Iraq - what would happen if....
14 March 2003, 02:39 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, i knew it couldn't last HG! 
"inevitable". Dangerous, dangerous word. Sure they'll blast the doors off Baghdad Saloon, but the ramifications may not be so "successful". We will have to wait and see...
"inevitable". Dangerous, dangerous word. Sure they'll blast the doors off Baghdad Saloon, but the ramifications may not be so "successful". We will have to wait and see...
14 March 2003, 02:49 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok tel, perhaps that's jumping the gun, no pun intended.
bros - sure blair is a smart guy. i absolutely, positively couldn't doubt that: he's the sharpest tool in the parliamentary kitbag since thatcher. who in turn was the sharpest since churchill.
winston may have been a notorious alcoholic and an academic disappointment to his parents. however, he still managed to fight WW2 on several fronts over six years when often in his cups - and write some of the most potent and immortal political rhetoric we have seen from any national leader at any time. he was also skilful enough to make a masterful job of managing joseph stalin.
in this context, blair remains unproven - but shows promise and potential...
bros - sure blair is a smart guy. i absolutely, positively couldn't doubt that: he's the sharpest tool in the parliamentary kitbag since thatcher. who in turn was the sharpest since churchill.
winston may have been a notorious alcoholic and an academic disappointment to his parents. however, he still managed to fight WW2 on several fronts over six years when often in his cups - and write some of the most potent and immortal political rhetoric we have seen from any national leader at any time. he was also skilful enough to make a masterful job of managing joseph stalin.
in this context, blair remains unproven - but shows promise and potential...
14 March 2003, 03:00 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HG but he will never ever be churchill, lets get that right. Plus churchill fought hitler who cannot be compared in any context with sadaam. sadaam is peanuts compared to him.
Blair does not just have majority of the public against but he also has majority of the world against him. A few million people cant all be wrong !!! The UN world goverment in that case as well.
[Edited by rayman_2 - 3/14/2003 3:06:45 PM]
Blair does not just have majority of the public against but he also has majority of the world against him. A few million people cant all be wrong !!! The UN world goverment in that case as well.
[Edited by rayman_2 - 3/14/2003 3:06:45 PM]
14 March 2003, 03:02 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not sure blair is smarter than winston
Should be interesting. <note to self - must remember to set VCR>
ub
14 March 2003, 03:11 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got bored writing proposal on IDS & VA (yes another IT bod).
For me the argument is a simple one. But firstly, let me say what I do not consider a reason for war.
This so called humanitarian reason of saving the marsh arabs, etc. It’s not I don’t care, I just feel that their fellow Arabs (Egypt, SA, Syria, Jordan). If they cared they would be putting their own army together to sort Sadam out.
They clearly don’t.
So for me why should we go in.
It is clear that four years ago Sadam Hussain has WMD, the inspectors found proof. 1441 says he has to tell the UN what has happened to them. He clearly hasn’t complied….fully.
So the risk is will he give these weapons to terrorists that will attack the west, some night club, a football stadium, concert…the list is endless.
I don’t for a minute believe that he will suddenly launch a ballistic missile at Europe or the US.
So do you believe he will pass these on…Yes or No…not just bin laden; but the likes of Hammas etc?
I believe he will, so then the decision is do we wait for the smoking gun. And then say you bad boy you have killed 10, 100s or even 1000s of us, we are going to sort you out. This is what Clinton did with Afghanistan, sent them a few tomahawks in the lates 90s – well done that stopped them!
Or do we say, sorry mate, but if you don’t desist its war.
In this weekend ….and if the French don’t like it…who cares!
Oh and of course the French are a such peace loving guys…unless it’s Green Peace ship protesting, then sink the bast$ards!
For me the argument is a simple one. But firstly, let me say what I do not consider a reason for war.
This so called humanitarian reason of saving the marsh arabs, etc. It’s not I don’t care, I just feel that their fellow Arabs (Egypt, SA, Syria, Jordan). If they cared they would be putting their own army together to sort Sadam out.
They clearly don’t.
So for me why should we go in.
