The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So...anyone following the news, especially Sky, CNN and Fox, will probably have noticed that there's major hints that a conflict with Iraq, led by a US/UK led force, is becoming a distinct possibility.
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Its no longer, if, but when.
As soon as it does start there will be the usual protests, "negotiate" "stop the bombing" and so on. Saddam is refusing access to WMD sites, he's led the UN on a merry dance for 3 years now. As I see it attacking Iraq is the only option to guarantee we don't see weapons of mass destruction of Iraqi origin being used elsewhere. We, the UK, are the closest western target of note to Iraq.
Already, Mildenhall Air Show, that runs yearly in May, has been cancelled "due to operational requirements". This base is only involved in deploying special forces in Afghanistan. Previous air shows have gone ahead despite similar operations in previous years, such as the Balkans.
I don't want more conflicts, because life and the news pre 9/11 was much simpler, but I'd also like there to be a shot at peace sometime in the future, and with idiots like Saddam around thats not going to happen.
What does everyone else think ? (Braces self for usual cliched anti-american sentiment)
Page:
Thats what I'm like. I can't just spout all this stuff off by heart, I just remember it or check it out as I'm typing away. It doesn't matter if you don't think you know much, just say what you feel about something because as long as it doesn't rely on stuff you've made up - like Tequila Sunsets "The Eurofighter will replace the E3" - then no one can say you are wrong. They can argue the point but they cannot say you are wrong if it is how you feel.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Woah.
Belldandy and unkown kernal - well done. This is a great topic, and
> although I don't have to knowledge to argue with you, just wanted to let you
> know that it is being read by someone other than you two.
Thanks Mouldy Cheese. I don't think we should hold the monopoly on arguing though: once I actually started to write down my ideas, I realised I knew more than I thought I did. You learn more by discussing, as well, because your ideas get challenged so you have to back them up, or rethink them, or abandon them entirely.
Anyway, I'm trying to start a weblog of things I'm thinking/reading/confused about. After I've figured out the posting and design details, then I'll post the address in Life. I hope you - and others - will check it out.
> Woah.
Belldandy and unkown kernal - well done. This is a great topic, and
> although I don't have to knowledge to argue with you, just wanted to let you
> know that it is being read by someone other than you two.
Thanks Mouldy Cheese. I don't think we should hold the monopoly on arguing though: once I actually started to write down my ideas, I realised I knew more than I thought I did. You learn more by discussing, as well, because your ideas get challenged so you have to back them up, or rethink them, or abandon them entirely.
Anyway, I'm trying to start a weblog of things I'm thinking/reading/confused about. After I've figured out the posting and design details, then I'll post the address in Life. I hope you - and others - will check it out.
What do I mean by "go and get him" ? I mean just that. The closest military force (UK) is Sierra Leone where the Paras are, along with other forces. Ideally a jumping off point from a Commonwealth country with similar views would be best. A helicopter force - say 3-5 with 10-20 special forces troopers - could easily breach Harare's security if the location of the prisoner they hold can be narrowed down. Under cover of darkness, with the attacking force tooled up with NVG/Thermal goggles and silenced weapons this mission would be simple.
Hopefully the prison guards or whoever is guarding the prisoner could be neutralised by non-lethal means - hte argument isn't with the people in Zimbabwe, its their current leader, and those around him.
This mission would have two advantages.
Firstly we keep the opposition leader alive and the knowledge that someone outside of Zimbabwe gives a dman enough to risk their own peoples lives could be the catalyst for change needed.
Secondly, it would make Mugabe appear useless, een if it did turn out into a firefight I know which side would be walking out of there intact. Again, destroying Mugabe's air of invincibility could be the trigger for events leading to his overthrow.
So there's my ideas, feel free to comment !
Hopefully the prison guards or whoever is guarding the prisoner could be neutralised by non-lethal means - hte argument isn't with the people in Zimbabwe, its their current leader, and those around him.
This mission would have two advantages.
Firstly we keep the opposition leader alive and the knowledge that someone outside of Zimbabwe gives a dman enough to risk their own peoples lives could be the catalyst for change needed.
Secondly, it would make Mugabe appear useless, een if it did turn out into a firefight I know which side would be walking out of there intact. Again, destroying Mugabe's air of invincibility could be the trigger for events leading to his overthrow.
So there's my ideas, feel free to comment !
In Zimbabwe the situation appears to be getting worse, check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english /world/africa/newsid_1883000/1883520.stm (REMOVE THE SPACE)
The opposition leader has been charged with treason and faces a possible death sentence. Now I believe that the UK, as the main country in the Commonwealth actually expressing major concern over Mugabe, has a chance to demonstrate its resolve.
