Motorbikin'

On spekaing to a few arabs they are not happy, they are a peacefull race but do not like the western ways forced on them and with tax free earnings and free water etc, why should they. It's similar to Israel and Pal, if they see there livelyhoods and satisfied lifestyles being taken away from them then strapping a few bombs around themselve and walking into a cafe is done in a good cause. And they have strong beliefs that they will go onto a better life. I doubt that this extreme would ever reach the UK/USA but it might.

johnfelstead

the shoe bomber is a brit! Of course it could happen here, never underestimate a religious fanatic.

carl

The shoe bomber was under the misapprehension that you can detonate C4 with a match

C4 is, of course, a high explosive which needs a decent-sized shockwave to get it going.

Motorbikin'

shockwave ???? well hair gel wont ignite it !!! he he

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I thought C4 was a crap TV station

johnfelstead

nah, thats C5

Geoff P

Judging by the recent substantial increase in RAF low level night flying into the weapons ranges at Donna Nook and Cowden. One would assume that the decision was made some time ago to use Airpower to interdict his command and control, supply routes and subsequently any potentially threating "weapons of mass destruction"
infrastructure.

Here we go again, massive use of Airpower with our boys doing the initial mud moving (taking losses)to be followed up by "safe" stand off stealth bombing, horrifically expensive cruise missiles (cheaper than dead US pilots I suppose!!!) and the indiscriminate use of B52's.

As all military trained people know you cannot take land by airpower alone you need grunts or cannon fodder on the ground - hence the massive excersise in Oman last year (exposing the frailties of our kit in hostile desert conditions)

With no local allies - like Saudi etc this will be one hell a messy excercise to complete without heavy financial and collateral costs.

I really cant see why they havn't attemped to "de stabilse" the regime by direct covert action ala Mossad and let them fight it out in the massive internal power vacuum that would follow.

If the view that we can purely bomb him into submission is the school of thought then I think we are being very naieve. If this route is to be taken we will have to eventually commit ground troops and must have local allies - this is not Afghanistan, we are dealing with a far more sophisticated and better equipped animal here (the yanks still hant been able to subdue them there have they).

Scary times ahead, sell your shares now.

Geoff

Jolly Green Monster 2

You guys know far more about this than me.. my War history is very limited, sorry I was mistaken with my comment.

If what you are all saying is true, I have no reason to see otherwise, then why the fu*k is Blair being so goddamn friendly to America... ?

JGM

Motorbikin'

Last Friday 100 warplanes mostly RAF started taking out Iraqi early warning radar defence systems.

Neil Smalley

Allegedly that was part of the day to day no fly zone enforcement.

The US/UK have carried out over a 100 raids since the 'end' of Gulf War 1

Motorbikin'

Oh and anothr thing, how long has Saddam been in power ? suddenly (now that the west want to invade) he can build a nucear bomb within months....Didnt think about that when the USA was pumping arms and money into Iraq for them to fight the Iran/Iraq war huh ? the western hidden agenda is two things....Money and Greed.

Geoff P

The first shot!!! - I rest my case - its already started!!!

durleydude

who cares about f****n petrol prices, what about people beind slaughtered, poisened etc...

get some perspective people

pslewis

September 11th is very nearly upon us, a timely dilema would not go amiss to all those who would allow Saddam the time and space to arm himself with a Nuclear Missile:-

If, by some chance, you were the President of the USA and on 11th September you were informed that those jets were about to crash into the WTC Towers - you had fighters up and escorting the jets.

Would you shoot the jets down? or allow the disaster to unfold as it did?

I ask this question because we are facing the same dilema, well WE arent, our leaders ARE - Saddam WILL use Nuclear Warheads if he has them, in that there is NO doubt whatsoever. He may use them on his own people - who and why and when has little relevance - he WILL use them. NOW do we allow him to fly those jets into the Towers? or do we shoot him down BEFORE he comes close, even though innocents will suffer??

Its a tough one to call and I thank god we have 2 tough men in Bush and Blair, the French and Italians will do their usual running away with tails between their legs - but thats NO excuse for Britain and the USA sitting aside and doing diddlysquat!!

Britain punches way above its weight in the world purely because we have a BIG mate - the USA - dont ever underestimate the power we carry because of it!!

We are not running the world because we haven't got the ***** to make tough choices - make the world a better place Blair and Bush and rid the planet of the evil that is Saddam Hussien

Pete

[Edited by pslewis - 9/9/2002 11:57:52 PM]

johnfelstead

There is more than one way to skin a cat pete!

If these guys are so with it, why have they waited for years, accepting Saddams refusal to allow the UN mandated weapons inspectors into the country?

Good ole George W was banging on about Saddam befor 9/11 because his daddy wants him to finish what he wasnt allowed to because they achieved what was sanctioned under the UN charters, i.e get Iraq out of Kuwait. The US public didnt like having to stop, but that was the UN mandate, and that was all the Arab coalition would allow. Now, on the back of 9/11 they want to go and finish the job. I am sorry, but if they go into Iraq with no support we will witness a disaster unfold that will have implications for us all.

Why arent we invading North Korea pete? That is a rouge state that has a nuclear capability.

Shropshire-Guy

Having just read the posts on this thread those who think we are right going after Saddam ,Are you Mad ?. Mr Blair is so far up Bushes *** the only part of him we can see is the Soles of his shoes. Do you realy think that if they kill Saddam thats it . There are Thousands to take is place, He becomes a Marter . my advice is if Bush wants world War 3 let him feckin do it on HIS OWN and we stay right out of it

TAZMAN

to answer the 'why arent we invading north korea?' question...they don't have a large oil reserve, they have not used chemical and bio weapons on their own people.
The reality is that this will happen for a number of reasons and it is very dangerous to try and simplyfy the issue. The combination of Money, politics and a potential danger are all part of the mix and the variables are in a constant state of flux. I do have to laugh at those that want a 'peacful' dialogue with a man like saddam. I suggest that they visit the are in their nearest city where muggers are rife....for a good comparision try having a peacful dialogue with the mugger as to why he should not have your wallet/car and just because you refuse why he should not stab you.
It would be a wonderful world if we could settle issues with out force but you forget one thing..Human nature.

MrDeference

I think some people just like being cynical.
Perhaps the governments know something that they are not able to tell us?
Presidents and Primeministers don't operate in a vacuum. They have wives (human rights lawyers) and children. I don't think they would like to bring chemical warfare to their own front door by choice. Is it not possible that there is actually something to fear here?
You can't tell me that either Blair or Bush would proceed on a private course of action against the wishes of their senior civil servants (who are the true masters of the county's foreign policy and don't have personal nuclear bunkers).

Say, for example, that they did know there was going to be a terrorist strike last year (there were rumblings), and they had the desire back then to steam roller Iraq, don't you think it would have happened in the immediate aftermath of September 11th? Why would they have bombed some caves in Afghanistan rather than bomb Iraq? You could sell Al Queda in Iraq as easily as Al Queda in Afghanistan to both UK and US public, and the television pictures would have been prettier too.
Perhaps the other countries just don't care because they are not the ones being threatened. If they do agree to the war are they not putting themselves in the firing line too?

Motorbikin'

do you think Saddam sucks ***** ?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Some years ago, an American General was quoted as saying:
"We fought WW1 in Europe, we fought WW2 in Europe, and, if you dummies let us, we're gonna fight WW3 there too."
NOW do we all understand why Bush wants the support of B.Liar, and any other European leader he can con into the job? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[Edited by alcazar - 9/10/2002 12:44:43 PM]