Iraq

[Embattle]

So how long do you think before the US pushes its ideas, like this one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_2098000/2098313.stm

taking in to consideration the news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_2102000/2102670.stm

and should the UK/etc get invloved?

 

[Recoil101]

I say this time we stay the fook out !

 

[Kippa.]

Yeah, just let the yanks kill each other instead of shooting our troops :|

 

[Penry]

America sent the first ground troops in the last 2 years about 2 months ago ! They’ve also been bombing Iraq regularly for the last decade (along with the UK forces). The war out there isn’t about to restart – Its still going on …..

 

[Kippa.]

Originally posted by Penry
America sent the first ground troops in the last 2 years about 2 months ago ! They’ve also been bombing Iraq regularly for the last decade (along with the UK forces). The war out there isn’t about to restart – Its still going on …..

but its about to become a full scale war like before, its mini skirmishes ATM

 

[Stazbumpa]

Personally;

I'm annoyed that we didn't get to finish the job properly during the Gulf War. Yes, I kow the UN mandate was to free Kuwait ONLY and yes, I also know that the only reason they did this was because of the oil. However, everybody knows what Saddam is like ie: he's a fucking loony.

He wants a nuke, and he's been trying to get one. If he gets one then there is no doubt that he will use it. If he does, you can kiss goodbye to most of the Middle East. First up will be Israel, if he gets a second then his old buddys in Iran (remember that war?) and then probably Kuwait.
All of it.

What I'm saying is that if the Allied troops had been left to do the job properly, then Mr Hussain would no longer be a threat and the whole debate as to whether the US should go in and if we should help out wouldn't be happening now.

Verdict: Kill him asap. Preferably the stealthy way so as to avoid British casualties caused by the USA :/

 

[Penry]

Yeah – skirmishes, training up local Kurds, tit for tat (well lots of tat); target a us plane = get bombed behaviour, ATM. But don’t be kidding yourself it wont get a lot bigger (once the US has rebuilt a stock of the ‘smart’ missiles it ran out of in Afghanistan ), troops WILL go in ‘cause Bush doesn’t like the cut of his Saddam’s Jib.

(another selection of news links, commentary in the style of that crap ‘send in your home video clips show))

But it shouldn’t be a surprise !

14 feb this year : US targets Saddam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,649917,00.html

There’s nothing that Saddam can do to stop it !

16 May this year : US wants to oust Saddam even if he makes concessions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,710695,00.html

We’ll be there (erm UK troops that is) (possibly)!

7 April this year: Blair faces revolt over Iraq (25,000 uk troops)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1915000/1915705.stm

He’s ready to put up a fight

17 June this year: Saddam bolsters his defences against US attack
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-329248,00.html

It’ll probably be the US, UK, Oz and a few arab countries.

16 march this year: Britain fails to persuade EU to back war on Iraq
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=274943

but than again, it probably wont happen for a while !

29 April this year: US offensive on Iraq ‘postponed until next year’
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=289964

--

Staz – Iraq/Iran war, I remember, that’s the one where the US and the UK were on Iraq’s side – selling (read ‘giving’) arms to Iraq to beat the evil Iranians !(bit like the Taliban really) we dont alf pick em ey !?!?

 

[Penry]

lol - thought i'd share this wot i just found

found in the news
The Bush administration refused comment Friday on a reported preliminary plan to attack Iraq, saying it never comments on military plans.

"We don't comment on military plans or military planning," a senior administration official commented.

 

[Penry]

staz - you're worried saddam will use a nuke (if he ever gets one)

well - if you ever believe anything you read in The Mirror

WE WILL USE NUKES FIRST
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11996286&method=full&siteid=50143

lol

##i stop now - 3 in a row##

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Stazbumpa
I'm annoyed that we didn't get to finish the job properly during the Gulf War.
What I'm saying is that if the Allied troops had been left to do the job properly, then Mr Hussain would no longer be a threat and the whole debate as to whether the US should go in and if we should help out wouldn't be happening now.

Verdict: Kill him asap. Preferably the stealthy way so as to avoid British casualties caused by the USA :/

Ermmm you seem to forget that noone really wanted him gone. Rather have this loony than have another dictator with links to the then extremist Iran. Or would you like to see the whole of the midle east dominated by Teheran.

At this moment I would say: frag the bastard.

 

[Testin da Cable]

killing him will solve nothing. nothing at all.

 

[Wilier]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
killing him will solve nothing. nothing at all.

Better the devil you know etc.

 

[Daffeh]

id rather the whole of the middle east just vanished....

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
killing him will solve nothing. nothing at all.

Well killing him and leaving wouldn't, thus America would have to stay in and sort out a proper government with elected leaders etc although the ME most probably laughs at this idea when they look at Bush.

 

[Mellow-]

As long as we don't get involved anymore whenever Bush calls for some help. The world will turn on him and we can all rejoice.

It's not that I dislike Americans, it's just I dislike Bush.

 

[wolfeeh]

why the fuck

is bush bothering? does he just wanna win more seats next election or somit?

it's none of his fucking business what iraq does? it's not like they wanna rule the world is it?