The charges of treason over a plot to kill Mugabe ae clearly false - though such a plot may have been discussed - as the opposition have not been the violent party in the previous election and its immediate aftermath. Zimbabwe should be given the chance to do this trial and say this man is not guilty, to show the world it can still be trusted to a degree. It could happen but I bet it won't.
Option #2. They find him guilty, and if that happens then I believe he will face the death sentence and that will be the end to the opposition. A period of violence for a time but overall, it will be over, Mugabe will have won. If he faces the death sentence and Mugabe will not change it, under further diplomatic threats, then why not go and get this opposition leader ? I'll expand later, but its tea time :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english /world/africa/newsid_1883000/1883520.stm (REMOVE THE SPACE)
The opposition leader has been charged with treason and faces a possible death sentence. Now I believe that the UK, as the main country in the Commonwealth actually expressing major concern over Mugabe, has a chance to demonstrate its resolve.
The charges of treason over a plot to kill Mugabe ae clearly false - though such a plot may have been discussed - as the opposition have not been the violent party in the previous election and its immediate aftermath. Zimbabwe should be given the chance to do this trial and say this man is not guilty, to show the world it can still be trusted to a degree. It could happen but I bet it won't.
Option #2. They find him guilty, and if that happens then I believe he will face the death sentence and that will be the end to the opposition. A period of violence for a time but overall, it will be over, Mugabe will have won. If he faces the death sentence and Mugabe will not change it, under further diplomatic threats, then why not go and get this opposition leader ? I'll expand later, but its tea time :)
Woah.
Belldandy and unkown kernal - well done. This is a great topic, and although I don't have to knowledge to argue with you, just wanted to let you know that it is being read by someone other than you two.
Belldandy and unkown kernal - well done. This is a great topic, and although I don't have to knowledge to argue with you, just wanted to let you know that it is being read by someone other than you two.
First off, I agree that Zimbabwe is rapidly becoming a minefield, politically and in terms of the future state of the country. In the past similar election fixing has been ignored, but to be honest, even with today's suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, I don't really think international interention in Zimbabwe really has any heart in it. The public is shown images in the media of white farmers being killed - thats plainly wrong - and that creates a demand for action. Like the Americans the British don't like - quite rightly - seeing any of our kin (to use a loose word) being hurt in such cold blooded violence. How far is britain prepared to go to stp Mugabe ? Probably not very, because the country isn't important to us, thats a sad fact, and we have far larger problems. I know that what is going on in Zimbabwe is a big problem, but I doubt it will win votes for blair if he does anything more. With many African states basically accepting Mugabe they further alienate themselves from the Western public who dictate, to a degree, what action is taken, and where.
unknown kernel wrote:
Iraq
> is another victim of double-standards. I would like nothing more than an end to
> chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; but control of them should be
> multilateral rather than imposed by an unaccountable international policeman.
> The US has torn up or blocked treaties on all three classes of weapon, but along
> with its allies sees itself as uniquely able to judge who should and should not
> possess WMDs. India is now fully accepted as a nuclear power despite being an
> increasingly non-secular state, run by Hindu nationalist parties; South Asia is
> more unstable as a result. Yet it is only Iraq that we are determined to stop.
India must have nuclear weapons if Pakistan has them aslo. Again, it a deterrant, and neither is threatening the west, in fact both states are being quite accomodating. Should we, the west, go after any country with WMDs ? i dont think so, seeing the world on fire isnt an appealing image. Multi lateral control is a nice dream, but the UN has proved itself ineffective in this role, the US may not be doing the job how everyone would like it to, but its got too be better than doing nothing, or sitting back and waiting for the inevitable.. With less political accountability, a large independant standing army, the latest technology, a mandate to go anywhere and a small representative council from all nations, the UN could emerge as a force to be reckoned with, insteadof one to be laughed at. In the opening sequence of Black Hawk Down the US helicopter hovers overhead Aidids men as they take UN supplied food and the US troops cannot fire because it's UN jurisdiction. This was a real life scene, not fiction. Its typical of the UN's failings.
unknown kernel wrote:
Iraq
> is another victim of double-standards. I would like nothing more than an end to
> chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; but control of them should be
> multilateral rather than imposed by an unaccountable international policeman.
> The US has torn up or blocked treaties on all three classes of weapon, but along
> with its allies sees itself as uniquely able to judge who should and should not
> possess WMDs. India is now fully accepted as a nuclear power despite being an
> increasingly non-secular state, run by Hindu nationalist parties; South Asia is
> more unstable as a result. Yet it is only Iraq that we are determined to stop.
