IRAQ or ZIMBABWE

[FEBA]

Which of the two is worth fighting for

[Man-on-the-fence]

You need to add another choice. I want to vote for BOTH. I really cannot choose between the two.

I guess if we are going alone then it has to be Zimbabwe.

Quite frankly the leaders of both nations are inherantly evil and should be removed using whatever force is necessary (if any is needed at all) as soon as possible.

[lightbob]

Difficult one this - both need doing. However, Mugabe might sort himself out in the near future - but it would take some effort to send in a military force therefore sanctions seem a better route. We can do without people like Hoogstraten offering help in return for land (supposedly). Neither Bush nor Blair have made a good enough case to go after Iraq - not allowing weapons inspectors in is almost there but should have been acted upon when it first happended, not years later. Show us some new evidence of WMD tests/deployments and then the argument is much stronger.

[Man-on-the-fence]

Lightbob

You may want to have a quiet word with the Marsh Arabs, I think they may have a word or two to say about WMD. If theres any of them left that is.

[The Claw]

lightbob;

Mugabe needs sorting out now, if we continue to pacify Mugabe it will eventually become a bigger problem. It will take the land many years before it will recover from the current damage. If Blair continues being weak-kneed, the problem will bubble over into South Africa and many more people will move to the UK. The UK can sort the problem now or pay for it later. I know which I would choose.:mad:

[lightbob]

MOF - I don't think anyone can forget what Saddam has done to his countrymen especially the use of nerve agents on whole towns - I was trying to say, however inarticulately, that time between the cause and effect has widen considerably. I for one believe that Bush senior made a mistake after the Basra Rd and didn't finish the job. We could have gone in at the point that the weapons inspectors were thrown out... Hence my comment about the new evidence - there are rumours that the Int community have this sort of assessment. At the moment we are in the hands of 'Trust me Tone.

Claw - Mugabe does need sorting out - he is a slippery customer who re-writes his country's laws at will. How do you reconcile accusations that could be levelled against UK of 'trying to re-colonise Africa' - many of the former colonies might welcome that. I think that Mugabe is getting close to self-destruct.

[solotk]

23 to 1?

LightBob, none of us are interested in "rumours" of WMD. We want to see the detector paper on that one.

WMD in itself is a misnomer, like "Tactical" Nukes.

Everyone seems to think that a WMD, has to be mounted on a scud. A WMD, could be a pint bottle filled with the nasties, and dropped in a reservoir. Even a kid with a Chemistry set and the right culture, could produce that.

The real question is, is Saddam prepared to use them, in an OFFENSIVE role. My belief, is no. Because the whirlwind he would reap, would have his country glowing in the dark for a generation. That is cold hard fact, and in writing, from the US Government to the Iraqi one. It was delivered by GWB snrs Government, and reinforced by the Clinton administration.

To date, we still have not seen any evidence, that Saddam is producing Nukes or ChemWeps in quantity, and you can guarantee, the NSA's birds, and the U-2's are looking very hard.

It's all about oil, let's just admit it. We don't think we can have the deal with Saddam, therefore, Wall Street thinks we should invade him. Bush's campaign contributors want their investment returned, so Iraq will get a hammering.

Lets recoup, how many Iraqis were on board the airliners on 9/11? Now , how many Saudi Arabians were there?

We backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. We supplied them with arms, we trained their pilots and Infantry Commanders. The only reason, we are not trying to talk to Iraq, in anything like a serious fashion, is the Jewish Lobby in the US, would just not contemplate such a move. Well, whilst we maintain an "Iraq no chance" stance, the real enemy IMHO, the Kingdom of Saud, will continue funding islamic terrorism, ad infinitum,

British and US interests have been attacked far more often, by Saudi Nationals, then Iraqi ones. Actually, I'm trying to think when the last time, that Iraq instigated a hostile act against the West was....

Bluppet, very properly, and quite correctly on 9/12 pledged support for the Spams, in the War against terrorism. Maybe he thought Bogside would get an Arclight, or that the US would move decisively against PIRA funders in the US. Well quelle surprise, neither happened. Bluppet got sold the classic dummy, and all of a sudden, BritFor is committed to supporting Bush's adventurism in Iraq. It stinks.

There are some that argue, that the White Farmers, are getting what they deserve in Zimbabwe. Maybe so. I've done an awful lot of reading in the last few days, from HMS Tiger to Operation "Quartz", and I can see where Black Bobs driving.

His mission, very simply, is to destroy any group, that might become a focus for resistance. Hence the 5.7 million people faced with starvation, or rather, the Non-Mugabe supporters.

The White Farmers, gave up their right to be British citizens after UDI, maybe not all of them, but a goodly proportion. It can be argued, that they made their beds, now they must lie in it.

Interesting. So why exactly did we go into Sierra Leone, or Bosnia? Or Kosovo?

Because a catastrophe of enourmous proportions, that could set the entire region on fire was looming.

I made the point yestersday, and I see Jockanicko says the same thing. It is not Rhodesia, it is Zimbabwe, a sovereign nation in it's own right.

However, it is rapidly becoming the Balkans of Africa. A leadership intent on clinging to power, violent discrimination against ethnic minorities, and democratically elected opponents, corruption on a grand scale etc.

We can wring our hands and do nothing, or, we can intervene now.

Sanctions, will only hurt those, we are trying to help. Iraq has proven that. We need, with other Commonwealth nations, to intervene now, to force a regime change in Zimbabwe.

Once that has been achived, we can then, with a level playing field, address the issue of land reform, and there DOES need to be comprehensive land reform, or the resentment , will fester forever.

I am not in favour of committing British Forces to a regime change, so the resident White population can get it all. I am, in favour however, of regime change, fair distribution of land, dictated on Economic and logistical neccessity , and the training of the indigenous population, to become more self-reliant,better farmers and businessmen and major contributors to their nations well-being.

If the White farmers, want that, and believe it is one, not 2 Zimbabwes, then show us that, and stop wringing your fcuking hands, and reaching for the British passport, when it all goes tits.

Do the British care? Well I don't see the Nat.Union of Farmers , marching to London, or the Countryside alliance marching to Downing Street, then again, if Mugabe was to ban fox hunting...

I don't see ex-Zims organising petitions, or trying to bring their plight, forcibly to the medias attention.

So, all you Zim ex-pats, BLACK and WHITE, if there is a problem, really a problem, and you're not just concerned, about your financial well being, start showing the British population, and garnering popular support

That's it.... Rant Switch to off...

P3

[A Civilian]

Solotk echo's everything that's on my mind. The Saudia Arabia option being IMO the most important one. Sadam although he has done all that he did. Did not train, finance and equip terrorists to attack the world trade centre towers. And more importantly does not STILL continue to do so. Wereas their are fractions inside Saudia Arabia that do.

Seeing as the War On Terror is behind all this Iraqi attack stuff. Perhaps we should focus on the centre of the anti-america hatred.

[I. M. Esperto]

Neither.

Zimbabwe is a lost cause. They are starving because they kicked out the productive white farmers, killing, and raping a few in the process. It could'nt happen to a more deserving bunch of stupid savages.

Iraq never did a thing to the USa. So Bush don't like Sadaam. Too bad, it's none of our business. Israel, our client nation is the tail that wags the dog again. It is said that iraq "is thought to have weapons of mass destruction." Duh! Israel has in excess of 400 nukes at Dimona, and the means of delivering them, thanks to our gift of LONG RANGE F-15's. Why would a nation the size of Israel need LONG RANGE F-15's? So they can blackmail Europe. From London to Moscow, all targets are in range.

Our first war with Iraq, Desert Storm, was a set-up:




Saddam- Glaspie meeting

Saddam-Glaspie meeting

Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before
the
August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait).

July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our
relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for
higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause)
As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to
rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and
our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country.
(pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in
the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this
happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable
for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask
you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your
intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's
borders?

Saddam Hussein -

As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a
settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two
days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance.
(pause)
When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope,
then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it
will be natural that Iraq will not accept death.

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein -

If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in
our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we
are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq
(i.e., in SaddamÕs view, including Kuwait) then we will give up all of the
Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we
wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute
with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to
emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is
not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990 four days later, Saddam's massed troops invade and
occupy Kuwait.

*******************************************************

Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy

One month later, British journalist obtain the the above tape and
transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded,
they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Journalist 1 -

Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?

(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)

Journalist 2 -

You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait) but you didn't warn
him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him
the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 -

You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you
thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie -

Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were
going to take all of Kuwait.

Journalist 1 -

You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you?
Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran
(Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to
be.

You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as
an historic part of their country!

Journalist 1 -

American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit
signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would
not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and
the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq?

(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her
and the car drives off.)

[The Claw]

lightbob;

It's not about the need to reconcile accusations, but rather doing what is right. The UK should stand by it's people rather than always towing the American line. Those countries that are most likely to use those accusations are relying heavily on British finance. If the UK can't do this, then I think that they should withdraw totally from other areas of conflict.:mad:

[day1-week1]

I think blackadder had it right when he said that the one pre-condition of any british military campain is that your enemy should be armed with no more than a sharpen watermelon. In which case Zim gets my vote.

[ORAC]

It's not the going in........It's the getting out.

Going into Zimbabwe will end up in bush warfare for an unlimited period. Look at the history of Rhodesia, Mosambique, Angola.

I wouldn't touch the place with a barge pole without an exit strategy. We'd be better off giving all the farmers compensation out of our own pockets. Far cheaper in the long run.

And I know it's not ethical, just pragmatic.

[I. M. Esperto]

Zimbabwe "incidents":
The Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...20/ixworld.html

They then threw me to the ground and stepped on my head. They wanted to rape me and started to tear my clothes from my body," she said.

Woman tells of fight for her life
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/NorthernProvince/0,1113,2-7-834_1243868,00.html

===================

With his clothes and body on fire and screaming with pain, a young cheese-maker tried to get help over the phone before jumping into a freezing fishpond.

Shortly before, attackers had overpowered him in a farmhouse, poured petrol over him and set him alight.

Man roasted by robbers
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/FreeState/0,1113,832_1244163,00.html

[Scud-U-Like]

I.M.Esperto

Zimbabweans a "bunch of stupid savages".

Israel possessing nuclear weapons to "blackmail Europe".

Would you be good enough to share with us the source of the transcript for the Saddam/US Ambassador meeting and the subsequent press Q&As?

Is your NRA subscription up-to-date and is your shelter well stocked for your last stand against the US Government?

[I. M. Esperto]

Scud - Trolling?

