Iraq in 'material breach' of 1441- Colin Powell
Join Date: May 2002
Location: france46
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle.
THAT should stretch a few memories.
What do you make of the news this evening that they are going to arm AIR MARSHAL's and place them on Civilian Aircraft?
Think I'll stick to the Channel Tunnel.
Compliments of the Season
KP
THAT should stretch a few memories.
What do you make of the news this evening that they are going to arm AIR MARSHAL's and place them on Civilian Aircraft?
Think I'll stick to the Channel Tunnel.
Compliments of the Season
KP
Air Marshalls?
I had a friend who used to run a gun club. We were in the club (pre-Dumblane) when 2 men came in signed into the range and went onto the 25M pistol range.
About 35-40 Mins later they came out, signed out and left. The range officer came out and asked who the two clowns were. They were shooting low scores throughout the session - one of them actually missed some of his targets.
It turned out they were both SENIOR members of the local plods firearms squad.
And if that worries you back in the late 80's members of the Metropolitan Police diplomatic protection squad were banned from one club. One of the cops were being shown a automatic pistol - after being briefed on the weapon she was invited to fire a few rounds. She put one through the table, one through the ceiling and 2 more down range. The wepon jammed and she then turned around and waved it at the range officer asking him why it had jammed as she tried to clear it. She was then confronted by a very scared RO screaming at her to put the gun down! Just before the club secretary kicked them out of the club.
The idea that one of these guys is going to be onboard a crowded airliner with a weapon scares me silly.
About 35-40 Mins later they came out, signed out and left. The range officer came out and asked who the two clowns were. They were shooting low scores throughout the session - one of them actually missed some of his targets.
It turned out they were both SENIOR members of the local plods firearms squad.
And if that worries you back in the late 80's members of the Metropolitan Police diplomatic protection squad were banned from one club. One of the cops were being shown a automatic pistol - after being briefed on the weapon she was invited to fire a few rounds. She put one through the table, one through the ceiling and 2 more down range. The wepon jammed and she then turned around and waved it at the range officer asking him why it had jammed as she tried to clear it. She was then confronted by a very scared RO screaming at her to put the gun down! Just before the club secretary kicked them out of the club.
The idea that one of these guys is going to be onboard a crowded airliner with a weapon scares me silly.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the mandate to declare all WMD and explain where the ones we knew he had had gone? Or just to declare the WMD he has now? What if he actually doesn't have any? Has he breached the resolution but not declaring something he hasn't got but not explaining why he hasn't got it???
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The UN inspectors reports from 1998 contain the information proving he had them. he has to either show and surrender them or to offer proof of how he disposed of them - recordfs, personnel involved, disposal plant and sites etc.
Strangely enough, they won't just take his word.
Strangely enough, they won't just take his word.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here's a theory....
You ready spooks?
America knows he has them, because they supplied them during the Iran-Iraq bunfight, whilst still spitting nails about the hostages the Iranians were holding.
America won't tell Hans Blix about the intel they have, because when UNMOVIC got there, they'd find plenty of made in America stencils on the 500-Pounders
Saddam is too composed and too confident at the moment, the man has a rabbit up his sleeve....
It's just a theory.
To get back on thread, let America go in on their own. If they're so mad keen to see the end of Sadaam , then crack on lads, it's your war, just don't drag us into it. It becomes our war, when Saddam fires a Scud at the UK, or can be linked to fundamentalist terrorism, which he won't , because he slots as many fundamentalists as we do. I notice the CIA have been backing up hard, about Saddams links with Al-Quaeda , as well as the British Governments sea-change, since Bush announced he was willing to nuke Baghdad.
Besides which, we joined to fight terrorism, and threats to our nation, and nations of the BRITISH commonwealth, so certain parties in Zimbabwe still need sorting.
If Bluppet keeps the head, and takes it out of Bush's arsse, the opportunites for UK PLC in the Middle East will be immense.
Bluppet, try and remember we once ruled over 2/3rds of the World, by Military Power, commerce and guile. Many Middle Eastern states still regard Britain as a bastion, and a nation of reason, let's keep it that way.
No, I'm not saying this, because I'm afraid to fight. Far from it. If OUR interests anywhere on the planet need defending, I'll be getting on that Herc. I just don't want to fight for America's interests.
You ready spooks?
America knows he has them, because they supplied them during the Iran-Iraq bunfight, whilst still spitting nails about the hostages the Iranians were holding.
America won't tell Hans Blix about the intel they have, because when UNMOVIC got there, they'd find plenty of made in America stencils on the 500-Pounders
Saddam is too composed and too confident at the moment, the man has a rabbit up his sleeve....
It's just a theory.