India must have nuclear weapons if Pakistan has them aslo. Again, it a deterrant, and neither is threatening the west, in fact both states are being quite accomodating. Should we, the west, go after any country with WMDs ? i dont think so, seeing the world on fire isnt an appealing image. Multi lateral control is a nice dream, but the UN has proved itself ineffective in this role, the US may not be doing the job how everyone would like it to, but its got too be better than doing nothing, or sitting back and waiting for the inevitable.. With less political accountability, a large independant standing army, the latest technology, a mandate to go anywhere and a small representative council from all nations, the UN could emerge as a force to be reckoned with, insteadof one to be laughed at. In the opening sequence of Black Hawk Down the US helicopter hovers overhead Aidids men as they take UN supplied food and the US troops cannot fire because it's UN jurisdiction. This was a real life scene, not fiction. Its typical of the UN's failings.
Just some more off-topic stuff on Zimbabwe. First of all the unions are calling for a three-day general strike, so the momentum towards internal change doesn't seem to be letting up. Second, there was a really excellent article on election monitoring in yesterday's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/zimbabwe /article/0,2763,669328,00.html (no space).
The gist of it is that election monitoring has been corrupted by politics, and that the conclusions tend to suit the political views of the sponsors. The same electoral irregularities reported in Zimbabwe took place in Italy, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria etc: only Zimbabwe's election was condemned as unfair. This backs up what I was saying about the west applying international law and human rights standards selectively. Nigeria experienced wide scale violence in electing (or should that be rubber-stamping?) its president and former military dictator: it is a huge force in African politics, however, and therefore an unchallengeable member of the Commonwealth. Ghana had an imperfect election about a year ago. Kenya will have one in the near future: no doubt to be met by international silence. The difference seems to be that violence outside Zimbabwe was concentated exclusively on black voters; Mugabe's campaign, however, also targeted a privileged white minority and took on an opposition supported by the west. Condemnation followed.
Iraq is another victim of double-standards. I would like nothing more than an end to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; but control of them should be multilateral rather than imposed by an unaccountable international policeman. The US has torn up or blocked treaties on all three classes of weapon, but along with its allies sees itself as uniquely able to judge who should and should not possess WMDs. India is now fully accepted as a nuclear power despite being an increasingly non-secular state, run by Hindu nationalist parties; South Asia is more unstable as a result. Yet it is only Iraq that we are determined to stop.
The gist of it is that election monitoring has been corrupted by politics, and that the conclusions tend to suit the political views of the sponsors. The same electoral irregularities reported in Zimbabwe took place in Italy, Slovakia, Russia, Nigeria etc: only Zimbabwe's election was condemned as unfair. This backs up what I was saying about the west applying international law and human rights standards selectively. Nigeria experienced wide scale violence in electing (or should that be rubber-stamping?) its president and former military dictator: it is a huge force in African politics, however, and therefore an unchallengeable member of the Commonwealth. Ghana had an imperfect election about a year ago. Kenya will have one in the near future: no doubt to be met by international silence. The difference seems to be that violence outside Zimbabwe was concentated exclusively on black voters; Mugabe's campaign, however, also targeted a privileged white minority and took on an opposition supported by the west. Condemnation followed.
Iraq is another victim of double-standards. I would like nothing more than an end to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; but control of them should be multilateral rather than imposed by an unaccountable international policeman. The US has torn up or blocked treaties on all three classes of weapon, but along with its allies sees itself as uniquely able to judge who should and should not possess WMDs. India is now fully accepted as a nuclear power despite being an increasingly non-secular state, run by Hindu nationalist parties; South Asia is more unstable as a result. Yet it is only Iraq that we are determined to stop.
unknown kernel wrote:
I should apologise for saying that
> you'd enjoy the sight of bombing Baghdad: this has been an intelligent
> discussion, there was no need for it. Your attitude - much as I might disagree
> with it - suggests that you are not the sort of person who would revel in death.
It okay. I know I'm banging on about all the way these situations could be resolved with military action but it is all theoretical, I don't really want to see it happen if it can be helped. After all, in any conflict both sides take casualties, and in many cases those that die are not the ones that we're the actual target. From the Gulf War, the "highway Of Death" actually saw US pilots holding firee because they knew the Iraqis didnt stand a chance against them, and the foot soldiers weren't the objective of that conflict.
With regards to Iraq, I do agree that anyone replacing Saddam needs to have some kind of local support or he's going to be deposed pretty fast. The rebels in the North and South, whilst a superb tool for getting rid of Saddams regime, would not make a grreat governemnt as they lack the populations support. Hopefully, there is someone in thegovernemnt that can be persudaded to take power. I do think that any such move is going to need US help, because ofhte sheer danger of it, there has to be a reward for getting rid of Saddam. An alternative to war, could be to bring about a state of emergency where martial law is declared, this would further dent Saddams support and create the necessary environment for Special Forces, intel agenceis and a new governemnt to take power. I believe covert help in establishing a new government in Iraq is a valid option, but real covert operations, the kind that no one can prove existed and thekind that isnt hsown the day later on CNN.
