dec 2002, 23:00
I suspect there is something in what you say, though I wouldn't go as far. I'm worried by Sharon's infuence on American foreign policy. And I'm extremely worried by Sharon's reported comments about which countries should be the next targets after Iraq.
But, PLEASE don't allow this to turn into a yet another debate about Israel.
You posted 2 lines about 20 words.
Wino responded with about 20 lines and about 300 words.
I 'honour our army' and I 'recognize the risks and sacrifices' they will take and make if we are drawn into a war. It horrifies me when I think of the lives which will inevitably be lost or ruined by injury. But I do not regard this as a war 'for me.'
It's not a war I want to happen nor, it appears, do the majority of the British public.
Why we are being so active when other countries limit their activity to supporting UN resolutions is beyond me.
(I deliberately refrain from making any comment upon how the US appears to be rather 'selective' about which UN Resolutions regarding the Middle East it's prepared to support by force, and which it chooses to ignore.)
20th Dec 2002, 23:02
If i may, please have a look on this forum.
If you have AOL, you may not be able to access it. AOL isn't very fond of any site which dares to question American policy, nor the true reasons behind it. Fine with some of the more distastefull (though, show me some thats not) porn sites i believe.
Anyways, have a look, and please post thoughts. The Sept 11th dossier on the site, though long, is, however, an extremely worthwhile read .
As is the TWA thread.
Oh, and for the record, i'm with colonel blimp and slasher.
Our glorious P.M. "i'm ready to shed blood over Iraq" was the quote i believe.
Really? will your young Euan be there? or will it be more of the council house kids; with boots that dont fit, and tanks that dont work, doing the shedding of blood?
All so America can get some of its favourite fluid - oil. If anyone doubts that, check out the authentic, published notes on the aforementioned website where congress has already, quietly, decided which companies will inherit the rights.There will be a war alright folks; Saddam is an evil man, but lets not dress up the reasons for war. One could wage a fully justified campaign against Sharon and his lot is you wished also...a self admitted terrorist from years back; his own wife claimed he was a butcher who only understands bloodshed.
All rather puts Pres. Bush's claims on t.v. tonight of being "a friend of peace" in an uncomfortable spotlight.
Still, what can you expect from a man who said, immediately after Sept 11th, quote, "we is goinna get them folks that done this"
An uneducated redneck; is Elmer J Chickenshit finally at the wheel?
Or is the Harvard graduate simply uttering a little phrase thats designed to go straight to the heart of your average uneducated American citizen (about 85% of them)
One is rather glad ones military career is long over; this whole nasty little action leaves a very bad taste.
C'mon then, flame me.....but before you do....i hope i have at least made SOMEONE think.
Merry Christmas all,
20th Dec 2002, 23:20
The prospect of war is a cause for thought in even the most beligerent. It is highly likely that everybody has thought also of possible consequences of having a country with the track record that Iraq has, produce some rather unpleasant weapons which might very easily be funneled to some rather fanatic people. Having seen what the man in charge of that country has already done over the years it would be stupifyingly irresponsible for something not to be done. The leaders dismissed so scathingly are at the very least not mass murderers. The same cannot be said for Saddam. I hope that you will have both a Merry Christmas and a Peaceful one but do bear in mind that someone has to try and ensure the peace and sometimes wars occur to ensure that. That is why there is a military and since you were in it you knew that.
20th Dec 2002, 23:36
Paterbrat, with respect , i have now read your last post 4 times; i completely fail to see the point you are now trying to make.
Have i been scthing of our leaders with no evidence? No.
Have i defended Saddam? Again, no.
As i said, spend an hour on that site, or read a few of the more "non p.c." facts that can be found elsewhere on the 'net on some excellent, award winning newsites, and then come back to me.
No disrespect meant sir; i am genuinly baffled. (age perhaps? or the hypoxia setting in again?)
A merry, and peacefull, christmas to you and yours.
21st Dec 2002, 06:13
You made me think alright...XXX XXXXXX XXXX
West Coast, stick to attacking the argument. Flaming other posters by attacking their person does nothing but destroy a thread.
Please cease and desist from making comments about other posters' percieved intellectual capability.
The Crimson Fruitbat
21st Dec 2002, 07:15
Interesting website link. From your user name are you an ex-RAF jet driver?
Here is one for you, if you believe its possible to concoct a scenario to glean public support for a war:
(The PDF file at the bottom of the synopsis is worth a read particularly from pp. 10 - 15) Pretext for Cuba Invasion 1962 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/)
21st Dec 2002, 07:30
Would your favourite movie perchance be "The Green Berets"?
The Crimson Fruitbat
21st Dec 2002, 07:41
Hmmm, "The Green Berets", surely the Duke's worst film (thank gawd he came back with True Grit etc a little later).
I don't think anyone would admit to to being taken in by that "gem" of propaganda.
21st Dec 2002, 07:47
Martinbaker, I read your post again and will stand by my observation on scathing comments. I also understand from your previous post that you belive them to be misguided in the direction they are going. This leads me to believe by deduction that you feel that they are wrong in their assumptions about Saddam.
I am prepared to believe that there are many facts that are not known by us the public and that governments will routinely attempt to sway public opinion. It is simply that having observed at first hand what the Iraqi's under his direction, did in Kuwait, I was in there when all the oilwells were burning and I have seen for myself what that man did with my own eyes and not through some selected view engineered by a TV journalist or government spokesperson.
I too have followed various reputable news sites and have come to certain opinions which are my own, they appear to be at odds with yours which is perfectly natural and OK by me. So with equal repect I would venture that your bafflement is a matter of concern only to yourself, age would be my guess, as I doubt that you would be hypoxic at your computer unless you are an extremely heavy smoker suffering from chronic lung damage and sitting on Ben Nevis, whatever is the case I hope that you do not find it too much of a handicap.
21st Dec 2002, 08:43
West coast - sorry i never got to read your unedited post. Still, as is usual on this thread ( and was proven during the recent Enoch Powel debate) Flapsforty has done an excellent moderating job; that tells me more than enough about your ability for reasoned debate.
Paterbrat; please desist from attempting to get into personal slights - it does you no service, but i ask again.
Did you even READ my post. I wish to see Saddam REMOVED; I do wish certain governments would stop trying to dress up the reasons WHY however.
Scott Ritter, a republican, says " they have no WMD capability"
Hans Blix, says to the Americans "stop trying to hinder my investigation by asking me to distort findings"
The list could go on. Bush is desparate for a war; needs the oil to help his smoke and mirrors economy for a start.
If we are going to start invading countries because they have nasty leaders who violate human rights and seek more powerfull weapons, we can start a helluva lot close than Iraq, and a very long, busy time ahead will beckon.
Oh, and thanks for contributing that link Fruitbat - excellent read, and very informative. I think it shows rather clearly how America is not exactly adverse to some public relations engineering where a conflict or enemy is concerned. Not that some on this forum will believe that, even when the truth, as here, comes from declassified files from their own government.
21st Dec 2002, 11:00
US has turned this whole situation into a personal affair with Saddam the last 10 years. Leaving him in power under any circumstances will cause a major loss of face and credibillity for the US. How could take anyone US serious the next time? A solution including Saddam is inconceivable.
Saddam has to go no matter what happens, it'll never be acceptable for US/UK. If they don't find WMD's US claims they hide it causing a material breech and if they find it's good enough for military action, no matter what happen an invasion is going to take place in February/March.
A simple mind would think that the CIA or MI6 would tell Blix the excact location of the WMD's they claim to know and ask the team to reveal it. But until now nothing has been found?
The invasion already is in full preparation, everything else is just gallery play.
21st Dec 2002, 14:27
Slasher Said at the start of this debate "Watch Israel like a Hawk" (or similar).
Now i know my opinion probably doest count for much, not being an established poster, but i think that as well as watchin Israel, you want to wach that big, fat USAF Jumbo Jet, the one with a Laser in the front. In my opinion, as soon as America can deploy one, and say "Look at our shiny new toy, saving the world from the Scud Missiles", there'll be a war.
And i agree with the sentiments expressed about this being a war over control of the black gold
21st Dec 2002, 17:01
Nope. Was in the Marines, never really did like the army.
21st Dec 2002, 18:06
My little piece was not a result of your oppinions (that is if you have any?), but rather your style. It often makes me wonder if you expressing the oppinions of a third person or if you are just being philosophic . It is a "distant" style and perhaps even an interesting one.
With regards to the No-Fly zones I found, after a bit of research, that the legal basis, and official reason, for them are supposed to be based on a UNSC resolution, calling for the protection of certain minorities on the south and in the north of Iraq.
You are however probably closer to the truth.
Turkey have on a number of occasions since 1991 attacked Kurdish terrorist/freedom-fighter (take your pick) bases in northen Iraq. I believe that they even have a military base on Iraqi territory.
What happend in southern Iraq was a complete disgrace, and I wouldn't be surprised if those who took part in the uprising, and are still alive, would hold a bit of a grudge against the US.
21st Dec 2002, 21:18
MBFC, you will remember that in 1947, a financially straitened Britain elected to halt its support for the governments of Greece and Turkey, creating a highly volatile power vacuum on the southern flank of the then-Soviet Union. The creation of the Truman Doctrine was the US cold war response to that event, which proclaimed the area a zone of particular American interest. UN resolution 181 quickly followed, allowing the creation of Arab and Jewish states, and setting into inexorable motion the chain of events that now bring us to our present state of affairs, a dog’s breakfast by any sane man’s measure.
In responding to the holier than thou glances you cast so coyly in our direction, you would do well to consider the total abdication of moral and historical responsibility, unprecedented in my view, for the regional misery Her Majesty’s finest had fomented up until her hasty, penury-driven departure. The US moved into the region in an attempt to create stability and, yes, economic opportunity, a hugely ill-considered move it now seems in 911-enhanced retrospect.
I support Paterbrat’s reasoning, and the view that Saddam must be removed from power if stability in the region is to be attempted. I do not have high hopes for it in view of the deeply rooted, genetic it seems, tribal hatreds that continue to fuel blood-letting of biblical proportions. That US companies stand to profit handsomely from the outcome of any impending war, however, is a lesson well-learned from the Imperial Britain of a deceased yore.
21st Dec 2002, 21:58
Techman actualy yes I do see, and the point was taken. The little bit at the bottom tells one where I am and the mails all go through an ISP and are read. Touched by a slight paranoia I revert to perhaps unneccessarily oblique language and exercise caution in some opinions. Bread and butter is unfortunately generaly the main motivator in most of the things one does I being no exception. It generaly just comes out as being verbose but might just save the thing I sit on. Oh yes, and I also get carried away.
Mr D zapped in with the correct answer but I generaly base my opinions on what I deduce to be happening rather than on what is said to be happening and of course am just as likely as anyone else to come up with the wrong answer.