It is clear that four years ago Sadam Hussain has WMD, the inspectors found proof. 1441 says he has to tell the UN what has happened to them. He clearly hasn’t complied….fully.
So the risk is will he give these weapons to terrorists that will attack the west, some night club, a football stadium, concert…the list is endless.
I don’t for a minute believe that he will suddenly launch a ballistic missile at Europe or the US.
So do you believe he will pass these on…Yes or No…not just bin laden; but the likes of Hammas etc?
I believe he will, so then the decision is do we wait for the smoking gun. And then say you bad boy you have killed 10, 100s or even 1000s of us, we are going to sort you out. This is what Clinton did with Afghanistan, sent them a few tomahawks in the lates 90s – well done that stopped them!
Or do we say, sorry mate, but if you don’t desist its war.
In this weekend ….and if the French don’t like it…who cares!
Oh and of course the French are a such peace loving guys…unless it’s Green Peace ship protesting, then sink the bast$ards!
14 March 2003, 03:12 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i...er...merkin...gosh...well...bugger...that is to say...in a roundabout way...as david cassidy in the partridge family put it...stammering hugh grant moment...f*** my old boots (looks wildly from left to right, string of saliva dangling from corner of mouth).
14 March 2003, 03:17 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 March 2003, 03:23 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blueblood what you forget the terrorists will always find a way no matter what. Unfortunately this will just create more, I believe we will have more to answer to in the future here in the UK. I dont think for a minute if somebody had there house and family blown to bits is going to stand around saying its okay because we are been liberated. Its just going to continue around in a visous circle forever where there will be no winner.
Perhaps the only means feasable is the UN at the moment.
Perhaps the only means feasable is the UN at the moment.
14 March 2003, 03:36 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am procrastinating horribly with my work, so I'll have a go at a wee bit of analysis.
We are in a very interesting situation comprised of many subtle and often conflicting forces. Most people don't understand this to the full unfortunately, and the person who suffers as a result in my opinion is Blair. Let me explain.
First of all, a few months ago I was of the opinion that Blair was too much on the Bush bandwagon - I was not certain whether this was because he had been backed into a corner by the US, or whether he was acting in as much self-interest as the US administration. Remember, the Bush bunch are oil and construction people. They have PERSONAL vested interests in this war - just look at the lucrative contracts Haliburon is set to pick up as a result. Before anyone pounces, THESE INTERESTS ARE NOT THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE GOING TO WAR - I may come to these later. However, I was previously unsure as to where Blair's motives lay.
Now, however, after watching a great deal of Blair's news conferences and listening to his commentary, I am convinced that he is doing this out of a moral obligation to do so - a moral obligation that is the product of his own beliefs and his own analysis of the situation. In no way is he being Bush's poodle in this - just look at the immense pressure he is under and the personal risk of his decions. He is a very brave man.
However, it occurees to me that this may be the result of him trying to make the best of a bad situation. For example, he may have been backed into this position by Bush, he may be choosing to ignore the US's hegemonic interests for this war, and as a result, he MAY be trying to convince himself that going the whole hog with this, even to the extent of overriding the UN and potentially violating international law, is justified morally, even though that is not why the US is doing it.
Next, I can't be arsed to go into huge detail, but my analysis of the situation is that the US is going to war for many reasons. NOT in order of importance: 1. saddam tried to kill Daddy Bush in 1993, unsuccessfully. Baby Bush holds a grudge about this. 2. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil deposits in the world. The rest are controlled mostly by OPEC. By establishing control of Iraq'a oil supply, even if they don't want the oil for themeselves, the US will vastly increase its power in the regoin, and the world in general. 3. Following on from two, this is one of the early stages of the US using its postition as the sole super power to reinvent the world order in a way that conforms to its own needs, both in terms of security and economics. Let me say before you all start shouting, that this is entirely rational in a certain sense, and very few countries in the same position would do any different. 4. Iraq is a threat, albeit a very small one, to US national security. It is more of a threat to US economic and political interests however.
