Iraq in 'material breach' of 1441- Colin Powell
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC I used to think like you but once I heard about certain facts it doesnt add up. The US army forward deployed a HQ unit to Kuwait in late 2001, they've been working like busy bee's for over a year coming up with this grand battle warplan to beat Sadam even if he does a Stalingrad. All this stuff about weapons of mass destruction, the captured US airman still missing in Iraq, Sadam tried to kill Bush, the killing of the Kurds and so on is just rhetoric.
What made me come round to the oil grab point of view was how the US has already made deals with Iraqi exiles over oil contracts which must of taken months and months to discuss. If Bush is feeling so vulnerable why did he wait for so long? Why did he withdraw troops from Afghanstan were to me there seems to a real and actual threat to America. Why has the US fermented all this trouble in Venezuela, a CIA backed coup attempt in a country thats had a democratically-elected government since 1959, closely followed by US government money given to anti-Chavez groups when the coup attempt didnt work, an identical tactic that is being used in Iraq. That place is headed towards civil war all because Chavez has anti-US views. Is this the end result of a non-proportional response? or is it because Venezuela is Americas second largest oil importer?
Whatever the reason for the war. Be it Bush wants revenge for Bush senior, he wants Iraqi oil to replace Saudi oil, US needs an economic jump start or whatever the man has his sights set on Iraq and even if Al-Queda does another attack on the scale of 11/9 he'll still press ahead with it.
What made me come round to the oil grab point of view was how the US has already made deals with Iraqi exiles over oil contracts which must of taken months and months to discuss. If Bush is feeling so vulnerable why did he wait for so long? Why did he withdraw troops from Afghanstan were to me there seems to a real and actual threat to America. Why has the US fermented all this trouble in Venezuela, a CIA backed coup attempt in a country thats had a democratically-elected government since 1959, closely followed by US government money given to anti-Chavez groups when the coup attempt didnt work, an identical tactic that is being used in Iraq. That place is headed towards civil war all because Chavez has anti-US views. Is this the end result of a non-proportional response? or is it because Venezuela is Americas second largest oil importer?
Whatever the reason for the war. Be it Bush wants revenge for Bush senior, he wants Iraqi oil to replace Saudi oil, US needs an economic jump start or whatever the man has his sights set on Iraq and even if Al-Queda does another attack on the scale of 11/9 he'll still press ahead with it.
Do you erstwhile Strategic Planners and Political analysts ever run your opinions up the flagpole at your place of work? I dare say, from what I read here, I just might want the French on my flanks.....at least they lean forward in the foxhole while on the attack !
You argue all sorts of drivel.....and ignore your treaty obligations and longstanding association of our two countries in time of need....at least we stand by you when called upon. Here we are facing a war in the desert and you are mothballing Apaches because you cannot train enough pilots. You ever think of hiring consultants....or contracting pilots to fill the rearbased positions and thus free up the uniformed mafia to do their job of war fighting?
The last time I checked.....even my Army did not enquire with the troops if they wished to go out and get shot at.....they issued the order and we marched to the gunfire. That's yer duty....that is what you agreed to do when you took the oath to support and defend....or whatever you do on that side of the saltwater divide. I would strongly suggest, you contemplate your thoughts on this matter....and decide whether it is worth fighting this fight in someone else's back garden rather than your own.
Talk about a silly war....explain once again why the Falkland Islands was such important issue to the British ? Surely you have enough Sheep at home ? Or could it have been about the possibility of oil there too? You arose to that occasion.....time to do so again....if you can set your teacup down long enough. This is not a Gentleman's Flying Club you joined.....you are here to do your national leaders bidding and protect your nation's freedoms.
To those who read these threads and live up to the obligations of the contract.....Keep your head down....and know lots of people are saying a prayer for your safekeeping! This is a time to train hard, steel your heart, and have faith in your leaders....the price of freedom is not cheap.....patriots have to pay for it with blood and sacrifice. That is why it should be valued so highly.
You argue all sorts of drivel.....and ignore your treaty obligations and longstanding association of our two countries in time of need....at least we stand by you when called upon. Here we are facing a war in the desert and you are mothballing Apaches because you cannot train enough pilots. You ever think of hiring consultants....or contracting pilots to fill the rearbased positions and thus free up the uniformed mafia to do their job of war fighting?
The last time I checked.....even my Army did not enquire with the troops if they wished to go out and get shot at.....they issued the order and we marched to the gunfire. That's yer duty....that is what you agreed to do when you took the oath to support and defend....or whatever you do on that side of the saltwater divide. I would strongly suggest, you contemplate your thoughts on this matter....and decide whether it is worth fighting this fight in someone else's back garden rather than your own.
Talk about a silly war....explain once again why the Falkland Islands was such important issue to the British ? Surely you have enough Sheep at home ? Or could it have been about the possibility of oil there too? You arose to that occasion.....time to do so again....if you can set your teacup down long enough. This is not a Gentleman's Flying Club you joined.....you are here to do your national leaders bidding and protect your nation's freedoms.
To those who read these threads and live up to the obligations of the contract.....Keep your head down....and know lots of people are saying a prayer for your safekeeping! This is a time to train hard, steel your heart, and have faith in your leaders....the price of freedom is not cheap.....patriots have to pay for it with blood and sacrifice. That is why it should be valued so highly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, good debate one and all. It is indeed refreshing to see people expressing opinion without resorting to insult on this thread.
