Excuse me, Mr President (non sailing)

[Twister_Ken]

Non sailing so please ignore if so desired

I'm sure I heard George W Tush say that Eye-Rack was a direct threat to the United States.

Was I dreaming? If, not can anybody explain how Iraq, with its 130 km range missiles, threatens the US?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Roberto]

You may have seen this (sorry awful translation)

"Obviously, ordinary people do not want war. Why should a poor farmer risk his life in a war where at best he can hope to come home in one piece? No one wants war, this is understandable.
However, politics are made by governments, and it is always easy for politicians to pull people with themselves, be it a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliement.
Whatever will a people may have, it can always be led to the will of its chiefs. It is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are attacked, accuse pacifists for lack of patriotism and that they expose the country to danger. It works the same way in all countries"

Hermann Goering at the Nurnberg Trial

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

You may have said the same of Al Queda on 8 September 2002!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

No you would'nt .. Al quaeda had already proved themselves to be a threat to the US by launching direct attacks against US property & life

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[david_e]

On Question time last night Clive Anderson made a good point in saying that most odf the population don't understand why we need a war. At either end of the scale you have groups of radicals who know what what they want.

Somehow it just doesn't seem to fit. No invasion of Kuwait etc to justify a counter attack and when it is all done, what then?

Then we have to pay for it, even us northern bods with our lower council tax bills!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

There would seem to be plenty of direct threats that don't involve missiles or hijacked aircraft. If they really do have 100 tons of Anthrax, a figure that I'm sure I've heard as a speculation, then they are a direct threat to all of us. A jam-jar full could wipe out millions of people. Combine that with an evident indifference to dying possessed by many Middle East people and the threat seems real enough.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

what about if terrorist organisations got hold of nuclear material or nerve agent from iraq . Saddam is a caged tiger. i am a bit sceptical myself, but the threat remains that saddam could arm an organisation that could attack ( in terrorist terms) the us or the uk.
what we do about that threat is another matter

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>Ok brain let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer</font color=red>

 

[jimi]

Well yes .. but surely every nation is the world is dealing with potential threats in some shape or form from some quarter. If they all took steps to forceably remove such threats then global mayhem would result. That is why the UN was set up and the US amnd UK if they refuse to accede to the UN should remove themselves from it. If thge US & UK operate outwith the aegis of the UN IMHO they are acting as pariah states which then really opens up a can of worms. I believe if they do that, then that will be the end of the current UK executive, sob sob!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

>saddam could arm an organisation that could attack ( in terrorist terms)<

So could N. Korea. So could the Russian mafia. So could Libya. So could a few more bad guys around the world.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

I didn\'t start this but..

in the interests of balanced debate, I will (again) put the other side of the argument. I don't suppose it will influence Ken or Jimi but I trust that there are readers out there who remain open-minded.

Let's say, for the sake of my argument:

(i) that Iraq does have weapons or components for weapons or some potential to develop weapons including chemical/biological and maybe nuclear. I agree that we have not seen incontrovertible evidence of this (which is not to say that it does not exist) but it is not a wildly improbable assumption;

(ii) that Saddam Hussein would be willing, if he could, to use those weapons himself OR put them in the hands of people who may (any number of terrorist groups spring to mind including Al Qaeda). Again there is no proof of this but it is also not wildly improbable and, post 9/11, actually needs to be no more than conceivable;

(iii) that such weapons may be used against innocent civilians in the US, the UK or elsewhere. The fact of 9/11 proves beyond doubt that this is not inconceivable and it is hard to doubt that Saddam Hussein would derive satisfaction from directlly or indirectly delivering a futher 9/11 type blow to the US.

Now if, as I submit is the case, the above is a totally plausible scenario, that seems to me like a real threat (whether it is also "direct" or not is debatable but semantics). So what is the best way to reduce/eliminate that threat? Is it:

(a) do nothing and hope that Saddam wakes up one morning as a benevolent, wise and humanitarian leader instead of a vicious, murdering, tyrannical dictator;

(b) pass resolution after resolution in the UN Security Council "requiring" Iraq to disarm, but do nothing to enforce such resolutions and continue to stand by whilst they are openly ignored;

(c) pass a resolution giving Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm and to give "full, unconditional and immediate co-operation" to UN inspectors so it can be proved that it has disarmed AND back that up by taking action which will make it unmistakably clear to Saddam that "this time, we mean it".

I submit that option (c) is most likely to succeed. Unless, of course, certain other countries on the UN Security Council decide that they have not the stomach to "mean what they say", in which case the strategy is in danger of becoming less effective and perhaps has to be re-invigorated by the US and the UK making it clear that they will go it alone. Unfortunate but necessary.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Gloves off again ..

(c) Is obviously the option, I'm not arguing with that . What I am saying is that if the UK and US operate without it then the US and UK are acting in breach of international law without the sanction of the UN. As a citizen of the UK, I find that abhorrent!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

oh i agree
and you have to grade them according to likelyhood
i was merelyanswering what threat was iraq to the us. i made no comment on how likely iraq was just that it has the ability


<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>Ok brain let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer</font color=red>

 

[PortsmouthBird]

Even worse than that

What is worse is I heard him being intoduced at a press conference recently as the leader of the free world!!

Who the bloody hell gave him the right to vote himself that!!

He is not the leader of my little world and I certainly don't want him making decisions on my behalf thank you Mr President.

This man hasn't until recently ever left the USA and thought the leader of pakistan was caller Mr General.... Not exactly at the front of the cue when brain cells were handed out.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Gloves off again ..

>>c) Is obviously the option, I'm not arguing with that>>

In which case you should get behind the US and UK governments in support of their policy of demonstrating preparedness to use force as this is the best (probably only) way of securing the agreed objective without actually having to use force.

Our (the free and democratic world's) best chance of avoiding war is to make it clear that we mean war. Problem is, the message going from the UN to Iraq is that prevarication, procrastination, a little concession here and there, but nothing of real substance, will ease the pressure on Iraq and, in due course, enable Saddam to return to his old ways.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Gloves off again ..

I would if I believed that to be the case. I don't. I believe that the real reason is that Mr Bush wants control of Iraqi oil and, no matter what, he's going for it. I also believe that Blair's initial motives were to restrain Bush, but I think he's got onboard the runaway train and is now unable to get off!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[david_e]

Re: Gloves off again ..

Pound to a penny that if they go in they won't get Saddam, just like Osama.

My concern is that the devices for terrorist counter attack are already out there. The war will just provoke further attacks, so far the UK hasn't been a major target even though we could be from chemicals, biological and others like jets into buildings, suicide bombers in shopping malls etc.

It is strong beliefs that fuel these actions, removing weapons of mass destruction won't remove the beliefs or the threats of minor terrorism.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PortsmouthBird]

And another thing

If iraq is such a threat why has it taken us 10 years post Gulf war to do anything about?

If the threat is so great why is the UN not unanimously supporting the second resolution, surely they are seeing the same intelligence as us and the USA

Is this whole situaltion not just about oil and who controls the global market?? Inlight of the fact that 85% of Bush's presidential electoral campaign was funded by oil money, he would have a very high internal lobby to prevent the Iraqi domination of the global market.

Who will be next? Is this not just because we have yet to bring Bin Laden to justicse and need a scalp to justify our cause

We have directly contravened the Geneva convention with the way prisoners have been detained at camp X-ray without representation or trial, are we going to defy yet another treaty. If we do how can we ever expect anyone to ever respect basic global politics and human rights???

Finally, can we actually afford this whole situation??? House price about to slump, stock market lowest point in 15 years, council tax increases what is the bottom line economic effect on us???

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tony_brighton]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

Are you a lawyer by any chance?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Guest]

Re: I didn\'t start this but..

Your option (c) is quite correct. My only problem is that I thought (c) already existed in Resolution 1441. Problem is the difficulty in getting agreement on what to do next. Another resolution does nothing but delay the problem.

I think it is clear Saddam has not "fully" met the demands of Resolution 1441, and he has had ample time to do so. How much longer should he be given in the hope things "improve"? Extend the deadline one week or 12 years, I think you'll get the same answer - he has no intention of ever giving in and complying fully. He is simply seeking the line of least resistance in the international community. Increase the inspectors 100 fold and they are still looking for a needle in a hatstack without his "full" cooperation. When will the world wake up and realize they cannot negotiate with this man in the normal diplomatic sense. He only reacts to physical threats. It's a tough call, but I believe we must increase the ante, and be seen to do so with collective agreement, even if some countires choose not to participate. Continued prevarication will get us nowhere.

BTW, I thought this was a sailing forum, not a political stage.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Gloves off again ..

1. Getting Saddam is not the primary objective.

2. bin Laden's operations chief has now been captured and who's to say that bin Laden himself may not be next?

3. Milosevic was arrested and brought to trial after Yugoslavia.

4. I agree with your last statement but it is not a reason NOT to tackle Iraq, which is not just about terrorism.


<hr width=100% size=1>