Iraq

[Ash!]

This may have been done in oe way or another. Cant find any posts for it though. War with Iraq does look inevitable. The government are supposedly going to supress a stop the war rally in Hyde Park. Pretty much as they did when representatives from China visited a few years ago and the Free Tibet campaigners were not allowed anywhere near the chinese. Is Saddam et al really that much of a threat ?

So my questions are:

1) Should the weapons inspectors be allowe more time to complete the work they started. ? If they do will it be in vain

2)Who is a bigger threat to world Peace; George Dubble ya and lap dog Tony or Saddam

3) What are the wider implications of another conflict in the gulf? A region that is already unstable with Religious Dogma, Hatred barbarism taking presedence over common sense and dialogue.

IMO we must stive to resolve all conflicts through the most peacefull way possible. There must be some kind of meaningful dialogue with the Iraqi's rather the sabre rattling and political rhetoric displayed by our elected leaders..

Answers on a post card

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by blade07

2)Who is a bigger threat to world Peace; George Dubble ya and lap dog Tony or Saddam

The americans have been at war in every decade since the '50s IIRC.

 

[throdgrain]

Spot the bleedong heart liberal
Dialogue with Saddam ? Are you serious ?

 

[xane]

Re: Re: Iraq

Originally posted by doh_boy
The americans have been at war in every decade since the '50s IIRC.

The americans have had 11 presidents since 1950, what's your point ?

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by throdgrain
Spot the bleedong heart liberal
Dialogue with Saddam ? Are you serious ?

Not necessarily a bleeding hearted liberal. I wanted to know if people thought that it was worth trying to speak. For a so called advanced and civillised planet, the only way we can resolve disagreements is by starting a war.

Which leads onto another question. Is this issue about WoMD or is it a bout Oil ?

 

[Sawtooth]

Yeah that nasty Sadam and his "Hitlerising"

 

[doh_boy]

Re: Re: Re: Iraq

Originally posted by xane


The americans have had 11 presidents since 1950, what's your point ?

That a war every ten years is a bit excessive. :|

 

[xane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraq

Originally posted by doh_boy
That a war every ten years is a bit excessive. :|

Theoretically, Korea and Vietnam were not "wars" as such, as no opposing nation state was involved, they were mere "conflicts", although admittedly of the worst kind and certainly the most publicised. If you take that definition then certainly many countries can claim to have been involved in conflicts for the best half of the 20th century, including Iraq, which had an 8 year conflict (actually that really _was_ a "war") with Iran.

America's recent involvement with world conflicts is certainly extensive, but then again you are narrowing the window to the last 50 years, make that 200 years and America pales into comparison with the traditional colonial powers; Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc, who have menaced the rest of the world extensively for their own personal gain.

To its credit, America has actually never tried a military occupation or invasion (yet), it was more a war of ideals rather than simple land and resource grabbing. America gains influence in foreign lands by other means, which may be a bit underhand, but don't involve mass murder or bloody conflict.

 

[adams901]

Sadam needs to be removed one way or another as he is just playing games with the UN, but bombing civilians isnt the answer as that will just creat more terrorists. I honestly think the american goverment and a lot of the american population are a bunch of cunts, reasons for this are below.

1) They didnt care when the IRA were bombing London, or when other factions were bombing european countries yet as soon as they are hit with a terrorist attack they cry for unity and want everyone to stand together and stop terrorism.

2) They like to poke their nose into other countries affairs yet they dont like it when others do it, look what happened when Russia invaded afghanistan, america got involved and armed the very people who would later repay them through terrorist attacks.

3) To my knowlege America is the only country to have used weapons of mass distruction (against civilian targets twice I might add), so what right do they have to preach about who is and is not responsible enough to have them.

 

[*Kornholio*]

Originally posted by adams901
3) To my knowlege America is the only country to have used weapons of mass distruction (against civilian targets twice I might add), so what right do they have to preach about who is and is not responsible enough to have them.

Apparently Saddam has used chemical / biological weapons in his "conflict" in the past... but afaik they yanks are the only ones to have nuked anyone... As for the rest of your post, I agree.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

The thing that makes it funnier is that those weapons were supplied by the US, huzzah!

 

[Ash!]

So to ask a fairly rhetoricla question at the risk of being branded a bleeding hearted liberal(ooooooooooohhhhhhh the shame of it)

Is it or will it be a just conflict ?

 

[lynchet]

Well as has been pointed out isnt it simple to see if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction -- just get us, the USA and France to check our receipts

 

[Lester]

I'm probably being super naive here but with all the technology the yanks have can't they just kill Saddam and his close cohorts?

I think the Americans are relying on the local opposition kicking in as soon as a war starts, and doing their job for 'em. Apparently there are already talks going on with a view to letting Saddam get out and live in exile.

On a related subject, it drives me mad when the media keep saying how many troops are going, where they are likely to land, that the SAS are already there, that all our weapons are shit etc. I mean who is that information going to help exactly? Bizzare. There should be a news blackout on those issues imo.

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

How would Saddam get a copy of the papers? Plus he can't read English, duhhhh.

Lester = Stupido!

 

[prime1]

Theres a great piece of dialogue in LOTR : 2 towers.

" I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to war"

"like it or not, war is upon us"

NONE of the western pwoers WANT war, unfortuantely sometimes its the only option.

And fuck off about oil, it isnt about oil. A war will cause the price of oil to rise, it will also (and is already) damage stock markets and investments, further damaging economies. The US can now also get most of its oil from Eastern Europe anyway, as those markets have been subsidised through dealings with Russia.