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by Penry
staz - you're worried saddam will use a nuke (if he ever gets one)

well - if you ever believe anything you read in The Mirror

WE WILL USE NUKES FIRST
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11996286&method=full&siteid=50143

lol

##i stop now - 3 in a row##

I tend not to believe anything in the Mirror where the US is concerned. Their old Trotskyite leader-writers are a little bitter that the US 'won' the cold war

Newspaper tips:

The Mirror NEVER speaks the truth about the US.

The Sun NEVER speaks the truth about the rest of the media cos of old uncle Rupert.

The Star NEVER speaks the truth about nudie-pictures it promises on teh front page. Open it up and check befoe purchase to avoid disappointment.

 

[Testin da Cable]

perhaps a rank tie-in, but what do you think of George Michael's new video?

 

[Daffeh]

Originally posted by Wij
The Star NEVER speaks the truth about nudie-pictures it promises on teh front page. Open it up and check befoe purchase to avoid disappointment.

heehe

 

[stu]

Originally posted by Daffeh
id rather the whole of the middle east just vanished....

...and send you straight back to the dark ages.

I would explain, but I just noticed you have the "clapping hands" smiley as an avatar. And are therefore almost certainly mentally handicapped.

 

[mank!]

Originally posted by Testin da Cable
perhaps a rank tie-in, but what do you think of George Michael's new video?

very funny the first time you see it, and much better with the sound off

 

[Stazbumpa]

I'm not too worried about Saddam and his nuke quest, but I would like to see him and his chiefs of staff rubbed out just in case. I don't want to see the Middle East dominated by Tehran (we backed Iraq in that war coz Ayatollah Khomenei was even worse than Saddam) but maybe getting a more moderate government into power in Iraq after killing Saddam and co would be an idea, helped of course by the donkey and carrot method ie: "about this oil embargo chaps, play nicely and we might just lift it."

 

[stu]

Originally posted by Stazbumpa
helped of course by the donkey and carrot method ie: "about this oil embargo chaps, play nicely and we might just lift it."

The only problem with that is that we have a long ugly history of lying and backing out on deals. So strangely enough, other countries don't believe us any more.

eg:

"Let our weapons inspectors back into Iraq"
"OK, but guarantee to us that if we do, we won't be attacked by the USA"
"I'm afraid we can't do that"
"Then I'm afraid we can't let the inspectors back in"
"Right, you're toast"

 

[Testin da Cable]

"Let our weapons inspectors back into Iraq"
"OK, but guarantee to us that if we do, we won't be attacked by the USA"
"I'm afraid we can't do that"
"Then I'm afraid we can't let the inspectors back in"
"Right, you're toast"

indeed. you forgot the accusations of building chemwar factories though.

 

[stu]

true - but the fundamental point I was making was that Iraq were (relatively) happy to let the inspectors in, provided that it would guarantee them not being attacked. Not surprisingly, they weren't so eager to give away any potential advantage they might have, then be subject to a full scale invasion. Unfortunately though, the USA doesn't seem to recognise that it's the UN's job to "police the world", not their own - so by refusing to give such a guarantee, we've ended up in exactly the situation that both sides wanted (or at least said they wanted) to avoid.

 

[Embattle]

In many ways Iraq is fucked if they do and fucked if they don't.

 

[Penry]

But its not about weapons inspectors ! - its about Bush finishing the Job his dad started !

This is more along the lines of how Iraq is thinking !
Report: U.S. Wants Iraq Free of Nonconventional Weapons Before Strike.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57096,00.html

anyway, Iraq only kicked out the American members of the UN inspectorate - the rest left in a huff!

 

[Testin da Cable]

Originally posted by stu
true - but the fundamental point I was making was that Iraq were (relatively) happy to let the inspectors in, provided that it would guarantee them not being attacked. Not surprisingly, they weren't so eager to give away any potential advantage they might have, then be subject to a full scale invasion. Unfortunately though, the USA doesn't seem to recognise that it's the UN's job to "police the world", not their own - so by refusing to give such a guarantee, we've ended up in exactly the situation that both sides wanted (or at least said they wanted) to avoid.

I'm aware of your point there Stu. Iraq, maniac despot aside, is playing exactly by the books in the game of IR. In fact I think that they are doing what any country would do were they in the same situation.

What I fear most is the the UN's seeming lack of ability to regain control. At this moment it looks to me that the entity may as well not exist for all the difference it seems to make.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by Penry
Report: U.S. Wants Iraq Free of Nonconventional Weapons Before Strike.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57096,00.html

The sheer idiocy of that article takes my breath away. "We'd like to come blow the shit out of you, but we don't want to take any chances, so can you let us check you've got nothing to hurt us with before we do?"

Oh America, why does the world hate you so?




















ITS BECAUSE YOU'RE A BUNCH OF FUCKING RETARDS

 

[Durzel]

Sounds fair to me, its the old Queensbury's Rules situation.

It's akin to America saying "don't kick us in the balls plz!"