Fights On?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fights On?
Can't help thinking the wind has been taken out of the 'Lets-have-a-war' party's sails a bit lately. The Russians don't like it. The French surrender-monkeys don't like it, the Chinese don't like it. Clare Short is resigning if we have a scrap. The myopic weapons inspectors want more time but Blush and Bair are determined to push on. Is there still gonna be Gulf War 2 and regime change? Or will we continue to 'keep the peace' for another 12 years?
Personally I think the British Public will not support a non-Resolutioned fight but Bair can't say no to the Yanks having egged them on for so long.
What do we think then? Fights on or not?????
Personally I think the British Public will not support a non-Resolutioned fight but Bair can't say no to the Yanks having egged them on for so long.
What do we think then? Fights on or not?????
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the fight was always on, and right now, it's running late. If there isn't some serious war happening by Tuesday 18th, I'll be getting a little worried that something has gone wrong.
Either side could, of course, come up with a last minute excuse to start early, and at this late stage of the preliminary game, such wildcard actions aren't entirely beyond the bounds of possibility.
If I was Saddam Hussein (which thank the Lord I'm not Sir) the kind of thing I'd be considering would be to let off my remaining al-Samoud 2s now, rather than having to cut them up, knowing I was going to get stiffed either way.
This subject has been flogged to death here many times already; for what it's worth, my summary of the procedings is as follows.
The legal basis for war exists already. This has been ably demonstrated by ORAC amongst others, by previous UN resolutions, by the existence and enforcement of the no-fly zones and by a hundred and one other facts and details. So, new resolution or not, the legal documents are in place.
The moral basis is a different story, and it depends on who or what one chooses to believe. If, as is claimed, Saddam Hussein possesses WOMD, and / or is capable of, and has the intention of, posing a threat to his neighbours and to the wider world, then he is a Bad Man who needs to be removed from power. If this needs to be done, and it cannot or will not be done by the UN, and it can be done by the US and the UK, and they are willing and ready to do this, then their moral case is quite clearly proved, and more power to their arm.
If on the other hand he does not have the weapons, the capability, and / or the intention, then the stated and claimed moral justification is without basis.
So it comes down to a matter of proof. If possession, capability, and / or intention can be proven, then they should be; certainly if the US and the UK desire the legal and moral approval of the rest of the world, these things should be proven.
If the US and the UK have proof but they are unwilling to share it for reasons of expediency in intelligence, then they should not seek the moral approval or material support of the rest of the free world in prosecuting this action.
If they are in the right, and they have proof enough to satisfy themselves, and they can take this action on behalf of all of us, and win, and afterwards say "we told you so", then once again, more power to their arms.
But frankly, I don't believe it. Maybe it's conditioning, but when a politician says "Trust me", I simply don't believe it. if you have proof, show me. What you have shown me thus far doesn't strike me as proving anything in particular, I'm unconvinced, and I don't believe or trust you.
If you don't want to provide me with details, or confide your secrets to me, then don't ask for my approval or my help, because neither will be forthcoming. Nothing that you as a politician have done so far has lead me to believe that you are capable of being trusted or believed, and I'm not about to start doing that now, not with World War Three scratching at the back door.
Do it if you must, and do it you will. But do it by yourself, and take the consequences yourselves also.
Or tell me the truth, and let me judge it for myself. I am more than capable of reason, analysis, and objective judgement; at least as much as you are. If your argument and its justifications are sound, I will see this, and you will have my moral and material support.
But if this is not the case, and you prosecute this action anyway, then you are evil incarnate, and you are as bad as, if not worse than, the man you claim as your enemy.
One can only presume that those pushing for regime change in Iraq, if they are genuinely driven by altruistic motives, will afterwards demonstrate their consistency by dealing with Robert Mugabe, the Israel/Palestine mess, and all the rest of the world's trouble spots which don't happen to be sitting on its second largest oil reserves. Boy, if I was the Chinese I'd be worried - imagine what's going to happen to them for doing to the Tibetans what Saddam has done to the Kurds!
Do watcha gonna do, but for crying out loud, have the balls to be honest about why you're doing it. That, at least, I could respect.
If it's about WOMD or the threat of Islam to the West, and that's genuine, then good on ya. But if it's about oil and you can't bring yourselves to admit that, then you're on your own. So prove it - and you haven't.
Rant over.
Anyhow.....my pick is that the fight is on.
And that being the case, to the guys and girls who are going, I have this to say: you are the finest individuals in the world, and you have my undying support, gratitude, and respect. My thoughts, prayers and best wishes go with you. Good luck, Godspeed.
PS: Who really cares what the French think?
Either side could, of course, come up with a last minute excuse to start early, and at this late stage of the preliminary game, such wildcard actions aren't entirely beyond the bounds of possibility.
If I was Saddam Hussein (which thank the Lord I'm not Sir) the kind of thing I'd be considering would be to let off my remaining al-Samoud 2s now, rather than having to cut them up, knowing I was going to get stiffed either way.
This subject has been flogged to death here many times already; for what it's worth, my summary of the procedings is as follows.
The legal basis for war exists already. This has been ably demonstrated by ORAC amongst others, by previous UN resolutions, by the existence and enforcement of the no-fly zones and by a hundred and one other facts and details. So, new resolution or not, the legal documents are in place.
The moral basis is a different story, and it depends on who or what one chooses to believe. If, as is claimed, Saddam Hussein possesses WOMD, and / or is capable of, and has the intention of, posing a threat to his neighbours and to the wider world, then he is a Bad Man who needs to be removed from power. If this needs to be done, and it cannot or will not be done by the UN, and it can be done by the US and the UK, and they are willing and ready to do this, then their moral case is quite clearly proved, and more power to their arm.
If on the other hand he does not have the weapons, the capability, and / or the intention, then the stated and claimed moral justification is without basis.
So it comes down to a matter of proof. If possession, capability, and / or intention can be proven, then they should be; certainly if the US and the UK desire the legal and moral approval of the rest of the world, these things should be proven.
If the US and the UK have proof but they are unwilling to share it for reasons of expediency in intelligence, then they should not seek the moral approval or material support of the rest of the free world in prosecuting this action.
If they are in the right, and they have proof enough to satisfy themselves, and they can take this action on behalf of all of us, and win, and afterwards say "we told you so", then once again, more power to their arms.
But frankly, I don't believe it. Maybe it's conditioning, but when a politician says "Trust me", I simply don't believe it. if you have proof, show me. What you have shown me thus far doesn't strike me as proving anything in particular, I'm unconvinced, and I don't believe or trust you.
If you don't want to provide me with details, or confide your secrets to me, then don't ask for my approval or my help, because neither will be forthcoming. Nothing that you as a politician have done so far has lead me to believe that you are capable of being trusted or believed, and I'm not about to start doing that now, not with World War Three scratching at the back door.
Do it if you must, and do it you will. But do it by yourself, and take the consequences yourselves also.
Or tell me the truth, and let me judge it for myself. I am more than capable of reason, analysis, and objective judgement; at least as much as you are. If your argument and its justifications are sound, I will see this, and you will have my moral and material support.
But if this is not the case, and you prosecute this action anyway, then you are evil incarnate, and you are as bad as, if not worse than, the man you claim as your enemy.
One can only presume that those pushing for regime change in Iraq, if they are genuinely driven by altruistic motives, will afterwards demonstrate their consistency by dealing with Robert Mugabe, the Israel/Palestine mess, and all the rest of the world's trouble spots which don't happen to be sitting on its second largest oil reserves. Boy, if I was the Chinese I'd be worried - imagine what's going to happen to them for doing to the Tibetans what Saddam has done to the Kurds!
Do watcha gonna do, but for crying out loud, have the balls to be honest about why you're doing it. That, at least, I could respect.
If it's about WOMD or the threat of Islam to the West, and that's genuine, then good on ya. But if it's about oil and you can't bring yourselves to admit that, then you're on your own. So prove it - and you haven't.
Rant over.
Anyhow.....my pick is that the fight is on.
And that being the case, to the guys and girls who are going, I have this to say: you are the finest individuals in the world, and you have my undying support, gratitude, and respect. My thoughts, prayers and best wishes go with you. Good luck, Godspeed.
PS: Who really cares what the French think?
Legally it's about proving Saddam's possession of WMD and about demonstrating that he is not serious about disarming.
Legally, it is not even about having a militarily useful/deployable WMD capability.
Morally, however it has to be about possession, capability AND (not and/or) intent. For this to be morally right, surely Saddam has to represent a credible threat, otherwise he'd be behind North Korea in the queue?
If Iraq has WMD but has no means of using them it's hard to justify the hurried timescale that Bush is pushing for.
If Iraq has deployable, useable WMD and is not serious about disarming, then the case for war is much stronger, though if he doesn't have an intention to use them Iraq is morally no different to the USA, the UK, India, Pakistan, or Israel, all of whom have WMD and have no intention of disarming.
Because Iraq has a proven record of aggression towards its neighbours, and because of the nature of the regime, a moral case can be made that it is in humanity's best interests that Saddam is forced to disarm. But if this is the case, then it must be up to the World (and not the US acting autonomously) to achieve this.
Legally, it is not even about having a militarily useful/deployable WMD capability.
Morally, however it has to be about possession, capability AND (not and/or) intent. For this to be morally right, surely Saddam has to represent a credible threat, otherwise he'd be behind North Korea in the queue?
If Iraq has WMD but has no means of using them it's hard to justify the hurried timescale that Bush is pushing for.
If Iraq has deployable, useable WMD and is not serious about disarming, then the case for war is much stronger, though if he doesn't have an intention to use them Iraq is morally no different to the USA, the UK, India, Pakistan, or Israel, all of whom have WMD and have no intention of disarming.
Because Iraq has a proven record of aggression towards its neighbours, and because of the nature of the regime, a moral case can be made that it is in humanity's best interests that Saddam is forced to disarm. But if this is the case, then it must be up to the World (and not the US acting autonomously) to achieve this.
