Interesting article

[Wombat]

Just thought I'd share this article. I found it thought-provoking.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-000017617mar10.story

[RedRed]

Has he not learnt yet?

Just as Dickie Chainey leaves the UK, 95 Labour MP's (the party in power here) sign a motion stating that 'it would be a grave mistake' to assist in an attack Iraq.

That and every ally in Europe, China, USSR, Middle East....

The diplomancy/politics needs to be right before the advertising.... Ask Tony Blair!

RedRed

[The PIT]

But is Presidant Blair listening??

[Dr Mordrid]

The public and private positions very often differ. This is the case now.

Privately most countries support the idea of removing him from power, but want to make sure the US is really serious about it and will follow through. They also want more info on what would be the plan for after Saddam.

Dr. Mordrid

[The PIT]

Most people I speak too don't want any further action over Iraq unless Iraq suddenly invade another country again. Okay thats a small amount but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the view point of the majority of the UK.
Since Mr Blah Blah is supposed to represent us should he go against the wishes of the public where his support is already falling?
Also can Britain afford it and have we the manpower to do it? The armed forces are already stretched and I think that the TA has been put on standby over Afghanistan. (I maybe wrong).

[RedRed]

can someone tell me why, exactly the US wants to 'get Saddam'?

Is it because he has limited Chem warfare ability?

Surely not a patch on

UK - Nuclear/bio/chem
US - Ditto
Ussr - Ditto - and not secure!
China - Ditto
France - Ditto
Pakistan - ditto - and almost at war with its neighbour -
India - ditto
Israel - ditto
many Eastern Bloc state (including Georgia) - undergoing limitted civil war.



Korea - chem/? Bio/?
S Africa - Chem/Bio

Is it because he has used it?
USA - Nukes - twice!
S Africa - Bio (previous regieme)
UK - First use in history of Mustard gas (against Afghn tribes!)
Germany Mustard gas/several others (WW1)

Apart form invading Kewait ten years ago, what is the reason to attack now?

I was watching bbc news 24 on telly a few minutes ago..... they are raising the spectre of Commander Striker.... pilot killed over Iraq 12 years ago.

Lets get real here.... if he has chem/nukes/bio, he has no way to deploy them, short of those tankers in Jordan. What is the risk? It would be an unpopular move with Russia/Europe/Middle east - all of witch are COMPLETELY AGAINST any action against Iraq. What does the US hope to gain?
It lost much face over its back peddleing over North Korea - china nipped that in the bud. Is it a face thing?

RedRed

[Joel]

Well I tell what. If the US does nothing about Sadam when he does finally do something I can tell you exactually what will happen. The rest of the world will come running to the US asking us to do something about it and then will beat us over the head as to why we didn't take care of this earlier.

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. I guess that's what happens when you are the world's #1 superpower.

Joel

[KvHagedorn]

I think the problem with Saddam is what he is doing covertly. The anthrax sent to many in the mail was of a type they determined he had been manufacturing. Could OBL be hiding there? Maybe. Has Saddam been supporting OBL? Almost certainly. I don't know what proof there is, but I am in agreement here that we had better have a damned good excuse if we attack him. Yes, he is an evil dictator, worse than Hitler, more like a Ghengis Khan with no real cajones, but we really need some hard evidence before we can have an excuse to go to war there. Wish Churchill was still around, he would arrange some sort of incident to give us an excuse to declare war on Saddam.

EDIT: BTW, yes it was a very interesting article.