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

Also see:
Zimbabwe Farmworkers
Slaughtered As Cops Look On
From Jan Lamprecht
AfricanCrisis.org
8-18-2


(SAPA) - The African Christian Democratic Party on Sunday claimed that five black farmworkers were murdered by Zimbabwe's ruling Zanu-PF government militants in full view of police who showed reluctance to stop the attacks on Saturday.
Quoting a relative of one of the "murdered" workers, ACDP spokesperson Jo-Ann Downs said the five were killed in an apparent campaign to intimidate them in the ongoing forced removals of white farmers from their properties.
According to Downs, the owner of the farm watched from his hiding place in horror as the men were murdered while Zimbabwean police did little to stop the murders.
"It is clear that the action of the Zimbabwe police in swooping on its citizens before they can get the word out is being quite successful.
"The Zimbabwean police have been applying an uncharacteristic diligence towards covering their tracks when arresting and brutalising people who have little to do with farm ownership," she said.
Sapa could, however, not verify the claims as the people Downs had cited as her sources were not available when contacted for comment.
In a separate incident, the ACDP claimed a farmer's wife was detained by Zimbabwean police after they could not find her husband on Sunday.
The party said the woman, Louis Cochrane, was bundled into a police vehicle and was not allowed to attend to her two children aged eight and three.
"Despite protestations she was not allowed to take them with her. The children are now alone on the farm and have been contacting relatives outside the country by telephone," Downs said.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=68&art_id=qw102967920192B254&set_id=1

NRA dues? Why should I pay dues to the NRA? I'm not a member.

BTW, if I were a member, so what?

[Scud-U-Like]

Quote:

"Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting".

I think that says it all.

I could dig out press stories about attrocities by white farmers against blacks (eg check out the "Rhodesia" thread), but I'll spare you.

My point was, you sound a bit like one of those white supremacist, anti-Government head cases. ;)

[I. M. Esperto]

Scud - What if I was anti-government? That's my priveledge, is it not?

Nut case? Over half the voters in the last election voted against Bush. Are they all nut cases?

[Grimweasel]

Well there is only one answer......................

"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" :p

[Letsby Avenue]

Dare I say that the typical UK citizen should fear little from a terrorist attack, he probably has better odds of winning the national lottery than of dying at the hands of an Iraqi terrorist.

Despite these odds we still manage to kill over three hundred UK citizens a month on our roads! Surely, instead of spending billions on bombing Iraq we should widen the A12 south of Chelmsford????

To get back to the point - Mugabe is black and can therefore do no wrong in this Left wing age of white 'mea culpa' Tony Bliar would rather sell out the (white) Gibraltarians in the name of some European utopia than bother himself with the unseemly ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe.

PS: Is nobody interested in the fact that our independent Nuclear Deterrent is in the hands of a retired ships steward? Frankly I am more worried about 'Our John' than Saddam Hussein.
.

[BEagle]

Did anyone else see the dismal performance of George Dubya on TV last night. Such rambling incoherence from someone with such power - couldn't they really find anyone better to run the place?

His powers of oratory even makes Dan Quayle seem well-spoken

[solotk]

Not particularly bothered about the Nuclear deterrent being in the hands of 2 Jags. He's already shown he is "Well up 4 the ruck " Frankly, I think he has a damn sight more about him, than Bluppet.

Beags, I did watch Dubya last night, and to put it in the "Ground Scum" vernacular , "The bottle's gone". As regards someone better to run the place? Maybe if they had counted all the votes properly, and the Supreme Court hadn't all have been Republicans, then we might be looking at a series of surgical strikes against TERRORISTS worldwide, as per the Clinton administration.

I think Dubya, is facing mounting opposition at home, against an Iraq attack. The American people want revenge for 9/11, and they are starting to realise, that Dubya is talking bollix. Maybe they are having a hard time fabricating the evidence of Iraqi duplicity?

Now, we've gone from "We're coming to change the regime" to "We haven't decided what to do yet" and Bluppet (Pull my strings and watch me dance) has gone strangely schtumm.

As the unscrupulous one said on 5 Live last night, to paraphrase "Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, motives are suspect"

[Scud-U-Like]

US admits plan to bring down Mugabe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe/article/0,2763,778557,00.html

Looks like we'll be able to have our cake and eat it. :)

[FEBA]

Chaps,
There have been some remarkable contributions to this thread from SoloTk, I M Esperto, Beagle to name but a few and some pretty daft ones from A Civilian. Long may the remarkable one continue. Perhaps these forums are read by those with journalistic influence. I note this mornings piece on the Today programme BBC Radio 4. I hope the TV people will pick up on this too with intellectual contributions from important politco's, so that rules Dubbya out then.
FEBA (Fwd Edge Battle Area)

[I. M. Esperto]

Letsbe - My nuts in a thoughtshell.

Gentlemen - Great stuff here.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Sorry for popping in to your mil forum guys, hope you'll bear with me for a minute.

The reason behind the plans to knock over Saddam is very simple really, and does involve Saudi. As we all know, the US is terribly dependant on Saudi Oil. At the same time, the US is also terribly aware that muslim terrorism is largely financed by Saudi nationals, and they have a lot of moral support from Saudi's as well, some say it stems all the way from the top. But the US can't very well invade Saudi without having a alternate source of oil can they? Enter Iraq, a nation which is belived to hold the worlds second largest oil reserves.

In other words, the reason behind the invasion of Iraq is to install a US friendly government there and thereby secure the oil import. This will, to an extent, make Saudi redundant and thus open the possibility of either invading them outright or "just" imposing an embargo on them. I wonder how long the Saudi government, already shaken by a diminishing standard of living amongst average (i.e. non-royal) Saudis, will survive without oil export. Thus, if they are not allowed to export oil their society might break down. The nasty, but likely, outcome will be a quasi-Iranian state run under the Sharia law which no-one in this neck of the woods would like to see happening. It must be added, though, that the Saudi royal family have already place considerable power amongst the clergy, so presumeably the only difference (following a Iran-like revolution) might be that their hatred towards the west will be trumpeted by government officials rather than the clergy (which will be the same thing).

Are you willing to go to war to secure US oil imports, so that they can continue to pollute the world at an astounding rate ?

[Jackonicko]

The US expects and deserves our support (but not necessarily our unquestioning obedience) in the war against terrorism.

But not necessarily our support in actions of military adventurism motivated by US domestic considerations. If there's sufficient evidence, and if it can be done without further alienating the Arab world, then to take out Saddam seems a great idea.

Moreover, such support comes with a price tag, even between allies. An end to US protectionism and an end to US refusal to abide by international agreements (on Israel, on climate change, etc.) would certainly help the alliance look more balanced and mutually beneficial. The last poster's point about the US 'polluting the world' might seem very PC and very dramatic, but it's also absolutely true and vitally important. If the USA wants our support, it should do more to earn it and to address our concerns.

[TqNrT4NgGreenlightCWP]

The over-simplistic (and often badly spelt!) posts here do not take the largest factor (IMHO) into consideration.

When we did the biz on GRANBY, we were working within a UN mandate. There was no mandate to roll up the Basra Highway and 'finish the job'. I'm not saying that was desirable, but we were operating within the rule of international - ie UN - law.

What we have now with all the Sabre-rattling from Dubya, and to a lesser extent, Bliar, is most definitely NOT with any UN, or indeed any other form of International backing. All very well for the US to try and police the world (well, at least any bits floating on oil), but to do so without a general mandate from the rest of the known world is to invite trouble.

Had we actually continued up the Basra Highway, we may well have found the Pan-Arab force on our right flank turning against us. Proceed against Iraq without the general support of most of the rest of the Arab world, and we will be inviting a shoeing of Pyrrhic proportions.

By the way - Butcher Bob? Yeah, take the t%$t out!

[hotinfo]

President Tony was not willing to help out our own farmers, let alone someone elses, so not likely Zimbabwe.

As for Iraq, it depends how his ratings are and what the USA want us to do. If a long campaign and loss of British life will win the next election, then that is what he will do.

Sorry to be cynical, but his past record speaks for itself.

[Wiley]

Four widely separate questions:

(1) Is there one person from among the many thousands in the UK (and elsewhere in the West) who demonstrated and campaigned so vigorously for the unseating of Ian’s Smith’s minority regime who’s now willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the people on the spot (ie, Smith et al) might just have had a better idea of how things would inevitably go for Zimbabwe under majority rule? (Just as it has in virtually every other country in Africa since independence was granted by the colonial rulers in the Fifties and Sixties?)

(2) Is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe that, given the electronic and other intel assets at their disposal, the Yanks don’t know exactly where Saddam Hussein is in ‘real time’ for at least part of every day? If you believe this to be true, is there anyone out there who doesn’t believe they could kill him (and most of his inner circle) with minimal if not no ‘collateral damage’ with one single missile or stealth bomber?

(3) Based upon your answer to Question (2), is there anyone out there who believes the talk about going to a large(or large-ish) scale war in Iraq isn’t mostly to do with providing a favourable business environment for certain US defence contractors and providors? - ie, a quick, ‘surgical’ missile strike or bombing raid would not provide an excuse to replace the current crop of weapons, (the ones quite recently built to replace those used in Afghanistan) and provide all the business a major deployment would entail.

(4) Is there anyone out there who thinks the US Government really wants to see a truly democratically-elected government in place in Iraq (or any other Arab country in the Middle East)? Any such government would, almost without doubt, be heavily Islamic a la Iran and violently opposed to the US and its policies. (See Algeria over the last few years and watch what’s happening in Turkey as I write.) This could be a slightly less cynical reason than the one I’ve given in Question 3 to explain why the Americans don’t want to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein ‘cheaply’ with a single bomb – they wouldn’t have a hundred thousand troops in place to ensure that the ‘democratic’ government they put in place isn’t one exactly to their liking. Add the quite serious wild card to this equation that who knows what will happen in Saudi Arabia when the King dies – a very real possibility over the next year or so. Should he die when the Americans have stirred up huge emotions among Muslims with an invasion of Iraq and you’ve got a really interesting situation brewing in the Middle East over the next year or so.

Should real democracies come to be put in place in Islamic countries, (ie, government that do what the majority of local people want – which is to eschew most of not all things Western), it will be very interesting to watch the US spin doctors in twelve months time telling the American people ‘what they really meant’ when everything goes totally pear-shaped for American interests in the Middle East.

[I. M. Esperto]

Wiley - Good questions.

I think it's all about oil, and who controls it.

Certainly, we could take Sadaam out. But again, why should we? Sadaam has done nothing to the USA. Bush says Iraq and now Saudi Arabia are part of "The Axis of Evil". (Good grief!)

Here's some military wisdom from the past, that makes good sense to me, right now:


Smedley Butler on Interventionism

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the
expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight.
The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes
overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two
things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other
reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out
enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss"
Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-
three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the
Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the
Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military
profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended
animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba
a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen
Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see
to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I
could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I
operated on three continents.

[canberra]

1 if mugabe and saddam are overthrown who replaces them? lets face it you know where you are with them.
2 would the royal navy be very interested in helping? after all zimbabwe is landlocked(the bera blockade was a total waste of time) and iraq has a very small coastline. only role i can see is for subs with tomahawks.
3 if it really is all about oil then iraq must be prority, imho i can forsee butcher bob and his hitler tache being overthrown within 6 months.

[BlueWolf]

Wiley

Brilliantly well put. There aren't any cynics in your family, are there?!

I.M.Esperto

It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. If we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them, and it appears that we haven't learned anything from the wisdom of the good General from seventy odd years ago.
Once again it will be the guys in uniform who pay for this failure with life and limb, all the while believing it is in a good cause. Then again, if it helps to preserve our Western way of life and standard of living, maybe it is, and maybe the Profits of War are a separate issue. Is this an eternal conundrum, or yet another lesson not learned?

Iraq is certainly about oil and about the other issues that Wiley raises; but Zimbabwe has the potential to about something genuinely just. They are Our People down there. I think the West will come to their rescue, but probably not for the right reasons.
Zimbabwe is chocker block with minerals waiting to be mined, and the country will very soon need another industry to feed its people now that farming has been destroyed as a viable pursuit.
Once Sideshow Bob is dislodged from his perch, by stealth, infirmity, or someone even more corrupt than himself - and it could happen in as little as six months - the new nation will call for aid, which we will be only too happy to provide...we'll build roads, schools and hospitals, and give the Zimbabweans jobs in our mines. You know, our mines. They're our minerals, after all. Or at least they will be.
It's a neat system, don't you think?

[The Claw]

I thought Libya owned the minerals?:rolleyes:

[Wiley]

Have to agree in full with BlueWolf’s last paragraphs.

Myself, I can’t believe ‘Sideshow’ Bob Mugabe hasn’t set his spin doctors to work piously telling the West that he’s really acting for the good of Western society by putting a stop to that awful, cancer-producing tobacco production, (a goodly portion of the ‘food’ produced by Zimbabwe’s white-run commercial farms), and is replacing tobacco with maize.

[solotk]

Latest in todays' Sunday Times, implies that Bluppet has been far from idle.

UKSF have been "scouting the borders".. read that as buying their coffee and fags in Harare. Also a major UK exercise appears planned in "Southern Africa" next month.

Lovely...... :D

[Wiley]

A fifth question, to add to my earlier list, if I may: let’s say Saddam Hussein AND Sideshow Bob are both toppled exactly to Dubya/Tony’s plans and timetables, and it’s summer of 2003 and we have ‘more acceptable’ governments in place in both localities. (Let’s not dwell on the fact too long that to enjoy any chance of survival, any replacement government in either country will probably have to be even more despotic than the existing ones Tony and GW are so keen to replace.)

I think it would be fairly safe to say that a goodly number of the people currently wielding or enforcing power in both Iraq and Zim, (of whom there are a ‘goodly number’ in both countries), would not exactly be the flavour of the month with the new ‘Western friendly’ regimes.

Given that the new governments would have to be rather severe on political dissent to have any hope of survival, (see para 1), it might also be true to say that these said ex-wielders of power would have a genuine, (if some would say very well-deserved), fear of persecution under the new regimes.

So (at last) to my question: where will the West, (and in particular, the bleeding hearts in the ‘more traditional’ havens for political refugees from all corners of the Earth – the US, UK, Canada and Australia), stand on offering these hapless refugees safe havens from what will undoubtedly be well-founded fears of persecution?

[I. M. Esperto]

Personally, I've had it with these "hapless refugees" flooding the USA.

They are the criminal element today, and the culture clash makes them unassimable into the mainstream population. Case in point:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200208230066.html

[7x7]

Wiley’s fifth question is as thought-provoking as his first four… I believe Australia has taken quite a few of the now disbanded South Lebanon Militia (the proxy army of local, mostly Christian Lebanese the Israelis set up during their stay in South Lebanon, who won no friends among the rest of their countrymen). I’ll bet that has made for some interesting conversations in the queue at that kebab shop in Lakemba (Sydney’s (not so) ‘little Beirut’).

I echo his implied sentiments re Mugabe’s and Saddam’s many thugs – I don’t want any of them in my country, and I daresay, nor do anyone else, including the North Koreans.

[I. M. Esperto]

It's a pity about the fate of Beirut.

I remember back in the 1950's it was great - The Paris of the Levant.

Some really gorgeous women were all over the place.

There was no "Green Line".

[PercyDragon]

The fundamental difference. of course, betweem Mugabe and Saddam is that Saddam has, so the latest intelligence tells us, the means to get his hands on Nukes. Taking the 'worst case scenario', then, Saddam just loads the thing (just one, that's all it needs) into a container, sets the timer, and sends it up the Thames on a cargo ship. Boom. End of London. And by then it will
all be too late.

At least all the pinko coke snorting media lefties won't be in any
position to whine about why we are attacking Iraq, as they will be all by then split down into their individual molecules and cruising in a low Earth orbit.

Incidentally, we in the west owe a debt of gratitude to the South African Defence forces (before apartheit collapsed) who, having produced some Nukes for themselves then made the extremely laudable decision to take them all apart again and bury the components down some extremely deep mineshafts where they could never be recovered, before the locals took over. They therefore effectively stopped the whole of the Southern part of Africa becoming a nuclear power.

Thanks, Van Der Merve, if you're reading this. I, for one, appreciate the magnanamous gesture.:eek:

[solotk]

Percy

I am NOT a pinko coke snorting media lefty, far from it. Neither are most of the current Military serving personnel on this board.

So remind me, WHY are we attacking Iraq again? I'm all ears, especially when IMHO the Kingdom of Saud is overdue for Gunboat diplomacy.

Oh, and save the Colonel Blimp crap and jingoistic bollox, I'd like this thread to stay up :mad:

McD, Prunepop can we have this moved to JetBlast? I need to go Weapons-Free

[I. M. Esperto]

Yes, Sadaam wants Nukes. Shamir HAS Nukes, hundreds of them, and the means to deliver them with the long range version of the F-15. Why would a nation the size of Israel need a long range fighter bomber? Iraq is very close to a very agressive, well armed neighbor, and has the right to be prepared to defend itself.

Any nation with nuclear weapons could slip them into a container ship and blow up London, or NY, or any seaport. After the explosion, who would be able to say just whose bomb that was?

Sleep tight.

[West Coast]

I guess the difference in the lopsided results of this thread is Mugabe crossed the line, while saddam hasn't for awhile. Always running up to it but stopping short. Whatever threshold Europe is looking for prior to action might be a bitter pill to swallow.

[reynoldsno1]

Why would Saddam want to attack London? From what I can gather a large proportion of his supporters, and other terroist cells, are living there on benefit - he wouldn't want to harm the Al Qa'eda kindergarten now, would he?

[I. M. Esperto]

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?newslett=1&click_id=79&art_id=qw103059270060B216&set_id=1

UK Forces ready to evacuate ZIM

[solotk]

The Ministry of Defence dismissed the report, saying the exercise had "nothing to do" with the situation in Zimbabwe.


LoL........... Like a famous US General said, on the night of 5/6/44...

"Right, let's go" we'll need a damn sight more than 250 paras though..

>>>>> Straight in, destroy the Zim Air Force on the ground, or in the air, secure 2 airports and some of the Zim Air force forward airfields,and 2 or more landing strips. Secure Route Gold with RTR and Sabre Squadrons, with fighting "Rover Patrols and temporary strongholds to keep the roads open to the SA border. Bomb the barracks and Military installations back to the Stone Age, with AAC and Harrier Force operating "Cab-Ranks" to keep the other sides heads down. Accidentally pickle several tonnes of CBU's overhead Casa Mugabe, but make sure we get everyone out we have to, because reprocussions and reprisals will be dreadful.

Time in country? 7 days tops. Mind you, the Israelis moved all the Black Jews out of Ethiopia in one night....

[Bigears]

From todays Electronic Herald (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news_frame.html)

Pilots back war on Mugabe not Iraq, says poll
IAN BRUCE
MOST of Britain's front-line RAF and Royal Navy pilots would rather fight to depose Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe's land-grabbing president, than wage America's war for regime change in Iraq, an unofficial website poll suggests.

It showed that 87.7% of the 122 military fliers who voted opted for "ending ethnic genocide by starvation" in Zimbabwe before tackling Saddam Hussein.

The UK armed forces currently have about 250 combat-ready jet pilots, with another 90 to 100 in training.

The poll was carried out on the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network, a site with over 70 forums dedicated to aviation topics and 53,000 registered members.

The military aircrew forum on the website, which has been running since 1995, was used recently to enlist the support of MPs and help organise the campaign to clear the names of the two RAF Chinook pilots blamed by senior officers for the 1994 crash on the Mull of Kintyre which wiped out most of Northern Ireland's senior intelligence officers.

It also became a major location for informed debate on the Ministry of Defence's controversial decision to axe the two remaining Sea Harrier squadrons, a move which will leave British naval task forces without fighter cover until 2015.

Because the site is monitored by the MoD, pilots posting comments use nicknames like "Flygunz", "Ark Royal", "Captain Sand Dune" and "Topgun" to conceal their identities. Serving officers are barred from commenting publicly on issues involving government policy and can be disciplined for speaking out without permission.

A series of lively debates on Mr Mugabe's dispossession of white farmers led to the unofficial poll of the pilots who would have to play a leading role in any UK contribution to a campaign against Saddam Hussein.

One posting read: "Call me cynical, but if Mugabe were white and trying to commit genocide against black people, we would be half way to Africa right now.

"The six million who now face starvation because of his policy are all in electoral districts which voted against him."

An MoD source said yesterday: "Members of the armed services do not formulate government policy. They are there to carry it out. Straw polls may or may not reflect feeling within the forces, but are irrelevant in the wider context."

- Aug 30th

[I. M. Esperto]

"The UK armed forces currently have about 250 combat-ready jet pilots, with another 90 to 100 in training. "

Is this true? Seems woefully inadequate.

[FEBA]

Interesting. It's a pity that the BBC hasn't picked up on this thread!

[ZH844]

I think that we have to accept that Bush is going to knock on Saddam's door with or without the approval of anyone.

Therefore. the question is "should we go to Zimbabwe"?

For what it is worth,I think we should!!

The question really is "can we"? Not questioning the ability of the UK forces but if Whitehall does not cough up some more dosh soon we won't have the kit to fight with (anyone know how to make bow and arrow...).

But it must be remembered that we must have the money to house/feed people who murder innocent kids even if it means that the guys protecting the UK or it's interests do not have the right kit. Mr Blair and his buddies should get their priorities right or find another country to ruin...

844

:rolleyes:

[FEBA]

Another interesting fact is that Mugabes thugs have blown up a radio station whose broadcasts are openly anti government. Perhaps we may see military action in Zimbabwe rather that Iraq. 3 Para are your innoculations upto date?
Feba

[PercyDragon]

Sorry, I just don't understand the logic behind this support for 'going in to sort out Mugabe'.

Don't you guys remember? Its not so long ago that we got out of Africa and made the decision to wind up the rest of the Empire. Now just because you don't like the results you can't just decide to go back in again and re-start the whole shebang.

And why just pick on Mugabe? The rest of the newly independent
African countries are just as bad. Nigeria, Botswana, Congo, Mozambique.... in fact the whole darn continent. It's just that Mugabe is getting most of the press becuase he happens to be beating up the whites as well as the locals.

So what do you suggest we do...go in and sort out the whole continent? Come on, get real!

[I. M. Esperto]

I think AIDS will sort it out in another generation.

[myrddin]

Percy.
It's all about famine prevention and justice. White farmers are an issue, sure, but the greater cause is the fight against tyranny. Education in Africa is available only to the privilidged few. It needs to be available to all if the riches of the land and the capabilities of the masses is to be realised. This will never be achieved if a small minority of educated blacks deprive their fellow people of a proper education in order to exploit and plunder.
I grow weary, appeal after appeal. I've thrust my hands deep into my pockets to stave off Ethiopean famines and Flood victims but now I've had enough. Heads need to be banged together, evil needs to be eradicated. New regimes and proper infrastructures need to be installed and wealth distibuted evenly and democratically.
The paradox in Zimbabwe is that death (brought about by military intervention) will mean life for the innocents who so desparately deserve it.
Dubbya's not clever enough to realise the consequences of an invasion of Iraq, he's more concerned about a baseball strike. He may even believe that's it's all about settling a family score or redress for Sep 11, well I'm sure the cheifs of staff know otherwise. it's all about oil that won't be flowing out of Saudi when the world realises that they are the inspiration and backers of islamic terrorism

[Mac the Knife]

Unfortunately our "Esperto" may be correct.

Apparently 25% of UCT students are now HIV+ve

[I. M. Esperto]

Depending on whose stat's you use, it could be as high as 50%.

Some African nations now have a life expectancy of under 40 years, and dropping.

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite.jsp?page=Country

Actuaries are forecasting life expectancy of 27 years in some African nations, and life insurance is impossible to buy.

[BlueWolf]

If that's true, it may be yet another case of the solution being contained within the problem...or the problem being contained within the solution, if you prefer.

But it doesn't address the immediate concern of a large number of Our People having unpleasant things done to them by an evil and corrupt dictator not of their choosing, for which the same cannot be said of Iraq.

If you weigh up Britain's options in a mercenary fashion;

Zimbabwe:

*You get to rescue some British passport holders
*You get some minerals which you don't have to share with Uncle Spam
*You get a change of dictator at the top
*it's over fairly quickly, at relatively little cost in people and expenditure, and it probably won't destabilise the world and escalate into something else.

Iraq:

*you get to rescue some Iraqis and Kurds
*Uncle Spam gets some oil which he doesn't have to share with you and probably won't
*you get a change of dictator at the top (maybe)
*it takes a long time, costs an enormous amount in money and life, and could quite possibly trigger WWIII

Of course it is always possible to do both, but Zimbabwe is probably a more pressing cause.

[BEagle]

From an open source (ST):

Blair has a long way to go to convince Bush, however, as so far the president has merely acknowledged to the prime minister the "minuses as well as the pluses" of pre-emptive action.

He faces growing resistance in Britain to military action and even the threat that Britain's armed forces may defy an order to fight. Ministry of Defence lawyers are set to tell the government that the legal case to attack Iraq is not strong enough and that armed services could refuse to join an invasion, fearing they could contravene international law.

Martin Hemming, the defence ministry's legal adviser, is expected to warn senior government officials at a meeting this week that an attack on Iraq requires UN backing or evidence that Saddam is preparing hostilities. British military personnel risk being summoned before the soon-to-be-established International Criminal Court (ICC) and charged with war crimes if they are involved in illegal military action.

[I. M. Esperto]

Here is an article on this subject by Sam Francis, a sydicated columnist.

http://www.vdare.com/francis/zimbabwe_disaster.htm

Indeed, what DID we expect?

[FEBA]

It's unanimous. In the absence of hard facts from Washington and the repercussions of military action in Iraq, contributors to this forum are not prepared to go to war on behalf of President Dubbya. All please see Romeo and Juliet Act 3 scene 1 Prince's reply to Monague " Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill"

[PercyDragon]

Myrddin

If you are in the habit of giving your money to African charities then you're a silly boy. OK, it might make you personally feel better, but that's about it.

I have worked in Arica for a number of years and I will thoroughly back up the old saying that "giving aid is - poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries".

I have personally seen, out there on the front line of poverty, staggering amounts of corruption and fraud. Never again will I give money to any charity that sends money to Africa.

[I. M. Esperto]

Sexwale hits out at African corruption
Quentin Wray
September 02 2002 at 08:03AM
Johannesburg - Mining boss, former Gauteng premier and struggle activist Tokyo Sexwale yesterday launched a stinging attack on corrupt African leaders, accusing them of running their countries' treasuries for their own account.

Speaking at the Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD), Sexwale said some of the continent's political bosses were running "kleptocracies" rife with nepotism and corruption.

The BASD is an official parallel event to the UN's World Summit on Sustainable Development.

Sexwale did not name any current politicians, but pointed out that former Zairean dictator Mobuto Sese Seko's net worth had been the same as his country's national debt.

""""""""""""""

"Sexwale did not name any current politicians, but pointed out that former Zairean dictator Mobuto Sese Seko's net worth had been the same as his country's national debt"

LET THAT SINK IN.

[Scud-U-Like]

I couldn't agree more. It's almost as bad as the world's foremost economic power having 30 million people living below the official poverty line.

[I. M. Esperto]

Scud - It's the same folks.

http://www.census.gov/statab/www/poppart.html

[Jackonicko]

OK Percy, you wouldn't give to any charity that sends aid to Africa, so do you support the cancellation of Third World debt instead, or are you happy just to see them starve?

[Scud-U-Like]

I. M. Esperto

Indeed, black people are well represented in the 'revolving door' of the US poverty trap, as are Hispanics and whites. And they're all your fellow Americans, my friend.

One of the 'same folks' is also your Secretary of State (and probable future President).

Let's face it, just like Mugabe, you're a racist bigot, trying to hide behind a very thin veil of respectability.

[I. M. Esperto]

Hey ho; ho hum.

[PercyDragon]

Jackoniko,

OK. So we seem to be cancelling a lot of third world debt....and do you know what's going to happen now? All the countries that have had their debt cancelled are going to start campaigning for the west to give them more money..."not a gift you understand, just give us a loan. We have just had a change of government and we are now very responsible. We will pay it all back when we have sorted out our finances".

Every time we hand out the money the bloke in charge loads most of it into his Swiss bank account before he gets deposed in the next military coup.

Nowadays I have actually begun to think that our expectations of the Third World are too high. A Western civlisation is an extremely highly-tuned and complex machine. It's like giving your ten year old son the key to your Volvo. Should we be foisting our beliefs for the way to run a society on developing countries?

Discuss.

[I. M. Esperto]

Interesting letter in the Zimbabwe Independent:

http://www.theindependent.co.zw/news/2002/August/Friday30/472.html

[Jackonicko]

Percy,

Just so I'm clear, your answer is "Let them starve" then? No aid, no charity, no debt cancellation. I'm guessing you won't give up the subsidies on which your farmers rely (and which make it impossible for third World farmers) nor will you clean up your industrial act if it entails extra costs for your manufacturers or tax-payers.

Interesting yesterday at the Conference, I thought. All the Western/European concentration on the plight of the white farmers allowed Mugabe to present his policies as being Zimbabwean land for the Zimbabweans, and to present us as being Colonialists. And he got applause for it, and validation from other African leaders (notably Namibia's Sam Nujoma).

Had we spent more time and energy opposing what he was doing to Black Zimbabweans, maybe other Black leaders would have pointed out what sort of Black Zimbabweans are actually getting the re-allocated land - eg Mugabe's wife, chums and cronies.

[I. M. Esperto]

A good description of the problem appears here:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?newslett=1&click_id=68&art_id=ct20020902124031941N250305&set_id=1

Are the people the solution, or part of the problem?

[PercyDragon]

Jackonicko

You may also recall that when Iddi Amin was president of the Organisation of African Unity (true!) he also used to get applause from all the other African heads of state whenever he got up to speak.

During my time in Africa I discovered that the African 'mental mindset' is totally different to ours. They worship power and virility above all else, and by doing what he is doing Mugabe is exibiting both of those qualities (in an Africans eyes).

And no, I'm not against sending aid to Africa...as long as it's not my money.

I finally left Africa carrying with me a very personal gift. Hepatitis.

[The Claw]

You clearly have no understanding of Africa at all. Nothing the West said or did would make any difference to what happend at the conference. The African nations are racist period, tough for a bleeding heart like yourself, but FACT.

People will starve to death with or without your help. What do you propose? Do we keep giving money until we too are in poverty? Whilst they have another five babies and destroy several more farms and then their leaders can retire to some mansion in Switzerland? Or maybe we could finance a few more luxury jets?

Until african countries show the will to live in harmony with us, why should we bother with them? We have given, now they need to show some initiative. You can bleat on about the past, but whilst you do that you are allowing Africa to continue on its course of self-destruction. :mad:

[I. M. Esperto]

You gentlemen better watch yourselves or Scud will be calling you (sob) RACISTS!

[Chaffers]

Things are starting to look rather interesting for the first time in ages around the world. My first reaction to hearing about another attack on Iraq was astonishment. I couldn't see how either he UN or (at the very least) Saudi Arabia could be persuaded to back the US in a policy which appeared out of nowhere.
Sure 911 gave Bush a mandate to beat up on anyone remotely connected with terrorism (not to mention the Israeli's a weapons free roe) but no link to Hussain has been offered.
So where does Bush's mandate, or even reason come from? Such things have little or no hope of being passed in a UN resolution (laughably described on here as international law) at the best of times and without the slightest chance of foreign basing, overflight rights or even respectable deep water access anything other than a token raid looks unlikely. Surely they arn't thinking of landing in the gulf with only carrier borne air and long range assets?

The interesting thing though is that Bush appears to be totally committed to action now, Blair would not be posturing otherwise. Lets face it a few more tomahawks are not going to cut the mustard after all the rhetoric so basically something has to give, and I think Mandella hit the nail on the head. Is Bush prepared to destroy the UN in order to depose Hussain?

