Should we go to war with Iraq ?

[TheXatom]

Here is the recently released dossier on Iraq. It's really long.
http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/featurenews/iraqdossier.pdf

To most people they won't really care about this tho as they will allready have a strong opinion. Makes for some interesting reading tho.

Some people might say the war on Iraq is more about OIL and in the UKs case wanting to stay good friends with America.

Bush says WAR, Tony says WAR. MPs say we are not so sure. The public says 40% want war and 60% don't roughly.


Xatom says: Forget all this weapon shit that comes second place to the fact that Saddam is a 100% warcrimes buffet. Take him to the hague jail for life... ( He gassed thousands of his own innocent people in their own village because of their pollitical affiliations ).

Trouble is to get him out of Iraq you will need to go to war, and I think he could easly pull a BinLaden and make a mockary of the US attempts to catch him.

Seems to be a issue of benifit versus cost. Cost will be loss of innocent lives, that much is almost certain ( just look at Afganistan ). Thing is noone knows really what the benifits and costs will really be.

... Whether putting many lives at risk to apprehend just one man is correct I really dunno. Might give the dossier a longer read an make up my mind later.

Hope i've not been biased. plz not flames.

What do you think ?

[KuifJe]

It's a toughie, sure Saddam isn't ur friendliest nextdoor neighbour, but what gives Bush the right to pursue this man?

He hasn't done anything wrong lately, at least not abroad =/

And all this stuff that he has bioweapons laying around and possibly nuclear armement as well, well my bet is the US has the same capabilities but because they are the "right" kind off people gives them the right to pass judgement on another copuntry?? Not IMO.

As for Blair that's the biggest suckup I've seen in ages: Ow boy George says something, let's agree with him cause he's the bomb!!!11" :rolleyes:

Before Blair throws England into war he has to make up his mind by himself and not be so busy bumf@cking Bush.

As for the Saddam?

Let him be he'll die, the irakis well revolt and all hell will break lose, but that's the natural flow of things. Don't speed it up by tossing in some American soldiers who don't give a fuck. Let them cncentrate on getting Bin Laden out of his foxhole.

K

[SMELLULATER]

If we sit back and do nothing we let a dictator continue to amass weapon of mass destruction and torture, and repress his own people. If we attack him, we put the already suffering people of Iraq through more death and punishment. I see that Bush want to go down in History as the Man you toppled the last great dictator in the world, but if we look around the world there are still many Dictator still around and no one is attacking them. Is it to do we oil prices and control or Bushes Ego, or are we trying to protect the free world. I fecking dont no

[fetchez la vache]

Crunch time for the UN. Time to show it can actually do something rather than just endlessly talking about it. Only a body such as the UN can stop Bush/Blair going maverick, can they do it?

Sure Saddam is a threat that needs to be sorted out. Iraq has been a festering sore in the ME since the Gulf War. But crunch-time should have come 4 years ago with the UN when the weapon inspectors left. Waiting this long has made things worse and increased the uncertainity regarding Saddam's capabilities.

So I say, get the inspectors back in, if they are blocked then it's time for the sabre-rattling to begin in earnst - but only under the control of the UN. 1-2 countries going it alone is going to blow the ME up polotically, especially since Israel is busy supressing the Palestinians. So Bush's main task should be to sort out Sharon/Arafat before he can even think about attacking Iraq...

[Qhullu]

i dont know, maybe Bush the pawn is so eager to attack because Saddam has refused to sell any crude oil to American oil companies, i cant possibly see any other reason why the party represented by Bush feels so threatened by a small country on the other side of the globe. but i do know that the latest "we have to attack before they make a nuke and bomb usa", no matter how ludicrous( i mean iraq would would be a fuming hole in the ground before the nuke ever reached the atlantic ocean ), is so close to something out of a Hollywood movie it might just convince enough people to agree and bring the world that much closer to 3rd world war :(

[fetchez la vache]

If I was the US I'd be more worried about Iraq equipping a terrorist outfit with a small, but serviceable, nuclear bomb. Smuggle the components into the US, build it and set it off in a major city. Doesn't have to be big, the death toll would be terrible. Ditto biological or chemical weapons.

Not so sure about the oil contection this time round - although it was a major reason for helping out Kuwait for certain. The rest of the ME has more than enough oil atm in order to have some impact on supply/demand and hence the oil price. Doesn't matter if Iraq is allowed full production, the rest of OPEC will still ensure a $25-28/barrel price range. Ways and means. Still it's true to say that Iraq in calmer hands would help stabilise the oil market more and help big business.

Another factor could be that Bush has re-discovered that war-time leaders are popular. A nice war always helps the polls. Plus he's obviously got some rabid 'hawks' in his team as well, and I suspect they do most of the thinking for him. Bless.

[KuifJe]

Originally posted by fetchez la vache

Another factor could be that Bush has re-discovered that war-time leaders are popular. A nice war always helps the polls. Plus he's obviously got some rabid 'hawks' in his team as well, and I suspect they do most of the thinking for him. Bless.

The word Vietnam springs to mind =/

[Vegas]

The question u need to ask urselves is. Would Gore be going to war if he were President?

I'm afraid my cynical mind can only see Bush Jr, wanting to go down as the man who finished off sadam. Something his father started.

[BlackLotus]

So many shit to answer here.


First, i'm sick of hearing the easy words of "Blair is Bush's bitch". Uk and USA being one of the most important countries in the world joined forces in the combat of Terrorism and possible threats. Period.

Second, Saddam is a killer, a ****, a motherfucker, a sicko. He is a sicko with nuclear/biological weapons etc etc. When will he use them? We don't know and we can't control it. Why? cause he is a sicko, a killer, a **** and a mother fucker that kills of his own because they differ on political ideas. I'm afraid of what he may done but i so affraid of what a war with iraq can outcome.

Third, yeah, Bush is a cowboy, a drunk, etc etc. Yes USA has very powerfull similar weapons yes. But, would you preffer that USA has them or that Iraq/Libanon(dunno how to type it on english)/or any of those Middle east full of fanatical cunts that can suicide themselfes just to killing inocent ppl in the name of that another sick **** called Allah. I know you are gonna say "i would preffer that no one had them!!!111 but this is the real world."
Fuck sake just watch the news.

Fourth, yeah, i don't like americans that much, they are so full of shit because they think they are the most important country of the world... the thing is, THEY ARE. Btw, thanks to them we aren't all writting in german in this very moment.


On a last note, after all this rant by me, i want to tell you hypocritical moralists something...:

GREEN PEACE ISN'T GONNA SAVE THE WORLD !!!!!111111

[Bambi]

Hmmm, not sure about your last post BL but what the heck.

Anyway, my thoughts, for what they are worth.

The iraqi people would never revolt against saddam as they probably still think they won the war.

The media is controlled by a government who will only put out what they want the people to see.

I think we should not go to war unless it is PROVED beyond any reasonable doubt (proably already has whilst I'm writing this) that they have weapons of mass destruction.

But then, a good point was made earlier about who says America are ok having weapons of mass destruction? Is bush not just as much of a dictator?

Secondly, It's ok for americans to say lets go to war because they are out of range of these weapons, what about us in blighty?

Mmmmm.

Overpaid American golfers may not play in the Ryder cup this year due to the threat of war. It's ok for them to start the thing, but they don't want to be near the fucker when it all gos off in our backyard.


Cheers ta.(Especially for BL)
:D

[Kid Chameleon]

Weapon inspectors are pretty pointless imo. Sure they destroyed some equipment last time round but the storys from the inspectors themselves have shown that they were refused entry to many sensitive sites they wanted to look at. From whats been reported recently Saddam has hidden his weapon plants so well that finding them will be a major pain in the ass and alot of them are apparently are on the back of trucks and move around to avoid detection.

Many of the countries saying that a war shoudn't be started didn't think it was right the last time when Iraq invaded Kuwait. While the US's agenda might not be soley removing Saddam, the 'Dove' countries have their own as well. Places like France and Russia not only sell weapons to Iraq but also have hugh infrastructure contracts worth billions which would all be put in jepody if the were involved.

I think this should be sorted out now rather than in 10 years time when Saddam has made nuclear weapons and attacking him becomes a more risky option. Alot of the middle eastern countries and the ppl of Iraq would agree that they don't want Saddam in power, but are just too scared to say so.

[BlackLotus]

1 thing, in my post, i don't say if i'm ok or against a war with iraq.

[SnAcKeR]

I would prefer to see our leader Mr Blair sorting out shit on our own turf than getting involved with Bush and his cowboy antics.

Last week, I had to wait 7 hours in A+E to have my fuckin' hand stitched up after I stabbed myself with a kitchen knife :\

There was some poor 90 year old bint there who had been waiting for 14 hours in her wheelchair just to have an ambulance take her home from hospital. The poor women didn't even know where she lived :\

The NHS is a relatively minor example of this country's problems.

The UK's own interests should be paramount to our Governement because it's a fuckin' mess.

Blair: Let America make fools of themselves by trying to control the world, sort out our own problems at home first pls.

By the way it really angers me when I see George Bush on TV saying to his people, "we are the greatest nation on earth".

Can you imagine Tony Blair saying that to us? Think about it.....

[SMELLULATER]

Originally posted by BlackLotus
1 thing, in my post, i don't say if i'm ok or against a war with iraq.


I dont no about u lot, but i am on a knife edge waiting to see whick way BL votes



NOT

[SnAcKeR]

Originally posted by SMELLULATER



I dont no about u lot, but i am on a knife edge waiting to see whick way BL votes



NOT

LOL :thumbs:

[Kid Chameleon]

Originally posted by Snacker
Blair: Let America make fools of themselves by trying to control the world, sort out our own problems at home first pls.