SASless, you speak very strongly about the subject. I would only remind you that despite your sabre rattling and Brit bashing, that yes, the US has come to our aid in the past. However, it is worthy of note that the US was late in WW 1 and didn't decide to get involved with WW 2 until Pearl Harbor. Was that for the benefit of the 'special relationship'?
Controversial? No, factual. So let's try and stick to some reasoned debate if we can. I may not agree with a contributors opinion, but I certainly do not choose to insult them over it. We all enjoy our freedom to express our opinion, however incorrect, because of both our country's history of mutual support.
Regards
JJ
SASless, you speak very strongly about the subject. I would only remind you that despite your sabre rattling and Brit bashing, that yes, the US has come to our aid in the past. However, it is worthy of note that the US was late in WW 1 and didn't decide to get involved with WW 2 until Pearl Harbor. Was that for the benefit of the 'special relationship'?
Controversial? No, factual. So let's try and stick to some reasoned debate if we can. I may not agree with a contributors opinion, but I certainly do not choose to insult them over it. We all enjoy our freedom to express our opinion, however incorrect, because of both our country's history of mutual support.
Regards
JJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
Do you erstwhile Strategic Planners and Political analysts ever run your opinions up the flagpole at your place of work? I dare say, from what I read here, I just might want the French on my flanks.....at least they lean forward in the foxhole while on the attack !
Yes , I do, as do a lot of other people, surpisingly enough, it's the hottest topic in the messes and crew bars right now.
...and you wonder why you're the second best Armed Forces in the world. Are you implying, the British people, who are more reserved about the reasons for going to war, than our "cousins", are in some way more cowardly?
After all, didn't our Pres....ooooops Prime Minister say, that Britain was prepared to pay the "Blood Price" for our special relationship with America?
With a statement like that, you don't have to look very far to see why the world despises certain elements of your society.
It was Brit Special Forces who bailed your CIA/Delta teams out,in Afghanistan and BritFor and Brit diplomats you call on, to sort your messes out.If it wasn't for British Diplomats at the UN, we'd be in the Gulf now, instead of trying to sort this out, without loss of life.
Do not, under any circumstances SASLESS, confuse the good old fashioned Forces whinge and moan, with an unwillingness to fight.
You'll get all the French participation you need, after all, they manufactured the munitions the Iraqis are going to be throwing at us.
Lastly
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=363427
"If the UK and the US are convinced and they say they have evidence, then one would expect they would be able to tell us where is this stuff," Mr Blix said. Asked if he was getting enough co-operation from Western intelligence agencies, he said: "Not yet. We get some, but we don't get all we need."
Yes , I do, as do a lot of other people, surpisingly enough, it's the hottest topic in the messes and crew bars right now.
...and you wonder why you're the second best Armed Forces in the world. Are you implying, the British people, who are more reserved about the reasons for going to war, than our "cousins", are in some way more cowardly?
After all, didn't our Pres....ooooops Prime Minister say, that Britain was prepared to pay the "Blood Price" for our special relationship with America?
With a statement like that, you don't have to look very far to see why the world despises certain elements of your society.
It was Brit Special Forces who bailed your CIA/Delta teams out,in Afghanistan and BritFor and Brit diplomats you call on, to sort your messes out.If it wasn't for British Diplomats at the UN, we'd be in the Gulf now, instead of trying to sort this out, without loss of life.
Do not, under any circumstances SASLESS, confuse the good old fashioned Forces whinge and moan, with an unwillingness to fight.
You'll get all the French participation you need, after all, they manufactured the munitions the Iraqis are going to be throwing at us.
Lastly
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=363427
"If the UK and the US are convinced and they say they have evidence, then one would expect they would be able to tell us where is this stuff," Mr Blix said. Asked if he was getting enough co-operation from Western intelligence agencies, he said: "Not yet. We get some, but we don't get all we need."
Junglejim
As to the late start as you call it, sorry we were not on a war footing when you were. A lot of Americans rest in fields far from her shores. They died fighting a war that was percieved as being Euro in nature at its start. Thankfully our leaders had the wisdom to see otherwise. Yes there is a special relationship, its contract is written in blood. Not only your blood but ours also.
Solo
I hope you dont really believe all that hogwash. Pretty sure you don't, just looking for a rise I imagine. If you do I think you need to come to reality. The US has no need for British troops in its operations. It may be convienent, however most capabilities are only duplicating those in place. Politics is the only reason your boys are gonna go. Coalition sounds better than unilateral. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, think about the proposed Brit forces. Not overwhelming. Just as your lot did the Falklands alone, we could do Iraq minus your help. I will call GWB and have him pull your PM from his hip pocket and you as a nation can make some decisions.
As to the French. There should also exist a special relationship, perhaps even closer to them then the UK. When we really really needed them they helped out, plus I dont recall them burning our Capital.
As to the late start as you call it, sorry we were not on a war footing when you were. A lot of Americans rest in fields far from her shores. They died fighting a war that was percieved as being Euro in nature at its start. Thankfully our leaders had the wisdom to see otherwise. Yes there is a special relationship, its contract is written in blood. Not only your blood but ours also.
Solo
I hope you dont really believe all that hogwash. Pretty sure you don't, just looking for a rise I imagine. If you do I think you need to come to reality. The US has no need for British troops in its operations. It may be convienent, however most capabilities are only duplicating those in place. Politics is the only reason your boys are gonna go. Coalition sounds better than unilateral. Now before you get your panties in a bunch, think about the proposed Brit forces. Not overwhelming. Just as your lot did the Falklands alone, we could do Iraq minus your help. I will call GWB and have him pull your PM from his hip pocket and you as a nation can make some decisions.
