War With Iraq

[James Baster]

Theres a very interesting discussion going on in another closed newgroup - Why Iraq? There are several countrys Mr. Bush could go after using his current criteria and hes never explained his choice - why Iraq?

Alos, consider this: Iraq invades America. When Mr. Bush says "What the Fuck?" Iraq replies "Well, you've spent the last 6 months talking about how your going to invade us. Youve also spent the last 6 months talking about how countrys need to take Pre-emptive action to defend themsleves. So, ummmm, I've to decided to take Pre-emptive action to defend Iraq and, well, Attack America." Would you not agree he would have a point?

[hr][s]"You liar! You've got Antifreeze!"[/s]

[James Baster]

P.S. Read in Paper this weekend: Iraq is thinking of letting Weapons Inspectors back in apprently, which is more than they have done for Months. Surely this is a good step?

[hr][s]"You liar! You've got Antifreeze!"[/s]

[Jonathon]

In all honesty our military does "suck" as was earlier put in the face of the U.S and their disgustingly big defence budget, post and pre sept 11th.

Tony Blair will need the support of the most of at least his MP's and Ministers to be feasible without landing himself and his party in a pile of shite.

ANd militarilly we mean nothing to the U.S, they just need a few allies with with us as their usual staunch defender in Europe (which makes me sick to my stomach to be called British at times) we'er pretty much essential to George.

I don't think the US will move on Saddam Unilaterally, i don't think they would dare, it doesn't make sense when you're sole super power to disenfrancise half maybe more of the worlds leading middle states.

And in all honesty I believe war on Iraq is just wrong anyway. Pre-emptive strikes? No clear publicised evidence of any of Saddam's plans to use his supposed evil weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION aghhhh the hawks have me shitting myself. And the weapon inspector question, all i have to say is would America grant foreign nationals from the U.N access to all their top secret weapons ANY TIME ANY PLACE as they so arrogantly demand? I think not.

My rant is now at an end

[The_Farwall]

[s]James Baster wrote on 15:31, 2nd Sep 2002:
P.S. Read in Paper this weekend: Iraq is thinking of letting Weapons Inspectors back in apprently, which is more than they have done for Months. Surely this is a good step?


And I heard on the Radio last friday that the Iraqi foreign minister had said that there was no point letting weapons inspectors back in seeing as the US seem so determined to attack now. That doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't let them in, but it does show that the Iraqis are as skeptical as most of us about the situation.

[hr]
"GET OFF ME, YOU FILTHY SOFA!"

[monkeymadness]

Just because our armed forces are not as large as the US does not mean that they 'suck'. We have less troops and we spend less money on them than the US and many other countries but there all elements of our armed forces which are among the best if not the best in the world. Such as our special forces.

[Al]

Would it be really cynical of me to suggest that Bush has an ulterior motive for wanting an attack on Iraq? Before 11th September 2001 the US was divided, he was coming under daily attack, and people hadn't forgotten he had been handed the Presidency against the popular vote. Then came the terrorist attack and people had a new focus. As long as GW can keep people focussed on anything except him then he might be able to persuade US voters that he isn't a total fuckwit. Or at least make them forget long enough for him to actually win an election.

[hr]Isn't it a little early in the evening for a philosophical debate?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

And they did so well last time around in the Gulf War, didn't they? Apparently Bravo Two Zero was pretty much a work of fiction and they managed to fuck it up all by themselves. Not to mention that the US armed forces seemed to hold ours in contempt if reports from Afghanistan are to be believed.

I also have to say that I do believe our military is pretty much useless and we should just be glad that the nice chaps in the CCCP never tried to invade us, or we'd have been screwed. Hell, we were only a few Evocet missles away from losing the Falklands - so please don't try and say that Britain has a good military. Especially after the test exercise where the troops boots melted, their guns didn't work and half the tanks stopped working.

Not to mention that this was then billed as a success because they hadn't modified the equipment (because they couldn't afford to) and that the SA80 - or whichever gun they spent millions upgrading to actually work - didn't work after the upgrade because of poor maintence. This to me speaks volumes about Britain's military...and it says that it sucks.

[Phina]

Three pieces of equipment out of how many? You read too much from papers (The Guardian?) which go out of their way to scaremonger and perhaps have little knowledge of the Armed Forces outside of this? Just perhaps. From first hand experience I beg to differ. But it might be quite interesting for you to see the training that the troops and officers go through and the other equipment which they do have.

[The_Farwall]

Al makes a very good point that I've heard expanded on in a few places in recent days. Ever since Sept11 Bush has justified just about every act of foreign policy (ok, every is probably an exageration but you know what I mean) by making it part of his 'War on Terrorism'.
This war is undeclared ('cause after all who are you going to officially declare it against) with the loosest of loosely defined objectives and looked at from a certain angle, is a very clever part on the part of Bush.

The events of Sept11 where so heinous, and recognised as such the world over, that as long as anything Bush wants to do in an agressive military manner is called part of this 'War on Terror', people in his own country and around the world are going to hesitate to criticise him for it as strongly as they perhaps should.

[hr]"GET OFF ME, YOU FILTHY SOFA!"

