Irag - To bomb or not?
09 September 2002, 11:26 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
************** no i not mad, it seems like u been watching alot of news lately. Its surprising how many people forget history and look on just the moment and get caught up in it.
However its propaganda time!! time to dig out all the nasty archives of footage to justify another bloodshed and to convince me and u. What is happening now in Afganistan since the collapse of the taliban. We have got opium fields in full production, more killings, unstability do your research. Also we are missing a key thing called EVIDENCE. When I see it I will belive it in the meantime watch the propaganda machine in full effect.
Like i said killing innocent civillians in the process isn't my cup of tea, whoever there are black,white,asian etc... we are all human at the end of the day, I think.
However its propaganda time!! time to dig out all the nasty archives of footage to justify another bloodshed and to convince me and u. What is happening now in Afganistan since the collapse of the taliban. We have got opium fields in full production, more killings, unstability do your research. Also we are missing a key thing called EVIDENCE. When I see it I will belive it in the meantime watch the propaganda machine in full effect.
Like i said killing innocent civillians in the process isn't my cup of tea, whoever there are black,white,asian etc... we are all human at the end of the day, I think.
09 September 2002, 11:43 PM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rayman
If you look at my earlier posts u will see that I was supporting action against Iraq for the reason of finishing off the job that was started over 10 years ago with Desert Storm. That is not what I would call recent.
The length of time that Saddam has been a threat is a major contributing factor to taking action against him, its not like he has just appeared out of nowhere and we have decided to pick on him!!!
It is history that is giving reason for action, not recent events on their own, they have just contributed to the cause and the strength of the action needed.
If you look at my earlier posts u will see that I was supporting action against Iraq for the reason of finishing off the job that was started over 10 years ago with Desert Storm. That is not what I would call recent.
The length of time that Saddam has been a threat is a major contributing factor to taking action against him, its not like he has just appeared out of nowhere and we have decided to pick on him!!!
It is history that is giving reason for action, not recent events on their own, they have just contributed to the cause and the strength of the action needed.
10 September 2002, 12:03 AM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the problem we are faced today is that if we do go ahead with the US with Puppet BLAIR's backing, we are going to be faced with more just then Saddam and IRAQ. We are going to pay the price with more dire conseqences.
We have not yet been subjected to the turmoil the US faced a year ago and hope we dont either. But if we do, what happens next ? we launch our WMD, WWIII ? who wins then ?
We have not yet been subjected to the turmoil the US faced a year ago and hope we dont either. But if we do, what happens next ? we launch our WMD, WWIII ? who wins then ?
10 September 2002, 12:10 AM
#64
No disrespect, but we finished the job we started 10 years ago. The UN had a mandate to remove Iraq from Kuwait, we did that. Thats all we were allowed to do under the mandate and that is why there was a coalition of Arab states to help us achieve that.
What happened next was that the UN passed new mandates to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq are actually allowed to manufacture weapons to defend their country under this mandate, that is why the have missiles with a short range capability, perfectly legitimately.
The Issue with the UN is that when Saddam stopped co-operating with the arms inspectors, we allowed that to become the norm, rather than make it worth his while to comply. It's no good now, 5 years later saying to the world, hang on, we have to sort this guy out. The world isnt blinkered or nieve, no matter what blair and bush hope. We now have to rebuild a coalition of support, otherwise this will become a political and military mess.
The news about how he MAY be able to build a weapon within 5 months is just putting a timeline in place in which to say, OK, we go in if we dont get our way in five months, it's so transparent it's laughable.
If we are so concerned about nuclear weapons being in the hands of rogue states, why are we not invading North Korea? The reason is simple, we would get our asses kicked.
What happened next was that the UN passed new mandates to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Iraq are actually allowed to manufacture weapons to defend their country under this mandate, that is why the have missiles with a short range capability, perfectly legitimately.
The Issue with the UN is that when Saddam stopped co-operating with the arms inspectors, we allowed that to become the norm, rather than make it worth his while to comply. It's no good now, 5 years later saying to the world, hang on, we have to sort this guy out. The world isnt blinkered or nieve, no matter what blair and bush hope. We now have to rebuild a coalition of support, otherwise this will become a political and military mess.