Getting back to the original poll it is a shame the option of both was not given as this would be my preffered option. The Zimbabwe case sells itself easily on many grounds. Preventing economic collapse with the associated human suffering (Sierra Leonne anyone?) would make some lovely headlines and protect not only our citizens residing in Zimbabwe but also our interests in the region.
It would also send a nice loud message to any other tinpot dictator who thinks he can order the rape and murder of Her Majesty's Subjects and rid the world of one of its longest surviving despots. Putting the place back together a la Smith could also be profitable (no exit strategy required ORAC :) ).

However if Bush does decide to go in we should back him to the hilt as well. I think the world could do with a healthy dose of realpolitik from the States.

[DuckDogers]

Granted Chaffers there is a lacking of realpolitik from the major players these days. It makes me laugh though with the rhetoric floating aroung about Saddam having the capability to....and is in the process of aquiring WMDs!

Anyone remember Operation 'OPERA'? When on 07 1555 Jun81 F-15's and F-16's of the IDF departed Etzion AFB enroute to Iraq's Osiraq Nuclear Plant. If you recall this raised a number of questions of interpretation regarding international legal concepts. Those who supported the action cited Article 51 of the UN Charter stating that Israel had engaged in an act of 'legitiamte self defence.'

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Those who opposed the actions of Israel countered that Israeli claims about Iraq's future capabilities were hasty, ill-considered and the response ill-conceived. In essence they asserted that the very notion of anticipatory self-defence be rejected by the UN Security Council. Further more the Security Council adopted UNSCR Resolution 487, which unanimously condemned the strike

http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/418/74/IMG/NR041874.pdf?OpenElement[/URL]

Are we not at a similiar junction as we speak? I await due response..................................

---------------------------------------------------------------

AUDAX OMNIA PERPETI

[I. M. Esperto]

DuckRogers -
Here's the full story on this.
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/6c57312cc8bd93ca852560df00653995!OpenDocument

It was on 7 June, and the A/C were F4's. The plant was built and operated by the French, and a French scientist was killed.

Initial reports stated the A/C still bore USAF markings, but that story somehow dissapeared down the memory hole.

Iraq had the right to operate the plant, and Israel had no right to attack it, no more than the USA has any right to attack Iraq today.

[DuckDogers]

IME

Definitely 6 x F15's flying escort and 8 x F16's carrying 2 x 1000Kg bombs. No F4's took part in the raid i am afraid to say, see IDF home page and down load the story.

Any comments Chaffers?

-----------------------------------------------------

Special Cheese Service

[Chaffers]

I think you've missed my point in amongst your conpiracy theories Esperto. When dealing with the security of sovereign states talking about rights is absurd. Do you honestly believe that Bush needs the 'right' to attack Iraq?

Granted there are parallels Ducky, but the Israeli's did not announce their intention to strike at Iraq on CNN. Bush has the opportunity to show the UN up for what it is.
Whereas a resolution (yet another one) condemning Israel is merely water off the ducks back; the UN is simply impotent when it comes to the States. An attack on Iraq despite howls of protest from the UN would make it clear where the real power lies. A real "who's yer daddy" moment.

[solotk]

Unfortunately whether we think it is good or bad, whether we think it's justified or not, we're going.

We're going , because we've been forced into the position, by a man whose sum diplomatic and political skill, can be written on a very small postage stamp. That no appreciation has been shown , for the "End game" or the domino effect of unsupported military action against Iraq, underlines the fact.

The brief for Op. Granby, was the liberation of Kuwait, full stop. That was the UN resolution, and that is why we were there, with the popular support of the Arab world. There seems to have been a lot of talk of "Finishing what we started" from Spamside.

We finished what we started in 1991, according to International law, and UN resolutions.

The western allies and others, have been asking for proof of Iraq's complicity in 9/11 and proof of production of WMD's for offensive purposes. Neither has been forthcoming.

However, we are told, that the "proof" will be available soon.

Bull****.

What we are going to get, is Lies, Damned Lies and statistics and Fairy stories to justify the action. As Mard Mark says , this is a case for the UN, not America.

Was I the only one that noticed the reaction of the Marines, when Rumsfeld briefed them last week?

As any serviceman will tell you, if you are not interested, or believe someone talking to you is full of crap, then you'll be severly disinterested, and, you'll show it. What I saw on that news segment, was a LOT of very not convinced Marines, while Donald tried to justify Op. Impending Doom.

Now contrast that, with the Marines when GWB senior was talking to them, about liberating a country. Or Bill Clinton briefing them on why the weight was going to fall on their shoulders, when it came to revenging attacks on US interests worldwide.Plenty of "Let's Go"

The whole thing sucks. There has been NO production of Intel, no concerted effort to get the Allies on side. Period.
Blue Eagle makes the point, that maybe it's because we can't trust our potential allies enough to show them this. Yes, I agree, if what we were showing them , was a map with lots of little arrows. We're supposed to be showing them proof that will motivate them.

The simple fact, is we can't rely on Saddam to die of natural causes, or a convenient Car accident, before we run out of oil, or our relationship with Saudi Arabia deteriorates to the point where our oil supplies are threatened.

We went into Afghanistan, to root out the terrorists ostensibly. New pipelines for American oil interests, I'm sure weren't a factor. I'm sure the Taliban didn't get a kicking, because they had granted the pipeline rights, to an Argentinian company, after telling a US conglomerate, that they had the rights.

The American public, in the latest polls, are withdrawing their support. They, as we do, wanted a war against TERRORISM. A war, where we destroyed all of the nasty little cells that cause this cancer. So far, we have seen ZIP evidence of that. Nothing at all. PIRA continues fund-raising, Saudi interests continue funding extremism, and Osamam Bin-Laden is still driving a Taxi in Birmingham.

What we have had/having , is a series of actions, that will ultimately benefit American economic interests AKA campaign fund contributors. It stinks. It stinks, because Bluppet is torn between showing he is a strong leader and a supporter of our "Special relationship" with the Spammies, and common sense.

I remain in favour of Military action being taken against suspected weapons stockpiles and production facilites, we have enough satellite intel to justify that, and I remember, the Israelis, didn't waste any time bombing his reactor project. I am utterly not in favour of Rumsfeld, and that evil know-nothing Oil company stooge Ms.Rice., and their coterie of evil bastards, who have the President they want, because they bloody well engineered him into the White House.

I am not even prepared to bet, that there won't be a terrorist spectacular on 9/11/02. I hope and pray fervently that there is not, but the world holds it's breath, because, I can absolutely guarantee, if there is an atrocity on that date, there will be a convenient neon sign that says "Iraq did it", pointing at the carnage.

First things first, let's get the inspectors in, under a UN mandate, that we WILL take military action, if they're kicked out again, and make sure they absolutely know that. I would personally, base a fair sized force in a neighbouring country,or a CV task force whilst the inspectors are there, to underline the fact we absolutey will get medieval, if UN resolutions are not followed.

But as i write this, my shoulders are once again hunced in resignation. No matter how noble we want this cauxe to be, at the bottom of it all, is Big Money interests, profit and Presidencies

P3

[I. M. Esperto]

Solok - My nuts in a thoughtshell.

Policy seems to be, admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, then lie.

Meanwhile, today's news mentions that RAF aircraft attacked a target 35 miles from Baghdad.

[Jackonicko]

Chaffers:

"Bush has the opportunity to show the UN up for what it is.
Whereas a resolution (yet another one) condemning Israel is merely water off the ducks back; the UN is simply impotent when it comes to the States."

What the UN is is the supreme arbiter of international disputes, not an American hyper power on the cusp of becoming the World's first democratic 'Rogue State'.

"An attack on Iraq despite howls of protest from the UN would make it clear where the real power lies."

Perhaps so. But do you think it would, in the long term, make the USA more or less of a tempting target for another 9/11 type terrorist attack. Moreover, under the UN charter it is clear that a State's right to use military force in self defence requires an attack to have been made against that state. Thus military action would expose the USA to international sanctions.

[solotk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237533.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2236198.stm

[The Mistress]

And there's more ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/midde_east/2238568.stm

All Arab States, the Chinese and the Russians are against a strike on Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2238303.stm

If the second article is correct then I hope the Fire Brigade go on strike for months. One they deserve a big pay increase and two it might stop our armed forces being sent to Operation Suicide and give Tony B a bit more time to think about where this is leading.

[Scud-U-Like]

Doubtless the conspiracy theorists will soon be telling us Blair is engineering a firefighters' strike so he can keep out of Iraq, without losing face with Bush.

Come to think of it, 40% is a bizarre and completely unrealistic demand!

Meanwhile, interesting article by Mo Mowlam:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,786332,00.html

[MG]

Going back a bit, reading my very old book, it seems that Operation Babylon (? - True?) was by F15 & F16s. this was on 7 Jun 81, but there had been a raid on 30 Sep 80 by F4s, just 8 days into the Iran-Iraq war. Its not know who owned the F4s for sure.

[Chaffers]

Jackonicko:

Military power is still the ultimate arbiter between states. Bush appears to understand this while others put their faith in dialogue. The UN needs the US far more than the US needs the UN, quite frankly its been an expensive thorn in their side for a very long time. It will be interesting to see whether your faith in the UN is justified. Interesting to note the cancellation of an American tycoon's 1 billion dollar gift to the UN though.

Any resolution put before the security council will immediately be vetoed you understand, and the prospect of dependant nations declaring sanctions against the US would be self defeating. For dependant nations read most of the civilised world. Its about time American injected a dose of realism into internaional relations.

Fair point about making themseles more of a target for terrorism, however I cannot foresee them dropping from the top of the terrorist target charts for decades anyway. Quite frankly Dubya is currently summoning a 5th horseman of the appocalyse to use on anyone and anything conected with 911. I feel it would be wise not to to get in his way.

[In Tor Wot]

Given the choice (not that we will) between Zimbabwe and Iraq my vote goes for both.

Zimbabwe is not part of the Empire any more and hasn't been for the past 2-3 decades. Whilst a previous post made the comment that the whites have 'made their bed' I don't think even they anticipated what is going on now. Mugabe is a murderous, vicious little git who isn't worth the cost of the bullet, however, had he been white and doing this to black farmers we wouldn't be having this discussion as we would already have been there for 2 1/2 years (when he started his latest round of pillage). It's a shame the chattering classes who shouted until action was taken in Kosovo couldn't have maintained even a modicum of consistency when it comes to the other despots around the world.

Just before everyone starts firing off about colonialism - no I didn't think it was that good an idea - just remember the scene from Life of Brian - 'So, apart from roads, water, sewerage, schools and houses; what have the Romans ever done for us?'

As for Iraq - if I started a thread on this site on the 10 Sep 01, saying that a group of fanatics were about to use airliners to slam into skyscrapers in the US and that I could stop it by attacking Afghanistan and removing the terrorist group responsible, 2 things would have happened:

1. Everyone would ask me what proof have I got that this ridiculous and speculative threat would ever happen (followed by derisive laughter and disdainful claims of survivalist nutter).

2. I would be told that there was no UN resolution and therefore I could not act.

(2a. On Sep 12 I'd be nicked by the CIA/FBI)

Call me pessimistic, but, why should I wait for Saddam to use the chemical and biological weapons that he has developed before I do something about it?
:confused:

[Jackonicko]

What is the point of international law and the rule of law if the Americans (or anyone else powerful enough) can ignore it at will?

[DuckDogers]

MG

See post in Jet Blast. Yeap it was 7 Jun 81, 15's flying cover for the 16's armed with 2 x 1000kg bombs to attack the Osiraq reactor. This was condemned by the UN, see the post for link to relevant resoltuion.

[I. M. Esperto]

Duck - You are quite correct - I was mistaken.

[solotk]

Colonel David Hackworth's opinion...

http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=Hackworth_090402.htm

[I. M. Esperto]

On Iraq, I find the following to be on target:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,786367,00.html
The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil

Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region

More...............

[Chaffers]

Jackonicko: You mentioned on another thread that you are in fact a journalist. I wish I was shocked by your ignorance but quite frankly its probably par for the course with regard to your profession.

Pray tell dear chap which court sits in judgement of a states activities? Where exactly could one view the tenets of international law as you understand them? Who is the judge, and from where is the jury assembled?

Sovereign states do have the ability to sign treaties, but it is clear to me that it is not these you are referring to.

[I. M. Esperto]

Chaffers - There are several courts of International Law. The most important is in Brussels.

http://www2.spfo.unibo.it/spolfo/INTORG.htm

There is also the Court for International Settlements, which deals with monetary matters and settlements.

Admiralty Courts also deal with International law when there is juristiction, i.e., if there is maritime property involved.

I studied them all at The Academy.

[Chaffers]

Trans-national law and conventions Esperto. I hope no-one dares throw UNCLOS at me. How Hughes must have laughed.....

[Jackonicko]

Chaffers,

You may be shocked at my 'ignorance', which you think is 'probably par for the course with regard to my profession'.

And is your razor sharp wit and incisive grasp of international relations par for the course among grubby, racist, Mancunian computer programmers, I wonder?

Perhaps this is your way of challenging me for a duel of wits, but if so I shouldn't bother, 'old chap', since I have no interest in fighting an unarmed man.

With regard to International Law there are a number of definitions, some narrow and technical, others wider and more conceptual. Thus, as an example, international trade law is strictly determined by UNCITRAL, though in the real world, rulings by the WTO implicitely have the force of international law among signatory nations.

On this basis, UN Security Council Resolutions implicitely have the force of International Law behind them. Fortunately they are also explicitely just as binding on any and all signatories of the UN charter. Handy eh?

International Law is not, you see, only restricted to rulings by the International Court, the International Court of Human Rights, or the International Law Committee, and is thus not restricted to regulations like the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States (1949), the Nürnberg Principles (1950) or the two Codes of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1950-something and 1960 something) though all of these have some bearing on the kind of action we've been discussing.

And it isn't restricted to these bodies because, according to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is defined as that body of legal rules and norms that regulates activities carried on outside the legal boundaries of states, and describes it as flowing from international conventions, international custom, (as evidence of a general practice accepted as law) and from those 'general principles of law recognized by civilized nations'. And the International Court of Justice rules on the applicability of these.

But what I was referring to was the UN Charter (one of the conventions referred to above and also accepted by 'custom') which certainly enjoys the force of international law.

May I draw your attention to Chapter VII, and especially Article 39 which states that: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” It has not so ruled on Iraq.

And before you get tiresome and point out Article 51 which states that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”, let me point out that this does not give the USA, or anyone else, carte blanche to undertake military action on a ‘precautionary basis’. Attacking an enemy because one suspects that he might be about to do something is not acceptable, as became clear following Israel’s attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak. Because Iraq has not made any 'armed attack'.

It is clear that unless a State has been directly attacked, it is the responsibility of the Security Council to take the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Thus there is such a thing as International Law, and any attack on Iraq without UN say so will breach it.

Is that clear, Chaffers, 'Old Boy'?

[Chaffers]

Dear me all that googling and you've still managed to miss the point! Must've taken you a long time though...A- for effort. I'm sure you learned a lot about trans-national law and international conventions.

What is the point of international law and the rule of law if the Americans (or anyone else powerful enough) can ignore it at will?



Try reading the question again old bean. Where is the court, and who presides? Surely if you were, as you claim, referring to the UN Charter rather than acting in a state of blithe ignorance as I suspect then you would know that any resolution harming the United State's interests would simply be vetoed?


But what I was referring to was the UN Charter (one of the conventions referred to above and also accepted by 'custom') which certainly enjoys the force of international law.

How so? The five permanent members of the security council have a veto on any action contrary to their interests. Hardly enjoying any force whatsoever would be a better phrasing. No force of international law here.

Indeed as I pointed out to you earlier in the thread the ultimate arbiter between states is still military power, the UN you appear to put such faith in is merely an expensive talking shop, just like the league of nations before it. Sorry if you dont like it.

I hate to be picky, in fact as I havn't showered today I'll allow you grubby, but I hope you can back up your claims that I am a racist. Nice to see that someone has read my profile though :D .

[Jackonicko]

Don't need to 'Google' on that, thanks, have a nice book or two.

Sentancing may require a judge and jury, the existence of law, of course, does not. Moreover, whether or not a UN security council resolution can be vetoed is beside the point.

Yes, the US may be able to prevent a resolution condemning its actions, or applying sanctions against it, but the UN will still rule on the legality or otherwise of any military action. Getting off by using the veto is a bit like getting a non-custodial sentance or like copping a plea of insanity! Well, not exactly, but you know what I mean.

I'm profoundly depressed by your attitude, Chaffers. Might is right and the UN is a powerless talking shop worthy only of your contempt.

A comment like "Putting the place back together a la Smith" displays both racism (implying that only the white man can run Zimbabwe) and a stupefying lack of regard for reality. But then what else should one expect from someone whose stated attitude is that:

"An attack on Iraq despite howls of protest from the UN would make it clear where the real power lies. A real "who's yer daddy" moment."

The really frightening thing is that you seem to approve of a state taking unilateral action in direct contravention of international public opinion and international law. Remember, America has not been Attacked, so Chapter VII, Article 39, holds good.

[SASless]

250 jet pilots in the UK Mob.....Royal Navy get involved....seems the desire to whup up on the Zims might be more from a desire to fight a midget than to stepping up to a real dustup with an opponent that can stay a few rounds longer than the midget.

As I recall the Brits got a real case of the snits when UDI was declared and turned their backs on the Rhodesians when they were fighting the communists. The American government was even more stupid for doing the same out of support to our stalwart allies the Brits. Now here we are all these years later, the communists are now in power, screwing it up big time, and the UK Forces wish to sort out Black Bob and his gang rather than take on the Iraqi's.

Go figure? Both countries are soverign nations. Neither have attacked any military, civilian, or political person, place or thing belonging to the US or UK.....and the uniformed mafia of the UK wants to invade Zimbabwe and divest that nation of a lawfully elected leader.

Don't we sound just a bit hypocritical here....you argue against the American concern with the potential harm that could come from Saddam Hussein having significant weapons of mass destruction but are ready and willing to get after Black Bob and company. What is the worst danger Black Bob can pose to the US and UK? What is the greatest risk that Saddam could pose to the US and UK?

But then, Peace was at hand in '39 , right chaps? You blew the damn bugle then....and expected everyone to come running and have complained ever since how long it took the Americans to show up.....shoe is on the other foot this time!

Why is it Jacko....that to join the US is evil....but the other way around is duty? As I recall, you felt we got our just deserts at the WTC....and a year later as the shooting war against the terrorists continues....with US troops engaged all over the world...we continue to read this drivel about how wrong the Yanks are. Maybe it will take the eqivalent of a WTC attack in London before you guys wake up to the necessity of going after the bad guys in their home turf rather than waiting for an attack on Picadilly. I sure hope it isn't a suitcase nuke or some nasty little virus or pestilence that will make your plague epidemics look like a case of the sniffles.

This may be about oil....maybe that is why we have so many of our forces stationed in the UK and Europe....but then if we were after oil only....why Jacko....you would have to defend yourselves and I don't think 250 fighter pilots could do it if for instance the Spanish get serious over Gibraltar.....I guess you could always trade Wales for Gib. I am so glad the US forces were able to assist the British forces in Afghanistan....a splendid victory there.....hope we learned something from watching the UK forces in combat.....you guys being the lead units in the fight against terrorism and all. I know you guys were tied up in the Oman and all....and couldn't spare the troops.

George W. may not be the great communicator....Lord knows he isn't....but so far he has produced the results. When you guys get your mess in Northern Ireland sorted out ,then you can tell the Yanks how to take care of business. Until then, join up, join in, or stand back and watch......but don't play cute while the fight is on. You had British citizens killed in New York too. In my view that makes you a party to the action.

If Blair and Bush make their case....you guys going to sign on for the campaign?

[The Claw]

If anyone is showing a "stupifying lack of regard for reality", then it is a bigot like yourself. Black African governments have NOT been doing a very good job thus far.

Your "racism" towards white africans is very clear.

What is truely worrying is your attempts to justify the dictators of this world. If these dictators are so good, why don't you do us all a favour and go and live with them? :mad:

[rhajaramjet]

SASless is showing just exactly why so many around the world are gunning for Americans right now. He refers to the mess in N Ireland as though it was nothing to do with the USA. For 28 years Americans completely ignored UK pleas to stop funding IRA terrorists, happy to watch as American fund-raisers' money was used to arm the IRA murderers and buy the semtex that blew up countless buildings all over the UK, and killed and maimed countless innocents, including many women and children. But as soon as a bomb exploded on US soil, all sorts of protestations erupted. The IRA could never have continued their wicked murderous campaign for so long without American support. Now, because the Arab world has finally had enough of America's outrageous support of Israel, the occupation of a neighbouring country, the oppression of a whole nation of people, the seizure of land, acts of terror, genocide and destruction, all committed with American support, American money and American one-sided stupidity. Sharon was even implicated by his own people for terrorist attrocities in Beiruit in 1980. How sad that America cannot seem to learn the lessons of history; remove Sharon, the war-mongerer, and the Middle East will suddenly be all peace and tranquility. What's that , you say? That would be interferring in the internal affairs of another state? Oh dear, pardon me . . . . . .