Yes, I advocate war, but only where negotiations are clearly not going to work. And the objectives need to be clear, and achieved as fast as possible. The kind of "lateral thinking" that Rumsfeld has called for. At the end of the day I'm quite happy if we neer see another bomb camera film or conflict on tv again, but I doubt thats goingto happen in this time.
Your points about Zimbabwe are true, I admit I know not too much about this country apart from its place in the slave trade. I'd like to think that peaceful political movements will oust Mugabe, but I don't see it happening. The current lack of protests on the streets there are disturbing, I don't believe that the oppostion supporters are going to just let this slip away whist the international community is watching.
I should apologise for saying that
> you'd enjoy the sight of bombing Baghdad: this has been an intelligent
> discussion, there was no need for it. Your attitude - much as I might disagree
> with it - suggests that you are not the sort of person who would revel in death.
It okay. I know I'm banging on about all the way these situations could be resolved with military action but it is all theoretical, I don't really want to see it happen if it can be helped. After all, in any conflict both sides take casualties, and in many cases those that die are not the ones that we're the actual target. From the Gulf War, the "highway Of Death" actually saw US pilots holding firee because they knew the Iraqis didnt stand a chance against them, and the foot soldiers weren't the objective of that conflict.
With regards to Iraq, I do agree that anyone replacing Saddam needs to have some kind of local support or he's going to be deposed pretty fast. The rebels in the North and South, whilst a superb tool for getting rid of Saddams regime, would not make a grreat governemnt as they lack the populations support. Hopefully, there is someone in thegovernemnt that can be persudaded to take power. I do think that any such move is going to need US help, because ofhte sheer danger of it, there has to be a reward for getting rid of Saddam. An alternative to war, could be to bring about a state of emergency where martial law is declared, this would further dent Saddams support and create the necessary environment for Special Forces, intel agenceis and a new governemnt to take power. I believe covert help in establishing a new government in Iraq is a valid option, but real covert operations, the kind that no one can prove existed and thekind that isnt hsown the day later on CNN.
Yes, I advocate war, but only where negotiations are clearly not going to work. And the objectives need to be clear, and achieved as fast as possible. The kind of "lateral thinking" that Rumsfeld has called for. At the end of the day I'm quite happy if we neer see another bomb camera film or conflict on tv again, but I doubt thats goingto happen in this time.
Your points about Zimbabwe are true, I admit I know not too much about this country apart from its place in the slave trade. I'd like to think that peaceful political movements will oust Mugabe, but I don't see it happening. The current lack of protests on the streets there are disturbing, I don't believe that the oppostion supporters are going to just let this slip away whist the international community is watching.
Belldandy wrote:
>These despots meaintain power through force, not support, or why would people like Mugabe fear elections so much.....
The case of Zimbabwe actually backs up my case. Mugabe initially came to power on a tide of popular support. The reasons? He opposed colonialism and neo-colonialism; and he had plans to effect the land reform that was needed to lift the population out of poverty.
Two things stopped this being effective. First, the pan-African problem of the state being 'vampirical': sucking up the surplus from the economy and making government work (from lowest to highest) the most lucrative around. This is in large part an inheritance of colonialism when the state systems handed over by the British etc. were essentially conceived to impose order and extract revenue. What you say is also true: Africa cannot blame its current ills solely on the past. But the international community has been too eager to hand quickly squandered development funds to those leaders who go along with economic fashions - regardless of democratic merit. Little aid or development bypasses the state, and everyone from presidents downwards skims off their share. Eventually, as in Zimbabwe, power becomes a route to riches rather than a means to development and national liberation.
Second, the British failed to properly fund compensation for white farmers as they had promised to do. Mugabe in his early years aimed for concilliation with this group, and could not afford real land reform. The people remained impoverished.
Eventually, of course, it became clear to Zimbabweans that Mugabe had failed to help them as much as he had helped himself. Popular support for him plummeted, although it remains quite high in rural areas where his recent policy of land confiscation is understandably popular. (There have been reports that long confiscated land is still lying unused - this seems to me to be more a function of Zimbabwe's poverty than anything else: the capital and machinery necessary are simply not available to the peasantry, and the state is incapable of effecting development.) The point is that Mugabe has lost popular support and the propaganda battle: his grip on power is fairly tenuous now, and he is losing support among other African nations. It may take some months or even years, but I do think that Zimbabwe will be governed by popular consent in the near future.