The news about how he MAY be able to build a weapon within 5 months is just putting a timeline in place in which to say, OK, we go in if we dont get our way in five months, it's so transparent it's laughable.
If we are so concerned about nuclear weapons being in the hands of rogue states, why are we not invading North Korea? The reason is simple, we would get our asses kicked.
10 September 2002, 12:23 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
The job 10 years ago included toppling Saddam's regime. Unfortunately the Iraqi people didnt do that as was hoped and he stayed in power. They relied on internal politics to end him which was a stupid mistake as it was never going to happen.
The military campaign should have done the job, and because it didn't he is still in power now. No matter what anyone says Saddam is a lunatic and has the potential insanity to cause devastation. He doesnt have to have long range missiles or any of that b0ll0x, if he gets hold of the right materials he will deliver the devastation through Iraqi sponsored terrorism which will ultimately lead to Bin Laden.
Sitting back and letting Saddam get on with life wont stop him from attacking the West who he hates so intensely and has done for a very long time.
He has to be stopped before he strikes first which would then be too late to do anything about.
The military campaign should have done the job, and because it didn't he is still in power now. No matter what anyone says Saddam is a lunatic and has the potential insanity to cause devastation. He doesnt have to have long range missiles or any of that b0ll0x, if he gets hold of the right materials he will deliver the devastation through Iraqi sponsored terrorism which will ultimately lead to Bin Laden.
Sitting back and letting Saddam get on with life wont stop him from attacking the West who he hates so intensely and has done for a very long time.
He has to be stopped before he strikes first which would then be too late to do anything about.
after looking at mine, the thumbs up looked I was an Iraq supporter
10 September 2002, 10:09 AM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These bleeding hearted liberals really scare me to be honest. These are the same people 60 odd years ago who said Churchill was a warmonger and should keep his nose out of German affairs.
Nobody in their right mind wants war but sometimes we have to take action for the greater good.
How the hell can you reason with a man who kills tens of thousands of his own people (I know Stalin did too but that was slightly different).
Nobody in their right mind wants war but sometimes we have to take action for the greater good.
How the hell can you reason with a man who kills tens of thousands of his own people (I know Stalin did too but that was slightly different).
10 September 2002, 10:16 AM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am getting sick of the comparisons with israel.
All this enormous breeching of UN regulations and the pathetically biased british news that most people on here seem to base their opinions on. It works the other way round of course, as some would say I have been taken in for agreeing with the anti iraq stuff, but you have to keep an open mind. After Israel let the un inspectors in, having refused them previously after being accused of bloody masacreing, did they find the hundreds of bodies on the streets, and the evidence of serious breeches of human rights? the answer is no. they found the graves of 30 palestians, some who had been dead for some time, and 13 killed by their own people, but these reports are not seen in the news. No one questions why the home of a known terrorist bomber happens to have 13 of the neighbourhoods children playing in it! You don't see the pictures of the israeli soldiers giving water to the blindfolded imprisoned terrorists because that doesnt fuel the anti israeli propaganda machine! there are bad israeli soldiers, some who murdered palestinians recently, and they are now in prison, but does anyone remember the two israeli soldiers caught in the palestinian police station being kicked to death by an angry mob then having their bodies thrown out the window and set alight whilst the purpetrators held their bloody hands up in triumph? are they in prison now? Anyone remember the cheering in the street after 9/11? quashed that quickly once the palestinian authority sent orders down that it didnt look good for them in the western press. Its all about the media, and who controls and can convince other people more effectively. I dont know why there is an anti israel predisposition in this country.
Its the same propaganda which convinces so many people to think blair is on an ego trip. I think you are foolish to assume this. The man is no idiot and his wife, who I am sure guides him a lot, is one of the country's cleverest people. You have to ask what he gains from an ego trip? He has broken records by getting in twice in a row with the largest majority in labour history, he is still more popular than any other candidate in his position as one of the most powerful men in the world and will probably get in again. What does he have to gain from an ego trip? where can he go from here? he has already achieved the top. You really think he is stupid enough to risk world war/death/destruction of lives not to mention massive country expenditure just to boost his chances of getting in again. I dont think you are crediting him with enough intelligence. He didnt get where he is now by making stupid decisions and being an idiot. Rest assured there is much we dont know, that he has to consider.