MartinB your origional comments 'glorious PM...' and 'uneducated redneck Elmer J Chickinshit' I think one could possibly describe as scathing. Whether there is cause for your comments in that manner, has been your opinion, not mine.
I have never accused you of protecting or endorsing Saddam. You read my post 4 times( I was flattered you had bothered) and failed to see my point. Genuinely baffled, you said, you offered two possible explanations, hypoxia or old age. Since I doubted the hypoxia I took the old age. No personal slights from me simply accepting one of your own choices.
Do you accept Mr Scott Ritter's word???? A man who has flip flopped 180 degrees. They have and then they haven't. The fact that he is is, you say, a Republican, is supposed to make this the truth??? I don't believe in the tooth fairy either by the way.
As for your simplistic notion that it is now only because he has a bad human rights record or that it is to prop up the 'smoke and mirror US economy' and I begin to understand why you had trouble reading my posting. And actualy I have never believed that any Government allways tells the truth. They tell the public what they think they can get away with, though in the West the freedoms which we treasure so highly of press and speech and of public domain do at least tend to keep them fairly honest. Sadly the very freedoms exploited by the present groups who would seek to do us harm with the types of weapons that were being made in Iraq and who might just be given them.
Semper Fi WC or in UK Ubique.
22nd Dec 2002, 03:33
Going back to my earlier post, the following day the USA 'edited' the only existing copy of the Iraqi document before passing it on to the non-permanent members of the Security Council. They also refuse to pass on essential information that they say they have, to Hans Blix, the person tasked by the United Nations with finding any WOMD that may be concealed in Iraq. This is on the grounds that the information is too sensitive to be entrusted to the weapons inspectors, as it may leak to the Iraqis and enable them to move material to another location. So now the Iraqis will leave whatever they have where it is, right? :rolleyes:
These actions do nothing to dispell the rumours, rather they add to the evidence that the USA's real interest is in getting their own stuff back nice and quietly.
Through difficulties to the cinema
The report from Iraq was edited to remove some rather explicit how to stuff on the atomic weapons. No reason to give that to Syria for example, even if they are on the security council.
The Weapon's inspectors during the last go around were notorious for their leaks. The head of the inspectors himself said that and was constantly frustrated by it. Not giving them all the info in one shot just keeps the leaks down for the moment. Then you can give em one item at a time and tell em to go inspect facility X right NOW! No time to clean up and move out.
Untill this week the inspectors didn't even have multiple helicopters (They only had 1) yet due to the torturous UN beaurocracy in hiring out the helicopters (have to be bid and such and such) so there was no real chance of doing a suprise inspection yet, so why give away the secrets?
22nd Dec 2002, 09:28
Cheers indeed Wino. A refreshing breeze of common sense from time to time does help blow away the cobwebs.
A very telling comment there Buggsmasher, ancient tribal hatreds would indeed seem to undo or prevent the most enthusiastic attempts to help pacify and stabalise. The historical enmity of Afghans has kept that benighted country in an almost constant state of violent fueding throughout history and threatens the rather fragile peace there now.
Just as in individuals there appears to be an agressive genetic predisposition so entire countries not surprisingly follow certain patterns. It is instructive that such societies are generaly is a poor state since so much of their efforts are directed towards agression they spend little time on the other persuits that are generaly held to enrich our lives.
22nd Dec 2002, 09:44
The report from Iraq was edited to remove some rather explicit how to stuff on the atomic weapons. No reason to give that to Syria for example, even if they are on the security council.
Wino, the original document, was edited from 12,500 pages, down to 3,500 pages. Syria understandably got upset, at being offered the Readers Digest version.
So, what you're saying is, that 9,000 pages contained "How to" stuff on Nuclear Weapons?
You could attach 4 Atlas rockets to the American explanation, and it still wouldn't fly.
I wonder what makes Tony Blair think he's got a complete version?
22nd Dec 2002, 09:46
I doubt if that could have been the reason, instructions on how to build your own nuke if freely available on the net.
Interesting site, and no doubt buried among the conspiracy theories there may be a few small grains of truth.
A "who is" search on www.whatreallyhappened.com leads me to Christopher Hertzig, of Lancaster, CA. Google on this name leads to a number of pro-Israel sites with which he is also involved.
Given the provinence and content, not surprised that AOL block it. Yes to freedom of speech, no to inflamatory propaganda!
Just the facts
22nd Dec 2002, 10:04
Hey Tony some people like the predigested portions, some don't. I guess they didn't. I wonder if you ever edit what you tell your lads out in the field or do you give them everything chapter and verse.
Time and place surely, and if your the bloke at the top out in your particular trench it's your call. Sure there's always going to be some joker who isn't entirely satisfied but hey tough, that's life.
22nd Dec 2002, 12:31
"The report from Iraq was edited to remove some rather explicit how to stuff on the atomic weapons. No reason to give that to Syria for example, even if they are on the security council."
How do you know what was and wasn't in the original dossier, Wino?
In fact, how does ANYONE know what was in the original dossier?
And what gives the USA the right to decide what part of the contents of a document submitted to the UN may or may not be seen by other members of the UNSC?
As if the content mattered anyway........Dubya will have his little war in a far-off country and, no doubt, will kick it all off at the moment of maximum political and economic opportunity for himself, his party and their backers.
22nd Dec 2002, 15:19
Historicaly and socially speaking the biggest bloke on the block Caslance.
And a Happy New Year
22nd Dec 2002, 15:32
Wino: do you mean that UNSCOM was the leak (to the US), a bit of the cattle and the pot, right? Depending of course on which side you are.
The whole world is, after all these months of allegations, still waiting for DA PROOF.
Even Blix is complaining that he doesn't get too much cooperation from the US/UK intelligence. The only reason why I would imagine is that the the military forces are still building up. The idea that Blix would leak to Iraq is ridiculous but well in line of the US propaganda.
Now wherez Wedge here....?
22nd Dec 2002, 15:48
Errr... Kwai_Mensa, I believe that the object of the exercise was for Blix to recieve co-operation from the Iraqi's. A minor point which seems to dart from peoples minds with uncanny nimbleness.
There is a documented history of the co-operation openness and truth that has gone before with the UN inspections that were required by the UN and were attempted. It has only been with the very greatest reluctance and by a massive show of willingness to go to war that the present inspections are even at the hunt the thimble stage they are at now
There exists doubts in some folks minds that this co-operation and complete openness is being extended in the manner that has been required by the UN and it is only because certain members are prepared to go to the extreme that the inspection teams are there at all.
22nd Dec 2002, 16:04
"Historicaly and socially speaking the biggest bloke on the block Caslance"
Oh, good! So we'll be hearing no more cant and claptrap about "the rule of law" and "democratic values" then, since it's all about who's got the biggest stick and the loudest voice.
Does this principle of yours apply to everyone, or just to good ole Uncle Sam?
22nd Dec 2002, 16:16
Since I had or have no hand in the historical or social habits of the powers of the day I can lay no claim to this priciple, I have though observed and read about it. It's early impact on me in the playground was unforgettable. Furthermore I daresay you will be hearing lots more cant and claptrap whether you like it or not, although your disaproval has been noted.
22nd Dec 2002, 16:55
I think slasher has a point!
Look at the enormous political clout the jewish lobby seem to have in Washington.
The impending confrontation worries me immensely, and why!
1) Saddam Hussain/Iraq
This man is not stupid, he is extremely effective at controlling/ influencing Arab/Islamic opinion.
No one has found Saddam's WOMD arsenal- that doesn't mean he hasn't got one- it just means that it's better hidden than we give him credit for.
We know what he was researching- what the hell has he found?
Who are his friends?
2) N. Korea
Nuclear reactors are expensive to run and don't only make electricity! All of a sudden N.K. has decided to begin operation of their reactor- does this mean they've got new supplies or a new customer?
Who are their friends?
Has not been eliminated or even reduced- as fast as one cell is eliminated another appears. Al Queda has earned a lot of prestige among some disaffected elements in the arab/islamic since 9/11.
We don't know what resources they have.
We don't know the full extent of their reach/effectiveness and/or capability.
4) George Bush Jnr
Whilst he was elected fairly and squarely, and I have no problem with that, I wonder at his advisors...based on my experience of the Provisional IRA (who had a surprisingly global reach) a battle against terrorism has to be an intelligence-led war. To move to a military option this early indicates poor advice or an reckless attitude.
The USA and it's allies may well face more than one enemy in the next conflict- one of which has no known operating base. you can't eliminate them if you can't find them
22nd Dec 2002, 17:10
"Furthermore I daresay you will be hearing lots more cant and claptrap whether you like it or not, although your disaproval has been noted."
That's very kind of you, Paterbrat. No doubt the counsels of the great and mighty will be troubled by this to no small degree.
Funny you should mention playgrounds, though.:cool:
22nd Dec 2002, 19:22
Caslance no need to thank me, it's a simple fact of life. I would hazard a guess that you are of the opinion that a great deal of cant and claptrap has already been voiced, so why pray should it suddenly stop? I have no reason to believe though that the counsels of the great and the mighty will be at all troubled since a great deal comes from there anyway.
Now about those playgrounds though, now your talking. If we could keep the level of nonsense down to playground level just think how fewer people would die.
22nd Dec 2002, 20:10
hmm....Peterbrat, as far as I've seen in the media Blix gets all the cooperation from Iraq he wants, at least he's not complaining about it, or does he?
Until now nothing has been found, even those scuds under the cement bags were for Jemen, were they? Good that Jemen is our friend, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, but that can change rapidly as been proved in the past.
"The report from Iraq was edited to remove some rather explicit how to stuff on the atomic weapons. No reason to give that to Syria for example, even if they are on the security council."
This might have a completely different reason as Wino suggested... seems that at least 24 US companies were listed in the report who gave very substantial support especially to the biological weapons program but also to the missile and nuclear weapons program, companies included Hewlett Packard, DuPont, Honeywell, Rockwell, Tectronics, Bechtel, International Computer Systems, Unisys, Sperry and TI Coating.
The names of companies were supposed to be top secret. Two weeks ago Iraq provided two copies of its full 12,000-page report, one to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva, and one to the United Nations in New York. U.S. broke an agreement of the Security Council and blackmailed Colombia, which at the time was presiding over the Council, to take possession of the UN’s only copy. The U.S. then proceeded to make copies of the report for the other four permanent Security Council nations, Britain, France, Russia and China. Only days later did the remaining members of the Security Council receive their copies. By then, all references to foreign companies had been removed.
22nd Dec 2002, 20:39
Yes I would concur with that. The policy of co-operation does seem to be very much higher than it was for the last group.
It would also make sense that there would be names of US companies who had provided materials and assistance to Iraq. During the Iaraq Iran conflict I believe that the US was assisting the Iraqi's. I would also believe that quite a few Western nations have provided assistance to Iraq over the years in a number of ways. Was the nuclear reactor destroyed by the Israelis not a French one?
