On Iraq, the US, oil and war

[pkb]

Re: If you don\'t normally see the Mirror

Maybe but the tone verges on the hysterical. For example its plain daft to allege that Bush was unelected.

 

[ccscott49]

Re: If you don\'t normally see the Mirror

Unelected? That is a matter of still very heated debate in the US. But he's just as entitled to say he was as he wasn't, it was never proven without a shadow of a doubt, if it had been UK courts, they would have made them vote again. IMHO

 

[snowleopard]

Right with you there...

We shouldn't have got involved in 1939 either.

Not our business to go to war over the invasion of Poland.

Or France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, North Africa or any of those foreign places.

None of our business if someone wants to invade Kuwait, Iran, Saudi or Israel.

If he hasn't got rockets with the range to hit us, good luck to him.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Sorry?

Wasn't aware the SH had invaded anywhere lately. When he did, we did get involved.

Oh, and by the way. China has invaded Tibet - surely we should be getting involved there. Hang on though, China has got verifiable WMDs, and they work, so maybe that's not such a good idea. Unfortunately, the same is true of Israel, which regularly invades Palestinian territory, not to mention bits of Lebanon. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Twister_Ken on 29/01/2003 16:53 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Bergman]

I don't think I refered to Blair as a "lap-dog" but I am reluctant to regard him as unfailingly honest, Far too many examples of opposite, lots of them highlighted on this board.

I agree that past mistakes do not necessarily mean present policy is wrong (although it would be hard to explain at a job interview). My point is that there has been no evidence put forward to indicate that it is not wrong now. Jack Straw has promised to publish such evidence but has signally failed to do so.

There is no reason that I can see why a document of war aims could not be published. Happened in WW2 - unconditional surrender! Churchill made a famous speech doing exactly that.

What exactly is the objective of all this. Is it to kill Saddam, or just overthrow him. Will US govern Iraq, if not who will. These are questions that could be answered now. Why should objectives be secret?

I am not against standing up to tyrants when they threaten me. But I really don't feel that Saddam is that much of a threat. Certainly not one that could not be contained by bigger and better counter threat. After all that worked with USSR for 40 years, and they were bigger, stronger and more tyrannical than Saddam ever could be.

And what of all the other tyrants, apparently N. Korea is next on list. Are we to go to war with them when we have finished with Iraq? and if so who next.

You cite Afganistan, what exactly has been re-constructed? Do you seriously think that the situation there is in any way stable.

Lots of counries have backed political leaders blindly, and more often than not they have been led into disaster. Hitler springs immediately to mind, but many others.

I think you and I see democracy differently. I don't believe its a duty to accept decisions made on our behalf. Rather we have a duty to question, to doubt, to demand explanation, and to support only if we are convinced.

 

[Rabbie]

On a lighter note ........

NOTIFICATION OF COMPULSORY ENLISTMENT

Under the Emergency Powers Act (1939) as amended by the Defence Act(1978),
you are hereby notified that you are required to place yourself on standby
for possible compulsory military service in the American Conflict. You may
shortly be ordered to depart for the Middle East where you will join
either
the 3rd Battalion The Queen's Own Suicidal Conscripts or the 2nd Foot and
Mouth. The regulars are too busy driving Green Goddesses to be there
themselves.

Due to the recent rundown of the Navy and the refusal of P&O to lend us
any
of their liners, because of the deplorable state in which they were
returned
after the Falklands adventure, it will be necessary for you to make your
own
way to the combat zone.

H.M. Government have been able to negotiate a 20% discount on one way
trips
with Virgin Airlines and you are strongly urged to take advantage of this
offer (Ryan Air also do a nice little £9.99 trip). Because of cutbacks in
Government expenditure in recent years it will be necessary for you to
provide yourself with the following equipment as soon as possible:

* Combat Jacket
* Trousers(preferably khaki - but please no denim)
* Tin helmet
* Boots (or a pair of sturdy trainers)
* Gas mask
* Map of the combat zone (the Ordinance Survey 1:2800 Outdoor
Leisure Map of Iraq will do)
* Rifle
* Ammunition (preferably to suit previous item)
* Suntan oil

If you are in a position to afford it, we would like you to buy a
tank (Vickers Defence of Banbury are currently offering all new
conscripts a
0% finance deal on all X registration Chieftains, but hurry, as offer is
only available whilst stocks last).

We would like to reassure you that in the unlikely event of anything
going wrong, you will receive a free burial in the graveyard of your
choice,
and your next of kin will be entitled to the new War Widows pension of
£1.75
per calendar month, index-linked but subject to means testing, and fully
repayable should our side eventually lose.

There may be little time for formal military training before your
departure and so we advise that you
hire videos of the following films and try and pick up a few tips as you
watch:

* The Guns of Navarone
* Kelly's Heroes
* A Bridge to Far
* The Longest Day
* Apocalypse Now
* The Matrix
* Blazing Saddles
* The Desert Song
* Mary Poppins

We do not recommend that you watch Khartoum.

To mentally prepare yourself for your mission try reading the works of
Wilfred Owen or Rupert Brookes. This should give you some idea of what
may be involved.

Yours faithfully,

G Hoon, Ministry of Defence.

A Bush - Blair Production
Sponsored by Mars, The Official snack of World War III

 

[philmarks]

At the risk of making myself persona non grata...

Surely this forum is for sailing-related issues, not political discourse. That doesn't mean I'm apolitical, far from it, but there are more appropriate foums (fora?) for these discussions.