Decisions like this are not taken lightly, yet the attitude here seems to be that both of them want to go in guns blazing for the glory. Bush too has already shown he can exercise restraint, so why have his actions of the past year been forgotten so quickly?
People are quick to label, but the fact is that none of us on the street are armed with the intelligence they have. We have the right to our opinions, but no one on here has given me a believable reasons as to what blair has to gain from backing up the US whole heartedly.
All this enormous breeching of UN regulations and the pathetically biased british news that most people on here seem to base their opinions on. It works the other way round of course, as some would say I have been taken in for agreeing with the anti iraq stuff, but you have to keep an open mind. After Israel let the un inspectors in, having refused them previously after being accused of bloody masacreing, did they find the hundreds of bodies on the streets, and the evidence of serious breeches of human rights? the answer is no. they found the graves of 30 palestians, some who had been dead for some time, and 13 killed by their own people, but these reports are not seen in the news. No one questions why the home of a known terrorist bomber happens to have 13 of the neighbourhoods children playing in it! You don't see the pictures of the israeli soldiers giving water to the blindfolded imprisoned terrorists because that doesnt fuel the anti israeli propaganda machine! there are bad israeli soldiers, some who murdered palestinians recently, and they are now in prison, but does anyone remember the two israeli soldiers caught in the palestinian police station being kicked to death by an angry mob then having their bodies thrown out the window and set alight whilst the purpetrators held their bloody hands up in triumph? are they in prison now? Anyone remember the cheering in the street after 9/11? quashed that quickly once the palestinian authority sent orders down that it didnt look good for them in the western press. Its all about the media, and who controls and can convince other people more effectively. I dont know why there is an anti israel predisposition in this country.
Its the same propaganda which convinces so many people to think blair is on an ego trip. I think you are foolish to assume this. The man is no idiot and his wife, who I am sure guides him a lot, is one of the country's cleverest people. You have to ask what he gains from an ego trip? He has broken records by getting in twice in a row with the largest majority in labour history, he is still more popular than any other candidate in his position as one of the most powerful men in the world and will probably get in again. What does he have to gain from an ego trip? where can he go from here? he has already achieved the top. You really think he is stupid enough to risk world war/death/destruction of lives not to mention massive country expenditure just to boost his chances of getting in again. I dont think you are crediting him with enough intelligence. He didnt get where he is now by making stupid decisions and being an idiot. Rest assured there is much we dont know, that he has to consider.
Decisions like this are not taken lightly, yet the attitude here seems to be that both of them want to go in guns blazing for the glory. Bush too has already shown he can exercise restraint, so why have his actions of the past year been forgotten so quickly?
People are quick to label, but the fact is that none of us on the street are armed with the intelligence they have. We have the right to our opinions, but no one on here has given me a believable reasons as to what blair has to gain from backing up the US whole heartedly.
10 September 2002, 10:27 AM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me If I'm wrong, but didn't Kuwait belong to Iraq during the 50's and the British came alone and said sod off we need a oil rich land and created a puppet parliament??
10 September 2002, 11:06 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy Pandy, I would never consider myself a bleeding heart liberal.. However, I do think this situation needs looking at a little closer than we're being presented with in the usual tabloid press.. The propoganda machine is very good at putting spin on things...
As John so correctly said, the job was done 10 years ago. We did what we were mandated to do.. IF we get a UN mandate and an Arab coalition again let's go in and kick his ***.. BUT if we don't, we should keep our noses and more importantly our soldiers out.. We have a crumbling health service and a funcked rail network all far more deserving of funds than getting people killed.
As a I keep saying Sadam may be mad but he's no fool.. If he ever used a nucleur threat on anyone his whole country would be flattened.. Game over.. It's called the nucleur deterrant.. the one that kept USA and USSR and China 'peaceable' for 40 years or more. Why do people believe it can work for super powers but not for a pile of sand in the **** end of nowhere?
Anyone like to comment on why we're not complaining over China's human rights or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction? Answer, they have more money to spend on McDonalds!
