johnfelstead: I don't think it is just your HO mate.
There are a lot of us feel the same way.
If this 'war' does kick off I think you can expect to see a hell of a lot of poor inocent soldiers, wasted for the egos of the two leaders and to keep the American corporates happy.


[Edited by Sheepsplitter - 9/8/2002 9:55:34 PM]

 

In todays "Observer".."If we go to war??? This will again cause havoc with oil prices...

as much as this?????

 

Will get the 25 litre drums filled up like last time

 

14-15p a litre increase based on the amount of disruption to supply that could be envisaged would seem reasonable. Obviously Iraq aren't going to be able to export any oil, and I cannot see any sympathy coming forth from the Arab nations leading to them increasing their own oil production to take up the slack, so prices will rise. Something I hadn't thought about until I read this thread but is worth considering I suppose when thinking about whether any attack should go ahead.

 

If we (or rather Dubya and his **** chum Bliar) go to war, i will be more worried about getting blown up or poisoned or gassed by terrorists than a few extra pence per litre on gas!!!!

mb

 

Boomer , dont you mean when we go to war and not if?

Chip.

 

it's another stealth tax. Fuel prices go up, the tax man has a field day. It's a no lose situation for the Government and a Big loss to Joe Public plus any poor bugger they decide to send over there for what will be a mess. All IMHO of course.

 

All I can say Blair wot a to$$er I think he can wave bye bye to another term

 

I was over in the states a week back and all the indications are that America is gearing up for an all out attack regardless of whether they get UN / UK support. One report / interview I saw had a German minister of State being told by a US official that if Germany didn't support the US - They were AGAINST the US.

Frikkin scary stuff!!!

 

It's gonna happen. I'm in the RAF and we're gearing up for movement.

 

Consider it a 'War-Tax' and its easier to swallow yes? What would you have us do? wait until Saddam can deliver a Nuclear Missile right into our lands? THEN tell him to stop? what bollox - we need to flatten his capability NOW ............ and who will overthrow Mr Blair at the next election?? EXACTLY!! there is NO alternative - we all remember what the Tossy Tories did to the country dont we??

Come on Blair and Bush lets test some new weapons

Pete

 

pslewis,

cough, what???

Weapons of mass destruction my ****!!!

Saddam can throw stuff a few tens of miles from his "desert" - not very scary. The USA can sit very comfortably for quite a while.

Israel will (nuclear) blow him off the face of the earth if he chucks stuff their way.

The US just can't face up to the fact that they totally cocked up when they last invaded Iraq, and they need to think about actually completing their last job (i.e. killing Bin Laden) before they start to bring "peace to the world".

As for Tony Bliar, well if he is actually in the country for the next election, then maybe someone will vote for him - tosser!!!

Boys, toys, and very out of control!!!

mb

 

Bit naive.

There's no way the US or UK would spend what they are on gearing up against him?

I've been taking sh1tty tablets and undergoing certain types of 'specialist' training for the last 6 months to prepare myself for a possible war.

The intelligence the uk has on Iraq is mind blowing - privvy to some of it. What he's done to his own people is similar to blair dropping a nuclear bomb onto Lincoln.

 

Never did like lincoln much...

I wish that someone would show me the evidence against Saddam because I find it hard to accept going to war against Iraq on a 'hunch'....

OK, so the yanks got a taste of real terrorism on 9/11... We in the UK have lived with this for over 40 tears with the IRA and it was through negotiation that it was 'calmed' (rather than cured).

I think the Yanks (and Bloody Tony Blair) are opening a huge can of worms - this could easily get out of hand and other Arab or Muslim states decide that we are attacking their religion rather than a dictator - then what happens? World War III ???

I dont want any part of it!

Mak. (the 'slow down and count your chickens first' pacifist)

 

If the yanks are gonna go to war on Iraq anyway, why do we need to get involved? Why does president Blur have to agree with everything that the US decides to do?

We can have our own opinion can't we....Blur should listen to the people

 

I agree with Pete Lewis - there cant believe I said it!

There is enormous intelligence on the weapons capability of saddam hussein, and I simply dont believe two countries would mount a massive offensive on a whim. It costs them money, lives and international opinion.

I dont thuink Dubya is as stupid as we all make him out. he may have slipped up with some funny quotes, but you have to admire his patience as far as the 9/11 thing was concerned. He hled back and was cautious, not soundign like a boy with toys who wanted to push the button to me.