As far as I can see the only relevant topic here is whether it's worth me buying a fixed GPS/Plotter this year, as SA may be turned back on in a major way - or will the signals be jammed locally in the Middle East by AWACS and P3's?

Kim?

 

[Observer]

I think the consensus view is that that the forum is used by people with an interest in boats, not that all posts should be about or related to boats. The point was discussed at some length in an earlier thread.
If some users post subjects of no interest to others, they will receive no responses - so the matter is self-regulating.

 

[Sybarite]

Re: On a lighter note ........

What? They're flying Virgin ? - something that doesn't go the whole way..?

 

[philmarks]

I just saw the other thread about what Scuttlebut should be about. We differ!

 

[Observer]

I am happy to agree to disagree with anyone who agrees that disagreement does not have to be diasagreeable.

 

[Rabbie]

Hear Hear Phil. What next? Football teams?. If this had started in any mess I served in, you'd have been heaved over the side!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Rabbie on 29/01/2003 22:49 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Observer]

I haven't the time to answer all the points you raise. The argument, in my view, hinges on these two questions.

1. "If Saddam had the means, directly or indirectly, to inflict massive damage on his enemies (starting with the US and Israel), is it reasonably likely that he would do so?"

Given his track record, I do not believe that it is possible to answer that other than "Yes".

2. "Is it reasonably possible that he has or will develop such means?"

I'm not in a position to know the answer to that. The combined intelligence apparatus of the US, the UK and others is, I would imagine, rather better informed. However, so far as I am concerned, there does not have to be conclusive proof that he has the means. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes", that is sufficient reason for the world community to require and ensure beyond doubt that Saddam is deprived, with certainty, of the means. This may not have been the case before 9/11. That event made the previously unthinkable a chilling reality - and changed the political perspective accordingly.

This is the substance behind the latest UN security council resolution - which is not new in substance. It was the basis of the Iraqi surrender at the end of the Gulf War.

In the circumstances of the positive answer to question 1, failure to enforce the will of the international community with force, if needed, is the same as acknowledging that the resolution has no meaning. Saddam will not disarm unless he is compelled to do so. The US in particular (probably Saddam's number one target), and the world in general, cannnot afford to take the risk that he has the means and will use them, so is compelled to disarm him.

War is not inevitable. Saddam has the option to fully "open the kimono". That would be an abject humiliation - but on what grounds does he deserve either sympathy or any face-saving concession?

Other questions (for example - what happens next?) may be important but are not critical. They are academic if Saddam bows to the will of the UN.

 

[Observer]

"Brainwashed?"

Steffen,

As you lacked either the capacity or the courtesy to provide a cogent or even considered response to my reasoned arguments, it could reasonably be concluded that the adjective you used is an apt description of yourself.

I shall not assert that, as I'm sure you have more to offer than insults and generalisms. It is a pity you didn't take the trouble to demonstrate it. I have read other responses with respect for the views expressed, even if I don't agree with them.

Tim

 

[ccscott49]

If we wern't allowed to discuss matters like this in any mess I served in, what the hell would service men discuss, if they were to be thrown into a war?

 

[ccscott49]

Hold on! What weapons of mass destruction were used in the attack on the twin towers. Why haven't we attacked israel, they have the maens to destrot vast areas of the middle east and if their very survival depended on it would they not use atomic weapons? Bloody right they would, what about Libya, Korea and a few African nations, are they any the less dangerous? We have lived with the threat of mass destruction for years, whats different now? The US got itself attacked, thats what is different. Has the US not been backing numerous right wing terrorist gruops? Has the US people not been backing those murdering bastards the IRA? Don't start spouting your bilge here, unless you have been at the sharp end of war and seen the body bags, you and half of the others around here are full of hot air, the first time you hear a very close passing bullet, it may open your eyes for you. Enough blood!

 

[jimi]

Linkage established

Finally after months of searching Dubya has finally found the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. As he explained to the security council last night .." Both contain a q. I did'nt spot it initially because one was disguised in upper case."

 

[ccscott49]

Re: Linkage established

Just a point, Al Qaeda and Iraq, absolutely hate each other, always have, two completely different idiologies, one secular, one islamic fundamentalist. They only have one thing in common, hatred of israel and the US. I'm still waiting for this proof, but they say now they will reveal it, but they alsao said it would take an intellegence expert to unravel the links, Oh! Yeah! Here we go again, smoke and mirrors. Theres an old saying which I would tell Tonio and Bushiepoos, "when in a hole, stop digging"

 

[jimi]

Re: Linkage established

Apparently the Al Qaeda/Iraq linkage that the US claim to have established is in the North which is out of Saddam's control anyway.

Do'nt get me wrong, I think Saddam is an evil bastard, but I believe that to invade Iraq now would not only be a breach of International Law but is also a precedent for any country to invade anyone else that they do'nt like the look of (or which happen to have natural resources they want to control .. the prime reason for any war in the past, present & future!)

 

[ccscott49]

Re: Linkage established

I too haved no love of him, but as far as I'm concerned, they all deserve each other! As long as my family and the old country are safe, (as it can be these days)I'll keep my gun in it's holster! Let's face it we are more likely to have the real IRA do something in this country, does that give us the right to go and bomb dogshit out of Eire? Not in my book it doesn't although I have been sorely tempted! Buried to many friends at the hands of those "Freedom fighters" the US (people) supplied!!