As John so correctly said, the job was done 10 years ago. We did what we were mandated to do.. IF we get a UN mandate and an Arab coalition again let's go in and kick his ***.. BUT if we don't, we should keep our noses and more importantly our soldiers out.. We have a crumbling health service and a funcked rail network all far more deserving of funds than getting people killed.
As a I keep saying Sadam may be mad but he's no fool.. If he ever used a nucleur threat on anyone his whole country would be flattened.. Game over.. It's called the nucleur deterrant.. the one that kept USA and USSR and China 'peaceable' for 40 years or more. Why do people believe it can work for super powers but not for a pile of sand in the **** end of nowhere?
Anyone like to comment on why we're not complaining over China's human rights or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction? Answer, they have more money to spend on McDonalds!
10 September 2002, 11:25 AM
#74
Guest
Posts: n/a
Saddam isnt going to threaten anyone directly with nukes. But do you think Bin Laden gives a **** who gets flattened? He didn't give a toss about Afghanistan getting flattened after 9/11 after what he had done to put the Taleban in place and set up home there. The same as he wont give a **** if Iraq gets flattened after Iraq use/fund him to do their dirty work indirectly to the west! Bin Laden is the one who will terrorise the West but Saddam will be the one giving him the weapons of whatever kind he wants to do the job. Thats why Saddam needs to be stopped, and that doesnt mean just kill Saddam, it means getting into Iraq and destroying all the current stocks of weapons and and construction facilities that will allow him to progress onto bigger and more powerful weapons.
U seem to forget we are not talking conventional bombs, we are talking about huge stockplies of deadly vx, sarin and all the other nasty types of warefare he likes to have handy. These are just as easily dispersed in a city by a terrorist as they are put in a bomb and dropped on somewhere! He used them against Iran in the 80's, he used them against the Kurds and he will sure as hell use them against the West! If thats no concern to you and the railways are more important you then I am very shocked that people in this country can be so blind as to what is coming our way. 9/11 however devastiting it was, was unfortunately just a taste of things to come! If you want to sit back and do nothing about it fine, but I think there are many people in this country and in the US who want action to prevent as much possible from happening.
10 September 2002, 02:03 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you're on the money bravo2zero.
for those of you that believe that we shouldn't deal with iraq, ask yourselves some simple questions:
1. Is Saddam Hussein's government is benevolent & peaceable?
(No)
2. Does Saddam Hussein's government subjugate the Iraqi people by state intimidation, brutality and murder?
(Yes)
3. Is Saddam Hussein's government tolerant of internal domestic minorities?
(No)
4. Does Saddam Hussein's government seek to extend Iraq's borders by force?
(Yes)
5. Is Saddam Hussein's government prepared to allow unfettered, multi-national UN inspections of his arsenal?
(No)
6. Does Saddam Hussein's government permit the state-sponsorship of international terrorism?
(Yes)
7. Do the majority of Arab nationals fear Saddam Hussein's government?
(Yes)
8. Has Saddam Hussein's government ever possessed chemical and biological weapons?
(Yes)
9. Has Saddam Hussein's government used them?
(Yes)
10. Is the government of Saddam Hussein a de-stabilising influence in the Middle east?
(Yes)
11. Does he pose a threat to us through his acknowledged state sponsorship of terrorism and likely links to Al'Quaeda?
(Yes)
12. Does Saddam Hussein's government give a dowry of cash to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber?
(Yes)
13. Should we sit back and hope he goes away like Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement brigade believed would be the case with Adolf Hitler?
(No)
14. Are you willing to do nothing and potentially see Saddam Hussein's government once again persecute and murder the Kurds barely ten years since he murdered 100,000 of their men, women and children?
(No)
15. Do you think - as a culture that supports and has sacrified much for the freedom of the individual - we have a moral responsibility to act against tyrannical, undemocratic regimes that commit mass murder on a biblical scale?
(Yes)
16. Are you willing to run the risk of Saddam Hussein's government procuring fissile material on the international black market and then using it against us or Israel?
(No)
Hussein's rap sheet of murder, repression, persecution and terror is unequivocal. He is a dangerous, unpredictable dictator whose crimes against his own people (who utterly despise him but are too frightened and underequipped to overthrow him) put him on a par with Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic and make him a second rate *******-relation of Adolf Hitler.
