IRAQ vs USA/UK

[maxi--]

Originally posted by xane
T
So what happened ? How did the Jewish and Arab states depart from this happy state of affairs into all out bloodshed and religious hatred ?

Answers on a postcard.

something to do with very powerful and rich jews in the US...maybe ?

 

[Durzel]

Although devestating it would be interesting (from a human sociology pov) to see what would happen if Saddam did decide, on a whim perhaps, to launch weapons of mass destruction against the U.S or U.K (i.e. actually against the countries, not the coalition forces based in Iraq). Would the U.S retialiate with nukes? Would they/we care about collateral damage then?

Food for thought, maybe.

 

[Embattle]

Moron of the Day = Robin Cook

 

[Durzel]

Agreed.

Although I thought he was a moron before his outburst.

 

[djpringle]

What's the gnome done now?

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Durzel
Agreed.

Although I thought he was a moron before his outburst.

Increased Moron then

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Durzel
Although devestating it would be interesting (from a human sociology pov) to see what would happen if Saddam did decide, on a whim perhaps, to launch weapons of mass destruction against the U.S or U.K (i.e. actually against the countries, not the coalition forces based in Iraq). Would the U.S retialiate with nukes? Would they/we care about collateral damage then?

Food for thought, maybe.

er, do you know the actual RANGE of the weps he(alledgedly) has? they'd barely get out of his own fucking country.

*edit* sorry post dominated by anger, but the range isnt that big (ill look for an exact figure)


chris morris has his say : http://www.thesmokehammer.com/


more food for thought from the NY times

y and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious — and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

who said it was fashionable to be anti war?

 

[maxi--]

Originally spouted by the BBC
Umm Qasr is a city similar to Southampton," UK defence minister Geoff Hoon said in the Commons yesterday.

"He's either never been to Southampton, or he's never been to Umm Qasr" says a British squaddie patrolling Umm Qasr.

Another soldier added: "There's no beer, no prostitutes and people are shooting at us. It's more like Portsmouth".

heeeheheh!

*another edit* in looking for the exact range of the WMDs (i think i know, but i want to be sure before i say etc) i found this interesting article, regarding Iraqs capabilities for manufacturing a Nuclear wep.

http://www.room23.de/room23_view_detail.php?ID=1540

 

[Embattle]

Yes wonderful maxi :sleeping:

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Embattle
Yes wonderful maxi :sleeping:

you didnt read it then?

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by Durzel
Although devestating it would be interesting (from a human sociology pov) to see what would happen if Saddam did decide, on a whim perhaps, to launch weapons of mass destruction against the U.S or U.K (i.e. actually against the countries, not the coalition forces based in Iraq). Would the U.S retialiate with nukes? Would they/we care about collateral damage then?

Food for thought, maybe.

Most likely they would care less, but they wouldn't do anything heavy-handed (certainly nowhere near as heavy-handed as nukes).

They've been wanting evidence of WMDs and a link between Saddam and terrorism all this time, and to get both in a kind of double-bonus package, even at this stage, would be as beneficial politically as it would be catastrophic in every other sense.

Reminds me a bit of the theory that Roosevelt allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to go ahead in order to convince the US to go to war.

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by Embattle
Moron of the Day = Robin Cook

No way dude, he's like so right! Getting all the UK troops out of Iraq right now would be the best thing we could possibly do!

 

[maxi--]

reliable sources inform me that the WMD Iraq are claimed to have, have a range of aroudn 650km.

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by maxi--
reliable sources inform me that the WMD Iraq are claimed to have, have a range of aroudn 650km.

Yeah, my answer to Durzel's hypothetical question takes this into account - if a WMD was detonated in the US or UK, and if it was the responsibility of Iraq, it would have to be done by terrorists operating in the US or UK.

This all seems thoroughly unlikely to me. I don't think we'll find evidence of WMDs or terrorist connections, even when Iraq is firmly in our hands.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by maxi--
something to do with very powerful and rich jews in the US...maybe ?

Nope, there are rich jews and rich arabs everywhere, got to be somthing else.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by ReActor
This all seems thoroughly unlikely to me. I don't think we'll find evidence of WMDs or terrorist connections, even when Iraq is firmly in our hands.

So a leader who was prepared to go to war over nothing at all should be allowed to continue to rule ?

From UN Resolution 687 (1991):

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; (b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

...

10. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above ...