As to the French. There should also exist a special relationship, perhaps even closer to them then the UK. When we really really needed them they helped out, plus I dont recall them burning our Capital.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast,
We''ll forget your turning up late to the 2 German disagreements if you'll forget our youthful high spirits in your Capital. We heard there was a piano there and you know how we love to burn those!
Sure, you guys have the capability to go it alone but what we add to the equation is support. The US does not have a lot of street cred outside of the US but, despite the best efforts of T Bliar, the UK is still regarded as a reasonable lot. If we go with you, there is likely to be less of a backlash from some nations. And our SF guys do a particularly good job, as Storming Norman agreed after round one with Sadaam.
By the way, I recently was invited to try one of your MREs (Meals Ready to Eat or Meals Rejected by Ethiopians). Mashed up corned beef, creamed rice and cherry flavour beverage. I sincerely hope we don't end up at war, for both culinary and humanitarean reasons!!!
We''ll forget your turning up late to the 2 German disagreements if you'll forget our youthful high spirits in your Capital. We heard there was a piano there and you know how we love to burn those!
Sure, you guys have the capability to go it alone but what we add to the equation is support. The US does not have a lot of street cred outside of the US but, despite the best efforts of T Bliar, the UK is still regarded as a reasonable lot. If we go with you, there is likely to be less of a backlash from some nations. And our SF guys do a particularly good job, as Storming Norman agreed after round one with Sadaam.
By the way, I recently was invited to try one of your MREs (Meals Ready to Eat or Meals Rejected by Ethiopians). Mashed up corned beef, creamed rice and cherry flavour beverage. I sincerely hope we don't end up at war, for both culinary and humanitarean reasons!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
West,
Will you stop seeing straight through me, before I can get a half decent row developed?
My reply was overstated, in reply to SASless's slackjawing.
I have to ask again...... WHY are we going into Iraq. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's just that every war I can remember, there was a REASON for going in. I just don't see one.
To make it worse , the news tonight (CNN feed)... The USCGS is now saying, the reason for the large troop buildups, North and South of Iraq, is to guarantee the safety of the Kurds in the North, the Shi'ia muslims(Think that's right) in the South.
Christ on a 2 wheeled conveyance, will your head sheds make their minds up, as to WHY we are invading Iraq?
Will you stop seeing straight through me, before I can get a half decent row developed?
My reply was overstated, in reply to SASless's slackjawing.
I have to ask again...... WHY are we going into Iraq. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, it's just that every war I can remember, there was a REASON for going in. I just don't see one.
To make it worse , the news tonight (CNN feed)... The USCGS is now saying, the reason for the large troop buildups, North and South of Iraq, is to guarantee the safety of the Kurds in the North, the Shi'ia muslims(Think that's right) in the South.
Christ on a 2 wheeled conveyance, will your head sheds make their minds up, as to WHY we are invading Iraq?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: france46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
A Thought.
As Palestine at the end of WW2 was a UN Protectorate (Taken over from the League of Nations) ; administered throught the UK and which the UN at Flushing Meadow voted to divide into Jewish and Palestinian sectors: is it not within the power of the UN to rescind that resolution?
The legitimacy of Israel is dependant on that resolution and occupation of land designated by the UN for Palestinian use would appear to breach that Resolution.
Furthermore, building Settlements on occupied land is expressly forbidden under the Hague Convention!!
A Thought.
As Palestine at the end of WW2 was a UN Protectorate (Taken over from the League of Nations) ; administered throught the UK and which the UN at Flushing Meadow voted to divide into Jewish and Palestinian sectors: is it not within the power of the UN to rescind that resolution?
The legitimacy of Israel is dependant on that resolution and occupation of land designated by the UN for Palestinian use would appear to breach that Resolution.
Furthermore, building Settlements on occupied land is expressly forbidden under the Hague Convention!!
Ali Barber
I concur 100% with your analysis. On another note, MRE's are known for stopping a person up pretty good if you catch my drift. Especially if you eat the crackers and peanut butter, as such MRE's are also known as Meals Refusing to Exit.
I concur 100% with your analysis. On another note, MRE's are known for stopping a person up pretty good if you catch my drift. Especially if you eat the crackers and peanut butter, as such MRE's are also known as Meals Refusing to Exit.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
"........and ignore your treaty obligations and longstanding association of our two countries in time of need....at least we stand by you when called upon."
I'm not certain precisely what treaties - if any - exist between the US and Kuwait; but where exactly were you guys in the Falklands? Or when the Aussies asked for help in providing air cover for the Timor landings?
I like Americans. I really do. If there must be one nation whose culture dominates the world, and it seems that history indicates that this shall be so, then from a purely selfish viewpoint I would far rather it was a nation whose people speak English, spend dollars, drink cold beer, celebrate Christmas and go to the football, than those who have slanty eyes or wear teatowels on their heads. OK, so they drive on the wrong side of the road, but hey, nobody's perfect.
But fall not, good sir, into the trap of believing one's own propaganda, for that way lies madness and ruin. Treaties as a general rule are not worth the paper on which they are written. Treaty or no treaty, in times of need, other nations wil help you or not depending on whether it suits them to so do. America has no better a claim to the moral high ground in this matter than does any other nation.
Wars have always been about resources; assets, trade, money. From spices and opium, to gold and hemp, to uranium and oil, the bottom line is that there is always a bottom line somewhere. The Falklands was as much to do with making sure Gibraltar wasn't next as it was to do with protecting untapped oil. Sheep, believe it or not, had very little to do with it...