The parallels with late 1930s Europe are frighteningly close. The regime must go and he must go. How we do it is simply a distraction - but do it we must. Before we have no choice.
for those of you that believe that we shouldn't deal with iraq, ask yourselves some simple questions:
1. Is Saddam Hussein's government is benevolent & peaceable?
(No)
2. Does Saddam Hussein's government subjugate the Iraqi people by state intimidation, brutality and murder?
(Yes)
3. Is Saddam Hussein's government tolerant of internal domestic minorities?
(No)
4. Does Saddam Hussein's government seek to extend Iraq's borders by force?
(Yes)
5. Is Saddam Hussein's government prepared to allow unfettered, multi-national UN inspections of his arsenal?
(No)
6. Does Saddam Hussein's government permit the state-sponsorship of international terrorism?
(Yes)
7. Do the majority of Arab nationals fear Saddam Hussein's government?
(Yes)
8. Has Saddam Hussein's government ever possessed chemical and biological weapons?
(Yes)
9. Has Saddam Hussein's government used them?
(Yes)
10. Is the government of Saddam Hussein a de-stabilising influence in the Middle east?
(Yes)
11. Does he pose a threat to us through his acknowledged state sponsorship of terrorism and likely links to Al'Quaeda?
(Yes)
12. Does Saddam Hussein's government give a dowry of cash to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber?
(Yes)
13. Should we sit back and hope he goes away like Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement brigade believed would be the case with Adolf Hitler?
(No)
14. Are you willing to do nothing and potentially see Saddam Hussein's government once again persecute and murder the Kurds barely ten years since he murdered 100,000 of their men, women and children?
(No)
15. Do you think - as a culture that supports and has sacrified much for the freedom of the individual - we have a moral responsibility to act against tyrannical, undemocratic regimes that commit mass murder on a biblical scale?
(Yes)
16. Are you willing to run the risk of Saddam Hussein's government procuring fissile material on the international black market and then using it against us or Israel?
(No)
Hussein's rap sheet of murder, repression, persecution and terror is unequivocal. He is a dangerous, unpredictable dictator whose crimes against his own people (who utterly despise him but are too frightened and underequipped to overthrow him) put him on a par with Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic and make him a second rate *******-relation of Adolf Hitler.
The parallels with late 1930s Europe are frighteningly close. The regime must go and he must go. How we do it is simply a distraction - but do it we must. Before we have no choice.
10 September 2002, 02:21 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saddam's had all those nasties for more than ten years to our certain knowledge. What's suddenly changed that makes you so certain he will now use this stuff on the west?
Ok, Bin Laden is a stateless threat but why do you believe that Sadam is daft enough to believe he can supply Bin Laden with a Nuke and then when it's set off in the west walk away and go 'Nothing to do with me'. Like we'd allow that to happen. AND here's the real point.. he knows that..
Ok, Bin Laden is a stateless threat but why do you believe that Sadam is daft enough to believe he can supply Bin Laden with a Nuke and then when it's set off in the west walk away and go 'Nothing to do with me'. Like we'd allow that to happen. AND here's the real point.. he knows that..
10 September 2002, 02:27 PM
#78
Guest
Posts: n/a
Something to do with the fact Bin Laden has been around a very long time and only a year ago decided to do what he did. Does that mean he should have been totally ignored before 9/11 because he had been relatively inactive? In fact the problem was he wasn't really being watched that closely and not taken seriously and look what he did! OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE! You seem to think Saddam is a reasonable and logical thinker with all these arguments, he isnt, he is a total lunatic, currently the worst lunatic in charge of a country worldwide.
10 September 2002, 02:38 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, this is really interesting
1. Is Saddam Hussein's government is benevolent & peaceable?
(No) Is China, South Korea, Iran, Libya etc etc
2. Does Saddam Hussein's government subjugate the Iraqi people by state intimidation, brutality and murder?
(Yes) refer to China
3. Is Saddam Hussein's government tolerant of internal domestic minorities?
(No) refer to China
4. Does Saddam Hussein's government seek to extend Iraq's borders by force?
(Yes)Palestein/ Israel, Iran etc etc
5. Is Saddam Hussein's government prepared to allow unfettered, multi-national UN inspections of his arsenal?
(No) China?
