War With Iraq

[Pilmour Boy]

armed forces, I think that "Operation Corporate: The Falklands War 1982" by Martin Middlebrook should be read by all those on either side of the argument. And remember that our Navy has 21 surface warships, which while including state of the art vessels such as HMS Ocean, which any nation on earth could be proud of owning, we do not possess the capability to mount a prolonged offensive campaign from the sea, or even provide decent air coverage for an amphibious landing. Sea Harriers, while still nice machines for Forward Air Operations, do not have the capability to defeat modern fighters in the Air, and our Through Deck Cruisers (AKA Tin Can Carriers) are really only suitable for ASW operations, which became obsolete 10+ years ago with the demise of the CCCP. The 1997 strategic defence review promised us some proper carriers, possibly outfitted with the UK-US JSF, but these are at least ten years away, and, while they are in the SDR, the MOD has not found any money for them.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Tony Blair is "Ready to pay the blood price" to stay mates with Bush - so why don't we just give Phoney Tony and Bush a couple of guns and give them a gentle push toward Iraq and then everyone will get what they want.

[monkeymadness]

[s]Pilmour Boy wrote on 07:30, 6th Sep 2002:[i]
armed forces, I think that "Operation Corporate: The Falklands War 1982" by Martin Middlebrook should be read by all those on either side of the argument...we do not possess the capability to mount a prolonged offensive campaign from the sea, or even provide decent air coverage for an amphibious landing. Sea Harriers, while still nice machines for Forward Air Operations, do not have the capability to defeat modern fighters in the Air,
/i]

But...against forces in Iraq whilst the fighters used are very good in theory they will not be to the standard of Harriers, Tornadoes and Jaguars (I do realise the last 2 are RAF). Also the Falklands War was 20 years ago. Like you say things have changed since then.

[Guest]

i second prophet tenebrae's idea wholeheartedly

[James Baster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 92,00.html

America recently did some war games where they attacked Iraq: Guess which side won?

[hr][s]"buffy sucks, the movie sucked, the WB is the sole reason for the downfall of America" - Well, now we know ...[/s]

[Prophet Tenebrae]

They probably miss the war games where they simulated attacks on the USSR.

[kensson]

Isn't it rather hypocritical of Mr. Bush to attack Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction and being prepared to use them?

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Melkor]

I thought UK and States had already been bombing Irak for ages? There have been 10 major bombings this year. So what's all this about, would it be going "more" to war with Irak?

[athaclena]

I think that when the thread started, Iraq hadn't been bombed yet. They started doing it a few days ago and may I commend Blair here for the remarkable job he's done in covering it up in the press.

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

[Al]

Ah, but that's a different type of bombing. The bombing that has taken place in the last couple of days is to ensure the "no fly zones" that were set up after the Gulf War. So you see Tony Blair hasn't covered anything up and we can still trust him to do what is right. Hooray!!

[hr]How much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth-decay in His divine system of creation?

[Phina]

I'm fairly sure 'they' have been carrying out bombing raids for the past few years in order to maintain the No Fly Zone. Nothing new, it's just the press doesn't report it. What Parliament have now been recalled for is more widespread bombing in order to 'coerce' Iraq (where did that K come from?) into allowing weapons inspections. Rather annoyingly I can see both sides of the argument and have to sit on the fence, which is never a comfortable place to be.


[hr]
Convincing yourself doesn't win an argument.
Robert Half

[Simion]

How is that hypocritical? Bush stated that he would only use those weapons in retaliation if they or any biological weapons were used against the US.

How can you sit back and ignore a crazed leader who has a proven background for violence? He has invaded Kuwait, Iran, and attacked Israel, all may I remind you were unprovoked. It has been proven that he has been trying to build weapons of mass destruction and has gone as far as testing them on his own people. It has been proven that he had meetings with Al Qaida before the 9/11 tragedy. What do you want to wait for, one of his terrorist funded groups to set a weapon of mass destruction off in London?

I believe in peace over violence, but at the same time I don’t believe in an insane person with no human values running a country. If you want to call someone or something hypocritical call Sadam or one of those extreme radical Muslim terrorist groups. Yes the ones that cry and moan about the UN hitting civilian targets those they purposely store their weapons, troops and ammunition under. Oh, and lets not forget how these cowardice groups target civilians.

[kensson]

It's hypocritical because Bush has considered (and talked of) pre-emptive nuclear strikes against this 'axis of evil'. As for proven backgrounds of violence, the USA has bombed 19 countries since the end of World War II and has established a stable, humane democracy in none of them.

What I fail to understand is how Iraq's attacks on Kuwait, Iran and Israel - none more recent than 1991, if I recall - are suddenly justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

As for being months away from nuclear capacity if they can obtain fissive material, the same could probably be said of me, and I have no physics qualification since GCSE.

There are far stronger proven links between Al-Qa'eda and Saudi Arabia - or even the USA - than with Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan - whose aim, remember, was not to overthrow the Taleban, but to bring to justice those behind the atrocities of last year. In that, it failed: no-one has a clue where bin Laden or Mullah Mohammad Omar are these days. Maybe they're dead, but I don't feel so reassured.

I'm not sure about the USA, but the UK certainly tested nuclear and chemical weapons around its own soldiers, and I believe there are some Scottish Islands rendered uninhabitable by tests of anthrax.

I have a very sketchy belief in the human qualities of George W. Bush - a man responsible for more executions than any previous US Governor, many of them highly dubious; a man who puts short-term oil profits before anything else; a man who showed his huge capacity for humanity as the Al-Qa'eda prisoners were bound and caged at Guantanamo bay.

Bombing Iraq without provocation or mandate will do little, if anything, to quell terrorism; it will simply galvanise the already strong anti-US feeling in the Arab and Muslim world.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[Megaera]

exactly! now if only we had some people who thought like you in the government. . . you have no idea what it's like to be one of the 50% of the US population who didn't want Bush in power, and to have to sit around watching him do idiotic and potentially disastrous things. How I hope his approval ratings continue to slip so he doesn't get second term.

[Al]

If Bush and Blair are so keen on targeting a rogue state that ignores UN resolutions, has scant regard for human rights, uses terrorist tactics against its population and destabilises the entire region, why don't they start with Israel?

Just a thought.

[hr]It is the rabbit!

[Guest]

“Bush has considered (and talked of) preemptive nuclear strikes”, they talk about doing a lot of things… It’s the Presidents job to look at alternative options. Will he end up choosing this route, most likely not. Just because the US bombed countries doesn’t automatically mean a new democratic government should or has to be put in place. When a child does something wrong, you discipline them and they learn not to do it again, you don’t discipline them and replace them. Obviously it’s a smaller analogy but the same point is valid. When was the last time the US/UN bombed any country without being attacked or provoked first? I can’t recall one, can you?

The fact that Saddam has attacked these 3 countries without any provocation gives you and idea of what this man is capable of. Would you say the same thing about Hitler? He started by attacking just one country. Regardless, this isn’t the reason why he wants to invade Iraq. This only pushes the point further that he is a violent, diabolical man with little or no compassion for innocent human life. A most recent example is his encouragement for more suicide bombings in Israel by giving money to the Palestinian suicide bombers families. It is quite apparent that he is determined to build weapons of mass destruction. It is quite apparent he would be willing to share them with terrorist groups. It is quite apparent this man doesn’t belong in power.

Weapons of mass destruction don’t necessarily mean nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are incorporated into this classification. UN destroyed some of his Anthrax and other chemical facilities after the gulf war, I’m sure those have been rebuilt since then; we would be naive to think otherwise.

I agree there are links with the Saudi government. Unfortunately, this seems to be a very delicate situation due to the fact that they cooperate considerably with the UN. As far as the US goes, you may be talking out of the wrong end with that comment.

Once again I agree, it is discouraging to see that bin laden has not been captured. They are searching for a needle in a haystack. He is a man with considerable financial backing and has many connections. This is obviously why the UN still has a presence there and are performing operations. I would feel as good as you would if he was captured or conclusive evidence was found pointing to his demise.

I can’t comment on what kind of Anthrax tests the UK did, but I’m sure they didn’t actually bomb any of their own civilians knowing what kind of effects it would have.

Do you know any of the details behind the men put to death while Bush was Governor?
One thing is definite; your crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be subjected to death row. These men I can assure you were not put to death for robbing a store or smoking some marijuana. I have a hard time finding compassion for man being sentenced to death for raping little boys and then discarding their bodies out in the woods. The men at Guantanamo bay were not all bound, only the violent individuals were restrained which accounts for a small percentage of them. The men were not mistreated, they were fed better than they were while out in the fields fighting, were each given a Koran and proper time to fulfill Muslim commitments. They were prisoners of war. Prisoner is the key word, much like the prisoners that reside in your local prisons.

Your final paragraph sums up your misunderstanding of what President Bush is trying to accomplish. He is looking for a regime change, to oust Sadam from power and prevent him from developing weapons he would share with terrorist groups or use himself. Unfortunately, something like this will probably only happen with force.

Again, I don’t necessarily agree with all of the US foreign policies, their beliefs or ideas. No government is truly just and fair in every manner. But, would you choose freedom or to live in a country that allows women to be beaten or even worse killed without repercussions; a country that prohibits their people from voicing their opinions without paying the price of death; a country that accepts billions of dollars in aid but doesn’t let its citizen’s benefit from it. I choose freedom and you obviously do too.

[Al]

It is presumptuous in the extreme for the US to compare Iraq with Nazi Germany and to see Bush as some modern day Churchill. Firstly, I don't remember, from my historical studies, Churchill ever arming Nazi Germany in the way that the US did Iraq. Secondly, many leading Americans, both before and during the Second World War, wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe. The USA has, historically, been one of the most isolationist states ever.

While Saddam Hussein may not have been justified in using military force in attempting to regain Kuwait, he was justified in the sense that Kuwait WAS part of Iraq until the West decided that it should be a separate state. Would the US accept it if Texas was determined to be a separate country by outside powers?

The US has invaded many countries without being "provoked" - Grenada for example.

"I have a hard time finding compassion for man being sentenced to death for raping little boys and then discarding their bodies out in the woods". Everyone would. That does not mean, however, that you shouldn't try or that the man is undeserving of compassion.

"They were prisoners of war" - not according to the US. They refused to recognise them as prisoners of war so they could avoid following the Geneva Conventions. It has also been documented that the US has been shipping prisoners to countries where torture is still permitted. Hardly the actions of a civilised administration.

"It is quite apparent that he is determined to build weapons of mass destruction. It is quite apparent he would be willing to share them with terrorist groups. It is quite apparent this man doesn’t belong in power." But by those criteria, neither does Bush. And that I can agree with.


[hr]It is the rabbit!

[kensson]

>> Bush has considered (and talked of) preemptive nuclear strikes

>they talk about doing a lot of things? It's the Presidents job to look at alternative options. Will he end up choosing this route, most likely not.

http://www.observer.co.uk/bush/story/0, ... 80,00.html

> Just because the US bombed countries doesn't automatically mean a new democratic government should or has to be put in place. When a child does something wrong, you discipline them and they learn not to do it again, you don't discipline them and replace them.

So, this regime change thing? I thought the whole point of attacking Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (for instance) was to halt the progress of Communism in favour of more acceptable governments. Incidentally, I believe these assaults were unprovoked.

> When was the last time the US/UN bombed any country without being attacked or provoked first? I can?t recall one, can you?

It could be argued that, since America is rattling sabres about invading Iraq, without UN backing, anyone who felt aggrieved by this could consider it provocation and attack the USA with impunity. And, since you ask, most likely Libya in 1986 although there have been all sorts of evil deeds perpetrated in Central America that may or may not be more recent.

> The fact that Saddam has attacked these 3 countries without any provocation gives you and idea of what this man is capable of. Would you say the same thing about Hitler? He started
by attacking just one country.

The history of the world - even the recent history - is littered with countries launching unprovoked attacks on other countries. I don't defend that, I would say that the Chinese occupation and destruction of Tibet, the Russian attacks on Chechnya and the Burmese government's persistent oppression of its own people rank as more serious offences in my book.

> Regardless, this isn't the reason why he wants to invade Iraq.

Of course not. There are mid-term elections coming up.

> This only pushes the point further that he is a violent, diabolical man with little or no compassion for innocent human life.

Who does this remind me of?

> A most recent example is his encouragement for more suicide bombings in Israel by giving money to the Palestinian suicide bombers families.

As opposed to the US's support for Israel's organised atrocities?

> It is quite apparent that he is determined to build weapons of mass destruction. It is quite apparent he would be willing to share them with terrorist groups. It is quite apparent this man doesn't belong in power.

The US has a long history of inciting and arming terrorists in other countries, the first example that springs to mind being the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of
Chile on September 11th 1973. Another pertinent example would be, say, al-Qa'eda, liberally funded by George Bush Snr's CIA in the 1980s.

> Weapons of mass destruction don?t necessarily mean nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are incorporated into this classification. UN destroyed some of his Anthrax and other chemical facilities after the gulf war, I'm sure those have been rebuilt since then; we would be naive to think otherwise.

I mention them because they were the last things I heard the White House pontificating about.

> I agree there are links with the Saudi government. Unfortunately, this seems to be a very delicate situation due to the fact that they cooperate considerably with the UN. As far as the US goes, you may be talking out of the wrong end with that comment.

So tame governments are fine, never mind if they have terrorist links and massive human rights abuses? And as far as the US goes, I repeat: al-Qa'eda was funded largely by the US in the 1980s. The Tora Bora complex was built with American money.

> Once again I agree, it is discouraging to see that bin laden has not been captured. They are searching for a needle in a haystack. He is a man with considerable financial backing and has
many connections. This is obviously why the UN still has a presence there and are performing operations.

Um, no. The UN are still there trying to stop a civil war. I'd be stunned if bin Laden showed up in Afghanistan.

> I can't comment on what kind of Anthrax tests the UK did, but I'm sure they didn't actually bomb any of their own civilians knowing what kind of effects it would have.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/scotland/1457035.stm

In fact, you're right in this case: Gruinard Island was inhabited entirely by sheep. The handlers, though, were exposed; the UK knew exactly what anthrax did.

> Do you know any of the details behind the men put to death while Bush was Governor?

Not offhand, although I recall writing Amnesty letters to him so often that I wondered if he was only doing it so I'd be his penfriend.

http://ccadp.org/serialpresident.htm is far too sensationalist for my liking, but may impress the point.

> One thing is definite; your crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be subjected to death row.

I think a quick check of the above site will show just how reasonable the doubt has to be. Fair trials are hard to come by, especially if you're black and poor.

> These men I can assure you were not put to death for robbing a store or smoking some marijuana. I have a hard time finding compassion for man being sentenced to death for raping little boys and then discarding their bodies out in the woods.

(I should point out that it's not only men.) I quite understand your point of view, even if I disagree with it. Ben Okri told his son about capital punishment: "If you kill someone, then the government kills you."

"So who kills the government?"

> The men at Guantanamo bay were not all bound, only the violent individuals were restrained which accounts for a small percentage of them. The men were not mistreated, they were fed better than they were while out in the fields fighting, were each given a Koran and proper time to fulfill Muslim commitments. They were prisoners of war. Prisoner is the key word, much like the
prisoners that reside in your local prisons.

The reports I saw seemed to account for rather more than a small percentage, although time may have withered my memory. I think someone's made the point that the US refused to treat them as prisoners of war. As for denying them a fair trial, I simply don't understand - if they're guilty, surely a court of law would find them so?

> Your final paragraph sums up your misunderstanding of what President Bush is trying to accomplish. He is looking for a regime change, to oust Sadam (sic) from power and prevent him from developing weapons he would share with terrorist groups or use himself. Unfortunately, something like this will probably only happen with force.

This paragraph sums up your misunderstanding of my opinion of George Bush. I see him as a killer and an unelected President. I see him as a warmonger and a serious threat to the shaky balance of the world.

> Again, I don't necessarily agree with all of the US foreign policies, their beliefs or ideas. No government is truly just and fair in every manner. But, would you choose freedom or to live
in a country that allows women to be beaten or even worse killed without repercussions; a country that prohibits their people from voicing their opinions without paying the price of death; a country that accepts billions of dollars in aid but doesn't let its citizen?s (sic) benefit from it. I choose freedom and you obviously do too.

Yes, I'm lucky enough to have the choice of freedom - and use that freedom to denounce illegal attacks on sovereign states. I don't see what that has to do with the argument at hand.

[hr]

"In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." - Mark Twain

[Guest]

It is presumptuous to say that’s what I was trying to do. Don’t start putting words in my mouth. I simply was making a general question asking how long do you let a mad man go before you intervene. Secondly, what does you second comment have to do with invading Iraq?

So how do you justify attacking Iran, Israel, or even gassing his own people knowing what the outcome would be? Stop making excuses for his violent behavior. His motivation is purely monetarily based; he wanted to oilfields in Kuwait, he wasn’t interested in any reunification. If you believe that Sadam is justified to do these things, why don’t you consider moving to Iraq? Aren’t you a hypocrite for saying that Sadam is justified to do all these things but still chooses to live in a free country?

Granada took place during the cold war. The socialist government was overthrown; communist Cuba and the prior Soviet Union were building a huge military air base there. There is some level of justification there.

Would you say the same thing if it was your son or brother that was one of the victims? Did this man show compassion to these little boys while he raped and murdered them? If he doesn’t show any compassion to others does he deserve it himself?

Most of the Middle East allows torture, whether they turn their head the other way or just outright allow it. So just because these prisoners were sent there, just might mean they didn’t want to moved them all back to Cuba.

There you go again, twisting my words around. What terrorist group has the US given weapons of mass destruction too, and don’t say Israel. Sadam is an insane expansionist who has no compassion for innocent human life. I really don’t feel like restated the reasons why.

I don’t agree with everything the US government says and does, but I certainly believe the positives outweigh the negatives.

[Salma]

So why then the same countries supported him when he was fighting Iran? Was he stable then?
They made him, supported him to fight thier enemies then decided to get rid of him. No one was paying the price but the Iraqi people.

Isn't that the same they did with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? America supported and gave arms to the group in order to fight Russians. The war ended and the guys found themselves out of buisness, it was not dificult to find new enenmies.
What a hypocrite world!

[s]Zombie Sheep wrote on 23:33, 30th Aug 2002:
I would support a war on Iraq. I admit that I am not sure that I would be able to argue my reasons to a satisfactory conclusion. Basically, the leader of Iraq appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world. It may be argued that it will never happen. But it has happened before, so who can say it will never happen again. But like I said, I'm not sure that I can entirely justify my position.