PDA

View Full Version : World War Three


Anthony Carn
7th Nov 2002, 22:19
Looks as if Bush is about to get the all clear !

World War Three ? :confused:

tony draper
7th Nov 2002, 22:27
Don't think so nobody else is gonna play but the Yanks and us.
Bet they all send camera teams though. ;)

ORAC
7th Nov 2002, 22:45
What if you held a war and nobody came....

CoodaShooda
7th Nov 2002, 22:47
You'd have a pretty ordinary B grade movie?

Unwell_Raptor
7th Nov 2002, 22:58
America was late for the last two wars so Dubya wants to be first in line for this one.

AerBabe
7th Nov 2002, 23:03
How many people/countries does it take to make a war? :confused:

ORAC
7th Nov 2002, 23:34
LA Times editorial:

"...........Now, of course, having won the Congress, Bush has to deliver. Item No. 1 is the Iraq war.

In recent days, various big guns on the right have boomed out their displeasure at American Middle East policy, questioning whether Bush is serious about getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

A Nov. 1 Washington Post column by Charles Krauthammer was headlined "Don't Go Wobbly." Krauthammer demanded that Bush bypass the go-slow pleading of Secretary of State Colin Powell and get on with the Iraq-attacking.

Bush probably will do just that. Yes, he has horsed around with the United Nations for two months, but the Pentagon needed that time anyway to put its forces into position.

To be sure, most American allies are still not reconciled to an Iraq operation, but they didn't vote on Tuesday; the American people voted.

Asked to give Bush a mandate for military action, Americans gave him one, much to the surprise of Washington pundits. Now it should be no surprise what Bush does next.

tony draper
7th Nov 2002, 23:46
I don't know why we are involving the Americans, we could take care of Iraq ourselves, we got all them Trident 2's just sitting there,doing nothing.
We may as well use em up before the EU tells us to get rid of them because they are nasty. ;)

Notso Fantastic
7th Nov 2002, 23:56
But they want Trident 2s don't they? Iraqi Airways used to have 'em. Nobody else does. Somewhere in the world there's about 70 of the damn things kicking around. One in the BA Engineering base.......69. Whatever became of them? How did they get them into those submarines too? I know their wings were cracked- obviously from folding them up into those tubes.

tony draper
8th Nov 2002, 00:06
On second thoughts I think we should hang onto a few.
The French , need I say more. ;)

Training Risky
8th Nov 2002, 00:07
KRAUTHAMMER? Is that a real name? Like Eagleburger?

Joke:

On hearing the results of the US Senate elections, Abdul the Iraqi air force pilot screams and says to his mates: " Remember what I did the last time they came over here to bomb us?"
Others: "No. What was that?"
Abdul: "Iran, as fast as I could fly!"

ORAC
8th Nov 2002, 21:49
LA Times:

Speedy Military Ships Move Into Place

WASHINGTON -- Three of the Pentagon's fastest cargo ships have left U.S. shores for Southwest Asian ports, carrying weapons and supplies that would be critical for any move against Iraq, defense officials said Thursday.

Two of the ships, the Bob Hope and the Fisher, are carrying state-of-the-art portable bridges capable of moving large numbers of troops and heavy equipment across the Euphrates River quickly. The other, the Bellatrix, a smaller ship that travels even faster, left San Diego with a vast array of electronics, survival equipment, vehicles and supplies in its holds to support a Marine Corps expeditionary headquarters unit deploying this week from Camp Pendleton to the Persian Gulf.

The Bob Hope passed through the Suez Canal today. The Fisher is expected to do so in a few days...........

Military officials also said this week that they had chartered two commercial vessels to move ammunition and a tank (sic) from Germany to the Gulf............

The bridging equipment and tankers are for use by the Army's 34th Mechanized Infantry Division, according to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

He would not confirm whether elements of the division had been ordered to deploy to the Middle East from their base at Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, Ga...............

Seven more of the new ships and six more fast sealift ships are berthed at U.S. ports. The ships are prepped to be ready to leave for anywhere in the world within four days of receiving orders.

WhatsaLizad?
8th Nov 2002, 23:48
Until we ( us Yanks, you Brits) get the Chinese trained and supplied to rule the world, its up to us to do it.