So Saddam developing nuclear/biological weapons with missles capable of reaching Europe isn't a problem then? The goverments failure to sort out the NHS and other problems in the last 4 years shows that this war won't delay any solutions the government don't have.

[LukeL]

I have a cunning idea......we can send BlackLotus, Vegas and Delta to Iraq so each of them can fuck Saddam in his hairy ass. Then he'll probably fall in love with one of them (or all three) and then he'll do whatever they tell him. The world will be a lot nicer then.......

But if that doesn't work we should just get rid of that Saddam, by (almost) all means necessary. Problem with a war though is that to the Islamic world the west will be the agressor and that is food for terrorism. Only in the west one might see it as a war against terrorism, in the islamic world it will be seen as a war against Islam.

Fuck it....why can't we just all make war virtually and then brag about our conquests in IRC. It might sound simple, but I just wanna have a nice life with my wife, kids, family and friends, do my work, drink a beer in the pub and not worry about fuckers like Saddam and Bush who want to tell me how my life should be lived.

[radic]

Originally posted by BlackLotus
i don't like americans that much

i tought we wuz pals :(

[SnAcKeR]

Originally posted by Kid Chameleon


So Saddam developing nuclear/biological weapons with missles capable of reaching Europe isn't a problem then? The goverments failure to sort out the NHS and other problems in the last 4 years shows that this war won't delay any solutions the government don't have.

I C your point but I think the Government should concern itself more with local problems and steer away from foreign affairs. I'm not saying we shouldn't get involved with Iraq atall. TBH I'm not sure.

[SnAcKeR]

Originally posted by LukeL


Fuck it....why can't we just all make war virtually and then brag about our conquests in IRC. It might sound simple, but I just wanna have a nice life with my wife, kids, family and friends, do my work, drink a beer in the pub and not worry about fuckers like Saddam and Bush who want to tell me how my life should be lived.

I think you speak for a lot of people there m8

[^SpOOk^]

btw saddam wouldn't be able to reach us even if he did have weapons of mass destruction unless he had things like nuclear subs etc etc
but one country that he could reach is Israel and he would nuke them. This is a serious factor in Americas war as there is a very powerful and influential Jewish community in America, which can and which is influencing Bush.

[BlackLotus]

Originally posted by radic


i tought we wuz pals :(


I was talking about most of it.

[Party Boy II]

this thread has been done before about a month ago.

try and find it for my views

[Matthias]

Blair isn't good.... he is telling lies.

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by Party Boy II
this thread has been done before about a month ago.

try and find it for my views

Yep but it kind of changes now that the dossier has been published. Now there are facts to what weapons he has and is trying to obtain and how far and what would he do with them.

Clearly saddam is not a good kinda guy by any standards but it's benifit Vs Cost at the moment...

So far err what would the benifit be ? Are we to assume that the new admin of Iraq would be any LESS bad ? What would stop them from getting new weapons ? Is it worth sacrificing our own soldiers lives as well as Iraqi civilan lives to get just one man who hasen't done anything bad for a while ?

Clearly it lies mostly on what he WILL do rather than what he HAS done. But we really don't know, I mean even if he had a pile of nukes would he use them unprovoked ? If he uses them for defence then why not ? Whether or not he should have them I really don't know. I don't trust him however.

If the whole thing is solely about nuclear weapons which the US is certainly making it's sole statement why not just have better weapons inspections ? More and longer. Surely that is better than having a war ?

Those who support war are saying effectivly it's worth it to let people die so that we apprehend one man. A sacrifice has to be made. But can we save more lives in the long run by ending his regime ? I'd like to see some projected figures here.

If he is going to use a nuke then well we know how much lives would be lost, will he use a nuke ? I dunno, I really don't... for me it comes down to lives and how benifit vs cost. For me at least is will he use a nuke or not ? I coulden't see it happening but the chance is always there that he could use it.

Look at it anyway, lives are in the balance How many more will saddam take ? How many will the war claim. We don't know either figure and it is speculation on which route is the right one.

I say, Flip a coin. :thumbs:

[AxeWound]

I think both Saddam and he's son need to be taken out of the picture completely. Ive read through the government report and tbh theres not much new info in there that we dont already know about..
It does have some interesting facts and points though. He apparantly has long-range weapons capable of hitting Turkey and Cyprus along with varying types of warhead, whether chemical or balistic. Its states clearly the breaches Iraq under Saddam has made with regard to various issues

6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
 continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
 military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;
 command and control arrangements in place to use chemical and biological
weapons. Authority ultimately resides with Saddam Hussein. (There is
intelligence that he may have delegated this authority to his son Qusai)
 developed mobile laboratories for military use, corroborating earlier reports
about the mobile production of biological warfare agents;
 pursued illegal programmes to procure controlled materials of potential use
in the production of chemical and biological weapons programmes;
 tried covertly to acquire technology and materials which could be used in the
production of nuclear weapons;
 sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no
active civil nuclear power programme that could require it;
 recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programme;
 illegally retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, with a range of 650km,
capable of carrying chemical or biological warheads;
 started deploying its al-Samoud liquid propellant missile, and has used the
absence of weapons inspectors to work on extending its range to at least
200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km imposed by the United Nations;
 started producing the solid-propellant Ababil-100, and is making efforts to
extend its range to at least 200km, which is beyond the limit of 150km
imposed by the United Nations;
 constructed a new engine test stand for the development of missiles capable
of reaching the UK Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus and NATO members
(Greece and Turkey), as well as all Iraqs Gulf neighbours and Israel;
 pursued illegal programmes to procure materials for use in its illegal
development of long range missiles;
 learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and has already begun
to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return
of inspectors.

With all the above UN breaches there is also the attrocities he carries out on his own people. Many of whom would openly admit to wanting Saddam gone but are too scared to speak out. (Oh the joys of a dictatorship)


Human rights: abuses under Saddam Hussein
� 4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.
� 3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.
� About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a prison cleansing campaign.
� 122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.
� In October 2000 dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.
� Women prisoners at Mahjar are routinely raped by their guards.
� Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and "official rape".
� Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere are kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they do not confess they are left to die.

Its a hard call when presented with these facts. We must remove Saddam from power but still continue the search for Bin Laden. Once Saddam has been toppled we should turn our sites to mugabe's regime in Africa and put a stop to the attrocities there.

[TheXatom]

Yes herman but would the ends justifiy the means. Killing innocent people happens in war. Can we assume that attrocities will suddenly stop ? What gauratee will we have that the next Iraqi Dictator / PM won't also be a powerhungy saddam esque figure... don't think this as being too far fetched... the level of corruption and attrocitiy won't just go away overnight...

Frankly im not sure it's just the regime that would need to be changed. After all we are dealing with a whole culture used to oppression and dictatorship. Any 'new guy' will be another figure in iraqi politics and im not sure I trust any of them.

There will be all sorts of ramifications... is getting this one man who is a bad apple worth all the lives iraqi and other worth losing in a war ? Noone has all the answers here and I'd hate to think that anyone thinks they are 100% right. Strong decision making is key but noone possesses all the facts and noone is right or wrong here.

I guess we will have to wait and see. Uncertain the future is.

[AxeWound]

Originally posted by TheXatom
I guess we will have to wait and see. Uncertain the future is.


Isnt that what they did at the start of the 2nd world war.. Oh we will just wait and see what this Hitler guy does.. We should learn from our history. That wars/conflicts are in our nature. We try to oppress the violent tendencies and exist in peace but to what ends ? History has shown what damage one man can do if given the right circumstances. Should we allow another to repeat it ? Its a shame that with recent circumstances it has been turned into a conflict between the West and Islam as tbh this is not the case. It just happens to be a fact that the worlds most dangerous leaders (With one exception) live in the so called "Holy Lands" and are muslims.

And its been prophecised more than once that Armageddon (http://www.johnonline.org/armageddon.htm) will take place in that area.

[radic]

is this a load a shit or what

6. As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq has:
� continued to produce chemical and biological agents;
� military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them;

excuse me, but who here thinks that anyone in the us or uk gov'ts gives a shit about shia or kurds or who ever iraq is gonna gas.

its like the afgan thing, "oh, the taliban represses women. this is bad. lets bomb them into the stone age for it".
now it's "oh, look at this. alqueda tests poisons on dogs. they're cruel beasts who must be punished. meanwhile thousands of animals are being tested on here in labs

i can't help but wonder if the 1st bush admin stopped advancing on bagdad so the us war machine could recycle saddam as an enemy

[dragon2kool]

fuck no! whith americas resident (<yes i menat tht) monkey on a stick, the only thing tht is gonna happen is alot of innocent ppl will die, the aforementioned monkey will waste a lot of money and american lives.

when america get a president with an ounce of sense, we will talk agen, untill then, wait for the monkey to get bored and wander off in search of bananas.

d2k

[Kid Chameleon]

Originally posted by TheXatom
Frankly im not sure it's just the regime that would need to be changed. After all we are dealing with a whole culture used to oppression and dictatorship. Any 'new guy' will be another figure in iraqi politics and im not sure I trust any of them.


There are many problems associated with cultures that have been oppressed suddenly getting freedom. This is evident in Afganistan where there is little law and order even with foreign troops 'trying' to police the country.


Originally posted by TheXatom
No one has all the answers here and I'd hate to think that anyone thinks they are 100% right. Strong decision making is key but noone possesses all the facts and noone is right or wrong here.


Thats very true. Any amount of this dossier could be fake with out us knowing it. As much as Saddam might use propaganda to fool his people, Western governments do exactly the same when they publish misleading statistics etc.


