bros2

I understand that feelings are high on this, and that polarised positions are taken very quickly, but two points I'd raise are (1) should we act and (2) question I have is this: why now?

Looking at (2) first, why not, say, a year ago, or two years ago? All of a sudden, there's daily comments from Bush & Blair about the need for Saddam Hussein to be removed. Well said guys, couldn't agree more, but he's not got any more dangerous in the last six months, has he?

Since most competent university physics labs could construct a nuclear device within a few months, I suggest this part of the IISS report be ignored, though it does demonstrate the fact that sufficient expertise is available to the Iraqi regime to make good their threat, as it were, should plutonium become available.

So is there something new, something which is, as historians would call it, the "trigger factor" which pushes us into declaring war on Iraq? If there is, nobody is telling us. If there isn't, then there would appear to be no reason to rush to action, though preparations should be made carefully and with very firm intentions.

Should we act at all? Despite the fact that self-determination is a principal precept of nationhood, there are times when evil must be confronted and fought. Sometimes it's better to break the moral law that a country is allowed to do whatever it wants within its own boundaries, in favour of a higher moral law which says that extermination of your own people and the planned extermination of another is just plain wrong. Of course, I'd apply this to a load more countries than just Iraq ......

A big but. If started, there should be no stopping - the decison to go to war would have been made based on long-term observation of the fact that Iraq (and Saddam Hussein in particular) simply cannot be trusted, so short of a full government change, such a war would have to be waged until the end objectives are met. Do it, but do it once, properly, and inflict minimum casualties.

Bros

Alpine

My point about the UN in not particularily having their forces on the ground which seem to be run by committee and can be ineffective. My point is that if you cannot convince other heads of state that action needs to be taken when you are in a position to lay all the facts in front of them why should I (or we) be convinced by what we read in the tabloids?

Maybe bros2 made the point neater... Why now? What's changed?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

To put my two pen'orth in again, I have to say that I agree with Bros2--- Why now???
A year ago all the rhetoric was aimed at Osama bin Laden. Apparently he HAD to be captured, dead or alive, even if it meant invading Afghanistan to do it. We and the Yanks have failed singularly there.
Suddenly, it's "all change". Suddenly, ObL is forgotten, or at least pushed to the rear, and Saddam is public enemy number one.
Why??? What's he done during the last year that means that we should change from chasing ObL and go after Saddam?
Except that: ObL is in hiding, and the American's much vaunted intelligence network ("we'll prove that Saddam has the bomb"), haven't the foggiest where he is, whereas Saddam is a good target!! Or is that just cynical?
I, for one, don't think so. I, for one, think the cynical ones are the people who want to interfere in YET ANOTHER country's government, as a way of deflecting public opinion over their failure to catch ObL, and before they've put their own houses in order.[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Shark

Bomb them back to the stone age [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

MarkO

Erm, they're already in the stone age.

Sith

UN - United Numpties, or gravy train. Make up your own mind.

WW1 and WW2 saw masses of people killed all because of the desire of One person to have some room for expansion. Are these wars any different to the days of the British Empire building of many years ago. One person at the top deciding to go and conquer other lands for their benefit. When we went Empire building we had the better weapons and expertise and could subdue the opposition.
Bring this to the present day and you have the west verses the Middle East. We have the weapons, Saddam wants the weapons and we wont let him have them.
We kicked him out of Kuwait and I'm convinced that was only because of the Oil. And in the days of the Empire we went to lands and conquered them if they had goods we wanted (Australia, go figure ;-) ) Now we take the morale high ground and say he can't do what we did hundreds of years ago.
And who are we to decide that we will be the Worlds Police force.

There have always been terrorists, dictators and there always will be.

Do we go in and risk upsetting the knife edge that is the Middle East. Last time we had the backing of the Arab nations because they didn't want Saddam to control all the oil wells in Kuwait. Now we are seen as Sabre rattlers and the aggressor.

No easy solution, but if we go in, we go in strong and take him and his government down. Destroy the military and try to put in a democratic government. The Arab world imo is littered with Dictators and I believe it wouldn't be long before another rose in Iraq.

Hope some of that makes sense. I'm tired.
(this makes a pleasant change to my cars faster etc posts)

P.

bros2

Sith,

Just to disagree slightly, I thought that WWI was caused primarily by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the decline of the Ottomans, nationalism in the Balkans, and, finally, the assassination of Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Oh yes, and Kaiser Bill trying to prove he was top dog in Europe.

Bros

MarkO

I think the UK and US should go in and take out Saddam, installing a puppet regime which they control. If only for the reason that with control of Iraq's oil fields, there's a slim possibility that petrol prices in this country might go down by a couple of pence per litre.

Shark

I think that this thread should be shown to the recalled parliment - it may give them an idea what the masses think.

