View Poll Results: Do we support USA in Iraq or Sort out Mugabe in Zimbabwe
Yes support USA
15
11.72%
No Sort out Mugabe
113
88.28%
Voters: 128. This poll is closed
IRAQ or ZIMBABWE
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...786332,00.html
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...786332,00.html
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 5th Sep 2002 at 14:46.
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.
Over 1000 posts and I bought this Personal Title to try and tell my mother the embarrassing news that I am a closet Jazz fan.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to get the thread back on track.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Iraq, I find the following to be on target:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comme...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...............
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comme...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...............
Over 1000 posts and I bought this Personal Title to try and tell my mother the embarrassing news that I am a closet Jazz fan.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Over 1000 posts and I bought this Personal Title to try and tell my mother the embarrassing news that I am a closet Jazz fan.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trans-national law and conventions Esperto. I hope no-one dares throw UNCLOS at me. How Hughes must have laughed.....
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'?
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'?
Over 1000 posts and I bought this Personal Title to try and tell my mother the embarrassing news that I am a closet Jazz fan.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Manchester
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
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
.
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.
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
.
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.
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.
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?
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?