As I have mentioned before in another thread, the area of the earth's suface which contains the largest deposits of lead and zinc, as well as lots of tin and coal, just happens to be Kosovo. And if money and oil had nothing to do with the perfectly good reasons for fighting WWII in Europe, then what the hell were we all doing in North Africa?
If DS1 was carried out under a UN mandate (without the need for US Treaties), then to have any legitimacy, DS2 The Sequel must have that same mandate also; unless one accepts the claims made that Saddam and Al Quaeda are of one heart, mind, voice and hand, and personally I don't.
However: treaties, mandates, legitimacy and other legal niceties aside, it is going to happen, which begs the still-to-be-answered question, "why?" If it isn't about oil, then frankly, I'm struggling to find a reason. Israel and the Rest Of The World (presuming it is in any danger) can be easily protected by no-fly zones and Patriot missiles; Saddam could be assassinated tomorrow if they really wanted him gone; and the world gives as much of a toss about the plight of the Kurds as it does for the Basques, the East Timorese, the Tutsi, the Ndebele, the Tibetans or the Amazonian Indians.
To suggest that the real reason is anything other than money and power, be it oil or the US industrial economy and Dubya's re-election hopes, is to overstretch credulity.
Yes, Saddam is a Bad Man who needs to be removed. So is Robert Mugabe. So are a list of dictators half as long as your arm. How many of them have oil for the taking - oops - I mean for the regime-changing?
Jacko, you may be more up with the play on this than me; what are the downstream implications for contracts made with a new Iraqi regime, if, in the future, it is determined that the action which brought about that regime change was not legally mandated, and that therefore, the new regime itself may not be legitimate?
ORAC, I agree with all your points other than those linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, and one other: in the same way that a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist, so a conspiracy theorist is what an idealist calls someone who has described the bog standard way in which the world does business.
"........and ignore your treaty obligations and longstanding association of our two countries in time of need....at least we stand by you when called upon."
I'm not certain precisely what treaties - if any - exist between the US and Kuwait; but where exactly were you guys in the Falklands? Or when the Aussies asked for help in providing air cover for the Timor landings?
I like Americans. I really do. If there must be one nation whose culture dominates the world, and it seems that history indicates that this shall be so, then from a purely selfish viewpoint I would far rather it was a nation whose people speak English, spend dollars, drink cold beer, celebrate Christmas and go to the football, than those who have slanty eyes or wear teatowels on their heads. OK, so they drive on the wrong side of the road, but hey, nobody's perfect.
But fall not, good sir, into the trap of believing one's own propaganda, for that way lies madness and ruin. Treaties as a general rule are not worth the paper on which they are written. Treaty or no treaty, in times of need, other nations wil help you or not depending on whether it suits them to so do. America has no better a claim to the moral high ground in this matter than does any other nation.
Wars have always been about resources; assets, trade, money. From spices and opium, to gold and hemp, to uranium and oil, the bottom line is that there is always a bottom line somewhere. The Falklands was as much to do with making sure Gibraltar wasn't next as it was to do with protecting untapped oil. Sheep, believe it or not, had very little to do with it...
As I have mentioned before in another thread, the area of the earth's suface which contains the largest deposits of lead and zinc, as well as lots of tin and coal, just happens to be Kosovo. And if money and oil had nothing to do with the perfectly good reasons for fighting WWII in Europe, then what the hell were we all doing in North Africa?
If DS1 was carried out under a UN mandate (without the need for US Treaties), then to have any legitimacy, DS2 The Sequel must have that same mandate also; unless one accepts the claims made that Saddam and Al Quaeda are of one heart, mind, voice and hand, and personally I don't.
However: treaties, mandates, legitimacy and other legal niceties aside, it is going to happen, which begs the still-to-be-answered question, "why?" If it isn't about oil, then frankly, I'm struggling to find a reason. Israel and the Rest Of The World (presuming it is in any danger) can be easily protected by no-fly zones and Patriot missiles; Saddam could be assassinated tomorrow if they really wanted him gone; and the world gives as much of a toss about the plight of the Kurds as it does for the Basques, the East Timorese, the Tutsi, the Ndebele, the Tibetans or the Amazonian Indians.
To suggest that the real reason is anything other than money and power, be it oil or the US industrial economy and Dubya's re-election hopes, is to overstretch credulity.
Yes, Saddam is a Bad Man who needs to be removed. So is Robert Mugabe. So are a list of dictators half as long as your arm. How many of them have oil for the taking - oops - I mean for the regime-changing?
Jacko, you may be more up with the play on this than me; what are the downstream implications for contracts made with a new Iraqi regime, if, in the future, it is determined that the action which brought about that regime change was not legally mandated, and that therefore, the new regime itself may not be legitimate?
ORAC, I agree with all your points other than those linking Al Qaeda to Iraq, and one other: in the same way that a cynic is what an idealist calls a realist, so a conspiracy theorist is what an idealist calls someone who has described the bog standard way in which the world does business.
I am completely confused now.....you had to fight the Argies in the Falklands to convince the Spanish you were serious about Gib ? That was the reason for the Falkland's war? Why can't you trade Scotland to the Spanish in exhange for Gibraltar and call it a deal and settle all this rancour in the newspapers ?
Also.....if you lot were willing to join in DS1 in our war to restore democracy to a kingdom.....why should you be dragging your feet this time?
If the western world was to obtain the oil resources of Iraq....would that not free us from our continued reliance upon Saudi Oil and thus change the dynamics of Middle East politics concerning the Palestinian/Israeli situation?