I'll be more than happy to let the French team up with the Italians to do the job. :D

America was late for the last two wars so Dubya wants to be first in line for this one. Unwell_Raptor


Please forgive us,

After getting sucked into your first "dysfunctional, inbred Royal family fued" the first time, we were a little late for "Germans behaving badly II" after witnessing the gutless Brit/French capitulation by ole' Neville.

solotk
9th Nov 2002, 10:29
Poor old Neville, always reviled and named Gutless...

When he signed the "Peace in our time " document, he already knew it wasn't fit to wipe his ass with. But , he did the only thing he could do at that time, he BOUGHT TIME. Time for the Air Force to be re-equipped with the new monoplane fighters, time to expand Bomber command. Time to expand the Navy and the Territorial Army. So, by 1939, at least we stood a fair chance.

Sorry to deliver a history lesson, but the French jacked, not us.

Oh, and before I get another "Lend lease saved your ass buddy" diatribe, from the colonial element.....

Yes it did, and it cost us ports and possesions and a shedload of money, as philantropic US manufacturers, made sure we paid top dollar in Gold certainly up until Dec.1941, when you arrived late for the party, as usual. Even after we started receiving credits, the cost was still unsubsidised, and we had to give it all back or destroy it. Oh, and I believe we're still paying for it now.

So, thanks for all the help bailing us out in WW2.

So I presume Bush is starting a war to make sure you arrive first?

BarryMonday
9th Nov 2002, 11:35
Nice of the press to release all the details about ship and troop movements. Even if Iraq don't have any ability to act on it there are others who possibly could?

foghorn
9th Nov 2002, 13:33
solotk,

Actually, we made the final payment on our US debts in the eighties, unlike the French who reneged on their war debts in the sixties when de Gaulle was in power, but still went on happily receiving Marshall aid from the US; something the UK, as a victorious power, didn't get. We just quietly got on with rebuilding our shattered country while repaying our debts to the US, with barely a 'Thank You' for liberating some countries on the continent, nor from those tardy 'super'powers for holding out on our own for 2 years against the Nazi war machine whilst they prevaricated or made perfidious pacts with the Nazis.

Indeed the UK ambassador to France received a letter a couple of years ago from a teenage French girl asking what the UK did in World War II - no doubt in modern history she was well taught with Gaullist revisionism in school and US/Hollywood revisionism at the Cinema :mad: :mad: :mad: - as if all those people died for nothing on Juno and Sword, and afterwards.

ORAC
9th Nov 2002, 18:08
Not quite Foghorn, but almost, by the end 2006 we'll have repaid for every red cent we owe........

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

House of Commons:- War Debts

Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

(1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War;

(2) what total payments have been made to meet World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries; what debts remain unpaid; and what the schedule is of future payments to the UK;

(3) what the level is of First World War debt owed by the United Kingdom to the United States of America; in what year repayments were last made to the USA; and what plans he has to (a) pay off the debt and (b) cancel liability to this debt;

(4) what outstanding schedule of payments the United Kingdom Government will make to the USA in respect of World War II debt; and what the date is of the final payment;

(5) what loans and other financial liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom with the United States of America for World War II (a) have been paid and (b) are outstanding;

(6) what recent representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the USA for the cancellation of (a) World War I and (b) World War II debts and lend-lease loans.


Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows.

First World War debt

At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around 850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931 President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.

At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United states (around 866 million).

Second World War debt

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of 1,075 million in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of 930 million; and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of 145 million, which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to deferre payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of 243,573,154 was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend in 1945.

All World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries have either been repaid or settlements have been agreed with the countries concerned. Details are provided in the Finance Accounts of the United Kingdom and their successor the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for the financial years 194546 to 198788 and the following Command Papers:

China CM 198;
Czechoslovakia Cmd 7798 and Cmnds 55, 56 and 2280;
France Cmnd 6988;
Netherlands Cmd 7358;
Poland Cmd 6864 and 7148 and Cmnd 1057;
Turkey Cmds 6165 and 9120; and
USSR Cmd 7297.

Cathar
9th Nov 2002, 21:36
"On second thoughts I think we should hang onto a few.
The French , need I say more. "

The geordies might be a better reason than the French.