6. Does Saddam Hussein's government permit the state-sponsorship of international terrorism?
(Yes) Libya
7. Do the majority of Arab nationals fear Saddam Hussein's government?
(Yes)Not enough to do anything about it
8. Has Saddam Hussein's government ever possessed chemical and biological weapons?
(Yes) The list here would be tooo long.. hasn't everyone got these?
9. Has Saddam Hussein's government used them?
(Yes) Didn't britain in the 1st world war?
10. Is the government of Saddam Hussein a de-stabilising influence in the Middle east?
(Yes) define de-stabilising as I'm sure there are others.
11. Does he pose a threat to us through his acknowledged state sponsorship of terrorism and likely links to Al'Quaeda?
(Yes) Doesn't every state pose a potential threat?
12. Does Saddam Hussein's government give a dowry of cash to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber?
(Yes) Agreed. But if you were listening to R5 this morning there was a palestinian on saying that no one would give up their life for cash alone.
13. Should we sit back and hope he goes away like Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement brigade believed would be the case with Adolf Hitler?
(No) How is Sadam like Adolf apart from they're both loopy and ideal hate figures.
14. Are you willing to do nothing and potentially see Saddam Hussein's government once again persecute and murder the Kurds barely ten years since he murdered 100,000 of their men, women and children?
(No) Oh go on we've stood idly by for years and seen human rights denied.. China and Saudi Arabia are good examples
15. Do you think - as a culture that supports and has sacrified much for the freedom of the individual - we have a moral responsibility to act against tyrannical, undemocratic regimes that commit mass murder on a biblical scale?
(Yes) So we and the Americans in the WHOLE world have the moral high ground? Give me a break. Why don;t we start up the Empire again and we can convert the whole world to be like us.
16. Are you willing to run the risk of Saddam Hussein's government procuring fissile material on the international black market and then using it against us or Israel?
(No) Aren't their lots of other governments on the banned list also trying to get hold of this material? Aren't they an equal risk.
1. Is Saddam Hussein's government is benevolent & peaceable?
(No) Is China, South Korea, Iran, Libya etc etc
2. Does Saddam Hussein's government subjugate the Iraqi people by state intimidation, brutality and murder?
(Yes) refer to China
3. Is Saddam Hussein's government tolerant of internal domestic minorities?
(No) refer to China
4. Does Saddam Hussein's government seek to extend Iraq's borders by force?
(Yes)Palestein/ Israel, Iran etc etc
5. Is Saddam Hussein's government prepared to allow unfettered, multi-national UN inspections of his arsenal?
(No) China?
6. Does Saddam Hussein's government permit the state-sponsorship of international terrorism?
(Yes) Libya
7. Do the majority of Arab nationals fear Saddam Hussein's government?
(Yes)Not enough to do anything about it
8. Has Saddam Hussein's government ever possessed chemical and biological weapons?
(Yes) The list here would be tooo long.. hasn't everyone got these?
9. Has Saddam Hussein's government used them?
(Yes) Didn't britain in the 1st world war?
10. Is the government of Saddam Hussein a de-stabilising influence in the Middle east?
(Yes) define de-stabilising as I'm sure there are others.
11. Does he pose a threat to us through his acknowledged state sponsorship of terrorism and likely links to Al'Quaeda?
(Yes) Doesn't every state pose a potential threat?
12. Does Saddam Hussein's government give a dowry of cash to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber?
(Yes) Agreed. But if you were listening to R5 this morning there was a palestinian on saying that no one would give up their life for cash alone.
13. Should we sit back and hope he goes away like Neville Chamberlain and the appeasement brigade believed would be the case with Adolf Hitler?
(No) How is Sadam like Adolf apart from they're both loopy and ideal hate figures.
14. Are you willing to do nothing and potentially see Saddam Hussein's government once again persecute and murder the Kurds barely ten years since he murdered 100,000 of their men, women and children?
(No) Oh go on we've stood idly by for years and seen human rights denied.. China and Saudi Arabia are good examples
15. Do you think - as a culture that supports and has sacrified much for the freedom of the individual - we have a moral responsibility to act against tyrannical, undemocratic regimes that commit mass murder on a biblical scale?