[Nil nos tremefacit]

:( I'm with rhajaramjet. Yet again someone from the USA criticises the UK approach in NI (been there, seen it, lost friends, got the medal, been shot at, done it). I have flown helicopter sorties having been briefed that a heavy machine gun from the States had been brought into the province to shoot down helicopters. US money, US weapon, US co-conspirators.......support for the UK from the US Government - nil, f***ing nil!!!!!!:mad: In percentage terms, the total UK citizens murdered during the 'troubles' exceeds the total US citizens killed on 9/11 (11/9). It might have taken 30 years instead of 30 minutes, but they're still dead and the Irish American community is still to blame.

How would US citizens feel if we had fund raising functions for al Qaeda attended by MPs and Government Ministers? That's how I feel every time I see some US apologist for murder toasting Gerry c**ting Adams and Martin 'I didn't fire the first shot on Bloody Sunday, honest' McGuinness.

The US attack on Iraq does not deserve support from Her Majesty's Government. When we were fighting the war on terrorism the US gave us no support whatsoever and I am 100% convinced that had 9/11 (11/9) taken place in Canary Wharf (or Manchester or Birmingham) the US would not have offered us one ha'p'orth of support. When I was a teenager 29 young people were killed in 2 bars in Birmingham - I don't recall the US offering to help track down the IRA killers. Nah, the bast*rds were drinking Boston dry to celebrate another IRA 'victory'!!!!!! (A friend of mine's brother, aged 19, had his nylon socks melted into his feet and has been scarred ever since.)

The US picked the war with the Arab extremists by providing the arms and ammunition used to kill Arab moderates and extremists, men, women and children alike. The US should look at it's own actions before condemning others (it could save 3 billion dollars in annual overseas aid into the bargain).

On an earlier point - Mugabe's government was not elected under the stringent terms that the OSCE, the world's expert at free and fair elections, would consider proper. Then again, I'm not convinced that George Bush's election was either....

[solotk]

"Maybe it will take the eqivalent of a WTC attack in London before you guys wake up to the necessity of going after the bad guys in their home turf rather than waiting for an attack on Picadilly. "

Remind me again SASless , just how many Iraqis were on the 9/11 flights. Remind us again, just who financed Osama Bin Laden and his networks.

Don't you f*****g dare to preach to us, about "Not being able to sort out the Irish problem"

It was made all the more harder , by your f******g once a year Irishmen on that side of the pond, pouring money into Gerryboys coffers, and singing rebel songs about the struggles, with a little bit of rejoicing in their hearts, everytime a Brit Squaddie, who DIDN'T want to be there, got killed or injured,including a friend of mine.

We want an easy victory? Get a life. We're talking about a British citizens, Black and White threatened by a dictator, as well as the 6,000,000 zimbabweans set to starve. Go read the news on BBC.co.uk instead of the crap that passes for news there. I seem to remember the last time America wanted help in the region, Britain was right there. underfunded, undermanned, under equipped, but we were there. It's not the size of the dog in the fight etc.

I'm sorry if everyone isn't convinced about the arguements for going into Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, if Saddam wanted to attack the states, he doesn't need ICBM's to do it. We are however, very convinced, by and large, that people who should enjoy the protection of our government, need us now.

Or should we cut to the chase, and finger who these missiles really threaten in the region? The tail wags the dog.

Rest assured, if Saddam attacks us, we will make his country glow in the dark. Period.

However, in the more immediate future, there is a war against terrorism to be fought. Your president appears to have forgotten that.

Where is Osama Bin-Laden? Good men have died looking for him, but all of a sudden, he's off the media agenda. Sorry, not all of a sudden, he has been for some time, whilst this adventure to Iraq is brewing, and even before that.

I see you fell back on the old arguement, quintessentially, we saved your butts in WW2.

Yes, you did, and we had to pay for it too, and are still bloody paying, it wasn't free, and by 1941, and certainly after El-Alamein, we were holding are own. We dealt with Rommel in Africa, before you got involved.

What results has Dubya produced, Afghanistan? Let me make you understand something, the REAL fight in that territory is just beginning.

250 Pilots? Well pardon us all to hell for having small, volunteer forces, and the best Military pilots in the world today.

Take the blinkers off. No one here said they wouldn't fight in Iraq. WE would like the proof and just cause. That is all.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Chaffers]

Last time I looked we were all on the same side, no need to bring N. Ireland or the Second World War into it dudes.

Still banging on with your anti American crap are you Jacko? Whacko Jacko perhaps? You clearly have no idea about International Politics. This fairy tale you tell about regarding customs in International Politics (which you still jokingly think is some form of law) sounds like a bedtime story for worried beta-males who cant sleep without thinking the world is a nice safe place to me. Last time I checked airstrikes have already been launched against Iraq with no court proceedings being brought against the States, nor likely to :D . No doubt you think Faeries live at the bottom of your garden, or more likely your mother's garden too.

As for wanting a stable, corruption free, executive in Zimbabwe, a la Smith I fail to see how this shows me to be a racist. I expect a grovelling apology by return of mail :) .

Really old bean resorting to namecalling like that is usualy indicative of those lefty, limp wristed, bleeding heart liberals with delusions of adequacy who cant hold their own in an intelligent debate. I hope you don't wish us to see you in such a light.....

Personally I think you owe any American's reading this thread, and your other diatribes, an appology as well. First for all your petty namecalling, secondly for branding our greatest ally a 'rogue state' and thirdly for letting them think that anyone else on this Isle is as wet as you.

[Jackonicko]

SASless: Hitler could have been defeated (slowly) without US assistance, but not without the communists who you obviously hate and fear. The USA’s record in joining WWII is a matter for shame, redeemed only by the astonishing bravery of those Americans who joined the fight before their Government, and who fought for what was right, rather than in defence of self interest. And yes, I’d be the first to acknowledge that they represented American spirit (then and now) more than the cynical and self interested Government of the day.

There’s nothing ‘lawfully elected’ about Mugabe. The man is a tyrant and a dictator who has illegally held on to power through corruption and intimidation. The tragedy is that our focus on ‘white farmers’ makes our opposition to him seem self interested and semi-Colonial whereas he deserves our contempt and opposition for what he is doing to the majority black population.

In 1939 the USA failed to respond to actual military attacks by Germany on Poland, France, the Low Countries, Scandinavia, Yugoslavia, Greece and the UK, and entered the war only after Pearl Harbour. To compare then with now is facile, since Saddam has attacked no-one.

Since you accuse me directly of saying that to “join the US is evil. ....but the other way around is duty” I must respond. I say no such thing. I say that a US attack on Iraq without UN approval is illegal, and that we should not join it. I’m not calling for military action against Zim, so don’t expect the US to hear any call. The crux of my argument is that the US must show itself to be our friend and ally if we are to join an illegal attack, and must compromise on Kyoto, agricultural subsidies, free trade and Israel – all of which are the morally correct things for the US to do anyway, and the things which one would expect from the USA’s record and reputation.

Your cheap shots about UK participation in Afghanistan are disgraceful and inaccurate. UK tankers and recce assets were invaluable force enablers, while UKSF undertook many of the most dangerous tasks, while in other joint operations, UK forces have often more than carried their weight.

As a matter of fact, we now have peace (an uneasy peace, but peace) in Northern Ireland, and fought successful campaigns against terrorists in Cyprus, Malaya and elsewhere, so perhaps our record against terrorism warrants some respect. Certainly our success in Malaya contrasts withyour own record in South East Asia.

Why are you linking 9/11 (it’s actually 11/9 on a UK-based board, by the way!) with attacks on Iraq. There is not one iota of evidence of Iraqi involvement in those attacks, so whether or not UK citizens died at the WTC is irrelevant if we’re talking about Iraq.

Claw,

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I betray our volk (oops people) too, I expect? Demonstrate my racism to white Africans. I have endlessly said that they have received a bum deal and have only ever said that the fate of black Zimbabweans has been even worse, and that for white Europe to over-concentrate on white Zimbabweans is unwise, and invites exactly the response we’ve had from Mugabe and other African leaders.

Which dictators have I ‘justified’? One example per dictator, please.

Chaffers,

Anti Bush, yes. Anti-American, no. You may ignore International Law, but I see that even Shrub is concerned enough about it to want a UN resolution (if possible) to legitimise any attack against Iraq.

“Last time you checked airstrikes had already been launched against Iraq with no court proceedings being brought against the States” well that’s because they are judged to be a proportionate response to Iraqi fire against allied aircraft, and this has become accepted by ‘custom’. Sorry.

To seriously suggest the return of a white, racist autocracy in Zimbabwe in place of a flawed black democracy makes you either stupid or a racist. Own up to stupid and you can have the prettiest apology for the racist jibe. Your choice.

On the other hand, by bringing up the status of the Fairies at the bottom of my parents’ garden you owe me an apology for insensitivity and another to my father, since my mother shuffled off this mortal coil some 17 years ago.

You were generous enough to give me an A for effort on my research on International Law, and I wish I could reciprocate. Unfortunately, you can’t even look back on the Americans thread far enough to see that I made two references to rogue states.

1) you need to bide by civilised norms, and kow-towing to the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment mereley marks you out as a 'rogue state'. NOTE the inverted commas.

2) Most of those posting on these forums (myself included) are right-of-centre, pro-military people who would be expected to be pro-American and who would support the use of military action where there is UN Security Council approval, OR where there is compelling evidence, or in self defence. While many of us found the election of GW Bush surprising (and surprisingly corrupt-looking) and while many of us would have rather seen McCain or even Gore at the helm, we do not all hold with the tabloid view of him as being a complete intellectual pygmy. Indeed his business success and background as an ANG fast jet pilot would make me think that he must be much sharper than his image would suggest. I'm certainly inclined to view him as being more honest and 'decent' than Clinton, though I would say that under Clinton's more statesmanlike leadership, America was less widely hated. But the fact that so many moderate, normally pro American people express reservations about US policy and the current US administration ought to worry you. And to many people the US is starting to look like a rogue state, happy to operate in contravention of international law and civilised norms in order to pursue its own narrow sectional self interests. THAT is "starting to LOOK LIKE", "to many people"

Now if that marks me out as some kind of crazed anti-American, consider some other random quotes from the same thread:

“America's status and reputation has been built on a moral and courageous foreign policy in the past, and a willingness to do what's right, not only what's right for the narrow sectional interests of the USA itself. America's friends are saddened to see the current regime doing so much to undermine the nation's proud past.”

OR

“Why are Iowa farmers, the US Jewish lobby and the fossil fuel lobby so much more important than the rest of the planet, and why is arguably the World's most morally upright democracy allowing them to stand between it and doing the right thing?”

OR

“(I) just think it's enormously dangerous (and very sad) for the US to be becoming perceived as a bully, and to be perceived as being self interested and partial. That's not how I have been used to seeing the USA at all. But the complete lack of understanding about what it should do (morally and practically) to keep its allies on side is scary.”