Would we not be able to then get tough and tell Israel to give back all those Palestinian lands and such......or should we have to then talk to the Spanish about Gib, the Argies about the Falklands, the Irish about Northern Ireland, as well?
As to where we were early on......during the Last English/French dustup.....ask the crew of the USS Reuben James? Ask your fathers who drove Shermans, GMC trucks, american aircraft, ate made in the USA food.....then consider all the support other "Neutral" nations provided you? Granted you blew the bugle in '39....and we did not show up officially until '41 but do give notice to when our unofficial presence began. We were dropping depth charges on German subs long before the official start of the war for us.
Don'tcha just love the Pork in Jamaican Spices in the MRE's......cor' delicious!
Also.....if you lot were willing to join in DS1 in our war to restore democracy to a kingdom.....why should you be dragging your feet this time?
If the western world was to obtain the oil resources of Iraq....would that not free us from our continued reliance upon Saudi Oil and thus change the dynamics of Middle East politics concerning the Palestinian/Israeli situation?
Would we not be able to then get tough and tell Israel to give back all those Palestinian lands and such......or should we have to then talk to the Spanish about Gib, the Argies about the Falklands, the Irish about Northern Ireland, as well?
As to where we were early on......during the Last English/French dustup.....ask the crew of the USS Reuben James? Ask your fathers who drove Shermans, GMC trucks, american aircraft, ate made in the USA food.....then consider all the support other "Neutral" nations provided you? Granted you blew the bugle in '39....and we did not show up officially until '41 but do give notice to when our unofficial presence began. We were dropping depth charges on German subs long before the official start of the war for us.
Don'tcha just love the Pork in Jamaican Spices in the MRE's......cor' delicious!
Bluewolf
You forgot one more reason for war, national pride. That was the reason for the war in the Malvinas. The sight of the RM's face down on the ground under gunpoint at port Stanley was a powerful image, as was the union jack being lowered. The UK a country recognized as a leader in buisness, industry, global leadership, but with a declining military had something to prove. If the UK had done nothing in the way of war, the islanders lives would have gone on, those wishing to be repatriated would have. The UK would have no worse for the wear, except where it hurts, in the gut.
Malvinas now, Gib next, NI in the future.......
The domino theory you profer is as incongruous a theory now as it was in the early 80's and in US policy of the 1960's.
You forgot one more reason for war, national pride. That was the reason for the war in the Malvinas. The sight of the RM's face down on the ground under gunpoint at port Stanley was a powerful image, as was the union jack being lowered. The UK a country recognized as a leader in buisness, industry, global leadership, but with a declining military had something to prove. If the UK had done nothing in the way of war, the islanders lives would have gone on, those wishing to be repatriated would have. The UK would have no worse for the wear, except where it hurts, in the gut.
Malvinas now, Gib next, NI in the future.......
The domino theory you profer is as incongruous a theory now as it was in the early 80's and in US policy of the 1960's.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beg pardon, but when in history was Kuwait ever a democracy?
I'm not suggesting that all the Shermans, Mustangs and so forth weren't appreciated, necessary, even pivotal. I bet the Focke-Wulfe fighters built in occupied France by a GM subsidiary (which repatriated the profits to the good old USA) were appreciated by the Krauts too, as were the bearings and certain truck parts made in Michigan and supplied to Germany through Sweden up till the beginning of 1943. (This isn't Conspiracy Theory 101 by the way, it's History.)
I'm not sure how switching from Saudi Finest Dark to Iraqi Premium Black would give us more leverage over the Yids, assuming that we want such a thing; given that they do such a top notch job of testing our weapon systems, and that the Palestinians rank right up there with the Kurds and the Tibetans, we probably don't.
But you're right, we could solve the problems of the world if we had a mind to. The fact that we don't is probably reason enough to stop trying to convince ourselves that we're whiter than white.
I still think we're going; I still think we'll win, and I hope we do. But it is going to be messy, and a lot of people aren't going to come home. Many of those who do are going to come home minus arms or legs; faces, eyesight, testicles, and all the other bits that get shot off or burned away. Out of respect for the courage, honour and proffessionalism of these fine individuals, I just think we could be honest about why it is we are going.
West; good point, and the one I was alluding to concerning Gib.
The whole of British Industry was in a bit of a decline in the late seventies and early eighties, as much as was the military. It was Maggie and the Falklands which kickstarted it back into life. Industry and money again?
I'm not completely convinced that the domino theory has been unequivocally disproved, but it is possibly worth remembering that if it was important in determining policy in the early 1980s, well, that's when the Falkands war was fought.
(edited to fix a couple of typos and to reply to West Coast who snuck in and replied while I was making a cup of tea...)
I'm not suggesting that all the Shermans, Mustangs and so forth weren't appreciated, necessary, even pivotal. I bet the Focke-Wulfe fighters built in occupied France by a GM subsidiary (which repatriated the profits to the good old USA) were appreciated by the Krauts too, as were the bearings and certain truck parts made in Michigan and supplied to Germany through Sweden up till the beginning of 1943. (This isn't Conspiracy Theory 101 by the way, it's History.)
I'm not sure how switching from Saudi Finest Dark to Iraqi Premium Black would give us more leverage over the Yids, assuming that we want such a thing; given that they do such a top notch job of testing our weapon systems, and that the Palestinians rank right up there with the Kurds and the Tibetans, we probably don't.
But you're right, we could solve the problems of the world if we had a mind to. The fact that we don't is probably reason enough to stop trying to convince ourselves that we're whiter than white.