The problem with America is that we are wrong in some very basic tenets that we adopted generally without thinking about them except in the most superficial ways. It was a fashion among the "greatest generation" and handed down to those after them that the "proper way to think" involved taking a liberal stance socially and a conservative stance economically. This has gotten way, way out of control. We need to have a stable society, and if we constantly embrace those things which destroy it we are deeply treasonous to our own interests. Being conservative and pro-business economically is a good thing perhaps, but only to a certain point. We now have CEOs making NINE figure annual incomes here, while those who work for them on the lowest levels can barely make ends meet. Further, a society which values the contributions of somebody like Mike Tyson FOUR THOUSAND times more than they value a child care worker is really rotten to the core. Honestly, truthfully.. I absolutely hate the virtual corporate dictatorship we live under here today. The voters don't matter.. it's only the interests of corporate slimeballs like Michael Eisner that matter. Senator Fritz Hollings and his ilk deserve to be spat upon by every average hard working citizen in this country. They have betrayed their trust and their interests, yet they laugh almost openly at their constituents because they know they don't really answer to them. They answer to the corporations who have bought them.

[RusCoder]

RedRed ( Red Square?)

Ussr - Ditto - and not secure!

Sorry, the USSR no longer exists.
(Actually, it makes me nervous when someone confuses this country with that phantom state without name. )

many Eastern Bloc state (including Georgia) - undergoing limitted civil war.

In fact, Georgia can rather belong in the Western Bloc than in anything else.


Excuse me for being pedantic.


***EDIT*** Fixed a quote.

[RedRed]

Thanks for the clarification, Rus.... however there IS concern in the West that Russia has not got a very firm grip on its atomics.

that aside, there is still the basic question of attacking Iraq without proof of him being a terrorist. I dont accept the anthrax thing - that strain was also aparently manufactured in the US and USSR.... I dont believe he is worse than Hitler - he hasnt orchestrated the mechanised/systematic slaughter of 4 million people.

Yes, he is an evil dictator.

From the week that George came to power he appears to be sabre rattleing against Iraq, not just since 11/09. There doesnt apear to be ANYTHING linking him to that. It really does appear to be 'little junior' finishing daddies job. that is, i feel wrong.


KV - everything on your post makes sense to me! Is it some sort of 'democratic socialism' you are talking about?

redred

[DuRaNgO]

The us has plenty of "proof" as you'll see over the coming months

that aside, there is still the basic question of attacking Iraq without proof of him being a terrorist

[RedRed]

is the inverted commas round proof meant to mean that you are being sarchastic? (I am not starting a fight, I cant interperate it )

What I would like to see is definative proof. I dont want to see the kack about commander Striker, being shot down and held as a secret prisoner of war in Iraq, that is clearly crap, put out by misinformation sources. The poor guy is dead. no need to elaborate.
That sort of propaganda I dont want to see.

regards
redred

[DuRaNgO]

No sarcasm intended
As with Osama, only when there is no chance of security breach, will "proof" be brought forth.

[Joel]

What I would like to see is definative proof.

Haven't you ever heard of the old saying "need to know". The US doesn't need your permission to do what it needs to do so therefore you don't have a need to know. The ones who we do need to work with will get the information needed.

You can't believe everything the news media tells you even the information that the US doesn't have any proof.

Joel

[RedRed]

Joel

When Saddam attacked Kewait, which damaged the Western access to oil, that was definative proof. (Desert Storm was NOTHING to do with protecting a corrupt dictatorship (the Kingdom of Kewait) from another)

The US cannot say -"we say that country X, Y and Z are part of an evil axis, and we say everyone must get those countries."

The countries listed in the George B speech are all former enemies of the US for one reason or another, hell I am surprised that Laos and Veitnam were not on the list.

When China warned George to lay off Korea - the rattleing of the sabres stopped - there.

And no. when another country is asked to support/assist in the attacking of a third party, I believe that the 'need to know' goes to the wall. Tell us the great atrocities that the 'beast of Bagdhad' is meant to have done at this time to make him worth attacking. Dont ask the UK or any other country to risk its men and materiel is some american mis-adventure.

Attacking and destroying him may further destabilise the M East. Why dabble?

You can't believe everything the news media tells you even the information that the US doesn't have any proof.

Proof of what, though? Being an evil dictator - sure! BUT that is no reason to attack that country probably decimating a conscript army who dont really want to fight anyway. There are plenty of evil dictators.