Now look at the context in which the current debates are taking place - the UN Security Council. This is not an objective body by any means. It is a group of states all acting in their own self-interest, but with an institutional power structure reflecting the balance of power in 1945, and invested with the authority under the UN Charter to exercise, amongst other things, military enforcement action when it identifies a threat to international peace and security. Be under no illusions that this is a body that reponds consistently to all such threats. Rather, those threats that don't concern the big 5 are generally ignored, threats that are in the interest of one of the big five are ignored e.g the Chechen situation, whereas threats that have an adverse effect on the interests of all of the big five (or at least some of them, if the others don't care either way) result in sanctions and perhaps enforcement action.
So, why is the Iraqi situation causing such a stir? It is a combination of wrangling amongst the major powers over who will have what degree of control over Iraq, and secondly the issue of the US throwing its weight about to the chagrin of the other major powers.
Next, add to this combustable mix the issue of international law. Under the UN Charter, only the UN can authorise the use of force to enforce its resolutions and safeguard international peace and security. States can only use force unilaterally in self defence, and there are very strict rules which define when the right of self-defence kicks in. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence is controversial, and even if it does exist, it is only triggered in the face of an imminent attack. So, perversely, the only state that could make a good legal argument for the use of force at the moment is Iraq, as they are under the imminent threat of attack.
The justification that the US and UK have been seeking is UN authorisation to use force in response to an identified threat to international peace and security; Iraq'a non-compliance with resolutions and possession of WMDs. For reasons that are obvious from the papers, this has been a very hard argument to make in the UN. What I will say is that France's legal arguments have just gone **** up. By saying they will not authorise a resolution that establishes an ultimatum unless Saddam disarms by a set deadline, they are kneecapping the authority of the UN. Arguably they are also shirking their responsibilities as a member of the Security Council.
The very real danger is that the US will just say sod the UN and act unilaterally. This would be a very bad thing. The questions is, should the rest of the worl cave in and support America to maintain the facade of the legitimacy of the UN, or should they act morally, rather than in their self-interests, and let the UN collapse when the US effectively pulls out of it? I would love it if the US turned around and said, 'Hey, we are the most powerful nation on earth, but we believe in democracy, peace and human rights. We are prepared to sacrifice our own self-interest and use our power and influence to change the world for the greater good of humanity. All of you dictators, you have 6 weeks to fcuck off or we are coming for you. Third world, hey, here is all the money and expertise you need. We are gonna help you develop so that you can all have an 80 yr life expectancy like us. Let's party'....
Trouble is, the administration may well say this, particularly to con the US public into supporting them. Past history shows us that the US can get seriosly low down and dirty however........ and I do not for one minute trust Chey and Rumsfeld to act in anyone's interest except their own.
All my humble opinion of course.
We are in a very interesting situation comprised of many subtle and often conflicting forces. Most people don't understand this to the full unfortunately, and the person who suffers as a result in my opinion is Blair. Let me explain.
First of all, a few months ago I was of the opinion that Blair was too much on the Bush bandwagon - I was not certain whether this was because he had been backed into a corner by the US, or whether he was acting in as much self-interest as the US administration. Remember, the Bush bunch are oil and construction people. They have PERSONAL vested interests in this war - just look at the lucrative contracts Haliburon is set to pick up as a result. Before anyone pounces, THESE INTERESTS ARE NOT THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE GOING TO WAR - I may come to these later. However, I was previously unsure as to where Blair's motives lay.
Now, however, after watching a great deal of Blair's news conferences and listening to his commentary, I am convinced that he is doing this out of a moral obligation to do so - a moral obligation that is the product of his own beliefs and his own analysis of the situation. In no way is he being Bush's poodle in this - just look at the immense pressure he is under and the personal risk of his decions. He is a very brave man.
However, it occurees to me that this may be the result of him trying to make the best of a bad situation. For example, he may have been backed into this position by Bush, he may be choosing to ignore the US's hegemonic interests for this war, and as a result, he MAY be trying to convince himself that going the whole hog with this, even to the extent of overriding the UN and potentially violating international law, is justified morally, even though that is not why the US is doing it.