(Yes) So we and the Americans in the WHOLE world have the moral high ground? Give me a break. Why don;t we start up the Empire again and we can convert the whole world to be like us.
16. Are you willing to run the risk of Saddam Hussein's government procuring fissile material on the international black market and then using it against us or Israel?
(No) Aren't their lots of other governments on the banned list also trying to get hold of this material? Aren't they an equal risk.
10 September 2002, 03:53 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alpine
clearly then, you advocate doing nothing on the grounds of what you perceive to be our collective hypocrisy, cynicism and guilty opportunism.
i don't buy that and i don't think you do either: it's just marxist claptrap.
by the way, i think you mean north - not south - korea. libya learned its lesson following the 1986 attack on tripoli. you're right about the chinese. however, they are arguably the world's second military/nuclear superpower following the break-up of the former soviet union: realpolitik dictates that you don't pick a fight you can't win.
sure we used mustard gas in WW1, but not to decimate our own civilian population as Saddam did in 91 with the Kurds and marsh Arabs. hhhhm, you still sure you want to take a gamble with a suitcase bomb on the northern line that's carrying the ebola virus or vx?
as to resurrecting the empire so everyone can be like us, now you're just being a smart-a**e.
no doubt you believe we shouldn't have gone to war with germany in 1939 because you think we were partially to blame for it through the reparations bill and the treaty of versailles?
come on mate, this is the real world: you either deal with it - ****-up or conspiracy - or it deals with you.
clearly then, you advocate doing nothing on the grounds of what you perceive to be our collective hypocrisy, cynicism and guilty opportunism.
i don't buy that and i don't think you do either: it's just marxist claptrap.
by the way, i think you mean north - not south - korea. libya learned its lesson following the 1986 attack on tripoli. you're right about the chinese. however, they are arguably the world's second military/nuclear superpower following the break-up of the former soviet union: realpolitik dictates that you don't pick a fight you can't win.
sure we used mustard gas in WW1, but not to decimate our own civilian population as Saddam did in 91 with the Kurds and marsh Arabs. hhhhm, you still sure you want to take a gamble with a suitcase bomb on the northern line that's carrying the ebola virus or vx?
as to resurrecting the empire so everyone can be like us, now you're just being a smart-a**e.
no doubt you believe we shouldn't have gone to war with germany in 1939 because you think we were partially to blame for it through the reparations bill and the treaty of versailles?
come on mate, this is the real world: you either deal with it - ****-up or conspiracy - or it deals with you.
10 September 2002, 04:00 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't advocate doing nothing. I advocate a less haste more speed approach.. Wait to try and get a UN mandate and a consolidated Arab approach..
In my mind realpolitik says don't pick a fight you don't need to be in.. The real end of that argument would be funk it.. the Americans are going in anyway let them get on with it and do a France or Germany.. reap the benefit with none of the blood.. Just for once put us and ours first.. we are too small to be saviours of the universe!
In my mind realpolitik says don't pick a fight you don't need to be in.. The real end of that argument would be funk it.. the Americans are going in anyway let them get on with it and do a France or Germany.. reap the benefit with none of the blood.. Just for once put us and ours first.. we are too small to be saviours of the universe!
10 September 2002, 04:31 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alpine,
if you remember, the UN resolution explicitly *prevented* the coalition forces entering iraq in the gulf war and ending it for good by toppling saddam's regime. norman schwarzkopf felt able to keep going straight up the basra road all the way to baghdad with a shattered iraqi military backed by total air superiority.
however george bush snr and colin powell, rightly or wrongly as judged by history, bowed to the UN resolution to hold off.
what practical mandate can we expect from the UN this time, hhhhm? another compromise that treats the symptoms not the cause maybe?
"let them get on with it...do a france or germany...reap the benefit with none of the blood".
so you admit there's a positive benefit to be gained from dealing with saddam but only if someone else takes the risks.
where's your moral compass? think about it.
if you remember, the UN resolution explicitly *prevented* the coalition forces entering iraq in the gulf war and ending it for good by toppling saddam's regime. norman schwarzkopf felt able to keep going straight up the basra road all the way to baghdad with a shattered iraqi military backed by total air superiority.
however george bush snr and colin powell, rightly or wrongly as judged by history, bowed to the UN resolution to hold off.
what practical mandate can we expect from the UN this time, hhhhm? another compromise that treats the symptoms not the cause maybe?