StbdD
10th Nov 2002, 03:27
Reference Chamberlain's actions or lack thereof; one might accept the proposition that the UK was just buying time for rearmament and support of it's allies if a likewise acceptance that the US was doing the same is proffered.

That , of course, would never do. ;)

ZK-NSJ
10th Nov 2002, 09:07
for once someone else is involved, its normally england gettin in the pooh, with the yanks and us colonials saving thier bacon

DuckDogers
10th Nov 2002, 12:35
Best not mention the rugby then ZK?

Well the First World War was a classic example. Why did those from the commonwealth get involved? Did they gain anything from it? New policy only, get involved if you have to or get involved because the arse of a PM wants you to. Any candidates here? Thought so!

foghorn
10th Nov 2002, 19:32
ZK

Personally I thought that in WW2 we all went to the rescue of Poland and France etc, not 'england getting in the poo'.

So would you rather the UK had just stood by in 1939 and let all of Europe disappear under the Nazi jackboot? Would you rather the Kiwis had sat smugly in the South Pacific worrying your sheep than gone off fighting for freedom?

That's the sort of talk I 've heard from Yanks quite often but never before from a Kiwi. I know that Helen has been been cutting your education budget down there in Godzone, but surely history is not that badly taught???

WhatsaLizad?
11th Nov 2002, 01:27
solotk,

To the credit of old Neville, he was playing a weak hand.

Nevilles problem was in part to a Royal inbreeding program resulting in WWI which set the stage for Oktoberfest in Paris in the 1940's.

Still the facts were that the Brits still hadn't paid for WWI, they were broke with little to trade in the late 1930's, and the memories of over 100,000 dead 3000 miles away ,were still fresh in the minds of Americans. Now we were late getting into the game, ( yes I know my history, I am sure there is a French school textbook blaming the fall of France on the Brits failure to provide Spitfires) , but with a hundreds of thousands of American dead and wounded in your area, the petty bitching gets a little tough to take sometimes, especially when learning that your WWII bill isn't even paid yet. Your not alone, I've seen the crying and bitching from South Koreans, the Chinese (I'm sure we might even get a Nanking resident to criticise our victory over Japan). Look around the world at the dead and wounded American has sustained in wars and the autonomy and standard of living those countries have compared to those we didn't win like Viet Nam and North Korea.

The Brits did (and do) have balls in my book. It was an insult to use the French in the same line as the Brits. It is an insult to think you guys didn't do any fighting and sat around watching us die like....mmmmm...the Saudis?


Cheers

Paterbrat
12th Nov 2002, 00:09
The problem lies with the fact that a large number of people still have not grasped the fact that the US can and will act if Saddam is not going to play ball. What a lot of people can't seem to grasp is that he is delusional and totaly incapable of grasping reality and in all likelehood will not comply. He is going down it's just a question of how many others he will take with him and my personal belief is, as many as possible.
Oh I do hate being a killjoy, but thems appear to be the facts from where I am looking at it.

ORAC
12th Nov 2002, 00:26
Staggering. Everyone thought they'd accept the UN resolution and then try and work around it. It looks like they're going to flatly reject it.

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2439609.stm) - Monday, 11 November:

Iraqis attack UN resolution

Key Iraqi parliamentary officials have said the country's leadership should reject the tough new United Nations resolution on weapons inspections.

Opening a special parliamentary debate on the UN Security Council resolution, the assembly's speaker Saadun Hammadi said the document was unacceptable and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

In another defiant speech, Salim al-Koubaisi, head of the Iraqi parliament's foreign relations committee, said the committee "advises ... the rejection of Security Council Resolution 1441".

The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the strong condemnation of the UN resolution was surprising, as it had been assumed that parliament would reluctantly accept it.........

Iraq has until Friday to agree to the resolution, which says Baghdad must allow unhindered access to suspected weapon sites or face "serious consequences".

But Mr Hammadi said it was "full of lies" and "paves the way for aggression rather than for peace". "The ill intentions in this resolution are flagrant and loud in ignoring all the work that has been achieved in past years," he said. The session - shown live on Iraqi satellite television - will continue on Tuesday morning, Mr Hammadi told reporters.

He said deputies would vote on a motion to reject the UN text and leave the final decision to President Saddam Hussein. But he did not say if voting would take place on Tuesday.......

Techman
12th Nov 2002, 04:28
Will it make any difference whatever Iraq decides to do.

Anthony Carn
12th Nov 2002, 09:22
It occurs to me that Sadman will have learnt from his previous attempt, when he invaded Kuwait. His mistakes during that conflict have been analysed by Western experts and published freely; There can be no doubt that he has studied that analysis and thought long and hard about his next meeting with "the Western infidels".

His big chance will be to recruit other Middle Eastern nations to a common cause; The surest way to do that is to drag Israel, guns blazing, atomic weapons primed, into any conflict. He nearly succeeded last time !

I'm no expert on such matters, but that's my opinion. :)

(I asked the thread's original question because I'm no expert)

cargosales
12th Nov 2002, 09:39
Good point AC

If the other countries in the Middle East aren't going to join the party, Dubya is going to have to sit on the Israelis pretty damn hard and ensure they don't get involved in any way. That really could kick off WW III !!

(As an interesting aside, at Cranditz in the early eighties, our war studies lecturers were confidently predicting that the next global conflict would start not in Central Europe but in the Middle East)

CS

Kermit 180
12th Nov 2002, 09:56
Foghorn, ZK had a point, although it was somewhat badly written. The First World War cost NZ 10% of its entire population, mostly in Europe and Galipolli. The Second World War involved Kiwis because in the words of our PM at the time "Where Britain Stands We Stand, Where Briatin Goes we Go". It was loyalty to the 'motherland' that led NZers to believe it was a worthy cause to sacrifice so many of our young men in the fight against Nazism. Not because Poland was invaded. The memories of the first war were still vivid.

As for sitting smugly in the south Pacific with our sheep, it would be prudent for you to remember that while a large percentage of our fighting men were fighting battles in Crete, Greece, North Africa and in Europe, our country was under threat from Japanese invasion. And because of that we had to rely on American help to prevent them from doing so. So in my opinion Great Britain should be grateful for the contribution made by NZ and Australia and other British Dominions and Commonwealth countries. As we were thankful to America for helping us then, Im sure the world will someday be grateful for having had America as its 'policeman' against tyranny.

Kerms

Paterbrat
12th Nov 2002, 23:30
Again, just a feeling but I don't think that there will be too much sitting on the Israelis. They are pretty much striking back at will now and nobody is saying too much.
I think that it is finaly sinking in that the world in general is not sympathising with the suicide bombers and it is reluctantly being accepted by the world that they can and will be hunted down and obliterated.
The gloves have come off and fire is being fought with fire, and surprise surprise, you know what they don't like it at all!!!

Wino
13th Nov 2002, 05:27
It also seams to be working.
The carnage is far less in Israel then during the periods of restraint.

Cheers
Wino

foghorn
13th Nov 2002, 13:45
Kermit

With my sheep-related comments I was just trying to point out how silly ZK's 'England getting in the poo' comments were. As I was directly asking ZK a hypothetical question, albeit flippantly, and also given that I in no way belittled NZ's contribution to WWII, I don't see what it is prudent for me to remember:confused:

In just the same way that NZ didn't have to come to fight in the European/North African theatre, we didn't have to nearly destroy ourselves being the last bastion of the free world in Europe you know - Hitler was quite happy well into the war with the idea of an independent Britain controlling an independent British Empire (less the handful of former German colonies which were to be made a part of any peace settlement).

I can assure you that the people in the UK are thankful for the actions of the US and the Commonwealth countries in the war, and we do not in any way belittle their contribution. I also hope in a reciprocal way the people in NZ are thankful in turn for UK efforts to protect them - the 'forgotten front' - the UK/Indian campaign in Burma, which was by far the largest ground theatre in the war against Japan which tied up many Japanese troops that could have instead been occupying Australasia.

Paterbrat
13th Nov 2002, 22:53
It would seem to me that the main question is what is going to happen? not who won WW II.

SpinSpinSugar
14th Nov 2002, 13:41
"I don't know what weapons World War Three will be fought with, but World War four will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein