He's a nice guy, honest!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My post were I described what I thought of Danny seems to of disappeared. This forum is turning into a United Nations Security Council meeting I mean what does it take to get an enforcement of a Pprune "ban" resolution 
There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing else to pursue.
StopStart when you figure out what that means you will understand what seriousness is.
There is surely nothing other than the single purpose of the present moment. A man's whole life is a succession of moment after moment. If one fully understands the present moment, there will be nothing else to do, and nothing else to pursue.
StopStart when you figure out what that means you will understand what seriousness is.
Last edited by A Civilian; 16th Feb 2003 at 22:11.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tis true AC. Your post has been removed, not by me but another moderator - who has done what I would have done. Your tirade against Danny is despicable. It further supports what he said - that you have no argument if you cannot express yourself without recourse to foul language and personal abuse.
It is not my place to exclude you from PPRuNe, but given that I could I surely would.
PPP
It is not my place to exclude you from PPRuNe, but given that I could I surely would.
PPP
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Civilian, I thought I told you to stay in your room until you were prepared to behave. 
I didn't see the post where you have obviously thrown another tantrum. Just get it into your head that this debate is only for adults and for people who are able to add something to the debate. It would appear that you are neither adult nor able to contribute. Tut tut!
If you want an example of debate between posters who disagree, often vehemently, just look at my arguments with jackonicko. I vehemently disagree with much of his viewpoint and I state my points, often with attacks that obviously hurt his feelings but at least he responds and stands by his views and doesn't sulk in the corner muttering obscenities about me, refusing to talk. (doesn't he?
)
Throwing wobblers and giving up arguing is not acceptable, even if BEagle says otherwise. PPRuNe is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Benign most of the time but my despotic rule can infuriate many of you and even draw accusations about supression of free speech. No free speech here, just the right to debate within vague guidelines which I am at liberty to adjust at will. Not nice being ruled by a despot is it? At least I don't torture and murder you and your family and neighbours when you invoke my wrath!
I didn't see the post where you have obviously thrown another tantrum. Just get it into your head that this debate is only for adults and for people who are able to add something to the debate. It would appear that you are neither adult nor able to contribute. Tut tut!
If you want an example of debate between posters who disagree, often vehemently, just look at my arguments with jackonicko. I vehemently disagree with much of his viewpoint and I state my points, often with attacks that obviously hurt his feelings but at least he responds and stands by his views and doesn't sulk in the corner muttering obscenities about me, refusing to talk. (doesn't he?
)Throwing wobblers and giving up arguing is not acceptable, even if BEagle says otherwise. PPRuNe is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Benign most of the time but my despotic rule can infuriate many of you and even draw accusations about supression of free speech. No free speech here, just the right to debate within vague guidelines which I am at liberty to adjust at will. Not nice being ruled by a despot is it? At least I don't torture and murder you and your family and neighbours when you invoke my wrath!
I’m not sulking, or muttering obsecenities, you'll be 'glad' to know.....
I’ve tried to avoid detailed argument about the Palestine question recently, because it seems to have been over-aired hereabouts. I’ve mentioned the existence of the problem where it’s relevant, while trying to avoid outlining the case. It now seems that I’m damned if I join the argument and damned if I don’t.
I’ve made it clear that I’d like to see a just and fair solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, on moral grounds. It seems to me that it is a problem in which there is right and wrong on both sides, and where sensible compromise ought to be possible. I admire and support those searching for peace on both sides, and unreservedly condemn those who are exacerbating the problem, again on both sides. (What an apologist! How unbalanced am I? Crikey!)
But morality aside, it strikes me that some movement on the issue would be practically useful at this time, because it would reduce anti-Americanism, and might even make it possible for Bush to gain the kind of wide support that his father won for Desert Storm, which would be invaluable if proper justification can be found for war against Iraq.
Like many of those you’d doubtless condemn as liberals or the chattering classes, I have no truck with Saddam Hussein. I have no objection to war per se, and supported Desert Storm, Desert Fox and Desert Strike.
I’d be really quite happy if the UN clearly and unmistakeably authorised further military action, because his removal would be a good thing.
I’m just concerned that without proper authorisation, without evidence of his hostile intent, without proof of his ability to harm us, the action proposed by Bush would put us in the wrong morally, and would start to bring us down to his standards. More seriously, I think that it will undermine our security, and make us more and not less of a target for fundamentalist terrorism.
“At least I don't torture and murder you and your family and neighbours when you invoke my wrath!”
Thanks Danny. That’s true. Nor have you sent tanks into my local primary school nor rocketed houses in my village in the vague hope of hitting me!
I’ve tried to avoid detailed argument about the Palestine question recently, because it seems to have been over-aired hereabouts. I’ve mentioned the existence of the problem where it’s relevant, while trying to avoid outlining the case. It now seems that I’m damned if I join the argument and damned if I don’t.
I’ve made it clear that I’d like to see a just and fair solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, on moral grounds. It seems to me that it is a problem in which there is right and wrong on both sides, and where sensible compromise ought to be possible. I admire and support those searching for peace on both sides, and unreservedly condemn those who are exacerbating the problem, again on both sides. (What an apologist! How unbalanced am I? Crikey!)
But morality aside, it strikes me that some movement on the issue would be practically useful at this time, because it would reduce anti-Americanism, and might even make it possible for Bush to gain the kind of wide support that his father won for Desert Storm, which would be invaluable if proper justification can be found for war against Iraq.
Like many of those you’d doubtless condemn as liberals or the chattering classes, I have no truck with Saddam Hussein. I have no objection to war per se, and supported Desert Storm, Desert Fox and Desert Strike.
I’d be really quite happy if the UN clearly and unmistakeably authorised further military action, because his removal would be a good thing.
I’m just concerned that without proper authorisation, without evidence of his hostile intent, without proof of his ability to harm us, the action proposed by Bush would put us in the wrong morally, and would start to bring us down to his standards. More seriously, I think that it will undermine our security, and make us more and not less of a target for fundamentalist terrorism.
“At least I don't torture and murder you and your family and neighbours when you invoke my wrath!”
Thanks Danny. That’s true. Nor have you sent tanks into my local primary school nor rocketed houses in my village in the vague hope of hitting me!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone really believe it anyway?
Er, sorry to interrupt but I have to ask the obvious. Does anyone actually believe this 'report', from 'a reliable source'?
It smells like a propaganda job to me, and clearly a very good one. It's so unlikely it's totally believable.
Pending proof and corroboration I don't believe a word of it.
Stopstart - respect dude, brilliant.
It smells like a propaganda job to me, and clearly a very good one. It's so unlikely it's totally believable.
Pending proof and corroboration I don't believe a word of it.
Stopstart - respect dude, brilliant.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: England
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't post much these days , just read, get depressed & log off!
However, recent events and comments on this thread have moved me from my naturally reticent condition.
I wish to make/ask the following points/questions:
1. How many Iraqi refugees/dissidents joined our wonderfully altruistic and spectacularly naive peace marchers on Saturday....if less than 1% maybe they know something we don't or care to ignore.
2. Why do our, obviously well informed, chattering classes insist upon using terms such as 'carpet bombing' and 'tens of thousands of innocent victims'. They need to check up on their own military's capabilities and ethics ( sorry, me being naif here, I forgot that I was born a baby killer!).
3. Bit of a mathematical teaser this one: if the solution to this situation is to allow Saddam to remain in power, and said glorious and benificent leader only tops 4,000 of his population per month, (using EU santioned methods, with no obvious distress permitted to the victim, just a little bit of Sarin/VX/chlorine), how long a period of internal murderous carnage will our cheese/sausage/ cheesysausage sucking Euro opportunist panty-waist, dead in the water, massive-unemployment-let's-deflect-the-issue, Heads of State allow before they give up their own repugnant and discrdedited Federalist agenda and start thinking of real people that really do starve to death. Or maybe 'Jack' I'm alright ChIraq thinks that Iraqis have cake to eat - you Pompous French dinosaurtwat!
4. Why do so few people bother themselves with the detail. In my country (apparently- BBC) only 9% of the population (more likely, a straw poll of 30-40 lunchees in the BBC canteen - you know how meticulous journos are) are willing to sanction an immediate attack on Iraq; yet the figure rockets by420% with a 2nd UN resolution! Why? Because (the majority of) Joe Public is too lazy and ignorant to assimilate the available information and formulate their own decision. They delegate that decision to the (almost) toothless UN, thereby circumventuing an awkward situation in which they may have to think about morals, albeit briefly. Morals make Joe uncomfortable. Easier to pay some inept and corrupt chief UN lawyer (Coffie anyone?) from a 3rd world country to discuss the issue whilst pocketing enough cash to pay off the old country's national debt.
5. Time to get some faith in politicians. I have never been an advocate of Tone before, but his stock is rising (so to speak). For a PM whose entire existence is dominated by the desire to be popular, he's making himself very unpopular. Maybe he knows something we don't. Got to be a very good reason for him to expose his jugular to Gordon..... If there is ever a reason for this country to go to war with Iraq, it's keeping that fat, Jock stump-muncher out of No 10! You think you're highly taxed now? (PS to all the pedants out there....this last point is inflammatory and domestic...but relevant).
6. No matter how fluffy you think kittens are, or how awful you imagine war can be, there can never, ever be sufficient reason to offer implicit approval of and provide propoganda for, a diabolical and murderous dictatorship such as the Saddamites subjugating the innocent people of Iraq. Now. As you read this text. Geddit? Civvy-boy?
Lastly.... for all those doubters: look up cynicism in the big book, then try a bit of loyalty; thank your lucky stars that you live in a country where many people died for your right to bitch ( quite a few Yanks methinks) and hope that you never meet an Iraqi who knows that you marched and demonstrated to extend the terror of his existence.
Peace
SP
However, recent events and comments on this thread have moved me from my naturally reticent condition.
I wish to make/ask the following points/questions:
1. How many Iraqi refugees/dissidents joined our wonderfully altruistic and spectacularly naive peace marchers on Saturday....if less than 1% maybe they know something we don't or care to ignore.
2. Why do our, obviously well informed, chattering classes insist upon using terms such as 'carpet bombing' and 'tens of thousands of innocent victims'. They need to check up on their own military's capabilities and ethics ( sorry, me being naif here, I forgot that I was born a baby killer!).
3. Bit of a mathematical teaser this one: if the solution to this situation is to allow Saddam to remain in power, and said glorious and benificent leader only tops 4,000 of his population per month, (using EU santioned methods, with no obvious distress permitted to the victim, just a little bit of Sarin/VX/chlorine), how long a period of internal murderous carnage will our cheese/sausage/ cheesysausage sucking Euro opportunist panty-waist, dead in the water, massive-unemployment-let's-deflect-the-issue, Heads of State allow before they give up their own repugnant and discrdedited Federalist agenda and start thinking of real people that really do starve to death. Or maybe 'Jack' I'm alright ChIraq thinks that Iraqis have cake to eat - you Pompous French dinosaurtwat!
4. Why do so few people bother themselves with the detail. In my country (apparently- BBC) only 9% of the population (more likely, a straw poll of 30-40 lunchees in the BBC canteen - you know how meticulous journos are) are willing to sanction an immediate attack on Iraq; yet the figure rockets by420% with a 2nd UN resolution! Why? Because (the majority of) Joe Public is too lazy and ignorant to assimilate the available information and formulate their own decision. They delegate that decision to the (almost) toothless UN, thereby circumventuing an awkward situation in which they may have to think about morals, albeit briefly. Morals make Joe uncomfortable. Easier to pay some inept and corrupt chief UN lawyer (Coffie anyone?) from a 3rd world country to discuss the issue whilst pocketing enough cash to pay off the old country's national debt.
5. Time to get some faith in politicians. I have never been an advocate of Tone before, but his stock is rising (so to speak). For a PM whose entire existence is dominated by the desire to be popular, he's making himself very unpopular. Maybe he knows something we don't. Got to be a very good reason for him to expose his jugular to Gordon..... If there is ever a reason for this country to go to war with Iraq, it's keeping that fat, Jock stump-muncher out of No 10! You think you're highly taxed now? (PS to all the pedants out there....this last point is inflammatory and domestic...but relevant).
6. No matter how fluffy you think kittens are, or how awful you imagine war can be, there can never, ever be sufficient reason to offer implicit approval of and provide propoganda for, a diabolical and murderous dictatorship such as the Saddamites subjugating the innocent people of Iraq. Now. As you read this text. Geddit? Civvy-boy?
Lastly.... for all those doubters: look up cynicism in the big book, then try a bit of loyalty; thank your lucky stars that you live in a country where many people died for your right to bitch ( quite a few Yanks methinks) and hope that you never meet an Iraqi who knows that you marched and demonstrated to extend the terror of his existence.
Peace
SP
Danny - I was merely trying to indicate that I thought AC's post was the result of a moment's intemperance. Perhaps he could have agreed that was the case and offered an apology. Regrettably his later and much more personal and vindictive post did neither; I support the right to free expression to some degree, but certainly not petulant name-calling and foul language. Do not for a moment think that I consider his ex-perambulatory ursine ejection to be acceptable!
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StopStart has given me an idea.
Danny, how about we start a continous, dedicated thread on the whole Middle East subject? This could include Iraq, Iran, Israel /Palestine, etc etc.
It would be an almost completely no-holds-barred forum, wherein posters could vent their respective spleens, either on the topic or at each other, using whatever language or personal insults they desired. Verifiable facts and reasoned argument would be optional.
Posts attempting to hijack other threads could be immediately moved to this dedicated BitchPit.
I say almost completely no-holds-barred, and here's the twist; StopStart could be made honourary Moderator, with the power to award points for cleverness or humour, and to deduct them for lack thereof. Each new poster to this forum or thread - whether posting there deliberately or having a post moved there - would begin with a credit of, say, 100 points.
Once a poster's points account was at zero, that poster would be banned from the thread.
Genuine posts, to threads actually started with the Middle East or the Israeli / Palestinian conflict as the subject, would be exempted from being moved to the BitchPit.
On a slight aside, Bubbette, I have to say that your latest post in this thread surprised me a little, and I may well owe you an apology. I had assumed, without evidence, that your attitude towards Palestinians would automatically extend to all Muslims, and this is obviously not the case. Perhaps not all my past criticism has been entirely warranted.
Danny, how about we start a continous, dedicated thread on the whole Middle East subject? This could include Iraq, Iran, Israel /Palestine, etc etc.
It would be an almost completely no-holds-barred forum, wherein posters could vent their respective spleens, either on the topic or at each other, using whatever language or personal insults they desired. Verifiable facts and reasoned argument would be optional.
Posts attempting to hijack other threads could be immediately moved to this dedicated BitchPit.
I say almost completely no-holds-barred, and here's the twist; StopStart could be made honourary Moderator, with the power to award points for cleverness or humour, and to deduct them for lack thereof. Each new poster to this forum or thread - whether posting there deliberately or having a post moved there - would begin with a credit of, say, 100 points.
Once a poster's points account was at zero, that poster would be banned from the thread.
Genuine posts, to threads actually started with the Middle East or the Israeli / Palestinian conflict as the subject, would be exempted from being moved to the BitchPit.
On a slight aside, Bubbette, I have to say that your latest post in this thread surprised me a little, and I may well owe you an apology. I had assumed, without evidence, that your attitude towards Palestinians would automatically extend to all Muslims, and this is obviously not the case. Perhaps not all my past criticism has been entirely warranted.
I do not think we should attack Iraq. I am one of those "spectacularly naive peace marchers", I suppose, as I marched on Saturday. I feel SP ought to be informed that there was a fair contingent of Iraqi exiles on the march, I know this because they were directly in front of me. They may not have been 1%, but this may have some slight, tenuous, tangential connection, unlikely as it may seem, with the fact that we were in London. I do not think that we should invade Iraq, because I believe on the basis of sober reflection that such an act will damage our interests more than it will help them. I suspect that the war itself will be more difficult than a lot of people think, but most of all that it will further enrage the Muslim world, it will divide Europe and America and endanger both NATO and the EU, in other words the main pillars of the western structure of security, it will divert effort from our anti-terrorist campaign in the widest sense and it will cause yet more economic problems.
The possible benefits do not seem equal to these. Even the prospect of access to Iraqi oil is not all it is cracked up to be. The Iraqi oil industry will need large investment to be able to pump even its pre-1991 production. This means paying out for a long time. If, as the Republican cheerleaders hope, we will recover our occupation costs out of Iraqi oil revenues, then there will be no money for this investment and hence not much more oil. If it was only oil we were after, we could make an immoral and grubby deal with Saddam - just as we have done with plenty of other dictators who have oil - and get it without the cost and risk of war. These points count double in the event that the oilfields are sabotaged, that a WMD is used, that civil war breaks out in Iraq, or that a Turkish-Kurdish war breaks out.
It is also looking unlikely that Iraq has done much in the way of WMD development since 1998. The inspectors' reports are pretty clear on this. But we are to be asked to believe that if they find nothing, then this is proof that such weapons exist and war should be declared - and if they do find them, then war shoudl be declared. This is the logic of witch hunt and kangaroo court. We ought to remember that the original inspectors destroyed far more WMD material than the Allied air forces, although we are now being told that the inspectors are useless....logic? Further, while they are sniffing around it is unlikely that Iraq will start anything new in this direction.
Transferring bases out of Saudi Arabia is also given as a possible benefit. I do not see why Muslim opinion should prefer the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the presence of foreign troops in Saudi - surely the opposite is true? Anyway, the bases in Saudi are only necessary as long as conflict with Iraq continues - so why go into Iraq for bases? It's not logical, Captain.
It is said that Iraq will become a model democracy, a Federal Republic of Germany in the Middle East. It seems a very big assumption that simply battering into Baghdad will guarantee a successful peace. Iraq is deeply ethnically divided, and it may be remembered that Donald Rumsfeld, now so enthusiastic for the invasion of Iraq, declared some time ago that US forces would no longer be involved in "nation building". But a nation-building on the scale of the occupation of Germany is necessary for this fairytale of Iraq being transformed into a model pupil of democracy by force to succeed. It has been widely reported in the last two days that the US government's latest plan for the occupation of Iraq involves nothing more complicated than replacing the top two officials of each Iraqi ministry with US officers. The Ba'athist state beneath them will be conveniently maintained in place - after all, those secret police might come in handy. The Kurds are - not surprisingly - horrified. What we can expect, if this and the history of US interventions is to go by, is very simply a dictator swap.
And why, even given a modicum of success, should the spectacle of American tanks rolling into Baghdad make "The reformers in Iran will hopefully stabilise their nation and bring it back to a state of significance"? I would wager that the exact opposite will occur - an upburst of nationalist hate and a vicious crackdown. And the possible effects throughout the region beggar belief. Saudi Arabia, another nasty little tyranny, is at the moment on our side.........just. In fact, if you want al-Qa'ida links, torture or injustice, Saudi is the place to look. Like this, though, we run the risk of triggering an Islamist revolution there. Then watch the oil price spike, and the terrorists' bank accounts swell. In that event, we should have to fear for the security of the Gulf states. The UAE, Bahrain and Oman would all be at distinct danger from one side or the other, and Iraqi oil would do us no good at all if the Straits of Hormuz became dangerous...and we haven't even got to Israel yet! In this context, you wouldn't give much for the chances of Syria remaining stable and at least neutral. And what about Jordan?
To finish up with, we could also expect yet more escalation in Israel and Palestine. We would be looking at a great strengthening of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as against Fatah...and if you don't like Yassir Arafat, just imagine trying to deal with these boys. And what would a Sharon/Netanyahu government do then? They are pushing the boundaries of escalation as it is without success. But...at least we might get Saddam's skull for the trophy cabinet to make up for the lack of OBL's.
Yes, this is a worst-case scenario. But the advocates of war seem to base their thinking entirely on a best-possible-case scenario which seems frankly unlikely. Of course the war will be easy! Of course the civpop will escape! Naturally we will succeed in creating a stable democracy in Iraq! Evidently the oilfields will be got going at once! How could the war possibly spread? Impossible! Al-Qa'ida regroup? Ridiculous! After the war? Well, then we'll solve the Israeli-Palestinian war! If we can ensure all the other conditions, then our leaders must be such geniuses and so lucky that the last one will be child's play! I don't think this is a good idea.
The possible benefits do not seem equal to these. Even the prospect of access to Iraqi oil is not all it is cracked up to be. The Iraqi oil industry will need large investment to be able to pump even its pre-1991 production. This means paying out for a long time. If, as the Republican cheerleaders hope, we will recover our occupation costs out of Iraqi oil revenues, then there will be no money for this investment and hence not much more oil. If it was only oil we were after, we could make an immoral and grubby deal with Saddam - just as we have done with plenty of other dictators who have oil - and get it without the cost and risk of war. These points count double in the event that the oilfields are sabotaged, that a WMD is used, that civil war breaks out in Iraq, or that a Turkish-Kurdish war breaks out.
It is also looking unlikely that Iraq has done much in the way of WMD development since 1998. The inspectors' reports are pretty clear on this. But we are to be asked to believe that if they find nothing, then this is proof that such weapons exist and war should be declared - and if they do find them, then war shoudl be declared. This is the logic of witch hunt and kangaroo court. We ought to remember that the original inspectors destroyed far more WMD material than the Allied air forces, although we are now being told that the inspectors are useless....logic? Further, while they are sniffing around it is unlikely that Iraq will start anything new in this direction.
Transferring bases out of Saudi Arabia is also given as a possible benefit. I do not see why Muslim opinion should prefer the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the presence of foreign troops in Saudi - surely the opposite is true? Anyway, the bases in Saudi are only necessary as long as conflict with Iraq continues - so why go into Iraq for bases? It's not logical, Captain.
It is said that Iraq will become a model democracy, a Federal Republic of Germany in the Middle East. It seems a very big assumption that simply battering into Baghdad will guarantee a successful peace. Iraq is deeply ethnically divided, and it may be remembered that Donald Rumsfeld, now so enthusiastic for the invasion of Iraq, declared some time ago that US forces would no longer be involved in "nation building". But a nation-building on the scale of the occupation of Germany is necessary for this fairytale of Iraq being transformed into a model pupil of democracy by force to succeed. It has been widely reported in the last two days that the US government's latest plan for the occupation of Iraq involves nothing more complicated than replacing the top two officials of each Iraqi ministry with US officers. The Ba'athist state beneath them will be conveniently maintained in place - after all, those secret police might come in handy. The Kurds are - not surprisingly - horrified. What we can expect, if this and the history of US interventions is to go by, is very simply a dictator swap.
And why, even given a modicum of success, should the spectacle of American tanks rolling into Baghdad make "The reformers in Iran will hopefully stabilise their nation and bring it back to a state of significance"? I would wager that the exact opposite will occur - an upburst of nationalist hate and a vicious crackdown. And the possible effects throughout the region beggar belief. Saudi Arabia, another nasty little tyranny, is at the moment on our side.........just. In fact, if you want al-Qa'ida links, torture or injustice, Saudi is the place to look. Like this, though, we run the risk of triggering an Islamist revolution there. Then watch the oil price spike, and the terrorists' bank accounts swell. In that event, we should have to fear for the security of the Gulf states. The UAE, Bahrain and Oman would all be at distinct danger from one side or the other, and Iraqi oil would do us no good at all if the Straits of Hormuz became dangerous...and we haven't even got to Israel yet! In this context, you wouldn't give much for the chances of Syria remaining stable and at least neutral. And what about Jordan?
To finish up with, we could also expect yet more escalation in Israel and Palestine. We would be looking at a great strengthening of Hamas and Islamic Jihad as against Fatah...and if you don't like Yassir Arafat, just imagine trying to deal with these boys. And what would a Sharon/Netanyahu government do then? They are pushing the boundaries of escalation as it is without success. But...at least we might get Saddam's skull for the trophy cabinet to make up for the lack of OBL's.
Yes, this is a worst-case scenario. But the advocates of war seem to base their thinking entirely on a best-possible-case scenario which seems frankly unlikely. Of course the war will be easy! Of course the civpop will escape! Naturally we will succeed in creating a stable democracy in Iraq! Evidently the oilfields will be got going at once! How could the war possibly spread? Impossible! Al-Qa'ida regroup? Ridiculous! After the war? Well, then we'll solve the Israeli-Palestinian war! If we can ensure all the other conditions, then our leaders must be such geniuses and so lucky that the last one will be child's play! I don't think this is a good idea.
Hey Steamer!
You're talking nonsense. You must be, because it seemed to make perfect sense to me, and I could find little to disagree with, and you know what I'm like.....
You're talking nonsense. You must be, because it seemed to make perfect sense to me, and I could find little to disagree with, and you know what I'm like.....
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we've all stated our cases, for, against and neutral. 
Perhaps it's time to sit back and see what actually happes and if any of us should look forward to a career as a commentator on world issues or stick with the day job.
No amount of us debating the issue here is going to make any difference to what Bliar or Bush decide to do. I don't think any of us have been persuaded to change our views but we all have our own perspectives on the situation. We will just have to agree to disagree... or am I being too optimistic that we have reached a level of harmony never before witnessed on PPRuNe?
Now, where is StopStart with his invaluable commentary and overview?
Oh, and I think I'd better let A Civilian out of his room now... silly boy!
Perhaps it's time to sit back and see what actually happes and if any of us should look forward to a career as a commentator on world issues or stick with the day job.No amount of us debating the issue here is going to make any difference to what Bliar or Bush decide to do. I don't think any of us have been persuaded to change our views but we all have our own perspectives on the situation. We will just have to agree to disagree... or am I being too optimistic that we have reached a level of harmony never before witnessed on PPRuNe?
Now, where is StopStart with his invaluable commentary and overview?
Oh, and I think I'd better let A Civilian out of his room now... silly boy!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Absolutely outstanding post Steamchicken.
Now, let's see if it gets contradicted under a relentless google-avalanche.
Yes, there are a lot of Iraqi's who want Saddam out of power, I know because I've spent the last few months talking to a lot of them . However, universally and without exception, they do not want to be run by an American administration.
The question they like to ask is "How come the Americans can make plans for our oil, but not plans, for how to feed, clothe, educate and give us work, after the war?"
Maybe they have made these plans, but they sure as sh1t, haven't made them public
Can't help feeling, that Bush 43 would win a lot more support for his plans, if he was to say "We're coming to kick Saddam out, and we are going to empower the Iraqi people , to become a powerhouse in the Middle East"
Maybe if the Carlyle group, was run along the lines of the Getty foundation?
Now, let's see if it gets contradicted under a relentless google-avalanche.
Yes, there are a lot of Iraqi's who want Saddam out of power, I know because I've spent the last few months talking to a lot of them . However, universally and without exception, they do not want to be run by an American administration.
The question they like to ask is "How come the Americans can make plans for our oil, but not plans, for how to feed, clothe, educate and give us work, after the war?"
Maybe they have made these plans, but they sure as sh1t, haven't made them public
Can't help feeling, that Bush 43 would win a lot more support for his plans, if he was to say "We're coming to kick Saddam out, and we are going to empower the Iraqi people , to become a powerhouse in the Middle East"
Maybe if the Carlyle group, was run along the lines of the Getty foundation?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I post a long reply, but realised it might upset a few viewers. I've therefore deleted it.
I'd just like to say I consider that Steamchickens post consist of supposition, insinuation, misquotation and mendacity. If he'd care to step outside (jetblast), I'd satisfy his honour.
I have, however, refuted all the points he makes in his post already. But, I suppose, what you can't make up in weight, you can try and make up in repetition.
I've therefore deleted it. I'd just like to say I consider that Steamchickens post consist of supposition, insinuation, misquotation and mendacity. If he'd care to step outside (jetblast), I'd satisfy his honour.
I have, however, refuted all the points he makes in his post already. But, I suppose, what you can't make up in weight, you can try and make up in repetition.
Last edited by ORAC; 18th Feb 2003 at 06:45.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure whether to be saddened at the naivety, or rejoice in the free speech of our marchers.
We do ourselves and the world a disservice if we hide behind the security council and the UN when it comes to the tough decisions.
As has been stated, apparently >40% of the population accept that action should be taken, but only under the auspices of the UNSC. Does anyone really belive that the UN is an organisation that is capable of making decisions based on anything other than political imperitive. Witness Libya's chair of the Human Rights commission. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. This kind "Politics" makes me sick.
France, so pompous, will do whatever it needs to for reasons that are political only. It sees some mileage in telling the US that it does not have everything its own way. But when it comes to le crunch, the French know that politically they need to be involved, and so they will be. Their cynicism never ceases to astound me. The Germans protest because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Schroder was elected on his anti-US rhetoric and sees no reason to change that winning formula, as his country is going down the economical pan.
What of the Russians and the Chinese? Well if they don't agree with war, then they must be agreeing with the marchers. Err don't think so. Russia and China are against war for Political not morale reasons. They want the sanctions lifted so that they can trade with Iraq. I imagine that many of the marchers still believe the oft spouted propaganda that the sanctions on Iraq have caused the death of countless children, and starvation for many. Somebody needs to remind them that Iraq is quite able to sell oil for food and medicine, but chooses to let its people rot for propaganda purposes. But hey, lets let the weapons inspectors do their job! Give them a chance, they haven't got to big an area to search! The materials may be found (though I have no doubt he has much hidden that will not be found), but the know-how and skills will not be lost and Saddam's WOMD will rise again in the not to distant future.
I don't believe in the UN. I lost my faith at Srebrenica. The inaction and hand-wringing and political gamesmanship that went on there was nothing to do with the rights of the Bosnians and everything to do with the ego's of the 'Liberal' (I hope you are not offended Jacko), ruling classes in Europe. We were weak (and I include the UK in this, John Major should take this shame with him wherever he goes) in the face of hatred and many lives were lost. We cannot afford to be that weak again.
It is easy to fight to do nothing, to fight and argue the case for 'Peace'. Peace is all that matters to the marchers, because the word conjurs the image of a just and fair world where everyone is happy and people live without fear of bombs, utopia in the 21st century.
I say bull****.
Steamchicken, your view is indeed twisted and pessimistic, as well as unrealistic. You would have us watch the Iraqi people rot because we are afraid of becoming a target for terrorists.
The weapons inspectors will do their job well. But does anyone really believe that if we don't go to war, that we can sustain this pressure on Hussain indefinately? In 1, maybe 2, or even 5 years time he will dust off the weapons that he has well hidden. He will build and develop more weapons. He will then deal with the people who have been so arrogant as to set up their own society in the North. He will take back from the Kurds what they have taken, and he will murder them by the thousand. Will you march for the Kurds when this happens? A million people in Hyde park saying that they want peace not war for the Kurdish people, I doubt it? Saddam won't be listening.
It is good to have a cause, but there are so many more worthy causes than peace with Saddam.
It is a cliche to compare Saddam to Hitler, but I truly believe that he has to be dealt with now before he becomes as infamous. There was no UN in 1939. The league of Nations was as impotent as the UN is now. Britain stood up. It cost us dearly, politically and economically, but few would say that we had a choice but to fight.
I respect everyone's right to march. I don't want war either. But peace at any cost. Peace because war is terrible. Peace because the majority of the population think that the UN is the holy grail on international politics and morale arbitor for the world, is no peace at all.
I'm ready to do the job, and I believe that what I am doing is morally right.
As for Arafat. Why is it Jacko, that you continue to spout the old cr@p about him being for peace now. Renounced terrorism. Ready to negotiate etc etc. He has Sharon to face now through his own fault. Barak gave him a chance and he spat it back at him. The Israeli people responded. Arafat has no place at the peace table. He needs to back down. Get his house in order (if the IDF don't demolish it first) and promote peace. If he does this then maybe he will gain some of the moral high ground and the Israeli's will be forced to respond in kind. Until he does this, I am with Israel.
See you in Baghdad.
We do ourselves and the world a disservice if we hide behind the security council and the UN when it comes to the tough decisions.
As has been stated, apparently >40% of the population accept that action should be taken, but only under the auspices of the UNSC. Does anyone really belive that the UN is an organisation that is capable of making decisions based on anything other than political imperitive. Witness Libya's chair of the Human Rights commission. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. This kind "Politics" makes me sick.
France, so pompous, will do whatever it needs to for reasons that are political only. It sees some mileage in telling the US that it does not have everything its own way. But when it comes to le crunch, the French know that politically they need to be involved, and so they will be. Their cynicism never ceases to astound me. The Germans protest because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Schroder was elected on his anti-US rhetoric and sees no reason to change that winning formula, as his country is going down the economical pan.
What of the Russians and the Chinese? Well if they don't agree with war, then they must be agreeing with the marchers. Err don't think so. Russia and China are against war for Political not morale reasons. They want the sanctions lifted so that they can trade with Iraq. I imagine that many of the marchers still believe the oft spouted propaganda that the sanctions on Iraq have caused the death of countless children, and starvation for many. Somebody needs to remind them that Iraq is quite able to sell oil for food and medicine, but chooses to let its people rot for propaganda purposes. But hey, lets let the weapons inspectors do their job! Give them a chance, they haven't got to big an area to search! The materials may be found (though I have no doubt he has much hidden that will not be found), but the know-how and skills will not be lost and Saddam's WOMD will rise again in the not to distant future.
I don't believe in the UN. I lost my faith at Srebrenica. The inaction and hand-wringing and political gamesmanship that went on there was nothing to do with the rights of the Bosnians and everything to do with the ego's of the 'Liberal' (I hope you are not offended Jacko), ruling classes in Europe. We were weak (and I include the UK in this, John Major should take this shame with him wherever he goes) in the face of hatred and many lives were lost. We cannot afford to be that weak again.
It is easy to fight to do nothing, to fight and argue the case for 'Peace'. Peace is all that matters to the marchers, because the word conjurs the image of a just and fair world where everyone is happy and people live without fear of bombs, utopia in the 21st century.
I say bull****.
Steamchicken, your view is indeed twisted and pessimistic, as well as unrealistic. You would have us watch the Iraqi people rot because we are afraid of becoming a target for terrorists.
The weapons inspectors will do their job well. But does anyone really believe that if we don't go to war, that we can sustain this pressure on Hussain indefinately? In 1, maybe 2, or even 5 years time he will dust off the weapons that he has well hidden. He will build and develop more weapons. He will then deal with the people who have been so arrogant as to set up their own society in the North. He will take back from the Kurds what they have taken, and he will murder them by the thousand. Will you march for the Kurds when this happens? A million people in Hyde park saying that they want peace not war for the Kurdish people, I doubt it? Saddam won't be listening.
It is good to have a cause, but there are so many more worthy causes than peace with Saddam.
It is a cliche to compare Saddam to Hitler, but I truly believe that he has to be dealt with now before he becomes as infamous. There was no UN in 1939. The league of Nations was as impotent as the UN is now. Britain stood up. It cost us dearly, politically and economically, but few would say that we had a choice but to fight.
I respect everyone's right to march. I don't want war either. But peace at any cost. Peace because war is terrible. Peace because the majority of the population think that the UN is the holy grail on international politics and morale arbitor for the world, is no peace at all.
I'm ready to do the job, and I believe that what I am doing is morally right.
As for Arafat. Why is it Jacko, that you continue to spout the old cr@p about him being for peace now. Renounced terrorism. Ready to negotiate etc etc. He has Sharon to face now through his own fault. Barak gave him a chance and he spat it back at him. The Israeli people responded. Arafat has no place at the peace table. He needs to back down. Get his house in order (if the IDF don't demolish it first) and promote peace. If he does this then maybe he will gain some of the moral high ground and the Israeli's will be forced to respond in kind. Until he does this, I am with Israel.
See you in Baghdad.
Last edited by DESPERADO; 18th Feb 2003 at 05:12.
Champagne anyone...?
Good Afternoon once again sports fans! We come to you today, live, from the smouldering chemical waste land that is the Akrotiri peninsula!
We would like to apologise for the delays in getting our commentaries to you however I'm sure you'll understand that in these dark days our time is taken up with bailing out our trenches, filling sand bags, counting them all out and then back in again and mixing Brandy Sours.
Again, this update will be mercifully brief as they are, as we speak, fuelling the birds and getting them ready to fly.......
Well, this has been a surprise of thread, I'm sure you'll all agree! From being dead in the water and under threat of closure it has blossomed in a true beauty of a thread, complete with passionate argument, fiery tempers, heartfelt pleas, spittle-flecked rants and the ever-present illiterate droolings.
Sadly, I once again don't have the time to give you a thorough update of the current scorings and ratings suffice it to say the field of competitors grows ever larger and the wildness of some opinions ever more bonkers. It is my sad duty to report, however, that a favourite competitor - the young and deliciously bouffant Dr Orac of Google - has seemingly felt it necessary to withdraw from open competition. The deletion of a long and no doubt well researched post from the playing field is always a sad event. We can only hope that Dr Orac can maybe one day find it in himself to rejoin this mortal and bloodthirsty combat.
But now I must leave you - the taxi's waiting, he's blowing his horn......a skill that many of us will become skilled in over the next few months no doubt...
To close I would like to advise competitors and viewers of a new scoring system that I shall be implementing for future postings where necessary. Details of it may be found at the bottom of the page here.
Obviously the first scoring award must go to our friend A Civilian. A long time contributor and poser of deep, thoughtful questions and considered opinions he is accordingly awarded a score of 4
As he is a fan of italicised quotations dragged off the Information Super B Road, a score of 4 means:
A seriously flawed writing sample. The writer attempts to address the topic, but is only partially successful. There is often no clear statement of a main idea or point of view and there is confusion found in the writer's efforts in presenting supporting detail. Any organization that is present fails to present an effective sequence of ideas. There are many errors in mechanical conventions of usage, sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Thank you and good night!
And now, over to topless darts from Roehampton.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All spelling mistakes are nerve agent induced.
We would like to apologise for the delays in getting our commentaries to you however I'm sure you'll understand that in these dark days our time is taken up with bailing out our trenches, filling sand bags, counting them all out and then back in again and mixing Brandy Sours.
Again, this update will be mercifully brief as they are, as we speak, fuelling the birds and getting them ready to fly.......
Well, this has been a surprise of thread, I'm sure you'll all agree! From being dead in the water and under threat of closure it has blossomed in a true beauty of a thread, complete with passionate argument, fiery tempers, heartfelt pleas, spittle-flecked rants and the ever-present illiterate droolings.
Sadly, I once again don't have the time to give you a thorough update of the current scorings and ratings suffice it to say the field of competitors grows ever larger and the wildness of some opinions ever more bonkers. It is my sad duty to report, however, that a favourite competitor - the young and deliciously bouffant Dr Orac of Google - has seemingly felt it necessary to withdraw from open competition. The deletion of a long and no doubt well researched post from the playing field is always a sad event. We can only hope that Dr Orac can maybe one day find it in himself to rejoin this mortal and bloodthirsty combat.
But now I must leave you - the taxi's waiting, he's blowing his horn......a skill that many of us will become skilled in over the next few months no doubt...
To close I would like to advise competitors and viewers of a new scoring system that I shall be implementing for future postings where necessary. Details of it may be found at the bottom of the page here.
Obviously the first scoring award must go to our friend A Civilian. A long time contributor and poser of deep, thoughtful questions and considered opinions he is accordingly awarded a score of 4
As he is a fan of italicised quotations dragged off the Information Super B Road, a score of 4 means:
A seriously flawed writing sample. The writer attempts to address the topic, but is only partially successful. There is often no clear statement of a main idea or point of view and there is confusion found in the writer's efforts in presenting supporting detail. Any organization that is present fails to present an effective sequence of ideas. There are many errors in mechanical conventions of usage, sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Thank you and good night!
And now, over to topless darts from Roehampton.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All spelling mistakes are nerve agent induced.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating stuff.
My background. I’m an observer here, not a flyer. Yes, I did vote for Tony. Yes, I would have been on the march last Saturday (except I could not, as I am away on a business trip in the USA).
May I make a fee observations.
I do believe that the anti war sentiment is far deeper than the government realises. I know most readers of this forum will disagree with me on that – and I cannot do anything that will objectively prove my point. Just pass on my personal observation, as someone outside the military, that the opposition is wide and deep.
The key factor why I am against the US and the UK starting war unilaterally is because we are not being consistent. I have no doubt that Saddam is a nasty piece of work and the world would be a better place without him. But he has been nasty for years and we did precious little – indeed we aided him not so far back – so exactly why has it suddenly become an urgent issue to depose him now?
More importantly, on the consistency theme, we can’t go after Saddam if we do not also apply the same policies to other evil dictators. North Korea and Zimbabwe would be two obvious examples, but there are more.
Danny posted an article to explain why the legal situation concerning enforcement of the types of security council resolutions on Israel / Palestine are different from the resolutions concerning Iraq. And do we really suppose that world opinion anywhere east of the North Sea is interested in that legal distinction?
Credibility of the case - the UK and the US governments have to recognise that spin has backfired. The UK government has spun and spun so often, that even if they are publishing the truth now they are going to be doubted by much of the population.
And finally, nothing is more guaranteed to make me anti Bush/Blair than to have Donald Rumsfeld lecture me in such a patronising way as he has over the past two weeks. (I know I should rise above it - I’m just being honest).
I do not say that we should never go to war. But if this is about the moral high ground, which Blair and Bush are lecturing me that it is, then how can we maintain that high ground if we are so selective in our targets?
My background. I’m an observer here, not a flyer. Yes, I did vote for Tony. Yes, I would have been on the march last Saturday (except I could not, as I am away on a business trip in the USA).
May I make a fee observations.
I do believe that the anti war sentiment is far deeper than the government realises. I know most readers of this forum will disagree with me on that – and I cannot do anything that will objectively prove my point. Just pass on my personal observation, as someone outside the military, that the opposition is wide and deep.
The key factor why I am against the US and the UK starting war unilaterally is because we are not being consistent. I have no doubt that Saddam is a nasty piece of work and the world would be a better place without him. But he has been nasty for years and we did precious little – indeed we aided him not so far back – so exactly why has it suddenly become an urgent issue to depose him now?
More importantly, on the consistency theme, we can’t go after Saddam if we do not also apply the same policies to other evil dictators. North Korea and Zimbabwe would be two obvious examples, but there are more.
Danny posted an article to explain why the legal situation concerning enforcement of the types of security council resolutions on Israel / Palestine are different from the resolutions concerning Iraq. And do we really suppose that world opinion anywhere east of the North Sea is interested in that legal distinction?
Credibility of the case - the UK and the US governments have to recognise that spin has backfired. The UK government has spun and spun so often, that even if they are publishing the truth now they are going to be doubted by much of the population.
And finally, nothing is more guaranteed to make me anti Bush/Blair than to have Donald Rumsfeld lecture me in such a patronising way as he has over the past two weeks. (I know I should rise above it - I’m just being honest).
I do not say that we should never go to war. But if this is about the moral high ground, which Blair and Bush are lecturing me that it is, then how can we maintain that high ground if we are so selective in our targets?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With StopStart's "the wildness of some opinions ever more bonkers" firmly in mind:
I was thinking of entering Saddam in the Green Card Lottery this year.
Here's a good conspiracy theory for you ELPax:
The Bush administration is smarter than we think. They are achieving exactly what was planned from the get go: Raison d'etre for ramping-up isolationism and unilateralism.
Expect them to go into a huff and impose more trade barriers very soon. Better close some sales while you're there ELPax you might not get another chance.
Tony "I do not seek unpopularity" Blair is tagging along in damage control mode. He has no choice given the agenda.
Re. that half-assed "Robert Ludlum does Biggles" renegade MIG story, I have seen no mention of it anywhere else. If it were true it would be all over the media. It has the perfect symmetry of a movie plot. Complete b*llocks IMO
Saddam must be removed. Diplomacy is key, for now, for most people. God knows we all deeply mistrust Saddam, however many are unconvinced by the Bush administration. Is there a "Diplomacy For Dummies" book out yet? I'm growing weary of having my intelligence insulted.
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
"It's the economy, stupid" - Graucho Marx
(Edited to correct spelling of 'intelligence')
I was thinking of entering Saddam in the Green Card Lottery this year.
Here's a good conspiracy theory for you ELPax:
The Bush administration is smarter than we think. They are achieving exactly what was planned from the get go: Raison d'etre for ramping-up isolationism and unilateralism.
Expect them to go into a huff and impose more trade barriers very soon. Better close some sales while you're there ELPax you might not get another chance.
Tony "I do not seek unpopularity" Blair is tagging along in damage control mode. He has no choice given the agenda.
Re. that half-assed "Robert Ludlum does Biggles" renegade MIG story, I have seen no mention of it anywhere else. If it were true it would be all over the media. It has the perfect symmetry of a movie plot. Complete b*llocks IMO
Saddam must be removed. Diplomacy is key, for now, for most people. God knows we all deeply mistrust Saddam, however many are unconvinced by the Bush administration. Is there a "Diplomacy For Dummies" book out yet? I'm growing weary of having my intelligence insulted.
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
"It's the economy, stupid" - Graucho Marx
(Edited to correct spelling of 'intelligence')
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELONDONPAX..........I liked the tone of your post if not the content. Whilst you are in the States go and visit the site of the towers in New York and stand there, quietly, for a few minutes, and try and relive the terror that happened there. Then, think of why Bush is doing what he is doing.
Saddam supports terrorism, he has proved that,by using chemical weapons on his own people.
Blair is supporting Bush because the USA is a very strong ally of the UK and to be quite honest who in their right mind wants Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction. Can you picture what will happen to the Middle East if he ever uses the weapons that he undoubtedly has? He will be totally responsible for the start of WW3.
STOPSTART..........This has to be worth at least an 8.
Saddam supports terrorism, he has proved that,by using chemical weapons on his own people.
Blair is supporting Bush because the USA is a very strong ally of the UK and to be quite honest who in their right mind wants Saddam to have weapons of mass destruction. Can you picture what will happen to the Middle East if he ever uses the weapons that he undoubtedly has? He will be totally responsible for the start of WW3.
STOPSTART..........This has to be worth at least an 8.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ELondonPax,
Agree with KENNYR, at least you haven't decended into vitriole. I beg to disagree. There are lots of reasons why perhaps war might not be the best cause (though at the moment, I am in favour of finishing the job). You argument about consistency is not one of them. You seem to suggest that nothing has changed over the lastfew years. That it is us that is being inconsistent.
Sept 11 changed a lot of things. Whether you agree that there is any link with Saddam and AL-Q is almost irrelevant in this scenario. Iraq has the potential to be far worse than Al-Q, and do much more damage than the world trade centre. What has consistency to do with it.
As I said earlier, I lost my faith in the UN in Bosnia, where we stood back and did nothing whilst the most appalling human rights abuses occurred. The tired old argument about Nth Korea & Zimbabwe does not wash as they are truly not the same circumstances, and require a different approach. Nobody is willing to say it, but Nth Korea is different becasue it has nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them. Do you really believ that it is right to wait until Iraq has the same capability before we deal with them?
I have no doubt that we will turn to Nth Korea, but surely everyone can see that there has to be a different approach becasue they are not the same. The USA has been very agressive in its treatment of Mugabe's regime. The same can not be said for the EU, which yet again is unable to make any moral judgements, just political ones. Witness France's attempts to appease Mugabe for contracts.
I believe that very few of the marchers have thought to far down the track, peace peace peace. Well what of the future? Inspections are to continue until when? With an army of 10,000 inspectors we won't find 100% of what we are looking for without full co-operation (probably less than 70%). What happens in 5 years time when it really is forgotten about. At least we know that Saddam is consistent and he will start his weapons program again.
The consistency is in the dictatorships that you speak of Saddam, Kim Il, Mugabe; they have all been around thumbing their noses at the rest of the world for a long time now. On the other hand our governments have been changing with elections and events like Sep 11 and Bali. Who says that we have to treat each new madman in the same way?
Why, because we have been weak in the past, do we have to be weak now. The peace that everyone wants will be very short term if we don't deal the problem of Iraq right now.
Agree with KENNYR, at least you haven't decended into vitriole. I beg to disagree. There are lots of reasons why perhaps war might not be the best cause (though at the moment, I am in favour of finishing the job). You argument about consistency is not one of them. You seem to suggest that nothing has changed over the lastfew years. That it is us that is being inconsistent.
Sept 11 changed a lot of things. Whether you agree that there is any link with Saddam and AL-Q is almost irrelevant in this scenario. Iraq has the potential to be far worse than Al-Q, and do much more damage than the world trade centre. What has consistency to do with it.
As I said earlier, I lost my faith in the UN in Bosnia, where we stood back and did nothing whilst the most appalling human rights abuses occurred. The tired old argument about Nth Korea & Zimbabwe does not wash as they are truly not the same circumstances, and require a different approach. Nobody is willing to say it, but Nth Korea is different becasue it has nuclear weapons and the means to deploy them. Do you really believ that it is right to wait until Iraq has the same capability before we deal with them?
I have no doubt that we will turn to Nth Korea, but surely everyone can see that there has to be a different approach becasue they are not the same. The USA has been very agressive in its treatment of Mugabe's regime. The same can not be said for the EU, which yet again is unable to make any moral judgements, just political ones. Witness France's attempts to appease Mugabe for contracts.
I believe that very few of the marchers have thought to far down the track, peace peace peace. Well what of the future? Inspections are to continue until when? With an army of 10,000 inspectors we won't find 100% of what we are looking for without full co-operation (probably less than 70%). What happens in 5 years time when it really is forgotten about. At least we know that Saddam is consistent and he will start his weapons program again.
The consistency is in the dictatorships that you speak of Saddam, Kim Il, Mugabe; they have all been around thumbing their noses at the rest of the world for a long time now. On the other hand our governments have been changing with elections and events like Sep 11 and Bali. Who says that we have to treat each new madman in the same way?
Why, because we have been weak in the past, do we have to be weak now. The peace that everyone wants will be very short term if we don't deal the problem of Iraq right now.