Neil Smalley

Just spent a while reading the dossier on Iraq. It makes out that there's this massive threat and that Saddam is a bad man( ). It then uses lots of past evidence pre Gulf war to substianciate us going in now.

Reads like spin to me, which is a shame because I'm sure Saddam is up to no good, but to use this lightweight evidence to send people to war is a massive shame.

carl

I like the bit that says "if he had access to the material, he could build nuclear weapons in 1-2 years". I reckon that if I had access to the materials, I could build a crude nuclear weapon in substantially less time than that.

EvilBevel

It is pretty embarrasing for Mr. Blair really ... but pretty much in line with what independant sources had already said.

Damaja

I am furious at blair, we want war if you dont let us look at your weapons, we want war cause you can build nukes, we want war cause your moustache is wonky.

FFS Blair just get it a rest

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I've got to the stage where I wouldn't/couldn't believe B.Liar and the Cronies if he told me today was Tuesday, and the world is not flat!!!!
What really p*sses me off is that I was daft/naive enuff to think that the guy would somehow be different to the lying Tory t*sspots we had got used to.

D'Oh and double D'Oh
[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Posted on TUESDAY, from a spherical (nearly) earth!![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Who remembers the '80s films "The Day After", and "Threads"?
Who thinks the TV companies ought to show them again?
Who thinks B.Liar and his mates ought to be FORCED to watch them, at least 6 times?
Times are well scary, guys.

STi-Frenchie

Smells...familiar....recognize it...I'll bet you do...black gold...

O I L

Is what it's all about. Always is, they're just using a different cover story this time.

Little Miss WRX

We can only ever find out what they want us to know, which is not neccessarily the truth.

boomer

What i find scary is that, for example, the BBC seems to be all of a sudden "pro war". Take last night's Panorama for example Perhaps a little Bliar influence perchance?

News reports show footage that we have already seen from several years ago, as if it is further proof of the threats. I have downloaded the dossier, and will read it later, but as far as i am concerned, we should force Saddan to accept unfettered inspections - backed by localised force if necessary (i.e. if we can't inspect that factory, then we will bomb it out of existence).

The US is on a very sticky wicket!!

Their one goal was to "get OBL", but now they have failed they have re-defined their target as someone a little "easier" (or so they think!). And yeh, howz about invading Israel for their terrorist actions and breaking of UN resolutions? Hummm, i wonder why? And don't Israel have WMDs????

This is all going to get very messy, unless Dubya takes his head out of his ****!!!

mb

Little Miss WRX

I might have mis-heard on the news, but Iraq are apparently happy to have UN inspectors in????

boomer

LMW,

the problem with the previous inspections is that Saddam put every possible obstacle in their way. Thinks like placing a wad of money on the top of a pile of documents for inspection - if the inspectors touched the money (which they had to do to read the docs) then they were photographed and accused of taking bribes

Rather than pull out four years ago, we should have sent the military in to enforce the inspections (or blow up places where access was refused).

Unfortunately, Dubya's ***** have just dropped, and he is OD-ing on testosterone at the moment

mb

Little Miss WRX

Aye, great isn't it.

They **** up big time, nobody learns from the mistakes that are made.

Nobody learns from any mistakes made previously in other wars.

Who suffers at the end of the day? Oh **** it let's go blow them all up.
Would it have got this far if things had been handled differently?

If this situation arises again in the future will we go round the wheel of learning again? I think human nature is a little predictable at times.

allzo

quote:
"Who remembers the '80s films "The Day After", and "Threads"?"


I've got "Threads" on DVD - very scary film...

[Edited by allzo - 9/24/2002 10:14:02 PM]

STi-Frenchie

>>>If this situation arises again in the future will we go round the wheel of learning again?<<<

Yes. Until those in power learn to learn from past mistakes...which of course they never do, and never will do so the wheel keeps on turning. But every politician will tell you they know better and if you trust them, they'll show you how they know better. Love those guys. Gotta way with words don't ya know? Problem is, people vote for them.

>>>I think human nature is a little predictable at times<<<

100% correct - you say "Bush", I say "Blair". "SNAP" says the little girl with the curls in the back row.

The question that keeps nagging at me is, "why Iraq, why now?".

Of course it's the oil, the money, the mullah - get the oil, get the squeeze on the global economy...but my cynical mind would go as far as to think that maybe it's young George just using the "war against terrorism" gig just to finish off the job his poppa didn't do when he was in office. Ah-so grasshopper...so history may repeat itself and unfortunately many young lives may well be lost in the process. Shame on the politicians...maybe they should be tried for mass murder if it ever comes to that.

Let's face it - Iran, Libya, Syria, any one could be the next US target...all are known to have sponsored terrorism in the past, so why Iraq, why now, why this moment in time? And how come tonight the Brit/US media (Sky/CNN/BBC/CNBC) seem to be trying to influence the viewing public that war is "inevitable" when ornery folks are saying they don't want it? And last night it was all "maybe...maybe". I've yet to hear or see anything in the Blair "dossier" which hasn't already been aired elsewhere. More smoke and mirrors and sabre-rattling.

And all this bull about letting the UN deal with it first - who are they kidding? The glimmer twins want war, never mind what the UN can achieve. Problem is...these buggers might get what they want, and then we're all in really deep ****.

Andrewza

Saddam is a problem that should have been sorted out at the end of the Gulf War, but at the time the Americans would rather not have any troops in harms way than do the right thing (tm), once they got kuwait (and it's oil) safe that was them done.

Unfortunately America doesn't do subtle, so they'll wander into iraq, remove saddam and in so doing just validate his propaganda about the west and they'll be left with a nation who given free elections will vote in a new saddam. You can liberate a people who don't want liberating.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Put it this way,
Iraq have the capability to lauch a missile 2000 miles, shove a nuke in it and kiss most of europe good bye as its in range.
Now sometimes prevention is better and as the middle east is quite volitile still id be happier if this threat was non existant rather than having to worry about it.
I think if you look at the devistation of the 2 A bombs in WW2 you may want to think again, these were VERY small devices compared to the sort of devices that iraq may be capable of making and those bombs killed 150000 people when detonated and affected 850000 more in the following years (cancer, deformaties etc).
These are not nice weapons and if a fundamentallist group gets hold of one...... 10million+ dead in the blast, 15million+ affected outside the 10 (yes TEN) mile Radius these weapons have, within 5 miles 100% casualties, within 10miles 90% casualties, within 25 Miles of detonation you can look at 50% casualties, within 50 miles you can look at 25% causalties and thats only short term, long term will increase this number.

Tony

Neil Smalley

Tony

Valid points. BUT what's to stop Syria/Iran etc etc etc getting hold of one. What are we going to do, invade every country that we don't want to get a nuclear weapon?

Mutual Assured Destruction worked against a rational soviet union, but is going to fail against nations who don't really mind if the population dies or not.

Sooner or later some madman will set one off, be it A terrorist group, dictator or even by accident.

The key to minimising this risk is in understanding and respect of other countries cultures and beliefs, not enforcing our values on any nation who's culture does'nt match our idea of civilised.

Now I'm not defending Saddam one jot, but I am against the war at all costs attitude that seems to be brewing in the US and especially over here.

pslewis

A point worth remebering - he WILL use the weapons of mass destruction on us, Isreal, Iran and whoever takes his fancy. This will result in a strike by Isreal immediately (they do not mess about) then the Arab states will get embroiled then we have WW3.

Thats if we do NOTHING as you are all proposing

Should we take him out? Godamned right we should - NOW!!!

Pete

Neil Smalley

Not saying do nothing. Its doing something without UN approval I'm against.

Send the weapons inspectors in, if they get messed about then evacuate the building and level it with a cruise missile 30 minutes later.

That way we get a better picture of what SH is up to, its backed by the UN and the Americans get to use up some more cruise missiles.

Little Miss WRX

Damned if we do, damned if we don't - damnit, that is just like being a moderator

Still, tis nice of them to use the war as a way of trying to keep themselves in power - meaning Bush and Blair.

I cringe every time Bush speaks...........

Little Miss WRX

I think half of the problem is trying to direct US fire onto enemy targets as opposed to friendly troops

IWatkins

Oooooooo !!! Handbags

Simple plan:

1) Get UN backing
2) Send in inspectors
3) At any point access is refused call in an air strike. US carrier can sit off in the Med or Gulf ready to play when they get called.
4) Blanket survelliance of Iraq while inspections are going on. Any suspect movements would bring UN to the scene via some transport method.

See, that wasn't hard was it

boomer

TonyBurns

"Iraq have the capability to lauch a missile 2000 miles"

I must have missed this section in the dossier

650 KILOMETRES is Saddam's current limit (and not very accurately). He supposedly has plans for missiles that can go 1,500 KM (thats a thousand of your Earth miles ), but by the same token, Osama had plans to build nuclear weapons written on the back of *** packets and found in caves!!!

mb

Little Miss WRX

You need a sub-section - get the fecking friendly troops as far away as possible first

south-star

Is there a Chinese embassy in Iraq...

MrDBM

Just to add my two cents...

Missles are no threat what-so-ever... they're not the problem with Saddam and his I-wanna-be-in-the-nuclear-club pals. Even 10 years ago, we and the Americans were using technology to bring them down post launch.

The real issue (and the one we should all be aware of) is the crude construction of nuclear 'dirty-bombs'. Incredibly easy to make providing you have the materials. These things can be carried in hand luggage and set off anywhere. They are basically waste nuclear fuel for example, packed in TNT or similar - very destructive long term.

chiark

There's loads of issues around this, aren't there?

The document is a joke IMHO. It refuses to present meaningful evidence, but once again makes claims that happen to fit into the attention span of a newspaper editor (or whoever) - can you say "soundbite", or possibly textbite? The evidence is backed by little other than "trust us".

The general theme is "we're your government, we're telling you he's a bad man, trust us".

There is no doubt he is a bad man, but bombing the **** out of someone because they're a potential threat to world peace makes US the aggressors.

Or do we do the opposite and wait for something to happen? Hitler took Poland, Saddam tried Kuwait... There are meaningful comparisons that could be drawn.

I think Ian above lists everything that must happen. UN sanction, inspections, if there's ANY messing about then it's time for action with minimum casualties.

...but what would replace Saddam? When a country is used to being told what to do, would someone else merely replace Saddam and potentially give us more trouble than what we're replacing?

Despite that risk, the list above is what I believe is for the best.

GazP

Sort him out now before he can do any more damage to the middle east. At least the US have the guts to do something about things that happen in the world, Britain is full of sad people who won't do a thing until it's too late. No one want war, and we all know what Saddam can do, so why not sort it out for once and for all, like we should have done in the first Gulf War?

Alpine

I love pslewis' assertion 'he WILL use the weapons of mass destruction on us'. Now with evidence like that let's get straight in there..

I think the problem is that nobody knows what he 'WILL' do. Especially, and I'm guessing here, someone who's never met him or even lived in Iraq..

The dossier looks like a load of news paper clippings from the last 10 years.. Where is the evidence that there's been any escalation in the threat sonce the arms inspectors were thrown out?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

GazP:
Quote: "At least the US have the guts to do something about things that happen in the world". LOL
Is that why they're stopping the Israelis from bombing the Palestinians? Is that why they're MAKING the Israelis obey UN resolutions? You know, the ones that were made before the ones we made on Iraq?
And is it why they abstained when we needed THEIR help over the Falklands?[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Open your eyes, mate, the US only ever looks after it's own interests, and in this case their interests are oil!
Alcazar