Originally posted by Herman
Isnt that what they did at the start of the 2nd world war.. Oh we will just wait and see what this Hitler guy does.. We should learn from our history.


The causalties in an Iraq war would far less than waiting for Saddam to launch a few of his missles around. We should strike now rather than commiting the same mistake again.

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by Herman



Isnt that what they did at the start of the 2nd world war.. Oh we will just wait and see what this Hitler guy does.. We should learn from our history. That wars/conflicts are in our nature. We try to oppress the violent tendencies and exist in peace but to what ends ? History has shown what damage one man can do if given the right circumstances. Should we allow another to repeat it ? Its a shame that with recent circumstances it has been turned into a conflict between the West and Islam as tbh this is not the case. It just happens to be a fact that the worlds most dangerous leaders (With one exception) live in the so called "Holy Lands" and are muslims.

And its been prophecised more than once that Armageddon (http://www.johnonline.org/armageddon.htm) will take place in that area.

Your argument is flawed. Donald Rumsfeld made the same comparison a while ago and got kickback. Remember that Hitler had WAY more disregard for human life... his racisim etc and religious persicution was huge. Saddam I belive only killed people for political affiliations... im not sure the entire facts here I mean that could mean anti goverment terrorist supporters or supporters of a nice legit faction.

Never the less there are big differencies... Hitler was mad for example, he also commited suiside eventually. Let's not forget that Saddam is a business man, dissregard for human life certanly but not a raving loonie.

We are looking at a man that dosen't just rush in to things and has better controll than hitler ever did. Even in possession of a nuclear weapon I belive he would not use it for attack because he would rationally fear lashback from the USA who has a much bigger arsenal, not to mention launch capabilities.

To assume he would use it for these ends is a bit silly. It COULD be used, I personally can't see him chucking out nukes and becoming new word ruler or even taking over any country.

Just because he has nuclear missiles does not mean he will use them. I don't think he would. I mean the UK has them but we don't chuck them around and neather does any country.

Whether or not he NEEDS one is a different matter, but to suggest this is about a threat to other countries is a bit exadurated. He hasen't tryed to invaid anyone for YEARS and that failed missribly.

Saddam is not another Hitler. Ok, thats just propaganda from the US :p

[Kermit]

"Saddam is not another Hitler. Ok, thats just propaganda from the US"

Not yet, but he has expansion plans (Kuwait anyone ?) and may soon have a few Nukes.....that combination would have made Hitler unstoppable in WWII ????


One day if left to his own devices Saddam WILL have a nucleur weapon. Some anti-war comentators use the reasoning that Iriaq is virtually a 3rd world country and doesn't have the means to manufacture such a device...bollocks....the US made one on 1944/5 & the UK not long after...so it doesn't take much in the way of technology.....he only needs the raw plutonium, but where would he get that from ?

Isn't there a bit of a black market in ex-russian military equipment.......they've been dismantling their ICBM's for a good few years now and apparently arn't too good at securly storing the warheads :eek:

Therefore imo...Saddam will have nucleur capabilites with 2-5yrs at most....but what will he use it for ?

I'd suggest he may decide to invade Kuwait again (pretty easy to do), armed with the knowledge that the US/UN wouldn't dare touch him knowing that he could nuke Isreal or even western countires if his ambitions were stiffled?

He might then, continue on Hilter-esque rampage thru much of the ME safe in the knowledge that he was untouchable by western democratic coutries whose popuations would baulk at the thought of having to nuke iraq to stop him.........bit worrying - YES ?

So I've voted YES, get rid of him before he becomes untouchable or the consequences don't bear thinking about.


btw The argument that UK/US are acting all hi & mightly when they already have these weapons is a poor argument........a democratic government COULD & WOULD NEVER use nucleur weapons pre-emptivley (or most probably even post-emptivley). I could spell out why this is so, but tbh its too obvious a conclustion to bother typing anymore.

[TheXatom]

BTW having nuclear weapons does not make you 'untouchable'...

having a shit load of them does, and the means to deploy them. So if he does invaid we just threaten him with nukes. We have more so he will back away.

I would of thought it's elimentery war rules.

See the way I see it is if the enemy has 350 bad ass weapons and I have 10 I better not piss the enemy off. ( saddam would be in the minority ).

I feel fears of Iraq have been greatly exadurated by the US. Still think the war on Saddam might be good tho.

[radic]

6 reasons why saddam is like hitler
1. will kill minorities (shia and kurds)
2. paranoid
3. will kill members of his staff because of #2
4. saddam's cubs (a group of kids in military training like hitler's youth)
5. attacked and annexed a neighbor (Kuwait)
6. has a funny mustache
that's all i could come up with off the top of my head

@ Hari 10,000 US marines landed in Kuwait last night. I doubt Saddam would attack while they are there.

@ everyone - we could be on the brink of a world war.
Reasons
1. tension betweeen india and pakistan
2.israeli palestinian conflicts
3.us/uk flexing over iraq

scares the bejesus outta me

[Kermit]

Originally posted by TheXatom
BTW having nuclear weapons does not make you 'untouchable'


It does if you have the capability (either by missile or in-situ terrorist) to blow up a whole western city - the US or UK would never risk such a deadly game of russian roulette with their populations. Saddam knows this, which is why he is presently buying for time in supposedly consdiering allowing inspectors back in (we've alreay given him 4+yrs ffs). He'll continue to stall them unitl he has his cherished nukes and then tell the US/UK/UN to fuck as he will have his "protection" from invasion. He'llthen be free to run riot thru most of the ME (with exception of Isreal as they have them).

Q: Do you think in 1945 if Hitler had developed nukes and knew that all was lost that he still would have commited suicide ?

He may well have still commited suicide, but not before unleashing a few at his enemies first. It's scary to know that Saddam would use them just as Hitler would have done if he'd had them - a final gesture of defiance ?

[SnAcKeR]

ROTFLMFAO

http://www.send4fun.com/saddam.swf



*edit* better link to it no ads ;)

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by HariKariBarry


It does if you have the capability (either by missile or in-situ terrorist) to blow up a whole western city - the US or UK would never risk such a deadly game of russian roulette with their populations. Saddam knows this, which is why he is presently buying for time in supposedly consdiering allowing inspectors back in (we've alreay given him 4+yrs ffs). He'll continue to stall them unitl he has his cherished nukes and then tell the US/UK/UN to fuck as he will have his "protection" from invasion. He'llthen be free to run riot thru most of the ME (with exception of Isreal as they have them).

Q: Do you think in 1945 if Hitler had developed nukes and knew that all was lost that he still would have commited suicide ?

He may well have still commited suicide, but not before unleashing a few at his enemies first. It's scary to know that Saddam would use them just as Hitler would have done if he'd had them - a final gesture of defiance ?

Umm well err no. Plain and simple. What good are nukes if you can't even launch them to the US or the UK ?

Did you even read the dossier ? It will take ages for him to get addiquite methods of deployment... Do you think he is just going to glue a warhead on one of his exisiting missiles and send it round the world at us ? I mean come on.

This is what it takes to send a nukclear warhead a quarter of the way around the world...

You are talking about space age propulsion techniques... Don't F***ING trivlaise how easy it is to send nuclear missiles about. It would take 5 to 10 years for saddam to get anywhere near this... let alone have missiles to get close to the US.

... no having a nuke does not make you a 'untochable' if you think that you are just thinking of hiroshima...

HAVING THE MEANS TO DEPLOY a nuclear counter attack halfway around the world makes you untochable. Having a missile defence system makes you 'untochable'.

Nuclear warheads are the tip of the iceberg. New defence methods can intercept and destory them quite easyly.

In short, if you are going to present an argument about weapons and how they affect us i suggest you RTFD ( read the fucking dossier ) :p

PS: Snacker LOL thats an ace movie :D

[Kermit]

A means to deploy them.......small cargo ship via a few diversionary ports of call then up the thames to London maybe ?

Dont forget that the US & UK in the 1950's (now even Pakistan), have missile based deployment methods..........it not rocket science......err well maybe it is, but if it could be done 50yrs ago it sure as hell can be done by "lesser" countries now given the time and money (he has the money, and is currently trying to buy time)

And don't forget that the fact that while he may not have missiles that could hit London or the US at present, his current missiles could quite easily reach Isreal, Cyprus, Kuwait.

Don't live in cloud-cukoo land Xatom, "where theres a will there's way" [Unforuntunatly]

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by HariKariBarry
And don't forget that the fact that while he may not have missiles that could hit London or the US at present, his current missiles could quite easily reach Isreal, Cyprus, Kuwait.[Unforuntunatly]

Well that was my point, you were saying that if he has a nuclear weapon he will be untochable because he could use it against us. This is obviously not the case thx for accepting that. Noones disputing that in time he could possibly do that but it's kind of a silly notion.

You have got confused, in fact some people would believe that the US is the one that is 'untouchable'.

Besides I think you are overlooking the fact that war is not the only option to make sure iraq does not possess and use nuclear weapons. Lets not overlook that.

War is kind of a brutal way to solve this problem, somehow I don't think removing saddam will be as easy as bombing his home... come on people... el cheapo terrorist BinLaden is doing an excelent evasion run I think saddam could do one better especially with all his money and friends in high places...

It's a bit stupid to assume war will remove the corruption rife in iraqi politics it CERTAINLY wont remove attorcities and crime... in fact it might provoke civil unrest.

Just look at afganistan, we bombed we blasted and look at what we have now... numerous assananation attempts... illegal and abundent cultivation of opium crops and general unstability with factions vieing for power and many civilans coulden't care less.

Afganistan has not changed, still corrupt still with civil unrest. Oh and don't forget the numerous people killed during the bombings.

Going gun ho into Iraq could create more problems than it solves... Saddam has friends and controlls many people. He has extensive followers.

I don't think you people saying "saddam must go lets go to war" are thinking it thorugh, thousands of innocents will die directly and indirectly from the war. Civil unrest, lootings rape... these all happen and will continue to happen. I mean you don't just bomb a country and expect it to turn into tellytubbie land...

I predict a PR disaster for the US, it has allready had enoyugh trouble and objection from the rest of the world let alone just Arab states.

Make love not war. Whats it really going to solve that other channels cannot ? Oh yes oil...

[fetchez la vache]

Overall though I think the 'nuke' element is being overblown by various 'hawkish' politicians. IIRC it takes about 35-40kg of enriched uranium to make a basic bomb, perhaps 7kg of enriched plutonium but you need to make a much sophisticated device for this. It's been estimated before that Iraq would need upwards of 500kg of enriched uranium for a viable nuclear bomb program.

Fortunately those sort of quantities are simply not available on the open market, no matter what stories go around about rogue Russian scientists. Thats why Saddam has been trying so hard over the last 10 years to set up systems whereby he can enrich his uranium to bomb-making standards. That is what the weapons inspectors where looking for, not the finished product itself.

All in all I'm personally not too worried about Saddam's 'nukes'. I'm more worried about nerve gas and small-pox tbh. The nuclear option seems to be a scare tactic to me.

[Kermit]

The US it seems is not untouchable (11/9/2001), but you'd have thought so 13 months ago.

There seems to be only three options (unless anyone can point anymore out to me)

1) Leave Saddam to his own devices <---thats a pun ;) and see what happens....but just remember when/if he does something far worse than 11/9 that you where one of those who objected to getting rid of him while the going was comparitivly easy.

2) Let the UN sort him with a good long chat, then a break, then another chat, then a break, then a lets mkae up type chat, then a OK, Ill do as you request from Saddam, then a break in relations, then another chat etc...etc....

3) Get rid of him now and try get some sort of democracy in there......the ME is crying out for democracies that in practice are far less confrontational than dictatorships. That's what the US/UK are trying to get up & running in Afganistan and yes it's not an easy task but has a good chance of suceeding and good luck to them & the ppl of Afganistan.

Remember after WWII, did the US/UK/Allies as Victores impose tinpot leaders on the defeated Germany, Italy or Japan. The answer is NO, they did a good job of introducing indapendant democracies that allowed these coutries to flourish. On the flip side look what happened to the the coutries the undemocratic Russia "liberated".

[Doctor Jeep]

just a few thoughts:

saddam = hitler
Well, doesnt really stand up to scrutiny. You might as well say saddam = hannibal lecter. It is just propaganda, and likening to Hitler, as the leading bubear of modern western consciousness, is just a flippant way of saying Saddam isnt very nice to certain people.

Also, what most people don't realise is that at the time of the kuwait invasion, Saudi Arabia's entire gulf seaboard (you know, the bit with all the oil), was entirely unprotected. There was actually nothing there to stop Saddam from claiming the entire western gulf coast. I am fairly confidant that Hitler would have chanced his arm on an opportunity like that.

As for the Weapons of mass destruction thing ... hmmm. I find it a little embarrassing the way the media pick up on a phrase and hammer it at you. Anyway the last sort of country you would have actually owning a WOMD is one who would use it.

Saddam's Iraq is one ... and another is ....

[clyde]

The comparisons that i have read between saddam and hitler are very interesting.
First and foremost Hitler (love him or hate him) was not a madman! He was in no way crazy, a crazy man would not have been able to sustain the level of military power/fear/control for such a large period of time that he did.
Second hitler was not a dictator (he may have ended up being one), he was a duly elected head of state.
Third all this talk about removing saddam and putting a democracy in place: some good arguments here that any government iraq will have subsequent to his removal, would probably shun the west in any place and do what they want to do.
And my final point is based on most of the above: The Hitler/fascist regime came about due to severe economic instability in the early 1930s. Could it not be that any regime in Iraq (after the removal of Saddam) could not also fall into a far more dangerous state? And also one that actually starts to ally with its long enemied neighbours, eg. Iran. This would truly lead to a very very dangerous state of affairs indeed.
As for human rights issues all i can say is "take a look at our new friends in the gulf" the Saudis! Their human rights records are second to none in torture etc. They too live under a monarchic dictarship etc etc etc. and yet we tolerate it.
Finally, where did iraq get all of these chemicals for their bombs?
We sold it to them in the 80's when he was "The wests man in the gulf" ...

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Doctor Jeep
Also, what most people don't realise is that at the time of the kuwait invasion, Saudi Arabia's entire gulf seaboard (you know, the bit with all the oil), was entirely unprotected. There was actually nothing there to stop Saddam from claiming the entire western gulf coast. I am fairly confidant that Hitler would have chanced his arm on an opportunity like that.

If he'd had the forces to tackle the US equiped Saudi's then he may well have gone for it...but he started off with a small easy to conquer country to test the waters........the water was hot :p

Hitler, started off with Poland and took it one step at a time, sure he got up a good pace, but by the time the allies had arrived he had half of Europe in his pocket. It took a hell of a lot more force to get rid of him from 1939 onwards, than it would have taken in 1938.....bits of paper/agreements mean nothing to dictators as Chamberlin found out. Russia's non-agression pact with Germany also meant nothing in 1941/2 - we can all be thankfull for the fact that he choose to attack Russia and divert half of his armies to the russian front or the Allies may never have got a foothold.

History shows over & over again that once an agressor, always an agressor.

The arguement that he doesn't have Nukes or a long distance missile to deploy them at the moment is weak argument againist giving him a good hiding as we all know he wants them (he's probably got a good stockpile of chemical/Biological weapons already) and WHEN not IF he gets them be it in 2, 5 or 10yrs and the world shudders at the thought at what the madman plans are or everyone gasps as millions are killed (Isreal the most likley target)....everyone WILL say we should have sorted him out 2, 5 or 10yrs ago when we had the chance.

Got to face him now or put our heads in the sand and live with the consequences in the future.

[Valkyrie]

Originally posted by Doctor Jeep
Anyway the last sort of country you would have actually owning a WOMD is one who would use it.

Saddam's Iraq is one ... and another is ....

for anyone who missed that - they called it "a bucketful of sunshine", oh and they believe the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right of man - i guess dying must be a quick route to
ecstasy then.

1) there are elections for the American Senate/House this year. Anyone else noticed that there is usually an attack on a country that can't fight back on American soil whenever there is an American election?

2) There were recent stories in the press about Britain joining the Euro. Blair had threatened to do this, but it really isn't that popular. Lets see now, Blair sides with America against Europe, I suspect this will become a spin doctor special, so that he can change his mind about joining the Euro, but try to make the governments in Europe look bad, because they didn't help the USA out.

3) The North Sea oil fields are not as deep as the middle east. (FLV correct me if this is wrong) Every time there is threats of war on Iraq, oil prices rise. Therefore, the UK milks more cash out of its depleting resource.



yes I am horribly cynical.

valky

[Kermit]

Originally posted by Valkyrie
3) The North Sea oil fields are not as deep as the middle east. (FLV correct me if this is wrong) Every time there is threats of war on Iraq, oil prices rise. Therefore, the UK milks more cash out of its depleting resource.

It's not about oil.

The US & the west can get oil from where ever they choose.......the OPEC countries will sell it to anyone who pays for it irrespective of everything......oil will continue to flow from the gulf until it runs out as it makes up approx 98% of the Gulf States income and selling it to the US or who ever will buy it is their lifeblood.

God help us when it runs out though....if you think the ME is unstable at the moment....just wait till it runs out. These unstable countires will have similar virtually no more income, large armies with nukes and eye's on the greener grass on the other side.

They need democracies in the ME, if it's ever to stablise and a knockon effect of getting rid of Saddam, then hopefully getting a democracy where the ppl flourish would send the right signals to other wanna-be democratic countires/ppl in the ME.

[RayBORG]

I know most of you are from the UK, unlike myself, an american. I've read several of your posts, and I've decided to stop after reading all the same negative replies about Bush. How many of yall remember our jolly-horny-president, Clinton? He was a disgrace to our country and now we finally have a descent president in office. Many of you classify Bush as a cowboy or egotistical, but perhaps he just has the balls to do something instead of just sitting around with his thumb up his ass. I can assure you if we do nothing, they will.

BTW - Blacklotus, that was a rude comment about not liking americans. You really shouldn't stereotype americans. Regardless of your feelings towards us, I highly respect all men and women of all nations, especially Germany (Wolfenstien, :D). I'm not starting a political argument, I'm just opening a different view on the subject.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by RayBORG
I know most of you are from the UK, unlike myself, an american. I've read several of your posts, and I've decided to stop after reading all the same negative replies about Bush. How many of yall remember our jolly-horny-president, Clinton? He was a disgrace to our country and now we finally have a descent president in office. Many of you classify Bush as a cowboy or egotistical, but perhaps he just has the balls to do something instead of just sitting around with his thumb up his ass. I can assure you if we do nothing, they will.

Well said...he's not the smartest cookie in the jar (his advisers can help him here), but he knows what need to be done before its too late..............9/11 was a wakeup call. Many ppl seem to have already forgotten how relativley easy it was to comit such an atrosity armed only with knives.

I'm not comparing directly Saddam with the terrorists, but just remember he's just as crazy and armed to the teeth with convenional weapons and seeks what Osama can "hopefully" only dream off.

It's a scary thought having a mad ageing athiest dictator who one day may realise he won't live forever and would maybe decide that he didn't want to be remebered for his failed attempt to takeover Kuwait and the torture his ppl, but instead to go down in history as the one who shut the jews (or ????) up for good :(

[fetchez la vache]

Valks, it's certainly true that net oil producing countries do better when the crude price rockets. But I doubt the UK on the whole does better when this happens.


NS oil is generally very high grade light oil. Good for lubricants and such like. ME oil is very heavy crude, which after 'cracking' gives lots of petrol-grade stuff and bitumen. In general the UK exports it's light oils and imports it's heavier oils and petrol-grade stuff. Sort of a quid pro quo. So with high oil prices it's a case of win some, lose some. No real overall gain. However the effect of higher oil prices on the country's economy as a whole is usually detrimental.

Personally I think that a $25-28 price range for oil is about right. Oil companies make huge profits, but they also spend huge amounts of money in research and development. Below $20 a barrel, a large number of NS oil fields become uneconomic, and we can't afford to look for any more. Plus I might be made redundant... (-;


At the end of the day, stable oil prices are what governments/companies want the most (albit at a sustainable level). Removing rogue states like Iraq helps to do this. I suspect US big business is more keen in the getting the contracts to re-build Iraq's infrastructure and industries rather than somehow 'controlling' it's oil reserves.

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by HariKariBarry


Well said...he's not the smartest cookie in the jar (his advisers can help him here), but he knows what need to be done before its too late..............9/11 was a wakeup call. Many ppl seem to have already forgotten how relativley easy it was to comit such an atrosity armed only with knives.

I'm not comparing directly Saddam with the terrorists, but just remember he's just as crazy and armed to the teeth with convenional weapons and seeks what Osama can "hopefully" only dream off.

It's a scary thought having a mad ageing athiest dictator who one day may realise he won't live forever and would maybe decide that he didn't want to be remebered for his failed attempt to takeover Kuwait and the torture his ppl, but instead to go down in history as the one who shut the jews (or ????) up for good :(

WTF are you talking about... saddam isen't 'crazy' he might be a dictator but how the FUCK does that make him 'crazy'.

I doubt you even know the meaning of the word... crazy is to do somthing where you will not benifit. He may be a badass evil bastard but don't be so happy to label those who offend you crazy.

WOULDENT it be just dandy if we could shrug of any human that does not conform with decency crazy. No, that is ignorant. I can't see much proof Saddam is crazy. He does things for REASONS not because of chemical brain imbalances.

BTW, regarding terrorists. Some of them are crazy but a terrorist is not crazy. They have logical desires to inflict terror to achive a desired gole.

Plz leave the 'crazy' argument out of this.

Let it be layed to rest saddam is not the next hitler. Hitler was mentally fucking in the brain. His ideals were not logical.

I hear too much of this rubbish explanation that Joe Blogs of the street would givw, 'oh they are all crazy'. Well lets leave that kind of talk out of this thread.

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by RayBORG
I know most of you are from the UK, unlike myself, an american. I've read several of your posts, and I've decided to stop after reading all the same negative replies about Bush. How many of yall remember our jolly-horny-president, Clinton? He was a disgrace to our country and now we finally have a descent president in office. Many of you classify Bush as a cowboy or egotistical, but perhaps he just has the balls to do something instead of just sitting around with his thumb up his ass. I can assure you if we do nothing, they will.

There is a prime American attitude I think we have there ladies and gentle men. News flash...

The UN is supposed to deal with this... YOU ARE NOT the center of the world.

You have the balls to attack Iraq ? Well good for you. Enjoy it while your presidents prestigious Amry kills thousands of innocent lives while dropping whatever kind of bomb they choose this time.

It happened with Afganistan, WOW you guys must have balls. Thousands of innocents dead. The rest of the world picking up the pieces of what I belive was an inefficent war in terms of lives.

Diden't mommy ever tell you at school fighting solves nothing ? I belive going to war will create more problems than its worth. At least clinton was willing to spend more time on issues like this working on PEACEFULL solutions.

Do you not think a large scale arms inspection would be better, less costly, less deadly and more politically sound that blowing Iraq to bits ?

What kind of a fucking president would be egging for war rather than a peacefull solutuon. God dammit.

[Dexter]

Originally posted by TheXatom
Do you not think a large scale arms inspection would be better, less costly, less deadly and more politically sound that blowing Iraq to bits ?
Arms inspections are a token gesture - the UN has to be seen to be doing something. I could hide enough deadly chemicals to wipe out a city in my closet.

Xatom you surprised me by starting off one of the best threads I've seen in ages; please don't ruin it by throwing your toys out of the pram and and flaming people.

Now, on with the discussion...

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by Dexter

Arms inspections are a token gesture - the UN has to be seen to be doing something. I could hide enough deadly chemicals to wipe out a city in my closet.

Xatom you surprised me by starting off one of the best threads I've seen in ages; please don't ruin it by throwing your toys out of the pram and and flaming people.

Now, on with the discussion...

Don't tell me how to post on my own thread...

Furthermore if you knew somthing about what the inspection teams are looking for then you might realised that they are not just token gestures.

They are looking for means of production not the weapons themselves... LOL that would be like looking for a needle in haystack.. Besides for mass destruction wepaons silos are needed bases of operation etc.

I'm not flaming people but don't you think some of the things in this thread are kind of ignorant. I'm just trying to keep an open mind ok.

But yeah I will get pissed off a dumb remarks. Sorry ok.

I'm not suggesting the currant arms inspections are effective, but listen. They could easly send in a large taskforce of occupie knowen regions of activity and look for and signs of production...

You know with enough people and money we can find them and shut down all the means of production. AND FOR LESS THAN THE COST OF A WAR. It sickens me that a direct 'solution' of war is pecieved as a solution. Saving lives is the priority.

I'm neither for or against, not enough information going around on these sort of things, I belive the the US is acting for other reasons than global stability.

Dexter. I'm not here to impress people and I'm not trying to flame. Gerrorf my thread :) , did anyone complain to you anyway? This is a serious thread and people can take crisisim I assume and I will be more than eger to take some myself. Saying 'throwing your toys out of your pram' is hypocrtical enough considering your the one telling ME not to flame. :)

I guess we all after all, are only human :) thx.

[Kid Chameleon]

Originally posted by Valkyrie

3) The North Sea oil fields are not as deep as the middle east. (FLV correct me if this is wrong) Every time there is threats of war on Iraq, oil prices rise. Therefore, the UK milks more cash out of its depleting resource.


FLV was correct about type of oil found in the NS. The UK also has large oil reserves around the Falkland Islands that haven't been tapped (imo the only reason we went to war with Argentina). Its almost like western governments are holding back on their supplys of oil so that when/if the middle east starts to run dry they will control the oil market.

The only way weapons inspectors will be effective is if they are escorted by soldiers who'll force the Iraq's to let the inspectors into their facilities. Saddam will never allow this so your back to square one.

If theres a war in Iraq it'll be over as quick as it was last time (a month or so if im not mistaken). A large majority of ppl in Iraq want Saddam ousted but wouldn't dare say so while he's in power. As soon as they realise the Iraqi army is defeated they'll be turning on him in their droves.

I would never class Saddam as being crazy, he's a very intelligent guy. For example he sets up biological laboratories in the basements of hospitals knowing that the west won't bomb them. Its just his views are warped as are alot of ppls in the middle east. They hate the west but are only to happy to accept our foreign aid money and food supplys.

[AxeWound]

Originally posted by TheXatom
I'm not suggesting the currant arms inspections are effective, but listen. They could easly send in a large taskforce of occupie knowen regions of activity and look for and signs of production...

You know with enough people and money we can find them and shut down all the means of production. AND FOR LESS THAN THE COST OF A WAR. It sickens me that a direct 'solution' of war is pecieved as a solution. Saving lives is the priority.


Didnt they try that.. Weapons inpectors were in Iraq for nearly 6/7 years m8. (according to the dossier) and all they got was the run around. What makes you think its gonna be easier or any different this time, coz it wont be.


Iraqi Non-Co-operation with the Inspectors
4. The former Chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler, reported to the UN Security Council in January 1999 that in 1991 a decision was taken by a highlevel Iraqi Government committee to provide inspectors with only a portion of its proscribed weapons, components, production capabilities and stocks.
UNSCOM concluded that Iraqi policy was based on the following actions:

� to provide only a portion of extant weapons stocks, releasing for destruction only those that were least modern;

� to retain the production capability and documentation necessary to revive programmes when possible;

� to conceal the full extent of its chemical weapons programme, including the VX nerve agent project; to conceal the number and type of chemical and biological warheads for proscribed long-range missiles;

� and to conceal the existence of its biological weapons programme.

5. In December 1997 Richard Butler reported to the UN Security Council that Iraq had created a new category of sites, "Presidential" and "sovereign", from which it claimed that UNSCOM inspectors would henceforth be barred. The terms of the ceasefire in 1991 foresaw no such limitation. However, Iraq consistently refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors access to any of these eight Presidential sites. Many of these so-called "palaces" are in fact large compounds which are an integral part of Iraqi counter-measures designed to hide weapons material

Btw Chemical weapons were outlawed world wide in 1925 under the geneva convention.
The man dables his fingers in many pies and has been linked to funding terrorist groups such as Al-queida and various palastinian militant groups.

Tbh I still Think Saddam needs to be dealt with but so does much of the Middle Eastern area. Do we all remember the stand off between India and Pakistan. However I dont recall America charging headlong into that one, so maybe someones comments of "America wont attack an enemy that could hit back at American soil" is true. The only point where the American arguement falls down when they are trying to enforce regulations such as the geneva convention is its complete disregard to the Keoto agreement (Which I know is "volentary")

And once America has "dealt" with Saddam will they continue around the world dealing with its oppresive dictators ? I doubt it.. (theyll have another Presdient by then)


*edit* just found this graph which is interesting.. But I dont think its the amount you have its more the will to us them..

[Dexter]

Originally posted by TheXatom
Furthermore if you knew somthing about what the inspection teams are looking for then you might realised that they are not just token gestures.

They are looking for means of production not the weapons themselves... LOL that would be like looking for a needle in haystack.. Besides for mass destruction wepaons silos are needed bases of operation etc.
I was trying to say that the things they are looking for are going to be very well hidden, be it in 'Presidential Areas'/Palaces, under hospitals or on the back of lorries. Sending people in to find production facilities is a waste of time as Saddam will deny them access just as he did last time.


Originally posted by TheXatom
I'm not suggesting the currant arms inspections are effective, but listen. They could easly send in a large taskforce of occupie knowen regions of activity and look for and signs of production...

You know with enough people and money we can find them and shut down all the means of production. AND FOR LESS THAN THE COST OF A WAR.
Send in a taskforce? Presumably you mean some kind of military occupation? Imho Saddam would not allow that and would probably declare any attempt to do it an act of war.


Originally posted by TheXatom
Dexter. I'm not here to impress people and I'm not trying to flame. Gerrorf my thread :) , did anyone complain to you anyway?
No one complained to me - I gave up my moderator duties nearly 6 months ago :p
I just felt that RayBORG may take offence at your comments and it would be a shame if this thread turned into another flame war. If you take personal offence at anything I've said, please let me know in a PM :)

Good thread btw :)

[Doctor Jeep]

ok Saddam isnt exactly the sort of guy you'd have round for a beer, but I would be very hesitant at taking the things you hear in the media seriously. Just as I wouldn't believe anything that comes out of Baghdad, I wouldnt trust the media here, who lets face it are run by either the state (BBC), or huge corporations. Its difficult to get to the bottom of things, but if you think cynically and imagine that everyone is involved for the worst possible motives I would guess you are on the right track.

Americans seems to have the impression that its a country run by god-fearing good citizens for the good of the planet as a whole. What suckers! America is run by a very small elite for the benefit of that elite. Anyone that gets in the way is, by definition, a terrorist.

Interestingly, President Bush's 'Axis of Evil' were the only 3 countries on the planet (except maybe China), that refuse to acknowledge America's God-given right to decide who runs their country and how. Whether they are nice regimes or not is beside the point. Their very existence is a threat to America's percieved legitimacy.

I've said it before, the Americans I know have been to a man the most decent people I could ever have hoped to meet, but its ruling elite I am afraid are the most venal awful people on the planet and frankly I find it alarming that a country that rich and that powerful should be run by people who have no regard for human life whatsoever.

Weapons of mass destruction the americans have used:

Nuclear weapons (japan -- targetting civilian cities)
Chemical weapons (Vietnam - agent orange)
Biological weapons (cuba -- tobacco mosaic virus)
Thermobaric weapons (Afghanistan, Iraq)
and god knows what else.

Personally I want to be proud to be British, but helping America on its latest adventure will bring us only shame I fear. I don't want the rest of the world to lump us together with a country like that.

[Cosmic]

What worries me is the leftovers :wtf:

Say they do hit Iraq and have their moment of Regime change - what new government will take control??.

New seperatist , militant anti west activity is sparked into action.
This time it will be even more covert and an unseen threat than Bin Laden. Say they get a Nuke with enuff resource - money. This time instead of a country with a governmant having the device - its in the hands of desperate, insane, despotic anarchists bent on hate and revenge. :(

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by Dexter
No one complained to me - I gave up my moderator duties nearly 6 months ago :p
I just felt that RayBORG may take offence at your comments and it would be a shame if this thread turned into another flame war. If you take personal offence at anything I've said, please let me know in a PM :)

Good thread btw :)

Thx im sure RayBORG and most Americans have heard it all before. I don't think this threads gonna change into a flame war. America is alright but we are just as bad letting it lead us around.

On the notes of weapon inspections... here is my idea. Get a shitload of ppl have one enormas inspection. FACE IT Saddam would rather cooportate and lose his means of getting weapons than want war and be taken out of power.

So this is a good action I think. All other sorts of things could be done. My point is...


If they plough the ammount of money they are going to use in a war into PEACEFULL solutions they are bound to get the fruits of their labour. In that...

NO LIFES LOST.. isen't this worth ANYTHING ?

Also im sure we can take finantial aid etc to Iraq away and cut off their ties with other countries... remember they need other countries to survive so we do have an indirect barganing chip if we can assure global cooperation.

War is an answer but we should persue ones which are less costly yes ? War is a last resort and I don't think it is worth considering at the moment cause human life is too precious.

[radic]

I love my country, but I fear my gov't.

[RayBORG]

I'm not offended, I knew someone would flame me for something. I'm not really up to date with politics and I normally look at the big picture. There are so many different arguments here, but doesn't it boil down to human life? That's what I believe Xatom is talking about. Now taking this into consideration, should we just sit back and let them kill innocent civilians on our soil (9/11 tragedy) and on their own soil (gassing civilians for different politcal views)?

There are many things going threw my mind about this, it's just hard to type it all out here. I really don't know what the answer is, other than people are dieing.

[RayBORG]

Originally posted by radic
I love my country, but I fear my gov't.

I'm taking it you mean the US. If that's so, I agree with you. We may be a "free" country, but I really do feel powerless.

[Kermit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheXatom
WTF are you talking about... saddam isen't 'crazy' he might be a dictator but how the FUCK does that make him 'crazy'.

Ok wrong word, but he certainly not a man you'd want living next door to you. Didn't he have a few of his nearest & dearest dispatched due to his paranioa a few years ago ?

BTW, regarding terrorists. Some of them are crazy but a terrorist is not crazy. They have logical desires to inflict terror to achive a desired gole. Plz leave the 'crazy' argument out of this

How about irrational then ?

Let it be layed to rest saddam is not the next hitler. Hitler was mentally fucking in the brain. His ideals were not logical.

Are you now suggesting Hitler was crazy, but Saddam is not ?

Saddam is no better than Hitler....they both did/do practice ethnic cleansing in its severest form...eg death rather than explusion and had/have expansionist plans....Kuwait ring a bell - he even claimed it was his god given right to invade...LOL

Back to the subject then....

"Get a shitload of ppl have one enormas inspection. FACE IT Saddam would rather cooportate and lose his means of getting weapons than want war and be taken out of power."

The problem with this, as Herman has already said, is that he will only co-operate upto a point - that point being when the inspectors want to inspect somewhere that he knows is vital to his "program". At this point, he'll refuse them entry again as he did numerous times over the period in the last 6/7yrs that the inspectors were there.

There will be a stand-off for while (inspectors bused back to Hotel), so that he can move the evidence out of the base, then let them in a few weeks later acting all inoccent or he'll refuse them entry all together...claiming its simply a "swimming pool" and not a coolant plant for uranium rods or whatever....back to square one...no point in having inspections, if your refused entry to the ones that count ????

It will go on & on & on in this way, until maybe 5yrs down the line when the UShas had enough of this runaround and seeks approval to get shot of him <----btw this has already happened over 6/7yrs....he's had long enough to coopeerate, so to give him more time )like another 6/7yrs), is just plain daft & imo a very dangerous delay........there's a damn good reason he's stringing the UN along, he knows it, Bush knows it, Blair knows it, the EU countires know it (But won't say publically for fear of becoming a possible target) and 50% of the UK/US know it.

Shame, you can't work out what the purpose of his buying for time delays to the inspections are all about.


2nd Point
Since invading Afganistan, the number of innocent ppl killed has reduced drastically. Don't forget the taliban persecuted/murdered its own ppl over many years. The death toll from the invasion is far less than the total of ppl the taliban would have disposed of in a single year.

Saddam is the same.....there's some figures in the dossier re the number of ppl Saddam has murdered/tortured over the years......the expected loss of life from a war and overthrow would I suggest be less than the number of innocent ppl his regime will murder over the course of the next 1 or 2 yrs

No pain no gain.......war is terrible, but unfortunatly its a humanatarian option.

B4 I go

The Atom bombs that the US dropped on Japan in 1945.......killed 100,000'ish, but saved millions by ending a war the Japanese would have fought till the last man (on either side)

[radic]

rayborg

where u from in bama?
my moma's from mongomery
been there many times.

im near boston

[RayBORG]

Originally posted by HariKariBarry
The Atom bombs that the US dropped on Japan in 1945.......killed 100,000'ish, but saved millions by ending a war the Japanese would have fought till the last man (on either side)

I like that, heh...


Originally posted by radic
rayborg

where u from in bama?
my moma's from mongomery
been there many times.

im near boston

I'm near Mobile, AL.

[Sgt Stedanko]

Very, VERY interesting thread.

I am an American. Proud to be one. I do not mistrust our government. You have to sort through the political mumbo jumbo (any nation). They are always going to embellish the truth in order to get their way. I do not believe another Vietnam will happen. Look at what happened in Somalia. We lost a handle of soldiers and backed out

As for the Saddam/Iraq issue. The way I see it, we are trying to avoid something like 9/11 happening again. Only with Saddams resources, it could be in a bigger way.

Our government has caught a lot of sh*t over 9/11. Why weren't we ready. Why didn't we know. Then it turns out we sort of knew...whatever. We don't want it to happen again.

I don't think Tony Blair is being a puppet or anything like that. He is, your country is, a strong ally. I applaud him for standing by that. Even Bush is criticized (sp?) here for his gung-ho let's go to war attitude. There will always be those who want peace.

Let's face it and be realistic. People have been fighting since day one. It is in our nature.

People bash the USA for taking on the role that we do. Is anyone else going to do it? Whenever I see the UN go in someplace, they don't accomplish much. Again, in Somalia they had war declared on them and many Pakistanis were killed while the Somalians were commiting many atrocities on each other.

One other note, I have seen on here many times about how we Americans are so gung-ho to kill that we kill many innocent people. Friendly fire. It is terrible and I wish it did not happen. But do you really think that the British, Canadians, or any other country can say their hands are clean? As 'involved' as the USA gets in these things, with as many bombs and bullets flying, it will happen. A tragedy.

We are not the big bully. More like the big brother. Do we impose ourselves to get what we want. Damn right. Seems to me there was another country once...maybe a hundred years ago and more...true...but they ruled a large part of the world to get what they wanted. Hmmm, now who was that? Do the initials look like this: GB?

[TheXatom]

Originally posted by HariKariBarry

The Atom bombs that the US dropped on Japan in 1945.......killed 100,000'ish, but saved millions by ending a war the Japanese would have fought till the last man (on either side)

You are suggesting the means justifies the ends. War is wrong and bad. It's still uneithical killing human life, I would like you to acknowlege this.

There is ALWAYS a peacefull solution to a problem. Always, what seperates the greats people from the poor is the greats find the peacefull solution first.

[Kermit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheXatom
You are suggesting the means justifies the ends. War is wrong and bad. It's still uneithical killing human life, I would like you to acknowlege this.

I acknowledge its unethical...but so is standing by and letting the shit happen.

and Yes, I am suggesting that if the US/UK went in and if they lost say 1000 of their own soldiers & killed maybe 10,000 iraqi soldiers during the course of the action then this is still better than the far greater loss of life the "innocent" Iraqi ppl will face in the years to come under Saddams regime and high probablity that one day, in 2-5yrs time, that Saddam will feel empowered (nukes?) enough to attack Kuwait again, while issuing a threat to the US/UK that something BAD might happen in one of their cities should they try to stop him.

There is ALWAYS a peacefull solution to a problem. Always, what seperates the greats people from the poor is the greats find the peacefull solution first.

Pray tell us what this peacefull solution is......6/7yrs of UN confrontations have acheived f**k all....sure we could give him another 20yrs and wait for him/us all to die of old age, but the liklihood IS that he will develop nukes in the near future & threaten to use him should anyone stand in his way.......in short do the think the world will be a safer or more dangerous place once Saddam has his nukes?

Chamberlin had a peice of paper from Hitler promising "peace in our time", Russia got a similar non-agreesion pact with Germany...........face facts, often (but not in this case), there is a peacefull solution, but when faced with tyrants like Saddam/Hitler etc.... 9 times out of 10 there's only one thing that will restore the peace.....a bullet in the head.


btw The best alternative to war (but not 100% peacefull) imo would be to try locate Sadam and his likley sucessor, his son's location and send a few cruise missiles in their way - non-nucleor of course. Then hope that when a new leader emerges, (likley to be another dictator), is less of a threat to world peace and the ME in general.

[TheXatom]

IMO war does not lead to peace.

Hundreds of years or war. Do we have peace ? NO. That is proof enough.

You say a 'bullet in the head' will sove it but no. If that was the case then then why not have an assination attempt instead of 'war'.

You can't say that by going to war we will be saving lifes in the long run. Thats silly. You don't know the future or how anyone is gonna react to this shit storm.

Thats what it will be, a shit storm and peole will die as a result.

Also you are saying effectivly saying 'killing a few people to save more people' is ethical. Wrong, pure and simple. Killing for ANY desire, reason or purpose is unethical.

[Kermit]

I give up

You beleive what you want & I'll beleive what I want, but you & me will have to agree to disagree.

All in all, the above posts on the peacefull vs invasion options are a good analogy of how over 10yrs "dramatic" progress has been made thru tough UN negociations with Saddam and that the world is now a safer place cos Saddam listened ;)

....think about it

[TheXatom]

I personally belive the UN weapons inspections have been underplayed be ppl in terms of importance. They uncovered and consequently allowed illimination of various weapons production sources.

[Sgt Stedanko]

Originally posted by TheXatom
IMO war does not lead to peace.
...
Also you are saying effectivly saying 'killing a few people to save more people' is ethical. Wrong, pure and simple. Killing for ANY desire, reason or purpose is unethical.

I do not believe he is 'effectively' saying "killing a few to save more people" is ethical. But maybe it is:
===========================================
eth·i·cal Pronunciation Key (th-kl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or dealing with ethics.
Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession. See Synonyms at moral.
Of or relating to a drug dispensed solely on the prescription of a physician.

n.
An ethical drug.

OR

ethical

adj 1: of or relating to the philosophical study of ethics; "ethical codes"; "ethical theories" 2: conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior; "an ethical lawyer"; "ethical medical practice"; "an ethical problem"; "had no ethical objection to drinking"; "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants"- Omar N. Bradley [ant: unethical] 3: adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone" [syn: honorable, honourable, moral]
============================================
The Geneva Convention is a code of ethics having to do with war. It does not say "do not wage war".

The only questioning word in that definition is "moral". What is morality? Doesn't it provide for correcting wrongs? Maybe even preventing them? Maybe the word you were looking for was "moral":
=============================================
mor·al Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty
=============================================
Doesn't that definition fit with what, ok let's say Bush and Blair, are looking for?

"Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life. "

Perhaps we are imposing our morality on others. (Read more below about "imposing"). But this imposition is generally subscribed to by most of the world.

War does not lead to peace? America wanted to stay out of WWII. Once we got involved, I would say it led to peace. Sure, we took some major losses, but the "Evil Axis" lost and the world war ended. Peace? Of a sort. What is peace?
=======================================
peace

\Peace\, n. [OE. pees, pais, OF. pais, paiz, pes, F. paix, L. pax, pacis, akin to pacere, paciscere, pacisci, to make an agreement, and prob. also pangere to fasten. Cf. Appease, Fair, a., Fay, v., Fang, Pacify, Pact, Pay to requite.] A state of quiet or tranquillity; freedom from disturbance or agitation; calm; repose; specifically: (a) Exemption from, or cessation of, war with public enemies. (b) Public quiet, order, and contentment in obedience to law. (c) Exemption from, or subjection of, agitating passions; tranquillity of mind or conscience. (d) Reconciliation; agreement after variance; harmony; concord. ``The eternal love and pees.'' --Chaucer.

Note: Peace is sometimes used as an exclamation in commanding silence, quiet, or order. ``Peace! foolish woman.'' --Shak
===========================================
Can you have peace without war? Sure. Is it going to happen as long as we are human? No. Even the most peaceful person can be pushed to fight for their life and the lives of the ones they love. Maybe not Mahatma Gandhi. The guy was incontinent ( I mean, he was wearing diapers most of his life).

As far as opinions go: "opinions are like assholes, everybody got one". From one of my favorite WAR movies, "Platoon".

Talk about war. Isn't this thread, and many like it, war of words? Can't we all get along? Peace? NO! As long as we have difference of opinions, different lifestyles, different religions, somebody is going to get pissed off!

Look at Islam. It's core is peace. Yet the al Qaeda have cookie cut their religion to fit their needs. These are people who don't have anything better to do with their time than think of ways to IMPOSE their ideals on others. America is evil, therefore we must teach them a lesson. Peace. Doesn't smell like it to me...

[DOGHEAD bpE]

www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons Not to Invade Iraq,
by George Bush Sr.

>>> From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):


"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.

Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

--------------------------

[DOGHEAD bpE]

Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately.


Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome

The above two admissions from George Bush snr in 1998 does exactly make it sound that the invasion route would be clear cut and easy.

[DOGHEAD bpE]

The Great Reckoning - How The World Will Change Before The Year 2000. [extract]

James Dale Davidson & William Rees-Mogg. Second edition 1994.



Some Islamic sects have approved terrorism as a legitimate tactic. That well suits them to current circumstances, as terrorism is likely to be of growing military importance as the year 2000 approaches. In the wealthy countries of Europe, North America, and the Pacific, most people demonstrate that they are more interested in profits than the promise of heaven. But Islamic militants, reared in poor economies and a different culture, are more willing to fight and die for their faith.

In the more traditional Islamic societies, the oil money that poured in during the OPEC price hikes of th 1970s hit with an effect like a water cannon blasting a mud hut. It dissolved many traditional patterns of behaviour, without creating new developed market economies or trully modern states to take their place. The result was Islamic revolution in Iran, and an upsurge of militant fundamentalism in Egypt, the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and beyond.

By transplanting Western products, habits, and desires into societies only a generation or so removed from the Middle Ages, oil wealth was destablising. This has also been true to an extent wherever traditional societies have come under pressure from modernisation and people have come to feel that the promises of development would not be fulfilled for them. They have seen that the impact of oil wealth made it less likely that traditional, religious solutions would continue to function. The fundamentalist reaction, therefore, was most acute among those who were exposed to oil wealth without pocketing the royalties themselves.

Terrorists will be able to slip between the seams of superpower military establishments. The United States alone spent 10 trillion dollars during the Cold War in developing a formidable military force. But the money was largely spent in anticipation of conflict on a large scale with another superpower. The United States has far less capacity to project power against irregular forces at the periphery, in spite of the success against Saddam Hussein.

The difficulty of Western military forces maintaining control over the Middle East was great in 1920. But it has increased over this century. Almost exactly seventy years before Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait, British troops were fighting a widespread rebellion in Mesopotamia, as Iraq was then known. Even at that time, military experts were privately concerned the the costs of projecting power into a hostile Middle East would prove too high.

Then, as now, a main concern was securing the supply of oil. In one of the first effective uses of air power, the British were able to squash the rebellion and install a pro-British monarchy, which Saddam Hussein later opposed as a youthful assassin. Twenty-one years after the first rebellion in Mesopotamia, in 1941, the Iraqi Army, under Rashid Ali, staged a pro-Nazi revolt. Once again, British forces "disposed of" the Iraqis with "relative ease". So overwhelming was British power at the time that the Iraqi Army was placed on a near-starvation diet to keep it from causing more trouble.

Again in the early 1960s, with the monarchy gone, an Iraqi dictator announced his intention to invade Kuwait. Once again, the British Army moved to oppose the Iraqis, and the crisis passed. By 1990 there was no British Army in the Middle East to protect Kuwait, nor any other credible force that could take up the slack. Because of the low confidence in United States power and resolve, Gulf states had hitherto declined to allow American land forces to be based on the Arabian peninsula. The primary United States military contingent was "over-the-horizon", a naval flotilla in the Indian Ocean. Defence experts put the costs of this force at fifty billion dollars a year. It was a fifty-billion-dollar force better suited to mid-ocean combat with the Soviet Union that close operations in a narrow waterway like the Persian Gulf. For example, the US Navy was almost lacking in minesweepers, a potentially fatal weakness. The United States had to borrow minesweepers from Britain and Italy. American logistics capacity to move troops to shore was strained. President Bush had to commandeer commercial airliners, rent cargo ships, and call up the reserves. Once on shore, the United States possessed little equipment designed for desert warfare.

Most United States troops were lumbered with extremely heavy tanks that could be brought to the Persian Gulf only with great difficulty. They were too heavy to travel on bridges even on well-engineered European roadways. They got a mere four thousand feet to the gallon. And those that were available were too slow. Once in combat, US troops would be dependent to a large extent on helicopters that "are noted for performing poorly in harst Third World weather conditions," reported the World Street Journal. None of these drawbacks prevented the success of the US mission against Saddam Hussein. But it required almost a united front, including from the now deceased Soviet Union and all the Western industrial countries, to bring one Third World dictator to heel.

The strained US position reflected changing megapolitical conditions, which have narrowed the cost advantage of the Western powers over the traditionally backward societies at the periphery. The price of policing the Persian Gulf had skyrocketed, up from twenty-five million pounds in 1920 (about a billion pounds in today's money), a sum Churchill thought was ridiculously expensive. That was the annual cost for operating the British military garrison during combat. Experts suggested that the outbreak of hositilites in 1991 added up to one billion dollars per day to US costs. Implied annual costs for US forces in Middle East combat were more than three hundred times higher in real terms. And Britain subdued a restless Mesopotamia on its own, with a handful of troops. US forces were joined by Arab armies, and the forces of many other nations whose costs amounted to billions more.

It appeared that almost complete cooperation among the major and minor powers was required to force Iraq's Saddam Hussein to back down. US forces on the ground were supplemented by contingents from Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other countries.

For all the obstacles and costs that stood in the way of successful military action, the United States had one significant advantage in confronting Saddam that it lacked in Vietnam. Saddam presented a huge target to hit. The million-man Iraqi Army was a World War I-style massed force, not a guerrilla group hiding in the jungle. The early days of the air war showed that World War III air power America had purchased as such great expense was capable of striking military targets with astonishing precision. The capactiy to destroy command and control centres, bridges, and other key facilities from teh aur without obliterating civilian targets convinced world markets that the war was over, even before the ground fighting had begun. The markets were proven correct.

Saddam Hussein set up a situation where American power could be used effectively. That appearance of renewed capacity to police violence in the Middle East could provide a last hurrah of American predominance. Just as the Falklands War revived the perception of British power in the world, though it might have ended otherwise had Argentina possessed a few more Exocet missiles, so the successful routing of Saddam Hussein might produce a false dawn of American power. The impression that American military muscle will be used effectively could last for a surprising time.

But American military operations against Iraq, however successful, could only obscure the fundamental megapolitical logic, not change it. The next cries of the postwar world will find the power equation even more unfavourable to the suppression of violence.

The difficulties faced by the superpowers in confronting a conventional force operating at a distance, like the Iraqi Army, are compounded one hundred times over in confronting irregular terrorist bands and small groups. Such groups can inflict severe damage on the operation of vulnerable large-scale systems. And the military capabilities of Northern powers are not yet focused enough on the post-Cold War threat to provide effective countermeasures. You cannot kill a fly in your home, even one that carries a deadly contagion, with a smart bomb. The terrorist, like the fly, will make life miserable for the superpowers in the 1990s. The huge increase in the cost of suppressing piracy and terrorism is the major reason you should expect more of them in the future.

[klump55]

Originally posted by TheXatom

To assume he would use it for these ends is a bit silly. It COULD be used, I personally can't see him chucking out nukes and becoming new word ruler or even taking over any country. Agreed.

Incidently, the question you've got to ask yourself is, "would I go and fight against Iraqi citizens over this fellow?"
I sure as hell wouldn't. It's all very well talking externally about Bush and Blair and Saddam, but thinking about the lives of innocents is something totally different, especially if you think about it from an internal nature.

[mongool]

so after all of this (Raping woman,Killing Children, Killing the innocent) and destroying a country ....will you guys demand to be called heros?

Prehabs after this you could head over to say hmm I dunno Veitnam and blow some more shit up and say rape some more woman and etc ...then again call yourself hers stating it was for a politcal cause ...when everyone with a brain can see that your own god damn country is a communist one ......so yea my question is ...You anything like the USA?

[Jensen]

The worst thing that can happen to intelligence, and the western world, is that saddam is followed by someone unknown fantic, worse than saddam.. bear that in mind

[Dexter]

[Fragfest]

Originally posted by Jensen
The worst thing that can happen to intelligence, and the western world, is that saddam is followed by someone unknown fantic, worse than saddam.. bear that in mind

- You mean worse than Bin Laden?

[PhoBey]

Originally posted by radic
6 reasons why saddam is like hitler
1. will kill minorities (shia and kurds)
2. paranoid
3. will kill members of his staff because of #2
4. saddam's cubs (a group of kids in military training like hitler's youth)
5. attacked and annexed a neighbor (Kuwait)
6. has a funny mustache
that's all i could come up with off the top of my head


Sounds more like stalin. And sadam is no stupid hitler was ;)


Did you even read the dossier ? It will take ages for him to get addiquite methods of deployment... Do you think he is just going to glue a warhead on one of his exisiting missiles and send it round the world at us ? I mean come on.


Why does he have to use a fokin rocket or sub. he can even use a car ffs. The world isn't that big anymore and i don't think they would have much troubles smuggling the device OUT of iraq now will they.

[AxeWound]

Well with all the stuff flying around in the media its starting to look more likely that it will kick off over there again. There is now full UN and NATO support behind the disarming process which tbh I cant see being a success. The question is when ? I would say its likely to start in full in the new year. Although the US has been bombing "strategic" military installations already to path the way for a full scale assualt. Also several US soldiers have been shot in Kuwait during training. The iraqi government has put this down to rogue "hunters"..


Bush & Putin Put pressure on Saddam (http://www.msnbc.com/news/837040.asp?pne=msn)


Isnt it funny that Saddam is Maddas backwards :p

[SnAcKeR]

STFU

[decay]

snacker lurvs the old threads :fluffle:

[klump55]

snacker ought to be shot

[Steveo]

hmmmmm

[DOGHEAD]

Hi warmongers.

You still loving your backing for war?

Near total economic collapse on the cards now as well, cause you mongers thought house prices could treble in 10 years, lending to any debt scum who wanted money with liar loans - forcing up prices.


The strained US position reflected changing megapolitical conditions, which have narrowed the cost advantage of the Western powers over the traditionally backward societies at the periphery. The price of policing the Persian Gulf had skyrocketed, up from twenty-five million pounds in 1920 (about a billion pounds in today's money), a sum Churchill thought was ridiculously expensive. That was the annual cost for operating the British military garrison during combat. Experts suggested that the outbreak of hositilites in 1991 added up to one billion dollars per day to US costs. Implied annual costs for US forces in Middle East combat were more than three hundred times higher in real terms. And Britain subdued a restless Mesopotamia on its own, with a handful of troops. US forces were joined by Arab armies, and the forces of many other nations whose costs amounted to billions more.

[Pedders]

Nice first post...now go crawl back in your hole

[DOGHEAD]

Well well.. Mister Sexy-Leg is still alive and monitoring the RTCW forums. :eek:

[DOGHEAD]

It wasn't my first post... they've deactivated inactive accounts.

See "Doghead" earlier on this thread when I tried to warn the pro-war freaks that Middle Eastern conflict is massively expensive, and risky.

[DOGHEAD]

Before we had superior firepower, with machine guns, so we could subdue them easily, but still at great expense........... now they are a match for that, + explosives, for carnage and insurgency.

[DOGHEAD]

Mix in Labour's near non-existent financial regulation, house prices trebling in 10 years in a lend-to-anyone credit boom... and you've got a near bankrupt UK going with a begging bowl to the IMF.

Well done pro-war freaks.

[Pedders]

Cant remember any religious, anti war freaks that used to frequent the forums....

Go on...humour me

[Steveo]

Used to be Doghead BPE or something? I remember him :)

[SnAcKeR]

oh hai 2 u!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111