I think saddam hussein is a genuine threat, I know what lunatics a lot of these dictator type leaders can be, and regardless of what people say, I think his people would be grateful afterwards, in the same way that the afghanistanis were grateful for relaxing the laws enforced under the taliban.

On the subject of oil prices, I think a point should be made here.

The taxation levied on the public is proportional to the imported oil price. Therefore if the oil price goes up as a result of actions determined by this and the US government, I think that blair should fix the duty on fuel at a constant which is proportional to the oil cost before an rise as a result of the war, otherwise his treasury will indriectly be profiting enormously from decisions we have no control over. And this is on top of the defence budget.

 

Adam N: don't hold your breath for B.Liar to do the honest thing.......ever!
I just love the quotes from him that he's "ready to pay the blood price". Doesn't he mean he's ready to send someone else ("Father Pierre"?) to pay it???? There's a rather large difference, isn't there?
I, like others, find all this very scary. I wouldn't trust ANYTHING the Yanks told me as a reason to have this war, I think they're gonna go for it, I think it's about who controls the oil, and I wouldn't put it past them to manufacture intelligence IMHO.
Have we all forgotten that the Americans killed more of our guys in their last 2 outings, than our "enemies"?
And have we overlooked the fact that they want our support because they haven't won a war without it since the War of Independence?
Nope, I say let 'em get on with "their" war. We can sit back with the rest of the Europeans, and do very little, maybe make a profit out of them like they did us 1914/18 and 1939/45, and NOT have to pay through our noses for the privilege of having our lads killed by them!!!!![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

 

Unfortunatly then if it were reversed we might not get the needed although I hate to say it support from the US..

I hadn't thought about the petrol prices.. doh!


JGM

 

Technically they did'nt win the war of independance. Until it was over, there was no USA so in effect we beat ourselves..

 

in that case we also lost to ourselves!

 

Adam

Which is a typically British Attitude. Cf with our modern day football/cricket teams. Often we've the best team on the pitch but end up losing anyway.

 

So not okay for Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction, as they have a lunatic fundamentalist for a leader, and have been shown to march in to lands and claim them as their own.

Whereas Israel on the hand are welcome to have as many weapons as they like, because their leader is a level headed peaceful man, and they don't go marching in with tanks and helicopter gunships to subdue people on land which they claimed as their own.

 

JGM2: WHAT support from the US????
No USA soldier actually fired a bullet in anger in the First world war until early 1918, when we'd been going at it hammer and tongs for 5 years!
They didn't come in to the second one until they were directly attacked, before that they made so much money out of us that we STILL owe them millions, then make out they were the only reason we won, completely ignoring the Russians, who knocked the stuffing out of all Hitler's best troops on the eastern front, and....
If I remember rightly, didn't they actually abstain from voting FOR us , when we went to the UN over the Falklands, 'cos they were afraid of upsetting other south american countries?
No, we owe them NOTHING, with a capital N!!!
B.Liar is a fool if he thinks we're daft enough to believe his Bullsh*t, and as for Dubya, he's just a fool!
The tories will walk the next election if they can only stop infighting, but I do agree: God help britain then!!![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

 

The best bit was during WW2 when they sailed down to South Africa and took all our gold

 

I would just like to point out that we havnt invaded Iraq before. The Gulf war had a clear UN mandate to remove the Iraqi's from Kuwait and then stop.

Actually going into Iraq is a complete gamble, we have no idea how they will fight or what exactly we have to do to force a change of government. The Iraqis are not a soft target when it comes to fighting for their own soil, as oposed to an invaded soil, just ask Iran!

What exactly are we going to hit anyway? Are we talking about an ocupation?

The thing that really gets me is how, prior to the misguided invasion of Kuwait, The UK and USA supported Saddam with weapons as he was fighting our "enemy" of Iran. I had friends who worked in Iraq on their weapons programmes, helping them build ordnance factories. I think Sadam was surprised by the reaction the West had to his Kuwait invasion. I also find it completely hypocritical that we now see him as Satan, when we still suported him, even after he gassed the Kurds. It was just that his actions invading Kuwait affected the stability of the oil fields, without that we wouldnt have given a toss.

UK/USA also has a problem convincing Russia to back this, because Iraq currently is paying them Billions in loan repayments, which will stop should a war break out. Russia cant afford to lose that income, so the only way i see them backing this is if the UK/USA pays Russia $11 Billion, or at least guarantees that sum.

I have been reading some US BBS's and the amount of anti french feeling on there is immense, the US citizen is being prepared for the french to say no in the UN (one of the perminant member states who has a veto) to any action.

As to them having a high moral ground on Saddam having Nukes. They were quite happy to accept the help of another dictatorship that is unstable and has just gone Nuclear, that of Pakistan.

The UN could cause Saddam enough grief to be forced to comply to weapons inspections, that isnt what the USA/UK want though. Bush was primed even before 9/11 to go there and finish off his dads mess, as they see it. He now has the excuse in the eyes of the US citizen.

This is going to get pretty ugly i think.

 

The bizarre thing about Pakistan is that it's invariably more stable after a military coup than when it's ruled by the corrupt leaders that the electorate seem to prefer

 

Agreed Mr Felstead...

Lets look at this from a slightly different angle for a second.

Who benefits from a war with Iraq and the removal of Saddam?

Military Forces.... Get huge budget increases (most powerful men in the USA are existing or ex-military)

Oil Companies.... (The usa was built on the back of oil!)

The current administration - The USA is a hugely proud and nationalistic country. GW Bush is virtually guaranteed anothre term in office if he wins a war for the USA in the name of 'peace'. Rest assured - he wants a fight.

Tony Blair - I believe Tony is along for the ride and dragging us all in there with him. I think he is so wrapped up in his own ideology, he has neglected to explain to his own country why he is making life threatening decisions for the rest of us. IMHO Tony is a very dangerous individual.

Saddam - OK, so he is a nutter. He likes to play god. (Doesnt Bush and Blair?) OK, so he does it in a different way... but... "What have the Iraqies ever done to you?" (Use John Cleese voice for that bit)

The world is full of good guys and bad guys - and bad guys dont always wear black. Some wear pinstripes, other wear a stetson on their head. The point is there will always be someone who agrees or disagrees with anothers actions. You cant just go around invading them because you dont like their idea of governing. Its their country and, often, their religion - we should stay away! Because once you bring religion into the equation you are in the deepest **** hole full of misery you can ever imagine. Imagine 4 million muslims in britain deciding that, in protection of their faith, it was OK to hack their white christian neighours to death in their sleep. Wake up every one - this can happen!!!

Look at President Mugabe (sp?) - throwing white farmers off their lands because - basically - they are white! Yes, I know there is more to it than that but, isnt it a chronic misjustice? Or do we turn a blind eye to it because we are too busy waging a war on terror elsewhere? Mugabe simply tells Tony - "Stay out of my country - I'll do what I want to do because I am in charge here and 80% of my voters are blacks who want to earn a better living - which is what I am trying to achieve in my own (unusual and worrying) way!"

IMHO - we are at far greater risk than the USA in this conflict. Our close neighbours (France, Germany etc...) are all expressing a need for caution. The UN has yet to deliver an opinion and if we go ahead and blow the crap out of Bagdad without the support of the rest of the world (especially the muslim countries) then are we not the same as Saddam walking into Kuwait thinking "I can take what I want?"...

Tony - stand back and get someone to do some serious thinking for you (b'cos I dont think you are capable of doing it yourself) - do you really want to be seen as a warmongerer? Do you really want to lead thousands of English troops in to a war? Do you want to be responsable for biological warfare on English soil?

This could happen.

My final thoughts... sell everything and head for New Zealand (they have Sccobs there!) or grab a spade and start digging in your back garden and stockpile pain killers.

[/worried parent mode off]

Mak.

 

in my back garden is a very very thick walled Anderson shelter. Guess I'd better fix the door./...

 

Iraq dont export oil they have had sanctions placed on them for the last 12 years, in any case, if you read between the lines, petrol will go up to pay for he bombs that are to be dropped , similar to the war on the Taliban when had our national ins upped to 'cover the costs of the NHS'. Opec are the ones who decide what the oil prices do. At the end of the day the government will once agiain fool the uk citizens into thinking this just to extract an extra buck out of you.

 

Iraq has been allowed to export for a long time in order to support it's economy and use the funds for food/medicine.

I see you are in Kuwait, whats the word on the street there?