I still think we're going; I still think we'll win, and I hope we do. But it is going to be messy, and a lot of people aren't going to come home. Many of those who do are going to come home minus arms or legs; faces, eyesight, testicles, and all the other bits that get shot off or burned away. Out of respect for the courage, honour and proffessionalism of these fine individuals, I just think we could be honest about why it is we are going.
West; good point, and the one I was alluding to concerning Gib.
The whole of British Industry was in a bit of a decline in the late seventies and early eighties, as much as was the military. It was Maggie and the Falklands which kickstarted it back into life. Industry and money again?
I'm not completely convinced that the domino theory has been unequivocally disproved, but it is possibly worth remembering that if it was important in determining policy in the early 1980s, well, that's when the Falkands war was fought.
(edited to fix a couple of typos and to reply to West Coast who snuck in and replied while I was making a cup of tea...)
Last edited by BlueWolf; 22nd Dec 2002 at 17:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh well, here we go.
Re: 'Why?', my theories are:
1. US economy not responding to the usual stimuli such as interest rate cuts etc. What has historically been proven to turn national economies around? A good war.
2. Dubya is halfway through his term and, correct me if I'm wrong, the US mid term elections are due next year. The man is riding at 60% popularity right now and has control of both Houses. How to ensure public opinion is maintained and therefore power during the run up to a second term? A good war.
3. Hilary Rodham is being wooed to stand against Dubya now Gore has pulled out. I do believe she will give him a mighty run for his money and she may even beat him. The Democrats certainly don't appear to have anyone else capable at the moment. How to cut her off at the 'pass'? A good and successful war, coupled with a strong economy and high public opinion (see points 1 and 2).
4. Oh, by the way, ownership of Iraqi oil may also be a factor.
Discuss.
Regards
JJ
Re: 'Why?', my theories are:
1. US economy not responding to the usual stimuli such as interest rate cuts etc. What has historically been proven to turn national economies around? A good war.
2. Dubya is halfway through his term and, correct me if I'm wrong, the US mid term elections are due next year. The man is riding at 60% popularity right now and has control of both Houses. How to ensure public opinion is maintained and therefore power during the run up to a second term? A good war.
3. Hilary Rodham is being wooed to stand against Dubya now Gore has pulled out. I do believe she will give him a mighty run for his money and she may even beat him. The Democrats certainly don't appear to have anyone else capable at the moment. How to cut her off at the 'pass'? A good and successful war, coupled with a strong economy and high public opinion (see points 1 and 2).
4. Oh, by the way, ownership of Iraqi oil may also be a factor.
Discuss.
Regards
JJ
Blue Wolf.....for a Kiwi to take any position other than total and complete unilateral disarmament would almost be a surprise....leastways as a government policy. Ya'll down there at the end of the world have a slightly different perspective on world events and politics with good reason. You get rid of your offensive arms....and rely upon the Aussies for your defense and thus avoid the expense of contributing towards your own protection. You refuse to allow US warships in your harbors unless they declare themselves "nuke free" but will not hesitate to holler for ol' Uncle Sam if your borders become threatened I bet.
I served along with your Army in Somalia and was fairly impressed with their professionalism....why even the women were "men". Dreaded shame there were so few of them....I don't know if they scared the Skinnies....I know they sure scared me!
This just might be a bloody mess....most wars are....ask the Aussies that joined us in Vietnam, Republic of......and usually are not very well run by the top management. Maybe that is why we try to avoid them as much as we can.....and opt for getting into them on our terms nowadays rather than on the other guys terms. I left some of a leg and a bit of American Red in Vietnam so I know what life on a two way rifle range is like. Sometimes, it is an "honor" to participate.....although it is an honor with mixed blessings.
As to "The Bitch" running for President....that is just a Democratic pipe dream.....and I bet she is inhaling while she contemplates her future. Yes, here we are....half way to the next Presidential election and gosh gee....not one scandal....not one Independent Counsel investigating anything.....despite everything that has happened.....the Recession, the 9/11 attacks.....the financial costs of the attack and our need to respond to that.....we have a leader who is doing just that. (And with real character too....despite what foreigners think!) Yes, we are happy with him and his performance....no trial balloons....no poll taking....just keeping campaign promises and doing what is "right". Granted, that is a surprise to the Democrats and to the rest of the world but in time they will get the message.
Now who cannot understand the tongue in cheek of saying ..."restoring democracy to a kingdom!" Maxwell House has a cure for non-comprehension! Take a deep whiff of your morning mocha java brewing....it will come to you!
It was said correctly today.....coalitions are for political reasons....but coalition forces are merely nice to have and not required for completion of the mission. In most cases.....it makes for an extra burden to the Commander. Just like we said in the last period of Anglo-French Unpleasantness....."Under-sexed, Under-paid, and under Eisenhower!" Ya'll want to sit this one out...that is fine....it eases the lines of command.
I served along with your Army in Somalia and was fairly impressed with their professionalism....why even the women were "men". Dreaded shame there were so few of them....I don't know if they scared the Skinnies....I know they sure scared me!
This just might be a bloody mess....most wars are....ask the Aussies that joined us in Vietnam, Republic of......and usually are not very well run by the top management. Maybe that is why we try to avoid them as much as we can.....and opt for getting into them on our terms nowadays rather than on the other guys terms. I left some of a leg and a bit of American Red in Vietnam so I know what life on a two way rifle range is like. Sometimes, it is an "honor" to participate.....although it is an honor with mixed blessings.