To get back on thread, let America go in on their own. If they're so mad keen to see the end of Sadaam , then crack on lads, it's your war, just don't drag us into it. It becomes our war, when Saddam fires a Scud at the UK, or can be linked to fundamentalist terrorism, which he won't , because he slots as many fundamentalists as we do. I notice the CIA have been backing up hard, about Saddams links with Al-Quaeda , as well as the British Governments sea-change, since Bush announced he was willing to nuke Baghdad.
Besides which, we joined to fight terrorism, and threats to our nation, and nations of the BRITISH commonwealth, so certain parties in Zimbabwe still need sorting.
If Bluppet keeps the head, and takes it out of Bush's arsse, the opportunites for UK PLC in the Middle East will be immense.
Bluppet, try and remember we once ruled over 2/3rds of the World, by Military Power, commerce and guile. Many Middle Eastern states still regard Britain as a bastion, and a nation of reason, let's keep it that way.
No, I'm not saying this, because I'm afraid to fight. Far from it. If OUR interests anywhere on the planet need defending, I'll be getting on that Herc. I just don't want to fight for America's interests.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JJ, it was always going to be that's that then. Only the timing and the excuse needed to be sorted, and it appears they have.
If the Yanks only wanted shot of Saddam they could do it tomorrow, by any one of a number of means. But that isn't what they want; they want the black stuff and whatever else is buried under Iraq.
Good luck to all who go; our prayers and best wishes go with you, as does the hope that one day you will know what you are actually doing it for, which isn't to save the world from a man who isn't capable of threatening it.
If the Yanks only wanted shot of Saddam they could do it tomorrow, by any one of a number of means. But that isn't what they want; they want the black stuff and whatever else is buried under Iraq.
Good luck to all who go; our prayers and best wishes go with you, as does the hope that one day you will know what you are actually doing it for, which isn't to save the world from a man who isn't capable of threatening it.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was always going to happen. Blairs CIA training has finally been activated and now he wants to kick some ass 
An interesting point though, if they wanted UN approval for the war they probably lost it when they went and stole the orginial Iraqi WMD docet's. So much for winning the world round to there point of view.
An interesting point though, if they wanted UN approval for the war they probably lost it when they went and stole the orginial Iraqi WMD docet's. So much for winning the world round to there point of view.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Conspiracy nutters abound.
he made his own. That's why they're also looking at the precursor chemicals. His biggest arms supplier was the USSR - they would have sold better and cheaper chemical weapons. The main suppliers of his chemical and biological plant machinery were european - in particular from Germany.
If they were ust after the oil they wouldn't have stopped in 91. Why wait 10 years? The fact that all this is happening after 9/11 is just to simple for some people. Gotta e a conspiracy.
Please go and sit in a cupboard under the stairs wearing your tinfoil lined hats till it's all over - that way they won't come to get you.
he made his own. That's why they're also looking at the precursor chemicals. His biggest arms supplier was the USSR - they would have sold better and cheaper chemical weapons. The main suppliers of his chemical and biological plant machinery were european - in particular from Germany.
If they were ust after the oil they wouldn't have stopped in 91. Why wait 10 years? The fact that all this is happening after 9/11 is just to simple for some people. Gotta e a conspiracy.
Please go and sit in a cupboard under the stairs wearing your tinfoil lined hats till it's all over - that way they won't come to get you.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting responses all. Notice today that the PM has told the Army to be "prepared to attack" using that well known command chain the BFBS.
I agree, it was only a matter of time. As for Tony's way of handling things:
"British armed forces are a credit to any Govt. and their support during the firefighters strike was invaluable. Sorry I can't guarantee what's coming or when, but you're all still great"
Bit of a paraphrase I know, but nonetheless GB, get ready for it, the man is all but telling you it's coming.
Regards to all and a great Christmas I hope we all have.
JJ
I agree, it was only a matter of time. As for Tony's way of handling things:
"British armed forces are a credit to any Govt. and their support during the firefighters strike was invaluable. Sorry I can't guarantee what's coming or when, but you're all still great"
Bit of a paraphrase I know, but nonetheless GB, get ready for it, the man is all but telling you it's coming.
Regards to all and a great Christmas I hope we all have.
JJ
JJ is right, it's coming.
The US and UK governments are singing from the same songsheet. The US goal is regime change in Iraq and we will be''shoulder to shoulder'' with them. Thats how it is and rightly so, as we are, beneath the skin, cousins and family.
Live with it. We will be fighting in the middle east, again, before we are all too much older. It may open a can of worms, but I dont think Tone or Jack Straw have thought that far.
God help us and all of our boys and girls who are going or who are already there.
Merry Christmas and a peaceful new year to everyone.
The US and UK governments are singing from the same songsheet. The US goal is regime change in Iraq and we will be''shoulder to shoulder'' with them. Thats how it is and rightly so, as we are, beneath the skin, cousins and family.
Live with it. We will be fighting in the middle east, again, before we are all too much older. It may open a can of worms, but I dont think Tone or Jack Straw have thought that far.
God help us and all of our boys and girls who are going or who are already there.
Merry Christmas and a peaceful new year to everyone.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the points that has not been debated either on this forum or any political stage is what is the endgame?(to coin an americanism). Especially for the British forces PLC. If we kick ass and take names, is this another Bosnia/Afganistan wherr there is no end?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably to get the US economy back on course. If the bean counters are to be believed, and lets face who in this debacle can be believed, Bush Jnr needs a war to get his finances in order........ and to be remain electable.
So Bliar will commit us all, and probably in my humble opinion rightly so, but I fail to see how we will ever have global approval for this.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
So Bliar will commit us all, and probably in my humble opinion rightly so, but I fail to see how we will ever have global approval for this.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Blue Wolf,
I doff my cap to you, sir:
the purpose of this op
"isn't to save the world from a man who isn't capable of threatening it".
A degree of international approval could be ensured by making sure that we have clear approval from the Security council, and by undertaking some balancing political action against Israel, to buy off moderate Arab opinion.
I doff my cap to you, sir:
the purpose of this op
"isn't to save the world from a man who isn't capable of threatening it".
A degree of international approval could be ensured by making sure that we have clear approval from the Security council, and by undertaking some balancing political action against Israel, to buy off moderate Arab opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...anybody else catch the headline in Friday's Daily Mirror? Something along the lines of 'There is a power hungry madman with WOMD who threatens the peace of the world - he must be stopped'. BTW, the picture below was of Dubya, not Saddam.
Recommended reading on the subject is 'Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore - thought provoking and funny, but overall very scary!
I agree with the post above which reminds us that we will still need a UNSC Resolution - which we did not have in order to 'finish the job off' last time. The remit was simply to remove him and his from Kuwait.
Recommended reading on the subject is 'Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore - thought provoking and funny, but overall very scary!
I agree with the post above which reminds us that we will still need a UNSC Resolution - which we did not have in order to 'finish the job off' last time. The remit was simply to remove him and his from Kuwait.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
At the risk of endless repetition, because, as a result of 9/11 Saddam is now seen as being capable of attacking the USA.
Up to 9/11 the USA felt itself as being aloof and invulnerable to the attacks which took place elsewhere in the world. Surrounded by the pacific and atlantic oceans it could not perceive any direct threat from anyone. Then 9/11 happened. Most people just cannot see or accept the profound shock this caused and the sea change this caused in how the USA now sees threats and the rest of the world. It showed that the USA is vulnerable, and that high-tech delivery means are not required.
Saddam was always seen as an aggressor. He was also seen as a man who likes revenge. He was known to have tried to assassinate George Bush Snr in revenge for the Gulf War, and is believed to have funded all the subsequent terrorist attacks against the USA (orignal Twin Trade Towers bomb, USS Cole etc). But these were not seen to be significant and a policy of containment was seen as being appropriate.
9/11 changed that. He is seen as presenting a danger to the USA. And that is not acceptable.
Does oil come into it? Of course it does, it's geopolitics. So does Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc - but no more than they did 10 years ago. You can argue for hours on the perceived friendship of Saudi Arabia, how they are regrded and the possibilities of a shift to a more fundamentalist form of government; the need for Iraq as a reliable alternate source etc. All these arguments have been put for years by intelligence analysts - but nothing was ever done. It was all back burner stuff. Before, the risks of destabilising the region exceeded the possible gains. Now, the risks are seen as real, now the USA is seen as being at risk. Now the USA has decided to act.
As a final point, it is also seen as an object lesson in the new(er) policy of non-proportional response. Nobody should have any doubt that any attack on the USA, no matter how minor, will result in a response up to, and including, the destruction of their country. This is meant to not only deter any potential aggressor group, but to ensure any host country knows it can be held responsible. America knows it it will never beloved, but fear is enough.
Up to 9/11 the USA felt itself as being aloof and invulnerable to the attacks which took place elsewhere in the world. Surrounded by the pacific and atlantic oceans it could not perceive any direct threat from anyone. Then 9/11 happened. Most people just cannot see or accept the profound shock this caused and the sea change this caused in how the USA now sees threats and the rest of the world. It showed that the USA is vulnerable, and that high-tech delivery means are not required.