I'm sorry to bang on about one country for so long, but it does illustrate what I'm trying to say about Iraq. It is obvious that the level of popular support for Saddam Hussein has yet to collapse amongst the general populace in the same way as it has for Mugabe. The reasons for this, I think, are that US-UK action HAS caused civilian casualties and that the regime of UN sanctions gives the Iraqi regime an easy excuse as to why the people are so poor. I, for one, will feel a lot safer with a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe created from within, than with an Iraq whose leader has been militarily deposed by the US and replaced with an acceptable puppet.
I should apologise for saying that you'd enjoy the sight of bombing Baghdad: this has been an intelligent discussion, there was no need for it. Your attitude - much as I might disagree with it - suggests that you are not the sort of person who would revel in death. This sort of callousness is, however, quite prevalent in sections of the US media and in discussion boards like this one. I didn't mean to lump you in with them.
>These despots meaintain power through force, not support, or why would people like Mugabe fear elections so much.....
The case of Zimbabwe actually backs up my case. Mugabe initially came to power on a tide of popular support. The reasons? He opposed colonialism and neo-colonialism; and he had plans to effect the land reform that was needed to lift the population out of poverty.
Two things stopped this being effective. First, the pan-African problem of the state being 'vampirical': sucking up the surplus from the economy and making government work (from lowest to highest) the most lucrative around. This is in large part an inheritance of colonialism when the state systems handed over by the British etc. were essentially conceived to impose order and extract revenue. What you say is also true: Africa cannot blame its current ills solely on the past. But the international community has been too eager to hand quickly squandered development funds to those leaders who go along with economic fashions - regardless of democratic merit. Little aid or development bypasses the state, and everyone from presidents downwards skims off their share. Eventually, as in Zimbabwe, power becomes a route to riches rather than a means to development and national liberation.
Second, the British failed to properly fund compensation for white farmers as they had promised to do. Mugabe in his early years aimed for concilliation with this group, and could not afford real land reform. The people remained impoverished.
Eventually, of course, it became clear to Zimbabweans that Mugabe had failed to help them as much as he had helped himself. Popular support for him plummeted, although it remains quite high in rural areas where his recent policy of land confiscation is understandably popular. (There have been reports that long confiscated land is still lying unused - this seems to me to be more a function of Zimbabwe's poverty than anything else: the capital and machinery necessary are simply not available to the peasantry, and the state is incapable of effecting development.) The point is that Mugabe has lost popular support and the propaganda battle: his grip on power is fairly tenuous now, and he is losing support among other African nations. It may take some months or even years, but I do think that Zimbabwe will be governed by popular consent in the near future.
I'm sorry to bang on about one country for so long, but it does illustrate what I'm trying to say about Iraq. It is obvious that the level of popular support for Saddam Hussein has yet to collapse amongst the general populace in the same way as it has for Mugabe. The reasons for this, I think, are that US-UK action HAS caused civilian casualties and that the regime of UN sanctions gives the Iraqi regime an easy excuse as to why the people are so poor. I, for one, will feel a lot safer with a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe created from within, than with an Iraq whose leader has been militarily deposed by the US and replaced with an acceptable puppet.
I should apologise for saying that you'd enjoy the sight of bombing Baghdad: this has been an intelligent discussion, there was no need for it. Your attitude - much as I might disagree with it - suggests that you are not the sort of person who would revel in death. This sort of callousness is, however, quite prevalent in sections of the US media and in discussion boards like this one. I didn't mean to lump you in with them.
unknown kernel wrote:
>He
> has used chemical weapons on two occasions: during the Iran-Iraq war (when he
> was our ally!) and against the Kurds, who do not support him.
Er, the west doesnt supporthim either......oh dear eh ?
>His use of scud
> missiles against Israel during the Gulf War was the act of a desperate leader
> trying to buy bargaining power.
Not really, in Ghost Force by Ken Connor - regarded as the official SAS history, it is made claer that Scuds were used againt Israel to try and bring Israel into a conflict with Iraq and thereby shattering any middle eastern alliances that the allies had. SAS and Delta deployed to stop Israel entering this war. You are however implying that when Saddam is desperate he will use his weapons which is consistent with your other arguments.
> Saddam is a man who values his own position
> above the lives of others, and he will not make the kind of suicidal attack you
> suggest that he will.
If he is dying then he will know he has no life.
> By backing him into a corner with military action
> (especially if it is on the Bin Laden dead-or-alive model) we increase the risk
> that he WILL have nothing to lose and may well use whatever WMDs he has. The
> idea that he will use his last breath to order a genocidal attack is laughable:
> the man is an egotist, will he really want to be remembered for ensuring Iraq's
> destruction?