David

Alpine

I think you're mistaking parliament for an organisation that gives a **** about the people it represents..

AnDy_PaNdY

Sounds like you had a tough week Alpine

Sith

Bros2 - You've kind of agreed and disagreed on WW1 :-) Pointed out the 'Powder Keg' that I forgot from GCSE History, (Long time ago) and Kaiser Bill wanting to prove he's top dog. Room for expansion and Sabre rattling. :-)

P. (I'm enjoying this thread)

AnDy_PaNdY

I liked Bush's speech to the UN.
Basically it was get on board or the boat will leave without you

Dream Weaver

Twas a great speech - I dont think he is as daft as what everyone thinks.

Well I was ready to go fight afterwards anyway, especially with those smug Iraqi types sitting there grinning.

ssubaru

BLOW THE BARSTEWARDS UP AS THEY HATE ALL FOREIGNERS ANYWAY .
seen them burning american flags ,if i was to do this here with there flag i would be called a racist and get into trouble with local ethnic groups ,but as i say if you dont want to be british **** of back to the country you came from ,
ssubaru

Dougster.

Should I say more?

Will be at RAF Leuchars on Sunday if anyone wants a look round.

ssubaru

Nice plane dougster i grow up round leuchers till i was 15 when the cold war was on, should have seen and heard the vulcan bombers full of atomic bombs ready to blast those ruskys to bits, they use to pass over my house maybe only a hundred feet above at night ******* amazing ,they only flew at night because they didnt want the public to no they were carrring nukes , so most people in bed and dont ask questions but i couldnt miss them as it was like a earthquake, even better was the phantoms constantly all day
it was a boy hood dream if into planes, brings back memorys when i here the word leuchers
ssubaru

ps anyone wondering about the nukes they planes were on standby in case of war

tony jones

You should all remeber that the 'henchan with the hook', being watched by M15.

So they will be watching him cash is disability pension and collect his housing benifit and go for his free health care.etc etc, and its you and me who foot the bill folks.

When will somebody stand up and say enough is enough?

gravelexpress

Definetly NOT!! stop the war etc..
im headed to North Kuwait i.e. the border with saddams little beggars tomorrow!
However,I must point out that I am probably in one of the safest cities in the world i.e. Heathrow Airport aint got a battery of 10 Patriot missiles defending it!!

johnfelstead

Pattriots dont work well at all. Sleep well.

Geezer

Sith:

WWI had nothing to do with Kaiser Bill, or the British Empire. It was simply started by Serbian nationalism and conflict with Austro Hungarian empire.

Unfortunatey, due to several pacts, everybody had to backup their buddies, which led to the war starting.

Anyway,
Bros2 has made the most intelligent post thus far. He is no more more of a threat than before, so the Yanks are just using this as an excuse to settle old scores (and let us not forget that his powerbase was greatly increased by the US when they were fighting the old enemy Iran, as was ObL when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan)

And for all those people who compare this situation to 1939, please stop talking out of yer *****! Iraq is not one fifth of the threat that Germany posed. Militarily they are weak, and the notion of Lebensraum doesn't seem to fit into the dictators psyche, he just wants to kill Kurds and ISrealis. We've turned a blind eye to Turkish suppression of the Kurds for long enough, why pick on Saddam?

The Israelis can look after themselves!

The threat of nuclear weapons finding themselves in the hands of Al Qaeda is not confined to Iraq either. Several Islamic states from within the formaer Soviet Union are known to be in support, and there have already been instances of technology/hardware sold.

Are we likely to tackle these threats? No, emphatically.

You can't just attack countries because of what they might do, that makes you just another agressor. Imagine if you were arrested because you owned a high perfomance car and therefore were likely to break the speed limit, you would not be best pleased.

Actually, while we're in this frame of mind, let's arrest all firearm owners in case they go loopy and shoot a load of people.

skipjack

geezer

how can you say that comparisons to 1939 are invalid?

so iraq demonstrates no tendency to "lebensraum"? what about the iran-iraq war in the 80s? what about the invasion of kuwait? saddam hussein has attempted territorial annexation. that's close enough for me.

so iraq doesn't pose a fifth the threat of germany in 1939? (why a fifth by the way? do you have a scientific formula?) it possesses a substantial standing army, rebuilt over a decade (using hard currency pay-offs from saudi arabia) and backed by an operational air force using ageing but effective strike hardware.

iraq also possesses three different types of ballistic missile with ranges from 150 to 900km and a payload of 300 to 500kg. it possesses mustard gas and sarin and vx nerve agents plus anthrax, botulinium, smallpox and ebola bio-weapons. these latter weapons are easily miniaturised and can be delivered by a single individual.