As to "The Bitch" running for President....that is just a Democratic pipe dream.....and I bet she is inhaling while she contemplates her future. Yes, here we are....half way to the next Presidential election and gosh gee....not one scandal....not one Independent Counsel investigating anything.....despite everything that has happened.....the Recession, the 9/11 attacks.....the financial costs of the attack and our need to respond to that.....we have a leader who is doing just that. (And with real character too....despite what foreigners think!) Yes, we are happy with him and his performance....no trial balloons....no poll taking....just keeping campaign promises and doing what is "right". Granted, that is a surprise to the Democrats and to the rest of the world but in time they will get the message.
Now who cannot understand the tongue in cheek of saying ..."restoring democracy to a kingdom!" Maxwell House has a cure for non-comprehension! Take a deep whiff of your morning mocha java brewing....it will come to you!
It was said correctly today.....coalitions are for political reasons....but coalition forces are merely nice to have and not required for completion of the mission. In most cases.....it makes for an extra burden to the Commander. Just like we said in the last period of Anglo-French Unpleasantness....."Under-sexed, Under-paid, and under Eisenhower!" Ya'll want to sit this one out...that is fine....it eases the lines of command.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, you could not be more right. If the great morass of unwashed, welfare-addicted NZ could only grasp the message which we have been hammering away at these past several years, and which you have quite neatly summarised in one paragraph, we wouldn't have either the government with which we are currently afflicted, or their policies, which drive us ever further from our traditional friends and allies, and ever nearer to oblivion.
I do apologise for not smelling the coffee...the whole business has rendered me (perhaps understandably) a little tense...
JJ, I can't find a single thing in that with which to disagree. Jumping back briefly to your original topic starter: who gets to determine what constitutes a "material breach"? Is it the US, who may not necessarily have the benefit of the information gleaned by the current round of weapons inspections; or is it the UN, who may not necessarily have access to US intelligence concerning what it is that they should or shouldn't be finding?
As ORAC says, if they have made their own, since the last inspections, and the precursor chemical trail is muddy, who can possibly know what they may or may not have?
If I was Saddam Hussein (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) and I had a reasonable concern that Unca Sam was going to have a crack at me whether I told him what weapons I had and where they were or not, then somehow, I don't think I'd be telling the whole truth.
The game is on, chaps. Right or wrong, legal or not, for better or worse, the world is going to war - again. Should we open a book on the outcome?
I do apologise for not smelling the coffee...the whole business has rendered me (perhaps understandably) a little tense...
JJ, I can't find a single thing in that with which to disagree. Jumping back briefly to your original topic starter: who gets to determine what constitutes a "material breach"? Is it the US, who may not necessarily have the benefit of the information gleaned by the current round of weapons inspections; or is it the UN, who may not necessarily have access to US intelligence concerning what it is that they should or shouldn't be finding?
As ORAC says, if they have made their own, since the last inspections, and the precursor chemical trail is muddy, who can possibly know what they may or may not have?
If I was Saddam Hussein (which thank the Lord I'm not sir) and I had a reasonable concern that Unca Sam was going to have a crack at me whether I told him what weapons I had and where they were or not, then somehow, I don't think I'd be telling the whole truth.
The game is on, chaps. Right or wrong, legal or not, for better or worse, the world is going to war - again. Should we open a book on the outcome?
Blue,
What I want for Christmas is for Saddam to volunteer for early retirement....cite the reason as being in the best interest of Iraq and the World. The new Iraqi government to adopt the policies of New Zealand, the Palestinian and Israeli people to kick both of their governments out and find a way to achieve a lasting peace between both groups. Saudi to allow their women to cook with sherry and drive diesel trucks....and big business executives in the USA opt for a mere Journeyman's wages and benefit package.
Nice dream but not very likely. In the mean time, I pray that the war will be short, with as few casualties as possible on both sides, and peace allows the Iraqi people to rejoin the world community with all possible speed. I do feel the Western Democratic societies have both a right and a need to protect themselves and our way of life from those that mean to destroy us. To that end, I support this effort, however hesitant our leaders are to explain their actions. 9/11 was but one of the many attacks and announced threats that our enemies have made...at some point we have to exert our military and political might and convince them to return to a live and let live posture. If it means a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other place.....then so be it.
What I want for Christmas is for Saddam to volunteer for early retirement....cite the reason as being in the best interest of Iraq and the World. The new Iraqi government to adopt the policies of New Zealand, the Palestinian and Israeli people to kick both of their governments out and find a way to achieve a lasting peace between both groups. Saudi to allow their women to cook with sherry and drive diesel trucks....and big business executives in the USA opt for a mere Journeyman's wages and benefit package.
Nice dream but not very likely. In the mean time, I pray that the war will be short, with as few casualties as possible on both sides, and peace allows the Iraqi people to rejoin the world community with all possible speed. I do feel the Western Democratic societies have both a right and a need to protect themselves and our way of life from those that mean to destroy us. To that end, I support this effort, however hesitant our leaders are to explain their actions. 9/11 was but one of the many attacks and announced threats that our enemies have made...at some point we have to exert our military and political might and convince them to return to a live and let live posture. If it means a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other place.....then so be it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rumsfelds latest quote tonight....
"The Iraqis will surrender even faster than they did last time"
I seem to remember a Mr. A Hitler and a Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte saying the same thing, based on a countries previous performance, and as soon as the Russians had sucked them in far enough......
I have some fears, the biggest of which, is fighting house to house in downtown Baghdad. Ask anyone who's ever done that exercise ,it's a hateful,intense nasty experience. Most IDF troopers interviewed after Jenin, said it was the worst thing they'd ever done.
If we want control of Iraq, and if they don't just hand it over, then it'll be street by street, especially in Tikrit.