It is noteable that Russia and France are the main parties opposed to action on Iraq, are the nations who stood to the most direct cash from business deal with Iraq (billions of dollars in construction contracts to France and Russia - gona go bye bye if theres a war).

 

[Flimgoblin]

Originally posted by prime1
NONE of the western pwoers WANT war, unfortuantely sometimes its the only option.

I'd debate that... dubya is a warmonger if I ever saw one.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by prime1
Theres a great piece of dialogue in LOTR : 2 towers.

" I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to war"

"like it or not, war is upon us"

Wasn't that a Star Wars film ?? :/

 

[doh_boy]

1) Russia oppose the us getting Iraq because with it america will lower the price of oil. Russia don't want this because that is one of their main incomes.

2) Of the two reports filed yesterday; one by hans blix(head of chemical and biological) and <can't remember> (head of nuclear).

Blix said they've not got any weapons but they have some chemicals that 'have the indications of being prepared to be weaponised'. He also complained about a lot of dirty tricks by the iraqi government.

The head of nuclear said they haven't any signs of nuclear weapons and asked for more time to make sure they have non and 'sucessfully avoid need for war'. He complained about the intelligence service not giving all the facts, sending them on wildgoose chases and misleading information.

I, personally, am not opposed to war but I don't see any immediate need for it. I feel the aggressive stance only succeeds in giving terroists more reason to hate us and for normal people to support them. This action will feed the hatred and distrust of the western powers which is the exact opposite of the proposed reason 'Fighting terrorism'.

and wij: I'm pretty sure it is.

 

[Flimgoblin]

It's pretty easy to see if Iraq have nukes... their houses will all suddenly change and upgrade when they hit the right tech level..

or have I just been playing too much Age of Empires.... (or megalomania if yer old enough )

 

[*Kornholio*]

Originally posted by Wij
Wasn't that a Star Wars film ?? :/

Yeah, Episode 1...

 

[Daffeh]

OT: Mega-Lo-Mania....best game ever!

 

[whipped]

I'll second that.

 

[Scouse]

America's recent involvement with world conflicts is certainly extensive, but then again you are narrowing the window to the last 50 years, make that 200 years and America pales into comparison with the traditional colonial powers; Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, etc, who have menaced the rest of the world extensively for their own personal gain.

Blah blah we're so bad.... 200 years ago America was in no state to wage war on anyone - that could explain why that rings true.

Also - so what if over 200 years we've been the worse aggressors - what counts is HERE and NOW. Are we supposed to give them a bit of "catch up time" because they're a bit behind us on naked aggression or something??

To its credit, America has actually never tried a military occupation or invasion (yet),

Afghanistan aside... (Admittedly - it won't leave it's own troops there - they're too dumb to do that sort of work - they've left it to us instead).

America gains influence in foreign lands by other means, which may be a bit underhand, but don't involve mass murder or bloody conflict.

Try: America imposing sanctions that are designed to put pressure on an already-oppressed people so when America comes and "liberates" them in 10 years time (and lifts the sanctions) it'll look great for them.

Never mind the 2 million dead Iraqi's from starvation and/or lack of medical supplies to treat their ill..... Not murder really because it doesn't involve shooting



Anyway - frankly - despite the above I don't really give a shit. I'm alright jack and if we go to war on Iraq then at least we'll get to see some cool footage on TV.

And hey! With the inevitable increased incidence of large-scale terrorist actions in the future (becuase such a war will *REALLY* piss a lot of muslims off) we'll have more kewl footage of buildings like the twin-towers falling over

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Scouse

Never mind the 2 million dead Iraqi's from starvation and/or lack of medical supplies to treat their ill..... Not murder really because it doesn't involve shooting

I'm not gonna start on how wrong you are there.

 

[exxxie]

Of course its about oil, the US is the biggest consumer of oil worldwide... the oilfields in Venezuela are producing fuck all at the moment... plus pipelines in south america have a bizzare knack of getting blown up regularly. The whole of the middle east is only interesting for one reason, you dont see the yanks terribly concerned about north korea... because it has fuck all to export (cept weapons strangely enough)



Bubble bobble > Mega-lo-mania

 

[Scouse]

Oh GWAN!! :swords:

 

[xane]

Scouse, have you ever actually _read_ the UN Resolutions on Iraq particularly those pertaining to the sales of oil for use for food and medicine ? Can you explain how this equates to punative sanctions ?

Have you ever wondered why Saddam's palaces, which were heavily bombed 10 years back, looked so nice and immaculate in footage of the recent inspections, seeing as there should be a complete lack of money in the country for this sort of thing ?

Do you really think America is the _sole_ reason why people are starving and dying in Iraq ?

In fact I challenge you to name a country where America is refusing to supply medical aid ? They even supply Cuba with humanitarian aid !

Re: Afghanistan is ruled by Afghanistanis, not Americans, so how does this qualify as an "occupation" ?

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Scouse
200 years ago America was in no state to wage war on anyone

Er, you mean _apart_ from the British Empire ? Oh sorry that was 227 years ago wasn't it ? My bad, I must read my history books a bit more

 

[adams901]

While I admire the American popluations blind patriostism I still think they are all over emotional pricks that think the world owes them something.

I guess its the internet that has given me this feeling towards them, because 90% of americans who use the internet are stupid, every time I see an american they are spouting shit about how they won some war and if it wasnt for them we would all be run by Nazis, and can't an american post a message without saying GOD bless the US of A.

Dont get me wrong some americans are ok, and i have a couple of friends who are american.

I guess what um really trying to say is America's Evil and so is Xane .

Thank you