Next, I can't be arsed to go into huge detail, but my analysis of the situation is that the US is going to war for many reasons. NOT in order of importance: 1. saddam tried to kill Daddy Bush in 1993, unsuccessfully. Baby Bush holds a grudge about this. 2. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil deposits in the world. The rest are controlled mostly by OPEC. By establishing control of Iraq'a oil supply, even if they don't want the oil for themeselves, the US will vastly increase its power in the regoin, and the world in general. 3. Following on from two, this is one of the early stages of the US using its postition as the sole super power to reinvent the world order in a way that conforms to its own needs, both in terms of security and economics. Let me say before you all start shouting, that this is entirely rational in a certain sense, and very few countries in the same position would do any different. 4. Iraq is a threat, albeit a very small one, to US national security. It is more of a threat to US economic and political interests however.
Now look at the context in which the current debates are taking place - the UN Security Council. This is not an objective body by any means. It is a group of states all acting in their own self-interest, but with an institutional power structure reflecting the balance of power in 1945, and invested with the authority under the UN Charter to exercise, amongst other things, military enforcement action when it identifies a threat to international peace and security. Be under no illusions that this is a body that reponds consistently to all such threats. Rather, those threats that don't concern the big 5 are generally ignored, threats that are in the interest of one of the big five are ignored e.g the Chechen situation, whereas threats that have an adverse effect on the interests of all of the big five (or at least some of them, if the others don't care either way) result in sanctions and perhaps enforcement action.
So, why is the Iraqi situation causing such a stir? It is a combination of wrangling amongst the major powers over who will have what degree of control over Iraq, and secondly the issue of the US throwing its weight about to the chagrin of the other major powers.
Next, add to this combustable mix the issue of international law. Under the UN Charter, only the UN can authorise the use of force to enforce its resolutions and safeguard international peace and security. States can only use force unilaterally in self defence, and there are very strict rules which define when the right of self-defence kicks in. The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence is controversial, and even if it does exist, it is only triggered in the face of an imminent attack. So, perversely, the only state that could make a good legal argument for the use of force at the moment is Iraq, as they are under the imminent threat of attack.
The justification that the US and UK have been seeking is UN authorisation to use force in response to an identified threat to international peace and security; Iraq'a non-compliance with resolutions and possession of WMDs. For reasons that are obvious from the papers, this has been a very hard argument to make in the UN. What I will say is that France's legal arguments have just gone **** up. By saying they will not authorise a resolution that establishes an ultimatum unless Saddam disarms by a set deadline, they are kneecapping the authority of the UN. Arguably they are also shirking their responsibilities as a member of the Security Council.
The very real danger is that the US will just say sod the UN and act unilaterally. This would be a very bad thing. The questions is, should the rest of the worl cave in and support America to maintain the facade of the legitimacy of the UN, or should they act morally, rather than in their self-interests, and let the UN collapse when the US effectively pulls out of it? I would love it if the US turned around and said, 'Hey, we are the most powerful nation on earth, but we believe in democracy, peace and human rights. We are prepared to sacrifice our own self-interest and use our power and influence to change the world for the greater good of humanity. All of you dictators, you have 6 weeks to fcuck off or we are coming for you. Third world, hey, here is all the money and expertise you need. We are gonna help you develop so that you can all have an 80 yr life expectancy like us. Let's party'....
Trouble is, the administration may well say this, particularly to con the US public into supporting them. Past history shows us that the US can get seriosly low down and dirty however........ and I do not for one minute trust Chey and Rumsfeld to act in anyone's interest except their own.
All my humble opinion of course.
14 March 2003, 03:55 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You passed that stage long, long ago..!! 
Nah, don't bother, had enough for one week! I feel next week might be another, er, cause for discussion! Till then...
Nah, don't bother, had enough for one week! I feel next week might be another, er, cause for discussion! Till then...
14 March 2003, 06:28 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the naughty corner
Posts: 10,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke, I've had a bad week...Normal service should be restored next week. Hopefully.
If not it won't matter because I'll be locked up for killing someone.
If not it won't matter because I'll be locked up for killing someone.