Saddam was always seen as an aggressor. He was also seen as a man who likes revenge. He was known to have tried to assassinate George Bush Snr in revenge for the Gulf War, and is believed to have funded all the subsequent terrorist attacks against the USA (orignal Twin Trade Towers bomb, USS Cole etc). But these were not seen to be significant and a policy of containment was seen as being appropriate.
9/11 changed that. He is seen as presenting a danger to the USA. And that is not acceptable.
Does oil come into it? Of course it does, it's geopolitics. So does Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc - but no more than they did 10 years ago. You can argue for hours on the perceived friendship of Saudi Arabia, how they are regrded and the possibilities of a shift to a more fundamentalist form of government; the need for Iraq as a reliable alternate source etc. All these arguments have been put for years by intelligence analysts - but nothing was ever done. It was all back burner stuff. Before, the risks of destabilising the region exceeded the possible gains. Now, the risks are seen as real, now the USA is seen as being at risk. Now the USA has decided to act.
As a final point, it is also seen as an object lesson in the new(er) policy of non-proportional response. Nobody should have any doubt that any attack on the USA, no matter how minor, will result in a response up to, and including, the destruction of their country. This is meant to not only deter any potential aggressor group, but to ensure any host country knows it can be held responsible. America knows it it will never beloved, but fear is enough.
Guest
Posts: n/a
9/11 changed that. He is seen as presenting a danger to the USA. And that is not acceptable
Orac, there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11. That is not my statement, it is the analysis of the CIA, and stated by them.
Bush 43's first statement on the Iraq matter, was "It's time for a regime change" This was then superceded by "He's been beastly to his own people, he needs to go", then "He has weapons of mass destruction, and he must be stopped"
On this point , the CIA is saying, maybe he has, but we think he will only ever use them , as a last resort if he is attacked.
At the risk of endless repetition, because, as a result of 9/11 Saddam is now seen as being capable of attacking the USA.
So does any other country that has the arssewith the USA, and that is a long list, what is so special about Iraq?
Our mandate on GW1 , was to simply remove him from Kuwait, that's why we stopped. There is an awful lot of bollox spoken about "Oh we could have gone all the way to Baghdad" etc. Yes we could have. However, inside Iraq, there was evidence, that Forces loyal to Saddam, were digging in , and prepared to make a fight of it. They certainly had enough materiel and men under arms left. If we had exceeded the UN mandate, there was a very real danger of our Arab Coailition allies sacking it there and then.
I note with interest,last nights reports, that various Amerian Generals, are telling Ernst Stavros Rumsfeld, that 100,000 troops , are not enough for the job, as they have HARD intel, that Iraqi forces are prepared to put up a fight . Rumsfeld's reply , is that they have to make do with what they have, unless it all goes pear shaped. Those 100,000 troops, are also 60k Teeth , 40k Loggies, so Tommy franks is not the world's happiest bunny right now.
The whole thing stinks of adventurism, That however, is only my personal opinion. Let's get back to fighting TERRORISM, and by that, I mean proven terrorism, as opposed to wishful thinking to justify resource grabbing
Orac, there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11. That is not my statement, it is the analysis of the CIA, and stated by them.
Bush 43's first statement on the Iraq matter, was "It's time for a regime change" This was then superceded by "He's been beastly to his own people, he needs to go", then "He has weapons of mass destruction, and he must be stopped"
On this point , the CIA is saying, maybe he has, but we think he will only ever use them , as a last resort if he is attacked.
At the risk of endless repetition, because, as a result of 9/11 Saddam is now seen as being capable of attacking the USA.
So does any other country that has the arssewith the USA, and that is a long list, what is so special about Iraq?
Our mandate on GW1 , was to simply remove him from Kuwait, that's why we stopped. There is an awful lot of bollox spoken about "Oh we could have gone all the way to Baghdad" etc. Yes we could have. However, inside Iraq, there was evidence, that Forces loyal to Saddam, were digging in , and prepared to make a fight of it. They certainly had enough materiel and men under arms left. If we had exceeded the UN mandate, there was a very real danger of our Arab Coailition allies sacking it there and then.
I note with interest,last nights reports, that various Amerian Generals, are telling Ernst Stavros Rumsfeld, that 100,000 troops , are not enough for the job, as they have HARD intel, that Iraqi forces are prepared to put up a fight . Rumsfeld's reply , is that they have to make do with what they have, unless it all goes pear shaped. Those 100,000 troops, are also 60k Teeth , 40k Loggies, so Tommy franks is not the world's happiest bunny right now.
The whole thing stinks of adventurism, That however, is only my personal opinion. Let's get back to fighting TERRORISM, and by that, I mean proven terrorism, as opposed to wishful thinking to justify resource grabbing