Diesel

Lots of sense Ghost & Shrek - if there is another march, meet me in London. Bring megaphone and spare backbone!

Luke

"Bring megaphone and spare backbone! "


Classic!!

philc

I think to make the case by looking at Hitler and Stalin is a bit off-beam.

Bring the parallel closer to our time.

Cambodia in the 1970's.

The country de-stabilised by the US in its pursuit of the Vietcong and a leader called Pol Pot successfully exterminating 30% of the country's population (last guess about ?two million citizens).

I didn't see or hear any attempt to bring the butchery to an end by the western nations, nor much of an attempt to bring Pol Pot to trial in the 80's after he was overthrown.

So what's so special about Saddam to warrant Bush's attention?

Diesel

Phil - you cant sort out everything all of the time as a Western power. You can sort out some, and only when that suits you (and people will moan whatever you do or dont do)...

We were all born selfish and self protective - times when we are purely altruistic are rare. It is simply not programmed by nature.

D

(being very REAL there...

R.B.5

Dracoro:

Quote : Yeah We should never have tried to stop Hitler either.

Uhm excuse me but was it not Hitler who murdered or ordered the Murder of millions of innocent Jews?? Are you messed up?

Back to the Subject:

My opinion on Sadam is that when he did what he did last time round sparking Desert Storm etc we should have exiled him or even had him imprisoned/killed then, its no good trying to start this whole thing back up again because hes more the wiser now. He's probably hidden these weapons elsewhere and not in his back yard! Stalling the UN and the inspectors, he's just biding his time.

He is a Dictator to the people just as Hitler was and imo both these men are seriously messed up. Ideal extremists are becoming more and more extreme in thier mission to terrorise the population and it has to stop somewhere. I'd gladly go to war if it would stop Sadam and his weapons of mass destruction, just show me where to sign. The thing is though it wont stop there so whats the point in it all....just one big vicious circle! If its not Sadam then it will be someone else!!!

Just my 2p worth

Holy Ghost

philc

saddam has chemical and biological agents and a fledgling nuclear programme.

saddam hates us. saddam is an arab.

osama bin laden hates us. osama bin laden is an arab.

saddam sponsors international terrorism, most famously in palestine.

osama bin laden is an anti-western terrorist.

so why saddam? to prevent the real risk of WMD supply or knowledge/technology transfer of same to terrorists that will be used against us or israel or both.

this is an exercise in risk management.

if a criminal is armed with a lethal weapon and has already used it, you don't let him wander around hoping he doesn't use it again or wait until he passes his weapon to a mate of his.

you arrest him and disarm him. to protect yourself, your family, your society, your country.

R.B.5

Nice one Holy

R.B.5

Forgot to ask:

Do you think will we go to war?

Holy Ghost

however, i can understand that NZ is so far away that you're pretty well out it. the most you have to worry about is suicide sheep

you'll notice though that john howard in oz takes the threat very seriously and, as usual, can be relied on to pull aussie weight.

Holy Ghost

RB5

sadly yes i do. end of march i reckon based on how things are currently and that we're approaching a state of military readiness. but i'm convinced it *will* be backed a second UN resolution.

for all his faults and ****-ups, blair will ensure it is so for his own survival.

force is the last resort. but as diesel said, it's time to bite the bullet, take a deep breath and sort it out for everyone's sakes. not least the poor sodding iraqi people.

muppet paster

Popeye P1

'you have to worry about is suicide sheep'

LOL or Angry Geysers and delinquent Maoris.

R.B.5

Hmm

Its sad to think that someone whos just a person like you and me however messed up can actually cause a war between countries. What actually goes through his mind??...Oh i'll just give money and power to terrorism and make lots of nice bombs to kill people with. He is mad isn't he?

I think Saddam will wander off again with his tail between his legs.

Holy Ghost

loaded, mad, bad and dangerous playboy terrorist on a massive ego trip as the self-appointed saviour of islam.

sad that it always ends in a gunfight.

Diesel

All this stuff reminds me of Superman. Osama Bin Killing IS Lex Luthor. Horrifying really!

I_dont_giveafvk

Iz just wish theyd get on with it, every news is the same every day and its getting boring

that libdem leader on tv last night.......what a feckin drip thank *** he aint pm

StiShrek

shows just how out of touch those damn liberals are!!

Electing a short-arsed carrot pubed scottish moron as their leader???

who the hell would want him as PM???

he is a sour faced *****

rayman_2

easily said when we can watch it on tv in the comfort of our homes, just seen pics of the aftermath left by us-uk in the afghan conflict. The effects of depleted uranium on unborn liberated children, pics were shocking and enough to make me sick. Its easy when you are not in the firing line.

The way i see it there will be no winners in the end.

Holy Ghost

true. i take your point.

but you can say the same about the effects of radiation after hiroshima and nagasaki...

or the effects of the ***** on being jewish, gay, slav, gypsy or religious.

or the effects of mustard gas on the 5,000 iraqi occupants of halabja.

or the effects of two airliners on 3,500 office workers.

the list is endless. everyone knows how bad war is and the victims, directly and indirectly, it creates. the implication that it's alright for us - as "civilian armchair generals" - because we don't get up close and personal with the results, is disingenuous. we do get up close and personal. on the news, every day of every year.

palestine. israel. sierra leone. chechnya. yemen. somalia. zimbabwe. congo. indonesia.

it's all horrible. for me, that knowledge actually makes backing use of the last resort even harder. but sometimes it has to be done for the greater good.

rayman_2

I agree with your point holy ghost, but history tells us nothing has really being accomplished by war. All it does is increase human suffering, more innocent people been killed and also future generations unlikely to ever to have a normal life. It just seems to me that the god given right to live has taken away from these people.

If you provoke a person long enough, you would definately get a response.

Holy Ghost

i think largely you're right: war doesn't accomplish much. for us, it tends to apply suffering to end existing suffering. which is what makes it the solution of last resort. for others, it is simply the application of suffering for its own sake.

but there are exceptions.

look at WW2: the price of crushing highly threatening german and japanese imperial aggression was in excess of 60m dead. and the conflict itself was caused by appeasement, diplomatic incompetence, pig-headedness and shocking naivety.

what would the price have been without such a sacrifice? much greater i'll wager. continental europe enslaved, totally deprived of freedom and genocidally cleansed. germany the first nuclear superpower. russia rolled flat, its people enslaved much more harshly and ethnically cleansed without mercy.

asia and the pacific a japanese enclave, ruled by a divine dictatorship, enforced by oppression, murder and torture.

the problems in the middle east wouldn't exist as the jews would be all dead and the territory and oil carved up between the axis powers.

was 60m dead a price worth paying for a free, democratic europe; a newly democratic russia, economic powerhouses in both east and west, relative global stability, no major conflicts for 60 years and little chance of same in our lifetimes?

against a world population of 6 billion and a sacrifice of one per cent, my answer has to be an unequivocal "yes". we still live the legacy of WW2 and it's a heck of a lot better than it would have been had a precious handful of countries not dug their heels in.

i take the view that professional terrorism unchecked is as much a threat to our way of life as hitler, tojo and mussolini once were. the threat this time wears the colours of extreme islamic fundamentalism and extreme anti-western arabism. it is the total antithesis of secularity and freedom of the individual that we take for granted.

i also take the view that man's natural state is one of perpetual conflict. from a darwinian perspective, that's why we're at the top of the food chain.

but we cannot circumvent the instinct to fight, although thankfully it is probably as repressed an instinct now as it has ever been. you see how hard it is to repress with failure after failure by the UN - an imperfect, conflict-blocking gene that is ironically at conflict with itself.

what i'm saying is that sometimes war is the only way to re-boot the system and prevent even greater suffering and greater conflict. harsh and depressing.

and i think we find ourselves in such a situation again, 64 years on. with higher stakes.

andrewdelvard

Interesting report from a CBS interview with Sadam by Dan Rather.

On Going Into Exile:
Dan Rather: “Mr. President, have you been offered asylum anywhere? And would you, under any circumstances, consider going into exile to save your people death and destruction?”

Saddam Hussein: "I was born here in Iraq ... I am proud to have been born fearing God and I have taught my children the value of history and the value of human stands ... Whoever decides to forsake his nation from whoever requests is not true to the principles. We will die here. We will die in this country and we will maintain our honor -- the honor that is required…in front of our people. I believe that whoever ... offers Saddam asylum in his own country is in fact a person without morals."

On Burning The Oil Fields:
Rather: “…If there is an invasion, will you set fire to the oil fields? Will you blow the dams? or your reservoirs of water to resist the invasion?”

Saddam: “I've answered the hypothesis, but to indulge in the details: Iraq does not burn its wealth and it does not destroy its dams. We hope that, however, that this question is not meant as an insinuation, so that the Iraqi dams and the Iraqi oil wells will be destroyed by those who will invade Iraq in their possible invasion of the country…”

On The Al Samoud Missiles
Rather: Mr. President, do you intend to destroy the Al Samoud missiles that the United Nations prohibits? Will you destroy those missiles?

Saddam: Our commitment is to abide, to comply with the resolution and to apply it as per the will of the United Nations and on that basis we have acted and we shall act.

As you know, Iraq is allowed to manufacture land-to-land rockets as per the resolution of the United Nations.

Rather: I want to make sure you understand, Mr. President. You do not intend to destroy these missiles?

Saddam: Which missiles? What do you mean? We have no missiles outside the specifications of the United Nations and the inspection teams are here and they're looking. I believe the United States knows and the world knows that Iraq has none of what has been said at the higher political levels.

And I believe all the turmoil that's going on and all these fleets and these concentrations of troops, all this is to cover the big lie that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction such as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. So, the missiles you are talking about, the missiles that are against the resolution of the United Nations, these do not exist and they have been destroyed.

On The Approach To War:
Rather: What is the most important thing you want the American people to understand at this important juncture of history?

Saddam: First, that you tell them that Iraqi people are not the enemy of the American people. If the American people want to know more through dialogue through television screens, I am ready to dialogue with Bush, with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, and to appear together before the television. And I would say what I have to say, what I have to say about the American policy and he can say things about the Iraqi policy and let that be on television in a just and fair way.

Rather: Are you speaking of a debate? Yes, a debate. This is new. You are saying that you are willing, you are suggesting, you are urging a debate with President Bush on television?

Saddam: Yes, that's it. We are not asking for a contest with weapons. All I'm asking is to appear before the American people and other people in a direct discussion in a conversation between me and Mr. Bush that's broadcast by television.

This is an opportunity for him, if he is really convinced about his position, about preparations for war, or any other means, to convince the whole world about the reasons that justifies war. And it's opportunity for us to tell the world about our reasons to want to live in peace.

Rather: This is not a joke?

Saddam: Not at all. I'm not joking. This is because of my respect for the American public opinion. Conducting a dialogue could bring peace. Why not go and have a debate?

rayman_2

okay i hear what you are saying holy ghost, but what is bush doing now. He seems exactly what hitler was trying to do 64 years ago but by hiding behind sanctions, UN and other cooked up laws which he feels are right. Nothing will or ever be achieved by killing innocent people. What you forget if someones partner,child, or any other family member is killed by the enemy he or she will never forget. I certainly will not forget and will try anything to bring down who were responsible. This is a viscous circle which will carry on and never ever stop. Hence why the true enemy of war is war itself.

Holy Ghost

man, to be honest, we can wander round in hand-wringing circles all we like. but the conclusion always reached is "war is bad."

the bottom line is we have a very serious situation here, which, if not dealt with, will come back and bite us, you, me on the ***.

saddam is taking the mickey expertly as he has always done. he plays the brinkmanship game like nobody else.

the choice is ultimately his: comply with 1441 as the security council set it out, or face the consequences.

he chooses to play games and use partial compliance to divide us, knowing it buys him time.

the UN cannot threaten the big stick if it's not prepared to sanction its use when the time comes.

12 years of disarmament pressure and sanctions have conclusively not worked.

when the second resolution comes, we must act. or we betray ourselves.

yes people will die. security does not come without a price.

the alternative is do nothing. attempt further containment. run the risk of iraqi-sponsored WMD proliferation amongst terror groups who intend to hurt us.

if, in the light of this, you choose the latter option, then i hope your conscience will be clear should a sarin canister be discharged on the tube one day. or some such dreadful incident.

i cannot believe that it is worth the risk.

are armed services are there to do a job if needed. they're not social workers or famine aid relief workers. they're not policeman. they're not firemen. they're trained to take life in the defence of our security and national interest. they're trained to protect us by any means deemed necessary. casualties are a given: our own and others.

that's the truth of it. terror cannot be tolerated and terror is not undefeatable.

it's all in saddam's hands: co-operate with the wishes of the UN. or die. we will have done all we can to avoid the inevitable.

tough. the world, and iraq, will be a better place without him. and bin laden will be weaker.