Bin Laden is always going to be remembered as the man who hit the USA badly, the fact he toppled his own organisation and supporting government will be forgotten or sidelined. By making say, a germ warfare attack on a country, Saddam will be remembered, and he will know this. If he dies now, histry will not remember him, except as a man caged by the allies and sanctions. If he is dying, and desperate ot go down in history, one last attack wil not be viewed by him as suicidal. 9/11 was a suicidal act for Bin Laden, because "we" will get him one day, but he , in the various videos the CIA has captured and released, does not see the situation that way. Both of us are relating western thiking over situations that are completely different ot life in the West, and no amount of reading can counter that.
>Equally, however,
> I oppose Turkish repression of its Kurdish population; Turkey's status as a
> valuable NATO ally, though, means this is rarely talked about in the western
> media.
Fare point, and the sad fact is that NATO need Turkey for its strategic position. I believe that Turkey is being denied membership of the EU though on the basis of human rights abuses ? Maybe Im wrong on that one...
>I am unsure about the situation of allied POWs in Iraq - this is not
> something I have heard anything about.
This was in an earlier post, a specific person is LT M Speicher whose FA18 was shot down in the opening stages of the Gulf War and he was listed KIA. After the war his plane was located and a US team found that he had safely ejected before impact and there was no evidence he had been hurt on ejection. Until last year he contineud to be listed as KIA until his status went to MIA, and last week a British intelligence source, on the BBC, was quoted as saying that they have crdible info that Speicher, and others, are alive. Search CNN and BBC for "speicher", the story is being downplayed in America with the Pentagon refusing to comment, but CNN's forums show that those in America aren't taking the idea to well. Whether he is alive or not, the Iraqis know and wont tell, if he's dead they killed him in cold blood.
> If prisoners are being held by Saddam
> Hussein, however, then their value as bargaining tools will increase with
> military action - attacks may well endanger their lives.
True, but military action against targets would increase the chances of saving them. Firstly it would force Saddam to publicly expose who he has, on tv, or else it would be useless him doing so. Once we know who he has, their location can be better pinpointed, negotiations can be begun, hopefully get the Red Cross to visit them....as detailed in Twilight Warriors by Martin Arostegue, get the locations, set up negotiations and leak out through thrid party that we're going to give concession, then hit all the locations simultaneously with Special Forces, Delta, SEALS and SAS, backed by air support- C130 Spectres and F15/F16 s, Blackhawks, AH64s, cruise missiles againt AA emplacements.
>This is simply not true. My belief is that negotiation should be
> the first resort; your solution is always to threaten and then attack. My
> approach to eliminating terrorism and hatred of the west is to tackle the
> injustice at the root of these problems. The west takes out far more than it
> puts into the Third World (or as we are now supposed to call it, the
> 'developing' world): poverty and injustice are not being reduced but intensified
> by current international policies.
In William Shawcorsses book "deliver us form evil" Kofi Annan is quoted as saying that African leaders have to stop blaimng their problems on the past. The thrid world's problems are created by itself to a large degree, look at Zimbabwe and Somalia. If you really want to lay the blame for ijustice and poverty in these countries then the USA is the wron place to look, we, the British, and partly the French and Spanish, are the guilty people, dating back to the 16th centruy wehn we began "colonisation" and the slave trade which ran into the 19th century. We learned how to exploit others and suppress the developed countries long before America became anything regarding a super power.
>Libya - despite your unbacked assertion
> that it is laughing its head off - has become a part of the international
> community, prepared to hand over a terrorist suspect to the jurisdiction of a
> Scottish court.
For what its worth, Libya had nothing to lose in doing so, it gained respectability by handing over a minor player. That whole trial has been one big showcase, the fact is we, the international community, could have had this person faster if we'd have had the courage to go get him, and I don't mean knocking on his door politely. If the USA had "extracted" him back to the USA because Americans were killed in that attack. US laws mean that a person falls under US law once on US soil no matter how they arrived on US soil. This person could then be extradited.
But oh no....we let it drag on. Fear is just as valid as force, the potential terrorists should be given demonstrations that if you are a terrorist and you attack the West then we'll come and get you, drag you from your house or whatever, and lock you up.
>Convince people that the west takes their welfare
> as a priority and these despots will lose support and power.
These despots meaintain power through force, not support, or why would people like Mugabe fear elections so much.....
>Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
> You dismissed the work of Simms on Bosnia simply because of his perceived
> political outlook. At no point did you criticise his argument or question his
> evidence. If you haven't read his book then fine, but to lump him together with
> Chomsky (whose politics are markedly different) is lazy and dishonest.
I've read Chumsky but only skimmed through Simms as I find his basic arguments invalid. When I have more time then I'll read it. Political outlook of an author does matter though, this is an extreme example, but would anyone take Mein Kampf seriously knowing who its author was ? Should those ideas be seen as okay just because the author had a different political outlook to the rest of the world ? Obviously I'm not saying Simms book is remotely like my example, but hte point is true though. Who and what an autor is determines how their work is viewed by people, after all every book is biased.
>So now we know where these WMDs are?
> This is pure fantasy. The military is not infallible; the intelligence services
> are clearly not infallible.
Maybe, but the CIA has been given the official order to take off the gloves, as it were. UN weapons inspectors are shown bogus sites mostly or mislead. Clearly hard choices have to be made, we decide potential sites, every potential site, and hit it.
>If we
> already know what these WMDs are and where they are stored - to the extent that
> we can eliminate them with the first strike - then the justification for war
> (banning UN weapons inspection teams) is completely bogus.
>In fact there is no
> need for war at all, is there? We can just bomb the WMDs.
We hit the WMDS and Saddam isnt goin to sit there and take it is he, unless strikes are backed by a full operation then we'll be back to square one in five years. One way or another Saddam has to go, his supporters as well.
> Except that wouldn't
> satisfy the military 'enthusiasts' who crave the sight of bombers and missiles
> pounding the enemy into the dust.
Again, an assumption. As a military enthusiast, and knowing others as well from regualr air show trips, I'll tell you right now that our preferred sight of such planes and hardware is lined up on the tarmac in the brilliant sun with a drink in our hands. As a rule we do not tkae pleasure from seeing smart bombs hit tanks, or cruise missiles firing. We enjoy seeing the planes and the variety of them, how they advance and the technology behind them. In fact conflicts disrupt our airshows ! So no, wedo not crave sights like you descrive and it is a completely unfounded statement.
>He
> has used chemical weapons on two occasions: during the Iran-Iraq war (when he
> was our ally!) and against the Kurds, who do not support him.
Er, the west doesnt supporthim either......oh dear eh ?
>His use of scud
> missiles against Israel during the Gulf War was the act of a desperate leader
> trying to buy bargaining power.
Not really, in Ghost Force by Ken Connor - regarded as the official SAS history, it is made claer that Scuds were used againt Israel to try and bring Israel into a conflict with Iraq and thereby shattering any middle eastern alliances that the allies had. SAS and Delta deployed to stop Israel entering this war. You are however implying that when Saddam is desperate he will use his weapons which is consistent with your other arguments.
> Saddam is a man who values his own position
> above the lives of others, and he will not make the kind of suicidal attack you
> suggest that he will.
If he is dying then he will know he has no life.
> By backing him into a corner with military action
> (especially if it is on the Bin Laden dead-or-alive model) we increase the risk
> that he WILL have nothing to lose and may well use whatever WMDs he has. The
> idea that he will use his last breath to order a genocidal attack is laughable:
> the man is an egotist, will he really want to be remembered for ensuring Iraq's
> destruction?
Bin Laden is always going to be remembered as the man who hit the USA badly, the fact he toppled his own organisation and supporting government will be forgotten or sidelined. By making say, a germ warfare attack on a country, Saddam will be remembered, and he will know this. If he dies now, histry will not remember him, except as a man caged by the allies and sanctions. If he is dying, and desperate ot go down in history, one last attack wil not be viewed by him as suicidal. 9/11 was a suicidal act for Bin Laden, because "we" will get him one day, but he , in the various videos the CIA has captured and released, does not see the situation that way. Both of us are relating western thiking over situations that are completely different ot life in the West, and no amount of reading can counter that.
>Equally, however,
> I oppose Turkish repression of its Kurdish population; Turkey's status as a
> valuable NATO ally, though, means this is rarely talked about in the western
> media.
Fare point, and the sad fact is that NATO need Turkey for its strategic position. I believe that Turkey is being denied membership of the EU though on the basis of human rights abuses ? Maybe Im wrong on that one...
>I am unsure about the situation of allied POWs in Iraq - this is not
> something I have heard anything about.
This was in an earlier post, a specific person is LT M Speicher whose FA18 was shot down in the opening stages of the Gulf War and he was listed KIA. After the war his plane was located and a US team found that he had safely ejected before impact and there was no evidence he had been hurt on ejection. Until last year he contineud to be listed as KIA until his status went to MIA, and last week a British intelligence source, on the BBC, was quoted as saying that they have crdible info that Speicher, and others, are alive. Search CNN and BBC for "speicher", the story is being downplayed in America with the Pentagon refusing to comment, but CNN's forums show that those in America aren't taking the idea to well. Whether he is alive or not, the Iraqis know and wont tell, if he's dead they killed him in cold blood.