that is a threat in anybody's books, well most people's apart from yours. hitler went to war without ballistic missiles and he did not use use chemical or bio-weapons against western forces although arguably he did on the eastern front. saddam has already uses his CW and BW stocks against the iranians and his own people. with impunity.

the mobility of travel and the ease with which one can pass national borders magnifies the threat and makes up for what he lacks in troop numbers or tanks. in fact the true threat (to us)is not even from the regular forces.

hitler was appeased over many years - politicians who refused to grasp the nettle and instead believed that hitler wouldn't really do anything. we are hearing the same siren-voices today and as always, it is, for the most part, from the liberal-left, who are traditionally anti-american, anti-israeli and often anti-semitic (no names mentioned tom paulen).

perhaps try reading a little professor john keegan on this subject. so next time you want to accuse people of talking out their barrymore, you can do it from an informed perspective.

Geezer

I used a fifth to demonstrate that Iraq is a non entity militarily compared to Germany, there is no calculation implied.

No Germany didn't have ballistic missiles, but then again no one did. Germany was a mighty military power with relation to the technology of the times, unlike Iraq, who has a large conscripted army with little will to prosecute their leaders ambitions (As Kuwait showed) or training/weapons to wage war against modern European or US armies. OK, the Republican guard are a bit better, but not by our standards.

I'm not saying that he isn't a menace, but lots of nations are, why aren't we attacking them? It's just bollox, that's why. Lots of states commit terrible acts against their populations or develop weapons of mass destruction, but it doesn't mean that they are suddenly going to aim them all at us!

skipjack

yes but geezer, none constitute an external threat anywhere *near* as great as iraq. not china, not iran, not north korea. i'm sorry but you're just plain wrong.

the palestinians don't do it outside their own backyard anymore. gaddafi learned the error of his ways after he got a well-deserved smack in 1986.

somalia and yemen both harbour terrorists, as does syria. you can bet they too will come under explicit sanction, either UN (if it can be bothered) or otherwise. and rightly so.

so it comes down to prioritisation of threat and saddam is by far the biggest. by far.

and the real threat to us, as i said, is not his conventional forces. (but they are a very real threat to his arab neighbours: to say otherwise is to deny cold, hard fact). it is his ability to use CBW either directly, or supply CBW means to groups who will. targets will include us.

it is also the fact that saudi arabia paid him US$100m to keep at arms length. hard currency he has used in re-armament: that buys you a lot of second-hand kit and it's out there on the international arms black market for sale to the highest bidder.

plus it is his medium-term potential capability to produce a dirty nuke. and use it. a dirty, low blast high yield nuke will fit in a suitcase by the way. imagine one of those on a hijacked airliner: it's the nightmare terrorist scenario, worse than 9/11.

no other regime on the planet is this much of a threat to us: we must deal with him and start making other corrupt and dangerous regimes start thinking twice.

The Zohan

IMHO
Skipjack is on the money here.

Geezer

What about any other state supplying money to Islamic fundamentalists? They are a threat, but we don't go after them. What about all the US money that kept the IRA so well armed, we didn't go after them.

The US have created this problem, let them take the heat for it. Saddam has only become a threat to us in the same way that a rattlesnake becomes one if you poke it. We will get dragged down with the Yanks if we persue this, and depsite what you say this is nothing like the 30s! We had to do something then because we were directly threatened. We are only threatened by association with the people who have created the problem in the first place!

Geezer

Shark

I'll second Paul, Skipjack is spot on

David

The Zohan

Geezer
IMHO

The UK appears to be seen as part of the infidel west, like it or not, this goes back a long way, even certain Arab nations sided with the *****/axis powers during WWII, We have had problems with Muslims/Islamic groups going back to the Crusades so a bit of history there. I am not saying all Muslims are a problem at all although I recon some people would have you believe this to try to unite them against the west, this East vs. West is not the issue, Nutter's like Saddam do not have a problem using these weapons against his own people let alone the Iranians and whoever else he fancies, he has a track record of Genocide and using this type of force so do not fool yourself he is really a nice man!

It seems to me that this is about stopping a serious threat to us before we become the victims. I am not some war-mongering nutter following the herd here. I keep my eyes and ears open.

Now I am pretty sure that the intelligence services have good reason to flag Saddam/Iraq up as a threat to our security and for the powers that be to take it seriously. I am sure this will come to light soon.

From a political POV a War against innocent people with a lotta body bags returning does not make good political sense.

Economically a war depresses share prices and curtails business activity (except weapons manufacture maybe) and does not make good political sense.

War’s cost huge amount to fund, yes we the tax payer fund it but it is not necessarily good for the governments image if it is seen to be doing the wrong thing.

Time will tell who are the bad guys here, me I believe I know already!

Paul