"let them get on with it...do a france or germany...reap the benefit with none of the blood".
so you admit there's a positive benefit to be gained from dealing with saddam but only if someone else takes the risks.
where's your moral compass? think about it.
10 September 2002, 05:43 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree the UN mandate was adhered to last time and I believe any mandate which 'may' come from it this time should also be adhered to.
If Blair and Bush can't convince the UN that something needs doing when they can put all the evidence before them, then that is good enough for me.
Just because something may be right it doesn't mean it has to be done by us or anybody else for that matter. You admitted as much when you said we shouldn't go against China because they are too big... I think the same 'moral compass' could be applied here.
BTW.. enjoying the debate
If Blair and Bush can't convince the UN that something needs doing when they can put all the evidence before them, then that is good enough for me.
Just because something may be right it doesn't mean it has to be done by us or anybody else for that matter. You admitted as much when you said we shouldn't go against China because they are too big... I think the same 'moral compass' could be applied here.
BTW.. enjoying the debate
10 September 2002, 09:44 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Well, I think it's great. I could really do with another Xmas somewhere hot, desolate and generally unpleasant. Sort of becoming traditional now........
10 September 2002, 10:28 PM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
SimonH as someone who would be personnally involved in any action what is your opinion on whether action should be taken or not? We all have our views on here but it would be good to have a personal view from somone who would be directly affected.
10 September 2002, 10:44 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alpine
give me one example when the UN has intervened and sorted things out for the better since its formation after WW2?
did they apply themselves to:
- vietnam?*
- cambodia?*
- south africa?
- hungary?
- biafra?**
- belgian congo?**
- czechoslovakia?
- afghanistan? (USSR invasion of)?**
- uganda?*
- palestine
- yugoslavia?**
- rwanda?*
- sierra leone?
* represents firespots where upwards of 1m civilians have died.
** represnts firespots where 10's, possible 100's of thousands died.
the answer? no & none - in particular cambodia, rwanda, uganda and vietnam. as i recall, the french ran away from their former colony rwanda in 92 rather than try to prevent a tribal slaughterhouse of staggering proportions. as did the UN. so, no change there then. ditto our belgian friends in the congo too.
in that list alone, you are looking at perhaps 5m+ dead civilians, most of which could have been prevented by the right pre-emptive action by the "UN".
your faith in the UN is naive and misplaced. it achieves, and has achieved, nothing, short of creating a bureaucracy of jobs-for-the-boys and professional diplomats who care not a jot for the principals of freedom and the right to live without persecution.
would you have waited for the league of nations to agree a policy of dealing with adolf hitler before moving against him? i sincerely hope not.
do the job on saddam and do it now.
the world will be a better place without him. is that a fair point?
give me one example when the UN has intervened and sorted things out for the better since its formation after WW2?
did they apply themselves to:
- vietnam?*
- cambodia?*
- south africa?
- hungary?
- biafra?**
- belgian congo?**
- czechoslovakia?
- afghanistan? (USSR invasion of)?**
- uganda?*
- palestine
- yugoslavia?**
- rwanda?*
- sierra leone?
* represents firespots where upwards of 1m civilians have died.
** represnts firespots where 10's, possible 100's of thousands died.
the answer? no & none - in particular cambodia, rwanda, uganda and vietnam. as i recall, the french ran away from their former colony rwanda in 92 rather than try to prevent a tribal slaughterhouse of staggering proportions. as did the UN. so, no change there then. ditto our belgian friends in the congo too.
in that list alone, you are looking at perhaps 5m+ dead civilians, most of which could have been prevented by the right pre-emptive action by the "UN".
your faith in the UN is naive and misplaced. it achieves, and has achieved, nothing, short of creating a bureaucracy of jobs-for-the-boys and professional diplomats who care not a jot for the principals of freedom and the right to live without persecution.
would you have waited for the league of nations to agree a policy of dealing with adolf hitler before moving against him? i sincerely hope not.
do the job on saddam and do it now.
the world will be a better place without him. is that a fair point?