[monkeymadness]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 18:16, 2nd Sep 2002:
I also have to say that I do believe our military is pretty much useless and we should just be glad that the nice chaps in the CCCP never tried to invade us, or we'd have been screwed.

So what? The USSR had more armoured regiments than Britain did, does that mean that theire armed forces were better than ours? No, it means theirs are larger. Don't equate bigger with better. The US forces hold the UK ones in contempt? Yeah, that makes sense, that's why the British Marines from Arbroath and the SAS were specially asked for. Makes sense that, getting troops you know are rubbish.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Phina wrote on 18:47, 2nd Sep 2002:
You read too much from papers (The Guardian?) which go out of their way to scaremonger

Phina, what do you have against The Guardian? The Guardian is in general a very accurate and trustworthy newspaper. Where do you get your supposedly more accurate information from? The Sun?

[Oli]

Like any newspaper, the Guardian is biased, and potentially uninformed.

Perhaps Phina's source is a little closer to the errr... source.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I imagine the US army just thought it would be funnier to see the SAS running around blowing up the arms dumps of Afghan warlords that were "on our side" than to order Jim Davidson.

[Al]

The Students' Archaeological Society were involved in the war in Afghanistan?

[hr]A shining example for saints.

[Phina]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 17:31, 4th Sep 2002:[/s]

The Guardian is in general a very accurate and trustworthy newspaper. Where do you get your supposedly more accurate information from? The Sun?

My comment refers to the Guardian being reknowned as a left-leaning paper... which is cynical of most military action (which generally comes about because of right-winged views)- now it doesn't take a genius to see that its not going to fall over itself to support big guns going powee and instead will delight in all the damp squibs that the British Army puts forward.

I do not, nor have I ever read the Sun. Somehow I don't think that this fine 'newspaper' really interests itself in the complexities of the situation in the middle-East and the British military prowess. MLRS? Their translation might be 'Melinda Loves Raunchy Sex' (sorry I wasn't more imaginative) as opposed to the more mundane Multiple Launch Rocket System.
'The Mirror' is much more my scene*.

My 'supposedly more accurate' information comes from a lot of dealings with the British Army- and the Gunners in particular. I have also made it my business to aquaint myself with the actions, activities and equipment of the forces- through a variety of publications and sources. For a start try the Independent if you can't bear to touch the Times or the Telegraph. BBC online can also be quite useful. And yes, occasionally the Guardian to see the cynics side of the action.


* this was a very poor joke for those who did not understand.


[hr]
"Delusions of grandeur make me feel a lot better about myself." [s] Jane Wagner [/s]

[monkeymadness]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 20:07, 4th Sep 2002:
I imagine the US army just thought it would be funnier to see the SAS running around blowing up the arms dumps of Afghan warlords that were "on our side" than to order Jim Davidson.


Yes and I'm sure the UK forces lauged long and hard at the US bombing of swedish troopers and wedding parties. So subversive.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Yes and they killed 50 innocent relics.

[athaclena]

I don't think this has been covered yet, so here's my two pence.

The US propaganda machine has been comparing the situation in Iraq to WW2, Saddam Hussein to Hitler, and Bush to Churchhill (yeah, because that's an obvious comparison). What I don't understand is that it took Europe a very long time to get involved against the Nazis (woolly liberals), after Germany had conquered a lot of their neighbouring countries, and the US even longer.

Fair enough, Saddam is megalomanic (probably) and dangerous because of it, but he's been pretty good since the Gulf War and I don't think that he's done anything threatening except kick the UN observers out. But this doesn't give us the right to waltz in and kill innocent civilians, who always get killed, and try and overthrow his regime again. No overt action has been taken by him, in fact he's really kept his head down since 9/11, and there's no proof that he's harbouring terrorists. Possibly Iraq is, but pretty much everywhere in the Middle East is by this point.

So how is this like Germany at all? It did take us two years to get involved after things started to be annexed, but we won't make the same mistake again. Pre-emptive strike without proof is not what Churchhill would have done, or even Chamberlain who was PM at the start... Bush just wants a way to keep his power games alive and be seen as good by Americans. Never mind the rest of the world, they don't matter; never mind that pretty much the whole of the Muslim world will get involved in a "down with the USA" kind of way; never mind further destabilisation of an already chaotic and very tense area.

I might get my information from the Guadian online and the Daily Express (good crosswords, also not sensationalist), but I was a left-wing pacifist long before I started. ANd I really dislike George Dubya.

[hr]A dark mirror...
That was always the intention...

[Al]

I think everyone is agreed that Iraq, and the Middle East generally, would be better off without Saddam Hussein. However, it is not the right of the US to say that they are going to get rid of his regime. As athaclena says, unilateral military action is only going to further destabilise the area. This is so obvious to anyone who thinks about it that even George Bush Snr, Jim Baker and other former members of the previous Republican US administration are counselling against it. And these people could hardly be described as friends of Iraq.

[hr]It's only those who do nothing that make no mistakes...

[Themanofreason]

Our military personel are very well trained by any standard, but the equipment they have is poor and often just upgraded archaia rather than new technology. Recent tests by the government (and reported by the government) show that the British army lack the equipment to perform effectively in a desert environment. Considering we spend the largest amount on our military per capita of any nation you'd think that wouldn't be the case, wouldn't you?