Unless of course, we just give Saddam 2 billion dollars to leave, "For the common good"....
Anyway, here's the latest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2601787.stm
"The Iraqis will surrender even faster than they did last time"
I seem to remember a Mr. A Hitler and a Mr. Napoleon Bonaparte saying the same thing, based on a countries previous performance, and as soon as the Russians had sucked them in far enough......
I have some fears, the biggest of which, is fighting house to house in downtown Baghdad. Ask anyone who's ever done that exercise ,it's a hateful,intense nasty experience. Most IDF troopers interviewed after Jenin, said it was the worst thing they'd ever done.
If we want control of Iraq, and if they don't just hand it over, then it'll be street by street, especially in Tikrit.
Unless of course, we just give Saddam 2 billion dollars to leave, "For the common good"....
Anyway, here's the latest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2601787.stm
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, if we were to persuade the women of Saudi to cook with diesel and then drink sherry before driving their trucks, would that constitute a weapon of mass destruction?!
I agree we have a right and a need to protect our way of life, and for the sake of those doing the protecting I hope it's as short and painless as possible too.
I'm just not convinced that that is what this op is about, unless we include oil as part of our way of life.
If it is, then I have a better idea; come and dig up the oil in the Great South Basin off the south-east coast of NZ. There's more of the black stuff down there than under the North Sea, and it's better quality and easier to get at. Why haven't we dug it up already? Sigh...probably for the same reasons that we try to run a first-world economy on sheep and tourists, and why we have a egotistical pacifist bulldyke for a Prime Minister....we need help here, guys.
Think about it; you don't need to fight anyone for this oil, and the royalties will be very fair. We get to make lots of money and have our Air Force back. You guys get to come here on exercise again and be reminded what good beer tastes like.
Any takers?
I agree we have a right and a need to protect our way of life, and for the sake of those doing the protecting I hope it's as short and painless as possible too.
I'm just not convinced that that is what this op is about, unless we include oil as part of our way of life.
If it is, then I have a better idea; come and dig up the oil in the Great South Basin off the south-east coast of NZ. There's more of the black stuff down there than under the North Sea, and it's better quality and easier to get at. Why haven't we dug it up already? Sigh...probably for the same reasons that we try to run a first-world economy on sheep and tourists, and why we have a egotistical pacifist bulldyke for a Prime Minister....we need help here, guys.
Think about it; you don't need to fight anyone for this oil, and the royalties will be very fair. We get to make lots of money and have our Air Force back. You guys get to come here on exercise again and be reminded what good beer tastes like.
Any takers?
Solotk,
Your casual implied comparison between the war crime committed by the IDF in Jenin (at their Government's bequest) and what Allied troops might have to do in 'taking Baghdad' is offensive in the extreme. Perhaps I can compound the offensiveness by pointing out that the poor old SS troops found it pretty tiring work as they dealt with Lidice, or various towns in France....
I am quite worried that our armed forces will be asked to do what professional Wehrmacht officers were told to go and do in Poland in '39 - they generally fought fair, but the justification for the military action they undertook was at best flimsy. I'm far from being a bleeding heart liberal pacifist, and fully supported DS1, but there seems to be no legal reason for war against Saddam Hussein (however evil he may be, and however much of a danger he may pose to his own people) until he makes an aggressive move against one of our allies. There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, SASless, and to try and suggest one is either stupid or mischievous. The mere possession of certain weapons or capabilities in a nation does not constitute a valid or legitimate reason to attack that nation, otherwise the USA should perhaps go to war with us (we still have nukes), or France, or India, or Pakistan, or Israel. Come to think of it, Canada's geographic position makes it capable of mounting a surprise attack, so perhaps Operation Snow Storm should be next on the list....
I acknowledge that pragmatism might sometimes outweigh morality as a reason for going to war, but for as long as we fail to do anything to address the Israel/Palestinian problem, and for as long as the US and UK can be portrayed as 'taking sides' with the 'oppressor' any war against Iraq will merely make us more unpopular in even the moderate Arab world, and will undermine any potential advantages which may be gained.
Your casual implied comparison between the war crime committed by the IDF in Jenin (at their Government's bequest) and what Allied troops might have to do in 'taking Baghdad' is offensive in the extreme. Perhaps I can compound the offensiveness by pointing out that the poor old SS troops found it pretty tiring work as they dealt with Lidice, or various towns in France....
I am quite worried that our armed forces will be asked to do what professional Wehrmacht officers were told to go and do in Poland in '39 - they generally fought fair, but the justification for the military action they undertook was at best flimsy. I'm far from being a bleeding heart liberal pacifist, and fully supported DS1, but there seems to be no legal reason for war against Saddam Hussein (however evil he may be, and however much of a danger he may pose to his own people) until he makes an aggressive move against one of our allies. There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, SASless, and to try and suggest one is either stupid or mischievous. The mere possession of certain weapons or capabilities in a nation does not constitute a valid or legitimate reason to attack that nation, otherwise the USA should perhaps go to war with us (we still have nukes), or France, or India, or Pakistan, or Israel. Come to think of it, Canada's geographic position makes it capable of mounting a surprise attack, so perhaps Operation Snow Storm should be next on the list....
I acknowledge that pragmatism might sometimes outweigh morality as a reason for going to war, but for as long as we fail to do anything to address the Israel/Palestinian problem, and for as long as the US and UK can be portrayed as 'taking sides' with the 'oppressor' any war against Iraq will merely make us more unpopular in even the moderate Arab world, and will undermine any potential advantages which may be gained.