A point about Yemen to remember is that Yemen along with Jordan were nominal allies of Bhagdad when they were in Kuwait.
Pakistan created or helped creat the Taliban and possibly by default AQ. Allies are allies when it suits. In global politics the ground is ever shifting and alliances are fragile things, which is probably why present circumstances dictate that the gent in Bhagdad should go, because the time and circumstance may preclude any chance at a later date. The present climate which has been so stirred up by AQ probably means that public opinion has been upset to such an extent that it is do-able now. I am prepared to believe that there is a great deal that the public does not know, but also believe that there are some dedicated and talented people along with the drongos, who do, and are taking appropriate steps. It really is simply a matter of faith in the system of checks and balances that have been built into the institutions that govern our lives. I believe it is these very checks and ballances that are in play at this time in our lives, in the present situation. Checking and ballancing out the possible moves of a powerful player who has malevolent intentions.
Interesting point about the blackmail of Columbia any further details?
23rd Dec 2002, 01:08
Quite right Pater
If I have to issue a set of QBO's or Quick Battle Orders, then I'll digest it down to what the lads need to know, to DO THE JOB.
But normally, I would give those orders
2. About to do the other side a spot of no good.
However, before I got to that stage, at some point, I would have issued a briefing to the lads, along the lines of enemy strength, disposition and capability.
Syria are complaining, that they can't make an informed decision on a resolution, without being in possession of ALL the facts.
Which leads us back to the missing 9,000 pages.
Iraq has just issued a challenge to the US and UK, culminating in an invitation to the CIA to come and do their own inspecting.
23rd Dec 2002, 06:10
Tony you have hit the nail on the head, 'when about to do the other side a spot of no good'... Syria and many others are by their opposition to action defaulting to the side of the other guy. So I imagine the less you tip their hands the better off you are.
Since quite a long time back the number of casualties and the massive material and ecological damage caused by this one man, the threat of yet more on a bigger scale, has upped the stakes. It is not mere words that are being played with here, it is war by any other name, and in war the means employed are sometimes less than pleasant, or by the Queensberry rules. One thing is certain, our man in Bhagdad has never played by those rules, so why pray tie one hand behind your back if one wishes to engage him.
'Challenged'?? With regard to this latest invitation, it would appear that the pips are indeed beginning to sqeak. Doubtful if the 'challenge' would have been issued unless forced out of them. This would appear to be some serious co-operation and who knows where this might lead.
It should be noted though that the pressure has had to be racheted up to serious level to get this far. It is a serious doubt on my part that this could have been achieved without the intensity of effort applied by the two powers concerned.
The rather tepid and porous past sanctions by the fainthearts and ones who have doubted Iraqs capacity to do harm, would have on their own, achived little in discouraging the gentleman of Bhagdad from persuing whatever programs he wished, with results which one pales to imagine.
23rd Dec 2002, 11:03
Paterbrat, some things to consider......
Iraq is probably the most western Middle East country (except may be Jordan) where islam fundamentalism is not very popular.
Before 1990 Saddam was US most reliable ally until he overplayed his hand with Kuwait.
Most of the atrosious things he did was approved by the US (Iran) or at least allowed (Kurds and Shi'its).
Now after 10 years US discovers he's a risk for the world worth a war costing many lives and money.....
If it wasn't too much of a personal thing between US/Saddam then I'm sure Iraq would be US closest ally still....
With Yemen or other rogue countries it's easier to change from enemy to friend or back because there's no such personal thing as with Saddam.
In the meantime countries like N Korea or Pakistan or much more (nuclear) of a risk. NKorea is taking this opportunity to stretch the limits because US is too occupied with Iraq. I remember in another thread someone told NKorea doesnt have a history like Iraq, but I'm more worried about NKorea then Iraq, also a lot closer to Japan and US.
23rd Dec 2002, 16:22
"If we could keep the level of nonsense down to playground level just think how fewer people would die."
Yes, Paterbrat, I can see it now!
Saddam and Dubya trying to pull each other's jackets over their heads and punch each other's b*ll*cks while the UN General Assembly forms a circle around them and chants "Fight..Fight..Fight..Fight!".
You know, I'll bet you could sell tickets for that. And imagine the TV rights!!!
Paterbrat - I think you've hit on a winner!! I doff my cap to you, Sirrah! :D
23rd Dec 2002, 21:52
Caslance, if only. It is a very much more palatable thought than what could be happening soon. Sadly children grow up and the fights get nastier and involve more people. It really is depressing sometimes to consider what an aggressive creature mankind really is. The ingenuity that has been, and still is devoted to the death and destruction of one another does us as a species, little credit. Even less credit when one considers the part religion has played in a lot of our conflicts
Kwasi_Mensa that has been considered. I have already acknowledged that the US was an ally at an earlier time and at the same time pointed out the shifting and amphorous nature of geopolitics. N Korea may well be a threat to world stability that will increase with it's intentions to proceed with it's nuclear program, however it has been far more stable over the last 20 years than Iraq over that same period, and its position is relatively isolated when compared with Iraq's in the middle of the generaly volatile situation in the Middle East.
N Korea is also far less wealthy than Iraq and does not have the potential massive funding available for immediate armament development that Iraq does, even if it does demonstrate the same desire. Your own statement regarding Iraq's comparative westernistation also means that it is potentialy a faster growing threat. N Korea not having the massive oil reserves that Iraq does lowers it's priority. Iraqi reserves could be strategicaly important to the US for a number of reasons and from which a re-built Iraq under new management could be got under way much faster after a war if there was one.
S Korea meanwhile has just elected a President who seems to wish to distance himself from the US and continue the sunshine policy with the North. He will be allowed to do that, though it will be interesting to see just how they propose to cope with the massive ammounts of money that would be needed from them in order to bring the North up to the same level of development. W Germany has struggled with the cost of unification and it was in much better financial shape than S Korea. N Korea also has a history of taking a lot and giving nothing in return. By allowing the South engage in dialogue with the North it defuses tension between US and the South and lets them hold the baby for a bit. They may find it more than they can manage but while they do other priorities can be attended to.
24th Dec 2002, 15:37
U.S. could fight war against Iraq, North Korea, Rumsfeld says
Where's the lone gunman when you need one?
No that is an accurate assessment probably.
American planning has always since the Korean war revolved around fighting 2 simultaneous all out conflicts plus a 3rd "holding" action, which pretty much matches what we did during WWII.
That way it keeps people from getting opportunistic while we get involved in one area of the world. (For example, we were bogged down in Vietnam, but still were able to defend Europe, and look after our interests in our own hemisphere)
Its actually a sound planning goal, and it is good for the world to be reminded of it. Much better to be verbally reminded than actually demonstrated.
Now to do so would require an ALLOUT callup of reserves, not just the couple of hundred thousand that we used for the gulfwar, but it is possible.
24th Dec 2002, 19:37
A problem with any action to be taken against Iraq is the lack of progress re Israel and the Palestinians. There is evidence that interested parties are pushing harder for solutions, but the problem seems intractable, in large part because the Palestinians have no democratic machinery with which to engage the Israelis and others. Whatever one's views of Israel, it is a functioning democracy. How 'westernized' other players in the region are is less important as their policy can change at a whim. Lack of progress in this matter will be a complicating factor in the outcome of any military action in Iraq, but should not be a reason not to proceed.
US energy interests are taken by many to be a motivating factor in engaging the Iraqi regime, and the US gets oil from diverse sources. Whatever the percentages and their strategic values (to the US, and by extension 'westernized'/modernized society), oil is a world resource and in the broad sense everyone has right of access in open trade. Individuals and regimes cannot be allowed to hijack such global necessities for their own nefarious means.
Energy interests are a legitimate justification for intervention.
As to other justifications, much has been written about Saddam's regime (oppression,brutalisation,murder etcetera) ; were this an internal problem- and were it to remain so- there would be little to support intervention, other than from an altruistic or moral perspective. Clearly, the regime threatens it's immediate neighbours -who have neither the will nor the ability to address the problem- and represent a threat to us all. The historical case against isolationism is fairly strong.
Diverse opinions and perspectives are to be welcomed as this is a democratic forum, a luxury the majority of the world's peoples do not enjoy. Debate such as this and in the media inform and modify our leaders' actions. Whatever one thinks of the US President or the UK Prime Minister, they are our elected officials- we elected them ; whatever decisions are forthcoming, it will be the duty of civilian and service'person' alike to support the governments' actions. :eek:
Vorsprung durch demokratik
24th Dec 2002, 20:19
Laidbak that all sounded pretty straight up to me. Vis a vis the Palistinian/Israeli problem I was interested in a comment of Peres's when he said both side must be prepared to move simultaneously on a number of issues. The leadership/elections in Palistine the curbing of militant terror groups and disengagement and dismantling of some of the settlements. The problem to date has been... if that happens then we will... Result nothing or situation worsens. Regardless of what happens there the Iraq issue is definitely front burner.
It is also interesting however that N Korea is playing the spoilt brat to the hilt and throwing a major screaming fit. One wonders if they could have been induced to do so by a massive back hander, and are simply running a distraction. Nothing like a nuclear bomb to distract.
The other interesting thing is instead of encouraging the South's sunshine policy it would seem to almost be driving the South back into the arms of the US since they clearly are troubled by this wayward child act.
The Chinese have obviously been pissed off at the lot of us since we do indeed 'live in interesting times'.
I wonder what Santa will have to say about it all.
24th Dec 2002, 20:43
Paterbrat(what's the derivation?)
Re Peres... this is what I meant by non-existent Palestinian representation. The Israelis, for all their faults, know that the likelihood of getting the Palestinians to agree to a course of action is slight (and I believe there are cool/rational heads amongst them). For the Israeli Govt. to unilaterally concede is politically not realistic. Until the Palestinians can organise and control their various factions, a luta continua.
Re S. Korea, recent campaigning by local pols is disheartening. Notwithstanding N.Korea's recent actions, there's an upswing in American-bashing (trial verdict of US servicemen). As to N.Korea's importance in the scheme of things, one has to assume that the various intelligence agencies have a handle on this and State Dept. policy is calling it correctly. Of course, this is one hell of an assumption given the demonstrated ineptitude of said agencies (and their apparent lack of accountability).
I wish we could just let them get on with it.. but it's our sandbox too !
24th Dec 2002, 21:58
The claim that energy interests are a legitimate justification for intervention, could possibly be considered as reasonable, IF one or more countries was withholding oil supplies to such an extend, that it would seriously affect other countries. That is however clearly not the case with Iraq. They do not even control their own oil.
With regards to North Korea, well there is a case of energy interests being played out for all to see. A country in a desperate situation, most of it by their own doing, some if it by natural disasters. Now oil supplies they were relying on has been stopped. What does their energy interests justify them to do?.
24th Dec 2002, 22:02
Son found Pprune first and called himself Brat, I followed and with total lack of imagination was merely father of.
Regretably the agencies have their moments both of brilliance and of total blankness, they have nearly always managed to maintain unaccountability. S Korea's election was a close run thing and the country was nearly evenly split. There is a pro US faction but for the moment it is playing second fiddle. The upswing of anti-US feeling that has been so apparent may well become a little more muted if the US were to cool their relationship particularly in light of the North's behaviour. In fact a little disengagement may well see a swing in opinion as the big bad lads from the North flex their muscles and jump up and down. Something they are well practiced at. Growing food now that is definitely not interesting or martial enough. Answer is of course let them starve. A cruel thing to say and to do, however it was something that was apparent in places like Afghanistan and Somalia. If food aid was provided it simply meant that that was one chore they could now happily leave to others so they could concentrate on the fighting.
The Middle East problem is a historical one and set to run and run and run. The Irish problem has run for 300 years without pausing for breath. This one may well outlast a few more generations. I myself sometimes feel the wall might cool things down although it probably cannot be a long term solution. Building it however creates it's own set of problems
"A country in a desperate situation, most of it by their own doing, some if it by natural disasters. Now oil supplies they were relying on has been stopped. What does their energy interests justify them to do?".
Ask the Japanese how the USA responded when they tried it in 1941..
I would seriously suggest the North Koreans read their history books.
25th Dec 2002, 10:39
ORAC I would seriously suggest that the majority of N Koreans do not have history books to read. If they do, it will be a long winded flowery version of how the 'Great Leader ' sprang fully formed from the loins of whatever diety happens to fit the bill and proceeded to lead the glorious N Koreans Popular Party for whatever in the desperate but ulitimately triumpant victory over the Imperialist Running Dogs of Capitalism and the filthy outsiders who envy the wonders of what we the N Koreans have managed to accomplish.
With the bulk of the population whipped into adoring shape there's not much chance for them to do anything but mimic along with the rest of the poor subautomans and feel hungry. The ones who do have any chance of thinking for themselves probably feel a bit sorry for the rest of the world who are obviously in far worse shape than them, they know that much because they've been told that by their Glorious Leader, and who are they to disbelieve.
Very frightening and hard to believe, and there will be many around the world who won't believe that it could possibly be like that over there, because that sort of thing only happens in books, right. Wrong!
Having watched documentaries and read history of what happened under Stalin in Russia, and seen what happened in Germany under Hitler, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and very recently in Europe under Milosovich, it can and does happen all the time, and all over the world. People are like sheep and can and will be herded and slaughtered and manipulated.
There are places/countries in the world that are not perfect, they do make mistakes, but the freedoms they have, have been won at great cost; the freedoms they fight to preserve, will sometimes come at great cost; but the freedom they aspire to, is a state of being that is without price.
25th Dec 2002, 21:56
"For example, we were bogged down in Vietnam, but still were able to defend Europe ....................."
"Its actually a sound planning goal, and it is good for the world to be reminded of it."
That's just the sort of attitude that irritates people about Americans. :( But, remembering whose birthday we're celebrating today, and he taught 'Peace on Earth', I'll just say 'Happy Christmas'
26th Dec 2002, 07:48
One point people seem to ignore or just don't give a moments thought is the effect on innocent Iraqi civilians. Forget Hussein for a minute, aid agencies have estimated the death toll will be a minimum of 10,000 civilians, rising to 100,000 as the effects of disease and population displacement sets in.
And please, don't anyone here smugly lecture me on the potential death toll being greater if Saddam stays in power and launches an attack himself. Thats just taking a wild guess and is no justification for launching an attack that will force misery on tens of thousands.
Is one dead Iraqi child really an acceptable price to pay for launching a war on extremely dubious grounds? Remember for many of you out there, it's your taxes that will fund the bombs and bullets that will cause death for innocent people, so you really should be very clear on justifying this war.
There is huge unease throughout the western world on this crisis, I would say a substantial section of people, probably the majority, do not feel that the present circumstances justify launching a war. And they go beyond the traditional anti-war groups. The US and UK governments would be very wise not to ignore peoples concerns here. In the UK in particular I think it's hugely questionable whether the government have a mandate from the people on this.
I think the new Archbishop of Canterbury has it right when he says that mankind really has learned nothing. He criticises political stragetists and leaders who despite their intimate knowledge of politics, miss obvious things and end up creating more suffering and havoc.
There will be a massive public backlash if this goes ahead.
26th Dec 2002, 15:48
Oneworld aginst your one dead Iraqi child how would you weigh the hundreds of thousands who have already perished in the Iran conflicts, the masscares of the Kurds Marsh Arabs and Kuwaitis.
I agree, one death is one too many. Sadly we have had a multitude that have gone before. Do them the justice of remembering them before you even begin counting what may come.
The New Archbishop is not wrong, men have not yet learned to live in harmony and peace, and yes there is great unease, and so there should be with a man like him around. There will also be a backlash if tyrants go unappossed. Or would you have advocated no action against say... Hitler., and no I am not saying Saddam is Hitler, but at some stage someone has to check him.Or do you advocate he be given free rein because that is the alternative.
26th Dec 2002, 16:24
But that's the kind of flawed thinking I'm talking about Paterbrat, that to stop this dictator killing thousands of his people it's worth a western coalition going in and waging war and committing further tens of thousands of Iraqi's to their death.
I certainly don't advocate giving Hussein a free reign, but it is completely illogical to say that the way to "free" Iraq and stop the suffering of Iraqi people is to inflict even more suffering on them to acheive that goal.
26th Dec 2002, 21:07
The flawed thinking Oneworld surely is to imagine that any soldier in the Iraqi army who was unlucky enough to have been in the invasion of and occupation of Kuwait will be believing half the speil that is being pumped out by the present regime about how they will do this and do that. A good section of the upper echelons will be anxiously waiting and watching for an opportune moment to switch sides. I sincerely do not believe there will be 'thousands' of Iraqi casualties.
The dead babies One world are the ones that have been starved for propoganda purposes, and yes truly dreadful!!! And what is even more dreadful is that that people will stand by and simply allow him to go on unchecked.
You have your opinion and I mine, whether there will be a war or not is debatable but at the very least you and I can debate it, a luxury denied anyone in that benighted country for to even dare to doubt the regime would result in detention possible torture or death. Turn a blind eye to that if you will, or are they all happy. There has to be a sizable segment of people in that country who have suffered horribly and want nothing more than to be rid of him.There is a sizable segment of the population outside Iraq who are extremely concerned at what he would do if he were allowed to carry on as he wished.
Your thinking is as flawed and illogical to me as mine is to you.
26th Dec 2002, 22:13
Oneworld--the suffering is being inflicted by Hussein. I don't think the allies are planning to carpet bomb the entire country--just a few select political and military sites. Civilian casualties should be minimal.
27th Dec 2002, 06:42
Phew, Bubbette that's a relief, I can sleep easy now.
I think I'd be more inclined to believe aid agencies in their estimations on death tolls, after all, they're the ones who have the experience in mopping up the mess long after the soldiers and the TV camera's have left.
I supppose Paterbrat, you felt the same way about Saddam before the last Gulf war, where you bleating about his treatment of Iraqi's back then, or because Saddam was an ally of the west did it not count? As late as 1990 Senator Bob Dole led a US senatorial group to Iraq and embraced Saddam as a true ally of the US. Where were the people concerned about human rights then?? Besides a small pocket in Amnesty there were none.
Look at the country you're in, equally apalling human rights, widespread sponsorship of Islamic terroism, yet the totally undemocratic, ruthless and oppressive Saudi regime remains untouched or barely criticised. The paradoxes are astounding.
Someone show me where the consistency is.
27th Dec 2002, 08:34
Mr dear Oneworld the only consistancy is that the world and life consists of nothing but inconsistancies and if you haven't learnt that by now you never will.
Errr no as a matter of record I do not recollect bleating about his policies in Iran, and the reason was that it could not have happened to two nicer regimes. The sight of two regional bully boys hammering seven bells of **** out of one another was a sight to gladden anybodies eyes.
Just one small point Oneworld, a previous answer of mine to you was as sanctamonious and mealymouthed as one of your opening statements on the thread, and the line of cant you now trot out comes quite close to the 'running dogs of imperialism...' autoresponse when the button is pressed. However you do greatly relieve us all that you will be sleeping easier, we were all so dreadfully concerned for you.
27th Dec 2002, 10:44
Who the hell is talking about Iran?
Have you been on the "Whacky backy??!"
27th Dec 2002, 11:03
Whilst I don't share all OneWorld's views, his 'sleep easy' comment was a specific reply to Bubette's absurd comment about civilian casualties being 'minimal.' Anyone who's read Bubette's previous posts on atrocities in the Middle East will know she wouldn't be as sanguine about 'minimal' civilian casualties if they weren't Arab civilians. Bubette was the one who, a few weeks ago, suggested the death of a UN aid worker shot by Israeli soldiers raiding a refugee camp was divine intervention. :rolleyes:
Like Wino, she has her own reasons for being enthusiastic about the war.
27th Dec 2002, 14:00
nomdeplume, I'm not enthusiastic about war; nor do I have any great desire to see people anywhere murdered. The UN employee that was killed was not intentionally gunned down; it was accidental as the Israelis attempted to prevent further murderers of schoolchildren.
27th Dec 2002, 15:28
No Oneworld, don't partake of the stuff. My reference to Iran was that when the US were allies of Iraq, it was during the conflict with Iran, or was that to tortuous a link for you to follow. Perhaps you have had a puff then since you seem so familiar?
Nomedeplume, why should Oneworld have exclusive rights to sarcasm? or should I explain to you that I realised who his comment had been directed at, and I certainly did not read into her answer that she was being 'enthusiastic' about the war, rather than injecting a note of reality into oneworld's apocalyptic visions of the mass slaughter of Iraqi babies. Oh yes and before you rev off after that one, sarcasm nom.
I am prepared to believe that few people are enthusiastic about the prospect of war, and the casualties that will occur. I am also convinced that there are many who are detirmined about the removal from power of Saddam. It remains to be seen what will transpire, but the idea that anyone is eager for mass carnage is an idea that I do not believe. On a last and possibly extremely cynical note. The aid agencies prepare for the worst. They function better when they are fully stocked and prepared, and to better stock and prepare, they estimate accordingly.
Regretfully I will be heading down route and away from easy access to the net so forgive me oneworld if I am slow to respond to any more points about my flawed thinking that you would like to raise. You have put your point, which as I remarked on earlier, is a luxury we both can enjoy without some of the more drastic consequences others might suffer. It's quite a privilage; but sometime in history there were those who paid dearly for it.
I may be wrong but Jefferson I believe, said that the Tree of Liberty sometimes requires blood to grow. Now there's a sombre thought.
27th Dec 2002, 15:56
I suspect NDP may have been referring to Bubette's comments after a British UN aid worker was killed by a stray bullet (or ricochet) when Israeli troops entered a Palestinian refugee camp last month.
I assume it was an accident, but Bubette's comment about the aid worker's death was a useful illustration of her attitude to the loss of non Israeli, non American lives. "Maybe this was a bit of Heavenly tit for tat?"
This was before going on to describe the BBC as anti-Semitic, and a virtual spokesman for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and many other terrorist groups.
I agree with NDP. It's wise to Bubette's extremist views into account when reading her views on Middle East matters.
Oneworld and Nomedeploom refuses to recognize that the US warfighting style has continually been reducing collatoral and intentional damage to civilians since WorldWar II. They still live in the world of Sir Arthur (bomber) Harris. In the last 20 years the rise of precision weapons can chart a similar decrease in civilian deaths.
The weapons are getting more and more accurate and using lower and lower explosive force as the accuracy improves (standard munition will shortly be the narrow diameter bomb of 250 lbs, down from the current 500 lb standard which is already down from the previous 2000 lb standard). Yes there will be occasional mistakes and accidents, but for the civilian population of Iraq war will be FAR FAR FAR less dangerous than for the civilian population of Germany during WWII when they fought the British and its allies.
Since we will be occupying Iraq IF the balloon goes up this time I doubt whether there will be any attacks on the infra structure other than short term disruptions of the grid with various weapons designed to blow fuses and pop circuit breakers. (like those really nifty graphite weapons that took out the power grid in Kosovo without actually destroying it.)
As Saddam has been continually starving and depriving his populations of food and medicine so that he might buy weapons, I have a hard time believing that disease will be worse during a US occupation of Iraq than it is under the current regime.
As Famine spreads through North Korea the same can be said up there as well...
Of course Nomedeploom cant see any of that, Just a veiled jab that I might be jewish or something. That's funny, to be on the receiving end of a backhanded antisemetic comment when you aren't jewish... I will repeat this one more time for you Nomedeploom. TERRORISM IS WRONG. Groups and countries that INTENTIONALLY ATTACK civilians are wrong and need to be stopped at all costs. As England in the 19th century put an end to the slave trade with their navy, we shall put an end to terrorism with our military.
27th Dec 2002, 16:08
Basing my reply to NDP purely on his statement 'B's absurd comment..."
B's comment was two lines and confined herself to the comment that carpet bombing was probably not being planned but rather specific targets. Hardly absurd. Extemist views she may have. they were not in evidence in that particular posting. Therfore I took NDP's comment to be slightly out of line with what had been said.
27th Dec 2002, 16:14
Paterbrat, calm down and relax, it's just my opinion I'm stating here. My points were about Saddam's treatmant of his own people prior to the Allies V Iraq conflict in the last decade, or "Gulf War II The Sequel." My point being that Saddam's appalling treatment of his own people did not start after that war, his treatment of southern Iraqi Sh'ia muslims and kurds in the north has always been atrocious and was so prior to his falling out with his previous pal, Bush the First (as Head Houncho of the CIA). But of course we heard very little about his human rights violations due to him being "A true ally of the US."
And please don't exaggerate, I did not give a vision of an apocalyptic slaughter of Iraqi babies. I actually said if one dies it's one too much. Children will die needlessly in this war, no matter how modern or accurate Tommy Franks' machines are, that's a fact and it's tragic.
But then that's just my opinion and who am I to speak out? Just a good old pinko, leftie, jew loving, tree huggin', commie!
27th Dec 2002, 16:24
Flyinglawyer, I would be happy to provide you (off-line, PM me) quote after quote from BBC correspondents (and maybe the world service, which is what I see, is different from what you see in the UK) where Hamas, Hezbolla, PA pronouncements are taken as fact, and never questioned. The "massacre in Jenin" comes to mind first of all.
Second, re killings, I am concerned about terrorism in general. It boggles my mind why no one (and I would think Christians in particular) has spoken up about why Christians are far greater targets of Islamic terrorism than anyone else, even Jews. Eg, there is no mention, in the US press anyway, about the constant terrorist attacks against Christians throughout Asia, such as the recent ones in the churches in Pakistan and India.
I don't know what you could possibly find "extremist" about my views.
Much better post oneworld, and something we can discuss now.
The question that then comes to mind is that the currect regime is starving his populace of much needed medicine and other things so that he can use whatever money he has for weapons. (i won't get into to wmd in this post, just call em weapons, for the sake of arguement say he is trying to corner the market on barreta pistols, you can't eat em or cure disease with em)
If 2 babies will die while he pursues his cornering of the market on pistols, and a war will cause 1 baby to die. I agree that the death of the 1 baby during the war would be tragic, but would that be offset by the other 2 babies that would have died?
Generally though the problem with Iraq, is that he doesn't confine his actions to within his own borders. Buy and large the interatational comunity will give anyone a pass (well they won't like it, but they won't do anything about it) as long as activities are kept within a country's own borders. Cross the borders though and you got a problem. Communism was always trying to export itself, Saddam stepped into Kuwait. North Korea invaded south Korea, etc...
In the same train of thought, when a state supports international terrorism they are stepping outside of their borders.
Its also how that bastard Mugabe keeps his head. The famine that will be a direct result of his actions will stay in his own country and alas we will send food, when what really needs to be done in that case is send him a bullet. Just 1... I have one in my desk right here. I will gladly donate it, then I won't have to see infomercials of Sally Struthers whining about the starving chlidren, and more importantly maybe that country can get back to feeding itself.
27th Dec 2002, 17:24
I really must complain about the attitude of Bubette to the killing of Iain Hook, the UN aid worker.
The UN employee that was killed was not intentionally gunned down; it was accidental as the Israelis attempted to prevent further murderers of schoolchildren.
Iain was killed from 25 meters away by an IDF sniper at a time when NO gun battle was going on.
To say that Iain was not intentionally killed is disrespectful to Iains family and collegues. The attack on Iain was also compounded by the refusal of the IDF to allow access to an ambulance that might have saved his life.
27th Dec 2002, 17:24
Wino, I'm so glad US can fight on 2 fronts, that's such a relief. Guess you and Dubya do long so much to the old Wild West days, where Mr.Colt ruled and a real man shoot first and asked questions later.
At the other hand, I'm sure China, SKorea and Japan won't be so happy with this ol' wild west gun slinging. Mr.Kim is using odd negotiating tactics but what else does he or his country got? Nothing, just some nukes and ready to go... oh, and some scuds and other primitive rockets which find their way to some tricker fundamentalists who are not afraid to use it.
Saddam depriving Iraqis from food and medicin? What about the sanctions? Iraq was relatively rich and prosperous until the Gulf War. But this has been dicussed in another thread extensively.
Bubette, christians are not the target, western people are, especially US people. Bali bombers claimed that US citizens were the main target and killing Ozzies instead was just a matter of..."oops". Then again, what did the Christian do during the crusade? History repeats itself.
Just wondering why Condoleeza Rice claims Hezbollah is the world most dangerous terrorist group and not Al Qaida? Hezbollah almost exclusively operates in Israel. Does it reveal that after all it's just a US/Israel issue? For sure an attack on Iraq will be very favorable for Israel.
US might once ask themselves, why do people hate us so much? Is it because of their quest for world domination?
27th Dec 2002, 17:33
Perhaps if a few more people read the words of Carl Sagan (http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/pale_blue_dot.html) and then reflected for a while they might not be in such a hurry to find excuses to start a war.
27th Dec 2002, 18:05
As England in the 19th century put an end to the slave trade with their navy, we shall put an end to terrorism with our military.
Will you? No you won't Wino, you're not even doing it now, The war against terrorism, has been replaced by "The War to line our own pockets"
Have you failed to notice, that the US is not turning Pakistan and Saudi Arabia upside down in their quest for Al-Quaeda? Have you not noticed, Hans Blix screaming for intel, so UNMOVIC can get in and do their job? Intel, that is STILL not forthcoming?
What war against terrorism? Or do you mean a "War against people who we used to fund, finance and look after, but now we have a more pressing need" or "The war the Jewish lobby, far removed from the frontline in the US and UK wants"
"The War that people in the Middle East are going to suffer and bleed over, innocent Jews , Muslims and Christians"
Israel has heroically defended it's borders for 50+ years, by making sure their enemies understood they could defend themselves, and now along comes a President, who will make sure, that Middle Eastern resolve will harden against them. Saddam will manipulate this, and guess who will suffer?
We're going to war, against a country that has still not been proven to have an interest in attacking us with WMD's ,or any other weapons, but we are happy to extend diplomatic courtesies to a country that really doesn't care less how many of it's people starve, to keep the corrupt and military in charge, and which has DIRECTLY THREATENED the US.
Clinton, far from being the "pussy" you two seem happy to label him as, was a LEADER. He didn't require the twins of Evil to guide his policies, and he certainly wasn't as thick as 2 short planks.
Do you know why the North Koreans stopped their Nuclear programme? Because Clinton bought them off?
Yes he did, after he told them what the alternative was, which was to have the reactors bombed. They soon came round after that.
Clinton on terrorism? "You hurt me or mine, and America will prove to you, that the world is a very small place" which he did.
The North Koreans have made DIRECT threats to America, and they intend to go Nuclear as soon as possible.
Ernst Stavros Rumsfelds reply? Oh, we can fight on 2 fronts. The stupid, little fcukwit.
Yes America can fight on 2 fronts. The last time she did, was to rid the world of a genocidal maniac, and a Military empire who weren't that far behind, in a GOOD and JUST conflict. All the things America stands, or rather stood for, till this administration got in.
So North Korea threatens, and America says "We must seek a diplomatic solution" lol
What you mean is, "North Korea will bleed and fight, and they don't have any easy oil reserves"
The sooner the parasites, hypocrites, liars, election cheats, self-interested corrupt scum in the current US administration are removed ,the better.
I can't think of the last time I was so angry. I'm watching the world slide towards the abyss, and I see posters, so deeply ingrained in their prejeduices, they can't take an objective view.
27th Dec 2002, 19:00
A timely and interesting thread that seems to inexorably slide towards the personal................
You are probably getting fed up with reading my exhortations to stick to the topic and to refrain from getting personal.
Rightly so, I'm getting rather fed up with writing them myself. :)
However, these topics seem to provoke not only the most interesting posts, but also the biggest temptation to resort to the kind of debating techniques that will get a thread "put to bed".
So, forgive me for sounding like a broken record (age clearly showing here :D ) but
Debate the s*dding topic and leave eachother's presumed charateristics, intellligence and ethnicity out of it!
27th Dec 2002, 19:09
Jet II, I do not see how my post is disrespectful at all. Israel did not intentionally kill the UN worker--why do you think otherwise? This despite the fact that UN workers have in the past assisted in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and let their vehicles be used for arms smuggling by the Palestinians. If you PM me I will gladly give you sources. This "camp," a festering slum allowed to remain open by the very same UN, is a breeding ground for terrorists, who the Israeli army were trying to capture. In this case, the army saw him pull out a cell phone, which they had no way of knowing was not a weapon, and they fired. Re the ambulance--that is not true--as soon as he fell the Israeli army prepared to evacuate him. His death was a tragic mistake, a result of terrorists hiding in civilian areas, not an intentional or unintentional murder.
Kwasai said: "Bubette, christians are not the target, western people are, especially US people. "
The imams are not preaching kill the Westerners; they are preaching kill the Christians (and Jews). The Christians being killed in Pakistan and India are not Westerners; they are Pakistani and Indian. The Christian slaves in Sudan are not western either.
The Crimson Fruitbat
27th Dec 2002, 19:34
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." --Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
...Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates. This person, belligerent, arrogant and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president. --Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. September 22, 2002
27th Dec 2002, 19:46
Another happy ending in the Fight against terrorism
....Strange how this didn't make headline news
The Crimson Fruitbat
27th Dec 2002, 20:44
The bidding between Bridas (Argentina) and Unocal (USA) for that pipeline goes back some years, the Argentinians were the only players left prior to the US led war against terrorism...
A history timeline: 1992 - 1999 the Afghan pipeline (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm)
And, if you believe there is more than meets the eye, here is an interesting perspective (from a Nam vet)...
The Lust for Blood and Oil (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2002/0310-OilLust.html)
The Afghan Carpet (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203B.html)
Wanna bet that a US company wins the pipeline contract?
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time
- Abraham Lincoln, 8th September 1858 (attributed also to Phineas T. Barnum)
27th Dec 2002, 21:42
bubette: fundamentalist imams (not all imams!) teach to despise the Western decadent values. Jews are hated because of their politics against Palestine, US are hated because of their Middle East politics and support of Israel. Like we, Islam people tend to generalise everything in to Western World against Islam.
Most of our ideas are inspired by the propaganda of respective leaders. Independent minds feel the urge of looking for the real reasons of these so called "Ethical Wars".
People begin to wonder why the US uses a different approach to NKorea who actually is threatening to use nuclear weapons, where as in Iraq there's not even a hint of evidence.... One would think a squadron of F16 strategical bombers should be enough to wipe out this problem, like Israel did a decade ago in Iraq.
27th Dec 2002, 21:47
Well, well, well...
Not to keen on the first link Crimson, but the 3rd was interesting...
Just nine days after the US-backed interim Afghan government of Hamid Karzai (a former Unocal executive) took office, George W. Bush appointed former Unocal aide Zalmay Khalilzad as the new special envoy. Khalilzad reports to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, a former Central Asian envoy for Chevron
Sooner or later, the WORLD is going to see exactly what is going on...
For now, I'd be happy if just the American people started to ask questions.
But, I'd be even happier, if we got back to the "War against Terrorism"....
It appears that Bill Clinton was prepared to do just that, and made sure the North Koreans were aware of it as well, if they didn't play ball over Nuclear reactors.
Yes, he bought them off, or rather "Saved face" for them, an important sop, to the mentality in that part of the world.
But they knew he was serious.......
I see that the American Chief of general staff, is now making noises that the US forces are in the Gulf to....
"Protect the peoples in the North and South of the country"..
Righty-ho, here's what will happen.
ROE for the No-fly zones is about to change, because sure as sh*t , the Iraqis aren't building new military installations, where they are going to get bombed for sure but Coalition aircraft keep finding "legitamate military targets"..hmmm can you say "Mission creep"?
However, if you show any potential revolutionairies, that they can call on "Cab Rank" air support, they might be more tempted to foment unrest. The US can then say "We have to support these people who want to throw off the shackles of a despotic regime" .... i'm sure you can fill in the rest.
Let's just hope the potential revolutionairies, have forgotten how badly Bush41 let them down , the last time they tried to throw off the shackles, eh?
The weapons inspection excuse is not going to fly, time for a new approach, and it's already started
27th Dec 2002, 22:03
An oil pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan - imagine that!
Truly coincidence is a marvellous thing, and the Age of Wonders is not yet past. Good job the US and her allies recently invaded the place and installed a suitable regime, isn't it?
Oh, enough of the sarcasm. I told you it was all about bl**dy oil, didn't I? :mad:
27th Dec 2002, 22:11
Can anyone point me in the direction of a geological regional oil map? Area of extent, from Tajikistan to Basra?
It seems someone has the right idea.....
The Crimson Fruitbat
27th Dec 2002, 22:59
The link was just a timeline to demonstrate that the shenannigans to control central asian oil reserves (and the pipeline) goes back a long way.
Here are links to that pipeline (note how long ago the consortium formed):
Consortium formed to build Central Asian gas pipeline (from Unocal's website) (http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm)
Oil and Gas International: Unocal and Afghanistan (http://www.oilandgasinternational.com/departments/from_editor/10_29_01.html)
Some interesting "old" articles about big players in the defense industry:
Baltimore Chronicle (http://baltimorechronicle.com/media3_oct01.shtml)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,583869,00.html)
A MUST read (Hoover's Online, the business site):
A Company Profile (worth reading as a who's who) (http://www.hoovers.com/premium/profile/6/0,2147,42166,00.html)
28th Dec 2002, 00:22
ASHGABAT[B/], Turkmenistan, Oct. 27, 1997 -- Six international companies and the Government of Turkmenistan formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in formal signing ceremonies here Saturday. The group is developing a project to build a 790-mile (1,271-kilometer) pipeline to link Turkmenistan's abundant proven natural gas reserves with growing markets in Pakistan. The group is also considering an extension of the line to the New Delhi area in India.
Friday, 27 December, 2002, 11:23 GMT
Central Asia pipeline deal signed
By Ian McWilliam
BBC correspondent in Kabul
An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital,[B]Ashgabat , paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Asian Development Bank Backs Afghan Pipeline Project
9 July 2002
A proposed natural-gas pipeline through Afghanistan received backing on 9 July from the Asian Development Bank during a meeting in Turkmenistan's capital Ashgabat, AP reported the same day.
The meeting was attended by Asian Development Bank officials and by ministers and government officials from Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Pakistan. A representative of the U.S. Embassy also attended. Rajiv Kumar, the chief economist at the Asian Development Bank, said the bank would fund a feasibility study on the pipeline.
Robert Hanzy, of the U.S. Embassy in Turkmenistan, said the United States government welcomes the Asian Development Bank's decision to help fund the project. (AP)
Now, this is the same Asian development Bank that has of course had dealings with UNOCAL before...
So far, no corporations have been named as firmly signing on to the project. Several sources have stated that Unocal will likely come forward again to join in the project, according to the DAWN Group of Newspapers. (See source 10) Most notably, Afghan minister for mines and industries Mohammad Alim Reza has stated that Unocal was still in the lead attempting to win the $2 billion trans-Afghanistan pipeline. (See source 11) According to NewsBase, Unocal followed this announcement with a statement that it has no intention of reviving the Central Asia Gas Pipeline (CentGas) project. (See source 12) However, Unocal has made no statement contradicting reports that it has a project to build the Central Asian oil pipeline, linking Turkmenistan both to Russia s existing Siberian oil pipelines and to the Pakistani coast. This oil pipeline will run parallel to the proposed gas pipeline route through Afghanistan, reported the Asia Times. (See source 13) It is possible that Unocal s denial of interest in the gas pipeline could just be for public consumption. Prior to stepping down from the CentGas project, Unocal was targeted by human rights groups for its dealings with the Taliban.
Energy experts have indicated that companies owned or formerly managed by Bush senior and Vice President Dick Cheney are showing a keen interest in Caspian Sea reserves, the DAWN Group reported. (See source 14) And the U.S. is expecting investment from U.S.-based energy conglomerates through Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to resuscitate the Afghan pipeline project. (See source 15) It has been noted that despite assurances from Afghani and Pakistani leaders, continued volatility in the region is deterring energy corporations from offering to help build the pipeline. It is suggested that it may take several years of political stability before the project could be seriously revived. However, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is also keenly interested in the project. ADB loans will likely be used to cover part of the cost of building the gas transport system, with funds from donor countries for the reconstruction of Afghanistan covering the rest, according to the BBC and NewsBase. (See sources 16 and 17) It will be interesting to see what role Halliburton, formerly chaired by Cheney, plays in the pipeline construction.
28th Dec 2002, 06:40
Bubbette, how can you say that the killing of Iain Hook was an accident. Accidents happen in the fog of war, if there is a firefight happening and some innocent civilian gets in the way.
Iain's death was by a highly trained sniper from one of the best armies in the world at a time when no other fighting was going on. The IDF soldier deliberatley chose to shoot Iain from 25 meters away, why is yet to be established.
As for the impending circus, If it is all about oil then why is everyone so upset. Surely it is the responsibility of the western governments to ensure that the supply of this essential resource is secure. If the supply stopped then all of the people on these forums would not be jetting off in their big shiny new jets.
I have no problem with the US attacking anyone who is trying to kill me and my family, it is unfortunate that the UK no-longer has the resources to help in a meaningfull way.
28th Dec 2002, 08:09
If it is all about oil then why is everyone so upset. Surely it is the responsibility of the western governments to ensure that the supply of this essential resource is secure.
Jet II - the oil, however strategically vital, belongs to someone else.
If we accept the security of this essential resource as casus belli in and of itself, then we are applying the same policy as the Japanese Empire did in the 1930s. And look where that led Japan.
We should be upset if this does turn out to be about oil, because:
We will have been lied to big-style;
The money we pay to our respective governments in taxes will have been wasted under false pretences;
Our nations will have waged a war of aggression and acquisition;
Havoc will have been wreaked on the civil population and infrastructure of at least one nation and our armed forces will inevitably have killed unarmed civilians;
And, not least, many thousands of our young men and women will have been placed in harm's way for the benefit of a few large corporations.
You and others may have no problem with all or part of that, and that is your prerogative.
I and others would beg to differ, and that is ours.
28th Dec 2002, 09:45
It's quite simple really.
We want the oil, we just don't want to pay for it. After all, the more we can grab, the less we will have to pay, and the profit sheet gets to look nice and rosy.
So to achieve this, certain corporations will use Armed Forces, as guns-for-hire. Dubya does not see himself as the President of the World's largest democracy and force for good, he simply regards himself as the vice CEO of one of his pappys' companies, and there, to do his bidding.
However, people are going to die, all in the name of profit. It's not even a resource grab in the truest sense, it's about control, power and money.
I am more than keen to wage war against the enemies of my country,who would threaten me, mine and the things I believe in and hold dear. it's what I signed on for, I am a patriot.
I am not so keen, to die preserving the balance sheet of the Carlyle corporation.
Wake up America, the constitution doesn't run your country anymore , certain corporations do.
I appreciate certain other posters have a different point of view, and I respect their rights as individuals to state their views and doubts, and am happy to listen to them.
Which is a damn sight more than Bush is willing to do to the American people
28th Dec 2002, 12:23
I am actively involved in both the oil industry and defence industries, both areas are often targeted with these idiotic conspiracy theories. Almost always the initiators of the conspiracy rumours are politically motivated journos or nutters.
Solotk - your previous postings on the Military Forum have been written from a position of apparent in-depth knowledge of the UK armed forces. I hope your reply to this thread is tongue in cheek and not an early sign of impending fruitcakeism.
The Afghanistan pipeline is just a political gesture, its design and construction will be many years off and will be an unacceptable risk to most Western oil companies.
I would say that Bush is listening to the AMerican people more than you are.
As much as I hate it (VERY bad for unionized airline employees) Bush had a midterm landslide in his favor. Simply put, the sitting president never increases seats in the congress and this one did. Compare that to the Clinton 1st term mid term elections.
I would say that you aren't listening to the American people. The American people have spoken quite loudly.
Furthermore, when we ended the first Gulfwar Iraq signed a series of agreements for a cease fire. By not honoring those agreements Iraq had violated the cease fire so there is no more cease fire. We probably should have just resumed the war at that point so as not to repeat the mistakes of WWI. When Germany was allowed to march into the rhineland unopposed, Hitler had no reason to fear the allies from that point forward. When the League of Nations did nothing about it, Japan saw that they were toothless and walked out.
By continuing to allow Saddam to skate, we were teaching him he could do whatever he wanted. By Saddam doing whatever he wanted inviolation of agreements signed with the USA we were telling the rest of the world that once the sound bite of the agreement signing was over that we weren't really interested in following up to make sure the agreements were kept ( The Clinton Legacy). Leading to others like NorthKorea simply thumbing their noses at us.
28th Dec 2002, 17:54
By continuing to allow Saddam to skate, we were teaching him he could do whatever he wanted.
Wino, would you please be so kind as to remind us who was US President when Saddam was allowed to get away scot-free with chemical attacks on Iraqi Kurds and with an unprovoked attack on USS "Stark" that damn near sank her with all hands?
Here's a clue - it wasn't Clinton! :D
BTW - Have a good Christmas?
28th Dec 2002, 18:15
Maybe there's an East Coast/West Coast divide, but I don't find people here share your enhtusiasm for war with Iraq, and they have a whole lot more doubts about the Administration's true motives than you do. I'm including GOP voters like me in that. Supporting the GOP doesn't necesarily mean supporting the President's line on Iraq.
The Crimson Fruitbat
28th Dec 2002, 19:00
The derision and inferences from the "affirmative" toward the "negative" (nutters, unpatriotic etc) gives the impression that a few nerves are getting hit.
Play the ball not the man.
We will have been lied to big-style;
The money we pay to our respective governments in taxes will have been wasted under false pretences;
Our nations will have waged a war of aggression and acquisition;
Havoc will have been wreaked on the civil population and infrastructure of at least one nation and our armed forces will inevitably have killed unarmed civilians;
And, not least, many thousands of our young men and women will have been placed in harm's way for the benefit of a few large corporations.
This covers it. As someone who has had a career in the armed forces this is the issue, I could be the lemming going to die to line others pockets and expand the "interests" of a few. Or worse one of my kids could be marching off with naive, unquestioning, wide eyed, song singing patriotism that we all in the military had. "Our" kids in the military are not marching/sailing off to Europe or the Pacific to quell the dreams of an expansionist regime...they are often fighting for the expansionist regimes.
28th Dec 2002, 22:40
Jet 11, Neutral--how can you listen to what the UN says without questioning it! This is the UN whose forces keep the Palestinians living in squalor, the UN whose soldiers assist in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, and the UN who has Libya on its Human Rights Council and the same UN who has only once condemned violence against Israelis, but *never* fails to condemn violence against Palestinians by Israelis---even when Israel does *not* target teenagers in discos, children at bar mitzvahs, students on busses. If you are the type of person who fails to see the hypocrisy in that, well, I guess I will stop attempting to reason with you. . . . .. I don't say that Israel was not trying to hit the UN worker--and I assume that he meant to hit him. but that they didn't think he was an innocent UN worker. Why would you think otherwise? Israel goes out of its way to avoid hitting non-terrorists.
29th Dec 2002, 00:10
Unlike Neutral 99, I'm not an atheist and I seem to remember that both the Bible and the Koran are quite clear and specific on the immorality of taking the life of another.
I cannot recall any "ifs", "buts", "maybes" or exemptions for any particular ethnic or cultural groups, though.
How many atrocities, of varying degree, have been accompanied through the ages by the justification "God is on our side"?
How many more to come? :(
29th Dec 2002, 00:21
neutral, name me one UN success story since Korea, if that. I am open. . . . Give me some examples of what you would have done differently in Sharon's place; happy to listen.
29th Dec 2002, 00:41
No, it's not impending battenburgism.....:D
I just don't think George W Bush's motives for attacking Iraq are as clear cut, as the current US administration would have us believe.
Why invasion? The CIA map of Iraq, has very clearly defined areas of interest, which could be Tomahawked out of existence, and actually should be, with a 3 hour warning to remove civilians from the area etc.
Why are we invading? Is it because we simply don't want to allow the Iraqis to govern themselves? After all, they might tell us to get stuffed re. Oil and Agriculture.
The reason that conspiracy theories abound, is that the current administration, have more then a passing interest in Iraqs' possibilities for profit.The links between the current administration, and other "vested" interests are in the public domain, not the invention of conspiracy hounds.
Maybe should we just regard their motives, as purely philanthropic.....They simply wish to see the world become a safer place to live?
Iraq is bending over backwards now, to give UNMOVIC everything it wants. Time to put the safety back on, step back, and look at what we want to achieve in this region.
Does it not concern you , that to date, we haven't had one single statement, on what happens in Iraq AFTER Saddam?
Could it possibly be, that the actual plan, might guarantee every Iraqi says "I hate Saddam, but I'm not replacing him with a US government" and reach for the AK ?
I don't believe for one second, that the Muppet Show currently installed as the US Government, has the slightest idea , that it knows what it's doing. It's dealing with North Korea in the last week, certainly shows that. Good impressions of headless chickens being done there. Mind you, at least you don't have a Yes-Man psycophantic arsselicker as Prime Minister.
Meanwhile, North Korea presses on and Al-Quaeda regroups, as the "War against terrorism" loses it's headway.
It's time to get back on the field, and go for the first objective. The eradication of Terrorism, by education, arbitration, or good old fashioned force.
29th Dec 2002, 00:49
You're moving the goalposts. ;) The issue wasn't how successful the UN has been. The UN is only as strong as it's members. (And America's track record of support for the UN is appalling.)
Question: What do you say about Neutral's claim that you've never conceded anything done by Sharon's government or troops was wrong, or anything the UN has said or done was right?
If you say he's wrong, point to an example in one of your previous posts.
Question: Do you still say the aid worker's death, innocent mistake or not, was "a bit of heavenly tit for tat"?
It was a disgusting comment which no reasonable person would have made, but you've never withdrawn it or admitted you shouldn't have said it.
29th Dec 2002, 00:49
Give me some examples of what you would have done differently in Sharon's place; happy to listen.
I'd have made sure Yitzhak Rabin didn't get murdered for a start...
The Crimson Fruitbat
29th Dec 2002, 03:37
name me one UN success story since Korea
Recently - East Timor...multinational police action getting the bad guys out of the country quickly or giving them (the militia and Indonesian forces) a unique opportunity to give their lives for their beliefs. The Ghurkas, Royal Marines, Fijians, ANZAC coventional and special forces (to mention a few hard asses) on the ground. Numerous countries in the air. The police action was organised and led by Australians.
The new Sec-Gen (Kofi) quite rightly initiated a "police action" (ROE is more agressive) first followed by "peace keeping" (shoot only after you have a hole drilled in you by the other team). He did this because conventional and historical peacekeeping (Bosnia, Rwanda etc) is unworkable if the protagonists don't want peace to start with.
29th Dec 2002, 05:50
Bubbette's gone very quiet faced with a couple of direct questions. Expect she's waiting for an email from Wino to answer for her. :D
The Crimson Fruitbat
29th Dec 2002, 06:26
I went to Amnesty International's website and conducted a search using 'sharon' ( www.amnesty.org/search.html (http://www.amnesty.org/search.html ) )....WHOAAA!! The guy is "famous" as far Amnesty is concerned (55 documents). The guy is wanted for war crimes (1982 massacre in Lebanon and 2002 Jenin caught my eye). Bubbette, go to the link above and YOU type in sharon and see for yourself. Didn't check more than a few, but this caught my eye:
AI Index: MDE 15/081/2002 (Public)
News Service No: 86
14 May 2002
Israel/Occupied Territories: Soldiers imprisoned for refusing to take part in human rights violations
On the International day of the Conscientious Objector on 15 May Amnesty International draws attention to the rising number of Israeli soldiers and reservists imprisoned for refusing to perform their military service in the Occupied Territories. This rise is the result of a growing concern of conscripts, soldiers and reservists about some of the actions taken by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the Occupied Territories.
"Israel must recognise the right to refuse military service on grounds of conscience as recognised under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which it is a party," Amnesty International said. "We call on the IDF to take the concern of its own reservists, soldiers and conscripts seriously. It is a message to halt actions which breach human rights standards and international humanitarian law."
A total of 460 reservists have so far signed a letter issued in January 2002 stating: "We shall not fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people."
An earlier open letter to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in September 2001 was signed by 62 school students approaching the age of conscription. In explanation of their refusal to perform military service the letter said: "We strongly resist Israel's pounding of human rights. Land expropriation, arrests, executions without a trial, house demolition, closure, torture, and the prevention of health care are only some of the crimes the state of Israel carries out, in blunt violation of international conventions it has ratified."
One of the signatories, Igal Rosenberg (18), has just started a fifth prison sentence for refusing military service. He served a first 21-day prison sentence from 3 to 21 February; then a 28-day sentence from 26 February to 22 March; then a 14-day prison term from 10 to 22 April 2002; on 29 April he was sentenced to another 14 days. On 13 May 2002 he received a fifth prison sentence of 14 days.
Conscientious objectors in Israel are imprisoned for weeks and sometimes months, normally after unfair trials. In many cases they serve multiple prison sentences. Since the beginning of the intifada at least 114 conscientious objectors have been imprisoned with about 20 of them serving prison sentences at present.
First Sergeant Rafram Haddad (26), a reservist with the military police, was sentenced on 29 April 2002 to 28 days imprisonment for refusing to serve as a guard at Megiddo Military Prison, where Palestinians are held for long periods of time without trial. Rafram Haddad is an active member of the Jerusalem peace community.
On 25 April 2002, Shay Biran, Yiftah Admoni, Alon Dror and Tomer Friedman received prison sentences of 28 days after refusing to serve as guards at the Ketziot Prison (also known as Ansar III) in the Negev desert, recently reopened to hold hundreds of Palestinians detained during the recent IDF operations in the Occupied Territories. All four serve in the Nahal Brigade, which consists mainly of youth movement graduates. Shay Biran and Tomer Friedman had previously seen active combat duty in the Occupied Territories. Each of the soldiers defended his decision in detail.
Amnesty International calls on the Israeli government to release immediately and unconditionally all those who have been imprisoned because they refused to serve in the Israeli army for reasons of conscience or profound conviction.
29th Dec 2002, 07:20
Amnesty time after time has criticized Israeli actions, while disregarding Palestinian actions such as smuggling arms inside ambulances--even with patients inside. AI also says that US jails and the US justice system is inhumane. Therefore, I do not consider AI as a reliable source. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree. Re "war crimes"--let's not forget who committed those actions---Arabs killed Arabs--did AI mention that?.
I think Sharon has made a mistake by not cracking down harder on the PA--those that don't abide law should be expelled or imprisoned--in particular, Arafat, since he is directly responsible not only for the horrendous conditions the "Palestinians" suffer, but the murder of 1000s of Israelis.
It is a lie to say that Sharon or any Israeli politician wanted Rabin murdered; wishful thinking on your part perhaps, but not the truth.
If your country were at war, and on the brink of destruction, with the concurrent murder of virtually all of its citizens (yes, this is truly what the PA wants---see what they are teaching their children to do) I think a country has every right to imprison those who refuse to serve. In any case, who says AI is the moral authority here?
Good to know Crimson; have to read more about them. Thanks for posting.
RE the UN-it should be disbanded---come on--you take the Syria, sponsor of terrorism throughtout the world (the UK govt's meeting with Assad notwithstanding) on the Security Council and Libya on the Human Rights Council as a serious organization? Let alone the disgusting show of racism at the Durban conference on such.
29th Dec 2002, 08:30
RE the UN-it should be disbanded
And replaced with what, Bubette?
Here's a little fact for you: since the UN was founded there have been no global conflicts. In the thirty years before its foundation, there were two world wars that claimed the lives of millions.
No-one in their right minds would claim that the UN is perfect, but it is a damn sight better than the alternatives: anarchy, the law of the jungle or Pax Americana.
Amnesty International concerns itself only with human rights abuses carried out by nations and governments. You and others deny the existence of a Palestinian nation or government, but criticise Amnesty for not reporting on the actions of Palestinians - you simply cannot have it both ways.
Terrorists, whatever their origin, are criminals and should be treated as such.
Has it ever crossed your mind, even once, that the reason that organisations like Amnesty criticise Israel so consistently is not that they are part of some vast anti-Israeli conspiracy, but simply that the current (and recent) Israel government abuses the human rights of those in its power?
Is Israel some perfect entity that cannot ever be wrong and whose actions must never be questioned?
Yet another thread hi-jacked! Time to get back to the original subject, methinks.:rolleyes:
29th Dec 2002, 11:13
It is a lie to say that Sharon or any Israeli politician wanted Rabin murdered; wishful thinking on your part perhaps, but not the truth
Wishful thinking? Bubbette, these are Jews making these claims, not me. Rabin's widow is certainly convinced that there was more to her husbands' assasination.
Rabin was a patriot, a soldier and a leader. He did his hard time fighting Israels enemies. When a man such as he, proposes peace, enemies listen, because they know his record.
Rabin was murdered, by someone who disliked his policies. Someone who took his lead, from other politicans views on Rabin.
It's pointless arguing with you on this topic, because your head always goes straight into the sand.
I suggest you look up Rabin+assasination+Sharon on Google, to see just how many sites there are devoted to this. When Rabin died, it tore the heart out of a large portion of Israel, and Sharon very conveniently stepped in, to fill the gap.
This is the same Sharon, who incited, and created unrest, prior to Rabins murder. Unfortunately, people like you, will never be able to see a wider picture, you subscribe to war without end.
Israel has the right to defend itself, Sharon does not have the right to create war for it's own sake.
However, I fear it will be a long time, before a politician with the stature of Rabin,comes forward to say "Enough"
....and this thread is about Iraq.
29th Dec 2002, 13:40
The fact that there are no global conflics has nothing to do with the UN; just the changing face of war. Let's think about Rwanda, about Bosnia, about Sudan, about Zambia. . . I don't see the UN having done anything here, and of course I could go on.
Solotk--just because a Jew says something about Israel doesn't make it true! Need I remind you one of Arafat's closest advisors on terrorism and how to kill Israelis was a Jew?
Rabin was bamboozled into Oslo by Peres; Oslo has only caused the murder of 1000s of Israels; no good has nor will come of it. Only the cessation of murder by the Palestinians (starting with educational reform, so that martyrdom is not the main goal of elementary school children is not to die before age 13) will bring peace. Rabin was murdered by a mentally ill person; not by someone who was following orders of a politician---if you feel otherwise, please give me evidence of such.
Caslance--yes it has; unfortunately, AI and others consistently impugn Israel without telling the truth, and ignoring violations of human rights by others. For example, AI, and a bunch of UN agencies just produced a huge report about children being used as soldiers--guess which children as soldiers they conveniently ignored?
I will be happy to continue this off line if you wish, and bring the subject back to Iraq.
29th Dec 2002, 16:02
"AI and others consistently impugn Israel without telling the truth, and ignoring violations of human rights by others."
Actually, Bubbette, so far as Amnesty is concerned your statement simply is not accurate.
Amnesty has consistently criticised all nations that violate human rights - including at various times the USA, the UK and more than a few other European and Arab nations, most South American nations and a goodly number of African and Asian countries, too.
And yes, it has criticised Israel, too. All this proves is that there's "a lot of it about".
It has, I might add, been a damn sight more forthright about human rights abuses in the PRC than your own government has been.
During the 70s and 80s, Amnesty campaigned vigorously on behalf of dissidents in the Soviet Union, many of whom subsequently emigrated to Israel.
"For example, AI, and a bunch of UN agencies just produced a huge report about children being used as soldiers--guess which children as soldiers they conveniently ignored?"
Far from suffering a convenient bout of amnesia, Amnesty has consistently campaigned against the use of children as armed combatants worldwide.
I would also remind you of my earlier point that Amnesty concerns itself with the actions of governments and nations. Are you now saying that the Palestinians are a nation after all, and that they have a government?
I repeats, acts of terrorism are criminal acts and should be dealt with appropriately under the law.
Bubbette, I am sure that we would get on famously well as individuals, but I see little point in our continuing this discussion off-line as we are clearly poles apart in this matter.
Back to Iraq, I suppose.
29th Dec 2002, 22:00
Was not Israel born out of terrorist actions?
29th Dec 2002, 22:04
Sorry Wino, only 20% of Americans voted republican in the recent elections. 1 in 5. That's not america speaking, 61% did not bother to vote. Now I'm not disputing the facts, if just 5% of americans turned out and voted the results would still stand. But you and I know that the GOP were delighted with the poor turnout, that's always their key electoral stragedy, to hope voter turnout is as low as possible.
Republicans are like any extreme party, they have a highly mobilised and commited following, the overwhelming majority of republicans turn out and vote. As everyone knows the potential democratic vote in the US is huge. If the democrats ever find out a way to get these people to vote, republicans would be beaten soundly every time.
A lot of voters it seems have given up, I mean after they saw the way the supreme court behaved over Bush's "victory" can you blame them? Even worse, it seems black americans have turned away from politics en masse.
We have a small wealthy corporate elite that control american politics now and they want their war.
But I still say, they are totally unrepresentative of the vast majority of Americans. Just to remind you again, I am an american living in Ireland.
STOP THE WAR!
Yes it was bluskis, Ben Gurion was so impressed by Ireland's Michael Collins' tactics and methods that he adopted his name as his codename and copied many of his techniques.
30th Dec 2002, 00:00
No, Israel was not born out of terrorist actions (and please don't bring up the King David--a military HQ, where all inside were warned it would be bombed, as Israel still does today). Israel was born out of a UN resolution, I believe.
And the PA is certainly a government---a despotic govt at that--but certainly a govt.
AI also criticized the US for using a missile to kill an Al Qaeda, high level 9/11 operative---fighting terror is unjust to them--that still doesn't give what they say any credibility.
And let's not remember AI's unfounded criticism of the Gitmo detainees----these people are clearly dangerous and trying to kill the guards whenever they can, yet receive better care in every manner than any other POWs--but this isn't enough for AI.
And I think these stats of Ai criticisms are telling:
Free, democratic USA — 49 criticisms
Closed, despotic Cuba — 12 criticisms
Free, democratic Israel — 43 criticisms
Hammas terrorist group — 5 criticisms
Free, democratic South Korea — 26 criticisms
Closed, despotic North Korea — 3 criticisms
Free, democratic Malaysia — 15 criticisms
Closed, despotic Vietnam — 3 criticisms
Free, democratic Turkey — 47 criticisms
Closed, despotic Iraq — 2 criticisms
The Crimson Fruitbat
30th Dec 2002, 04:59
The New Australian (your link and information source) is a biased pro-Israeli, pro-free market-at-all-costs right-wing chip wrapper (or "dunny" paper as they say over there) except that no one has ever seen it in print.
Using Amnesty Intl Search (http://www.amnesty.org/search.html) and typing in each country's name in the search resulted in 100 hits each for Nth Korea, Sth Korea, USA, Cuba, Israel, Malaysia, Turkey and Iraq; 89 for Hamas; and, 84 for Vietnam. You should really research numbers before posting them, instead of blindly believing right-wing propaganda.
To call Israel, Turkey and Malaysia "free and democratic" gave me a giggle. Also, Vietnam is a lovely place to visit, they bear no grudges against western tourists and the people are warm and friendly.
30th Dec 2002, 07:20
"Israel was not born out of terrorist actions (and please don't bring up the King David--a military HQ, where all inside were warned it would be bombed, as Israel still does today)."
The lorry bomb at the King David Hotel killed 92 people - British, Arabs and Jews - and wounded another 58. A terrorist is a terrorist. End of story.
"Israel was born out of a UN resolution, I believe."
Would this be the same anti-Israeli UN that you want to see disbanded?
"And the PA is certainly a government---a despotic govt at that--but certainly a govt."
Is this recognition on your part of a Palestinian nation? Good old common sense dictates that you can't have a government without a nation.
30th Dec 2002, 12:02
Once again it is time to close a thread because too many people are unable to grasp the notion that the content of the posts should in someway be connected to the topic title.
Whilst my views about the situation in the middle east are published elsewhere and in my view no one has any moral superiority too many of the posters on this thread are using extreme views, polarised because of background and propaganda. A few are so incredibly stupid and show a complete lack of understanding that no matter how it is debated they are too ignorant to grasp the fundamentals of educated debate and all they do is inflame the others which in the end reduces the debate to nothing but a prejudiced slagging match.