If any Americans reading this thread think that I have anything but admiration and warmth for them as a nation, I really am sorry. I do realise that some may feel that an attack on their Government is an attack on them, but that's not the case. They truly are lions, and I'm not even hostile enough to say that they are led by a donkey.

I am a right-of-centre wet Tory by inclination, and have often been accused of being ‘a bit right wing’ by many liberal friends (whose idealism I respect and envy). Thus to be called a “lefty, limp wristed, bleeding heart liberal” (not that you’d resort to “petty namecalling”) by a low-down, nasty, scrophulous little right wing $hit like you is a compliment, and is taken as such. Your inability to grasp the fundamentals of the UN mark you as being singularly dim, so I’m trying to use language you’ll understand.

[Chaffers]

I clearly got wet and beta-male right at least nubbins. Its perfectly obvious that you are trying to bore the entire forum to death with your irritating verbosity and naivety; I'd rather talk about girls bottoms myself.

As for being unable to grasp the fundamentals of the UN, give me strength. Geez I've even been to a 3 day conference modelling the UN with rules, committees and arsewipes with too much to say (deja vu) all mirroring that of the original. Thank god for The Mill in Cambridge, saved some psitticine cuthbert from plenty of dents I reckon. My contempt is certainly well deserved, and exceptionally well informed.

Your parents have my deepest sympathies.

[The Claw]

"white Europe to over-concentrate on white Zimbabweans....invites exactly the responce we've had from Mugabe." You support Mugabe, and you continue to attempt to make excuses for his actions. You make comments like "Volk", which proves your racism, and lack of consideration of the whites in Africa.

If we "over-concentrate" on whites, then how did Mugabe come to power? What about Sierra Leone or Ethiopia?

Clearly you haven't a clue about Africa, the problem stems from NOT concentrating on minorities in Africa. :eek:

[Jackonicko]

Claw,

Demonstrate this supposed racism (referring to Volk doesn't - it's an ironic reference to all the "help them they are our people" comments on this thread). Detail my support for dictators. Or shut up.

Chaffers,

Ooh you're a big, butch clever boy. In between your student debating clubs and talking about bottoms I'm surprised you found time to grow up.....

I'm sorry about the verbose reply, but I didn't want you making more over selective quotes in order to make further inaccurate assertions about my supposed anti-Americanism, and did want to point out how current small scale raids differ (in law) to what is now proposed.

Did you see the Telegraph Yesterday?

'Bush wants PM to lead drive for new UN resolution'. Even George Dubya can see the point!

[PercyDragon]

SASless

It's not the Communists who are screwing up Africa.. it's the Blacks.

[Chaffers]

<serious>

Getting back to my original point it would appear that The US / UK alliance is perfectly willing to go ahead without pandering to the UN. To me it looks as though the neo-institutionalists have failed at the first hurdle. Whilst the intervention in Bosnia was touted as being of a humanitarian nature and backed up by UN resolutions, despite flouting everything NATO stood for and humiliating the Russians, the first time that power politics come into play the UN with its norms and ideals is circumvented.

Quite what this means is unclear, no doubt should any of the major powers require justificaion for military intervention in the future then UN resolutions shall appear as manner from heaven. However it is obvious that the 'who's yer daddy' question has been answered and I doubt we shall see any state foolish enough to risk the wrath of the States by opposing its actions too strongly.

Quite where this leaves Zimbabwe is problematic. By ignoring the norms regarding Iraq we would leave ourselves hugely open to cries of hiprocrasy should we even seek world approval (through the UN) for action in Zimbabwe. I find it unlikely that we would risk the embarrassment, even should our executive have the balls to do a thing about it. In the past calling in a few favours from trusted allies who also have interests in the region would be an option.
Indeed with Zimbabweans of Indian descent suffering the same fate as whites they may have been inclined (with enough horsetrading) to act themselves with our tacit support, thus negating claims of colonialism or racism. However since the 'enlightened' diplomacy of that ****wit Cook I imagine they (or anyone else of a similar bent) are more inclined to watch our discomfort with pleasure.

</serious>

<Whacko Jacko>

Hmm so obviously you were not attempting to infer that Claw was a racist or in some way connected with Hitler when you used the word volk? I see.
Quite frankly for a supposed journo your literary mediocrity is astounding. Every second post is a 7000 word explanation of what has gone before, trying to convince other posters that they misinterpreted the tone or insinuations within. Evidently not a very good journo then.

As for you not being anti American, don't make me laugh. This is the same Whacko Jacko that posted ON sept 11th that we should feel sorry for the Palestinians instead? Not a word of condolence or sympathy, quite the opposite in fact. To summarise the tone of that post, and I've heard it from a depressing number of ignorant twats, you deserved it and I'm glad. ****.

Heres a few more of your anti-Americanisms.

But ugly as sin, vulgar and crass means good looking in the USA

No, not blackmail. And certainly not blackmail in the "You're either for us or against us" line pushed out by the State Department following 9/11 to nations like Pakistan

But they won't listen. Why should they listen to anyone? They are America, and see themselves as being entitled to being above the law

The inability of ordinary Americans (and 'Shrub') to realise the importance of keeping allies on side

Am I misinterpreting you? I doubt it. I posted, on another thread, an opology to you for just that and have had nothing but abuse since.

Did you see the Telegraph today? "Tony Blair and President George W Bush have agreed to topple Saddam Hussein by military means even if the United Nations does not pass a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force.".

</Wacko Jacko>

[solotk]

Can I assume Chaffers, that when the balloon goes up, you'll be joining us on Operation Granby II?

I can only assume, by your very pro USA-UK and to hell with world opinion, let's go to war now stance, that you'll want to come and join me and my Platoon in a hot sweaty Warrior.

It will be lots of fun, and we will be preserving world peace of course, by pre-emptively striking a madman with Nuclear weapons and loads of Chemical stuff. Or so we are told, by the "Institute for Strategic Studies" lolol0ololol

I shouldn't imagine it will be very dangerous, especially if we put fcuk off big Orange recognition panels and Union Jacks on the top, just to make sure the spams don't Maverick us. Oh , what's that you say, it didn't work last time?

No it didn't.

Now, I'm all in favour of Desktop Generals, and Saturday Afternoon Tacticians arguing the toss for invasion of Saddam. It is after all, a free country. But your weasly little words, showing how clever you are at debate, won't matter a tiny little toss, when it's 110 degrees in the shade, and the other side are thinking of perfumed virgins, and can't wait to meet them, while you wonder if your rifle is going to work in the heat, and you pray your arty doesn't blow up, and The RAF have enough fuel and munitions to make a difference.

And in between them, and you is people like us and 250 (allegedly) fast jet pilots

Just to remind you , there are more than just WHITE farmers here. There are more than just WHITE people with British passports in Zimbabwe, but I have yet to see a comment on that, from you, or other posters of your ilk.

When we lift these people, and when the BRITISH ARMED FORCES, goes in, and gets it's own, White, Black, Indian, Chinese you can wave your Union Jacks, and tell all in earshot...."Damn, I wish I was with you"..... However, I've no doubt you'll temper that statement with "But it's such a shame we had to risk our brave boys lifting darkies as well""

Your blind, rascist armchair patriotism makes me sick. Correction F*****G sick

I find it absolutely amazing, that the people dragging us into a war, have NOT got the first idea of what war means.

Dubya? - 200+ Missions over Texas
Blair - Active CND'er

Voices urging moderation and careful evaluation?

General Sir Michael Rose - SAS
Colin Powell - nuff said.

Any fool can go to war Chaffers, even you. But holding what you've gained, and winning the peace are even more important.

I have yet to hear Bluppet tell us , what is going to happen in Iraq after Saddam is deposed. I may have been ignoring the news, but I distinctly don't remember an after battle plan.

Oh yes, Iraq will need rebuilding...... Of course, nice fat contracts for spammy companies, that may or may not have funded his rise to power, and all that oil....... yipee.

If and when we go into Iraq, we better have 2 exit plans, one, dealing with leaving a secure government in place. The second, if we have to get out in a real hurry.

Go on Chaffers, get back to your computer screen for another game of Operation Flashpoint, it's just like the real thing, except there isn't a politician shafting you with gash equipment, gash accomodation, and lies.

[Jackonicko]

Chaffers,

Solotk has said it better than I could, you poisonous little creep. (Solotk, may I make it clear that while I deplore the use of force in these specific circumstances I have nothing but respect and gratitude to those who will be called upon to conduct any such operations?)

Just two things.

1) You accuse me of being: "the same Whacko Jacko that posted ON sept 11th that we should feel sorry for the Palestinians instead? Not a word of condolence or sympathy, quite the opposite in fact."

Whacko Jacko! How jolly amusing and original. I laughed until I didn't. Now we've had our little joke, do go and read the thread. There was plenty of sympathy for the 9/11 victims (which I implicitly endorsed) and my point was that we should PERHAPS also spare some sympathy for Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF/AF AS WELL. AS WELL. Get it?

So don't misquote me, you '****', and don't selectively quote me out of context to try and prove that I'm anti-American. It's getting tedious.

2) You aver that: "Quite frankly for a supposed journo your literary mediocrity is astounding".

And I'm supposed to give a toss about your half baked opinions as to my work (which you don't know and haven't read)? I can tell you that I do not have any literary pretensions, however, since I write fact and opinion, not literary fiction. Mediocrity pays the bills very nicely, I must say.

But in fairness, before criticising me on literary grounds you might like to sharpen up your own poor punctuation, and I think perhaps that you should learn phrases like 'Manna from Heaven' and learn to avoid simple spelling mistakes like 'hiprocrasy' (instead of 'hypocrisy').

You keep using the extraordinary phrase "Who's Your Daddy?"

Is this perhaps over-compensation for the fact that you haven't the faintest clue who yours was? :D

[The Claw]

Your whole tone sucks, so I suggest that you shut up. Join the real world for once.

Solotk My hero, I too have been to war and got the medal so please don't tell me about war. All along I have mentioned minorities. I've also done work with NGO's. I would be more than willing to go into Zimbabwe. Going in for the right reasons would make a nice change and now is the right time.

[Jackonicko]

Claw,

You still can't demonstrate my supposed racism (referring to Volk doesn't - it's an ironic reference to all the "help them they are our people" comments on this thread).

You still haven't detailed my support for dictators.

So now do so or shut the £*** up.

[The Claw]

You have more than demonstrated your racism, even though you lack the guts to say it straight out, or is the utter cr@p you speak about born of ignorance? :mad:

[Chaffers]

Now now chaps, I'm all for a decent flame war but the signal to noise ratio on this thread appears to be 0. Take it to emails if you're desperate for a reach-around....