...

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above ...

If Iraq had no WMD, why did the UNSC decide in 1991 that Iraq did and needed to destroy or confirm the destruction of them, and submit to promises not to develop further facilities for the manufacture of them ?

If Iraq did have WMD in 1991 and had destroyed them, why did they not let people inspect and verify this in accordance to 687 ?

Also from the opening declaration of Resolution 687

Conscious also of the statements by Iraq threatening to use weapons in violation of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and of its prior use of chemical weapons and affirming that grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,

...

Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,

...

Concerned by the reports in the hands of Member States that Iraq has attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear-weapons programme contrary to its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968,

...

Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,

If Iraq did not have WMD, or any terrorist connections, why did they threaten to use them ?

Edit: forgot the source

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by xane
So a leader who was prepared to go to war over nothing at all should be allowed to continue to rule ?

You're good with your evidence.

However, don't assume I'm anti-war just because I don't believe Iraq has WMDs or terrorist links. In fact, I still think it's worth going to war because Saddam Hussein should be deposed. I think these other issues are irrelevant, so I'm not going to argue about them.

 

[rynnor]

Mr Hoon shows himself up...

Quote from Radio 4 Interview:

"We should not believe the observations of armchair generals, commentators, who were suggesting that this was a short campaign.

Actually it was officials in the Pentagon who said the war would be short - many of the 'Arm chair generals' were sceptical of the US's new concept of 'effects based warfare'.

Quote from BBC news online story:

"Some Pentagon officials are even daring to hope that such war plans, combined with the huge build-up to war, will cause the Iraqi resistance to wilt before any fighting even starts, says our correspondent."

Boy were they being unrealistic!

Full story below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2720091.stm

 

[PR.]

daring to hope

Your completely right, reading that indicates without a doubt to me that the Pentagon where fully expecting a short war

 

[rynnor]

Heh - nah obviously that guy was the cleaner at the pentagon but there did seem to be an attitude that since the US was so technologically superior Iraq would be something of a walkover.

I never really understood that - they have 1 arm tied behind their back trying to avoid all civilian casualties and historically invading a hostile country requires a lot of ground troops - a lot more than they have currently.

Maybe they really did believe that the Iraqi people would see them as liberators but in the realities of war your going to get civilian casualties and the UK/US arent exactly popular out there?

 

[Moving Target]

500th POST LIEK OMG

 

[old.UKTwister]

Forget Iraq :

North Korea - An army of 1 million and nuclear missiles

30% of British Army in Iraq, rest of British army = no good for nothings.

Lets start the home guard!

 

[Tom]

North Korea would be a difficult one - who knows anything about the place? It might as well not exist for all the coverage it receives.

 

[ReActor]

North Korea scares the crap out of me.

Did anyone see that documentary on BBC2 a few months ago where an English journalist went there and took a kind of guided tour?

It was a bit like that Theroux bloke's documentary about political oppression China, the difference being that this chap had to do no dirt digging whatsoever. The absolute craziness of the place was completely out in the open.

The weirdest bit was when he was shown into a book shop and every single book was by "the glorious leader". As far as I can tell, they had basically outlawed all other books.

North Korea is a poor country that seems to put everything into it's military. The North Koreans have hated the Americans ever since they got involved in the Korean war, and this hatred has grown into what seems to be the only reason the country functions at all, it's raison d'etre as it were.

It's almost as if they have devoted their country to the destruction of Western civilisation. They haven't got anywhere yet, and maybe they never will. But they are going to be a tough nut to crack.

And they have a nuclear weapons programme.

 

[maxi--]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927849,00.html


i question how many of you will actually read this before slating me with a "rollseyes" or whater the fuck that sleep smiley is, but whatever...

 

[xane]

I got as far as "Arundhati Roy" and gave up.

 

[Furr]

Attacking north Korean would be a very very very VERY bad idea! the carnage would be unimaginable. South Korea would just cease to exist!!

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Furr
Attacking north Korean would be a very very very VERY bad idea! the carnage would be unimaginable. South Korea would just cease to exist!!

Somehow I think nukes would be involved in that war...

 

[maxi--]

Cant see it happening for a LONG LONG time, its stalemate betwen two countries that have nukes,

with a huge army, It'd be worse than Vietnam.

 

[Tom]

US would be able to take out those nukes in about 10 minutes, I very much doubt N Korea has ICBMs.