> If prisoners are being held by Saddam
> Hussein, however, then their value as bargaining tools will increase with
> military action - attacks may well endanger their lives.
True, but military action against targets would increase the chances of saving them. Firstly it would force Saddam to publicly expose who he has, on tv, or else it would be useless him doing so. Once we know who he has, their location can be better pinpointed, negotiations can be begun, hopefully get the Red Cross to visit them....as detailed in Twilight Warriors by Martin Arostegue, get the locations, set up negotiations and leak out through thrid party that we're going to give concession, then hit all the locations simultaneously with Special Forces, Delta, SEALS and SAS, backed by air support- C130 Spectres and F15/F16 s, Blackhawks, AH64s, cruise missiles againt AA emplacements.
>This is simply not true. My belief is that negotiation should be
> the first resort; your solution is always to threaten and then attack. My
> approach to eliminating terrorism and hatred of the west is to tackle the
> injustice at the root of these problems. The west takes out far more than it
> puts into the Third World (or as we are now supposed to call it, the
> 'developing' world): poverty and injustice are not being reduced but intensified
> by current international policies.
In William Shawcorsses book "deliver us form evil" Kofi Annan is quoted as saying that African leaders have to stop blaimng their problems on the past. The thrid world's problems are created by itself to a large degree, look at Zimbabwe and Somalia. If you really want to lay the blame for ijustice and poverty in these countries then the USA is the wron place to look, we, the British, and partly the French and Spanish, are the guilty people, dating back to the 16th centruy wehn we began "colonisation" and the slave trade which ran into the 19th century. We learned how to exploit others and suppress the developed countries long before America became anything regarding a super power.
>Libya - despite your unbacked assertion
> that it is laughing its head off - has become a part of the international
> community, prepared to hand over a terrorist suspect to the jurisdiction of a
> Scottish court.
For what its worth, Libya had nothing to lose in doing so, it gained respectability by handing over a minor player. That whole trial has been one big showcase, the fact is we, the international community, could have had this person faster if we'd have had the courage to go get him, and I don't mean knocking on his door politely. If the USA had "extracted" him back to the USA because Americans were killed in that attack. US laws mean that a person falls under US law once on US soil no matter how they arrived on US soil. This person could then be extradited.
But oh no....we let it drag on. Fear is just as valid as force, the potential terrorists should be given demonstrations that if you are a terrorist and you attack the West then we'll come and get you, drag you from your house or whatever, and lock you up.
>Convince people that the west takes their welfare
> as a priority and these despots will lose support and power.
These despots meaintain power through force, not support, or why would people like Mugabe fear elections so much.....
>Again, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
> You dismissed the work of Simms on Bosnia simply because of his perceived
> political outlook. At no point did you criticise his argument or question his
> evidence. If you haven't read his book then fine, but to lump him together with
> Chomsky (whose politics are markedly different) is lazy and dishonest.
I've read Chumsky but only skimmed through Simms as I find his basic arguments invalid. When I have more time then I'll read it. Political outlook of an author does matter though, this is an extreme example, but would anyone take Mein Kampf seriously knowing who its author was ? Should those ideas be seen as okay just because the author had a different political outlook to the rest of the world ? Obviously I'm not saying Simms book is remotely like my example, but hte point is true though. Who and what an autor is determines how their work is viewed by people, after all every book is biased.
>So now we know where these WMDs are?
> This is pure fantasy. The military is not infallible; the intelligence services
> are clearly not infallible.
Maybe, but the CIA has been given the official order to take off the gloves, as it were. UN weapons inspectors are shown bogus sites mostly or mislead. Clearly hard choices have to be made, we decide potential sites, every potential site, and hit it.
>If we
> already know what these WMDs are and where they are stored - to the extent that
> we can eliminate them with the first strike - then the justification for war
> (banning UN weapons inspection teams) is completely bogus.
>In fact there is no
> need for war at all, is there? We can just bomb the WMDs.
We hit the WMDS and Saddam isnt goin to sit there and take it is he, unless strikes are backed by a full operation then we'll be back to square one in five years. One way or another Saddam has to go, his supporters as well.
> Except that wouldn't
> satisfy the military 'enthusiasts' who crave the sight of bombers and missiles
> pounding the enemy into the dust.
Again, an assumption. As a military enthusiast, and knowing others as well from regualr air show trips, I'll tell you right now that our preferred sight of such planes and hardware is lined up on the tarmac in the brilliant sun with a drink in our hands. As a rule we do not tkae pleasure from seeing smart bombs hit tanks, or cruise missiles firing. We enjoy seeing the planes and the variety of them, how they advance and the technology behind them. In fact conflicts disrupt our airshows ! So no, wedo not crave sights like you descrive and it is a completely unfounded statement.
Page: