Viewing Thread:
"Yet Another Iraq Topic"

So, this morning whilst watching Sky News they ran the piece about the lack of support from France, Germany, Russia and China. My Mum - who I sadly admit does read the Daily Mail - said;

"Well that's the end of that, they can't do it without allies."

Most of you know me, and what I was likely to say. I pointed out that America had us, and could do it themselves if they had to, and have said that all along. She then said the greatest bit of Daily Mail thinking yet;

"Well if there's a war they'll start calling people your age up, how'd you like that ?"

At that I let it drop, and because she'd gone to work. Me ? I'm thinking working as a classroom assistant surounded by the appalingly behaved kids they have where she works is finally getting to her.

Even so, the idea of call ups for the Gulf is slightly ridiculous. Why ? Well here's Belldandy's 5 point reasoning on this;

1* It's going to be an American led operation, sure, we've put a quarter of the army in and other assets, but the tip of the spear is the USA at this point. In a non UN campagin the USA will want to take the major places itself where possible, thus absorbing the brunt of the casualties.

2* So far only specialist units have gone out there, reserves are being used for non combatant roles like signals, engineering e.t.c, but the other units are commando (45?), the desert rats armoured division e.t.c. Not regular units, like what happened in the Gulf War. Elite style units take less casualties as they are not used in equal odds fights. Same goes for american deployments.

3* Any campaign will be begun by air strikes, suggested at 1 week minimum.

4* If casualties did spiral to the point where this was suggested then there isn't public support for it anyway, especially not in the UK. Over half the nation doesn't even want to go there let alone send a generation off to war their. In this scenario I think one of two things most likely; a withdrawal from Iraq, or the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Think about it, a situation where our forces are getting massacred this badly would have to be pretty dire, to tip the balance I really do believe that, in the face of mass casualties and a need to quickly win, we'd use the weapons.

5* Mass casualties would, unless WMDs are used, result from a prolonged war. Does anyone seriously think that, in a full on attack, Iraq can hold out any better than last time ? I don't, even if they go urban they ar finished.

So there you have it. Feel free to reply, point by point, to it, or ignore it, or something. Remember it's all about the oil kids..*sigh* Incidentally, again, Sky News played some footage from a protest about the possible war in Iraq, and there were some people from the Fire Brigade with their messages painted on stop the war coalition sign. What has better pay e.t.c got to do with Iraq ? Er...nothing. If the firefighters want to play silly b&ggers like that then let them, but don't be surprised if they lose more support all the time.

~~Belldandy~~

Goatboy wrote:
> What a wonderful world...

Maybe so, but it's the only one we have. While I can see where your views are coming from, I don't really think it's all that bad a world. Sure, it has massive problems, but they'll be solved eventually. People sat back during the 1st and 2nd world wars and said "this is it", but both times we, as a race, have largely come back better in many ways. Even in the worst times there is good, or what we perceive as good anyway. I know I keep banging on about this, but when the firefighters on 9/11 ran into those buildings that alone was a symbol of just how good we can be as a race. While there are people like that still alive then we're not doomed.

Don't give up on us just yet, hell maybe you'll be surprised someday ?

~~Belldandy~~

Fact of the matter is, none of us know why we seem so intent on having a sequel to an already mediocre conflict.

I say one thing, Belldandy says another, Light says his bit and everyone else has their say.
At the end of the day, it could be a serious reason or it could have just been Bush and Blair laughing and high-fiving each other as they circle-jerk onto a world-map and see where the war-goo ends up.

Whether Belldandy agrees with the current course of action and I don't is irrelevant. Because at the end of the day, nothing's gonna change anyway except for my personal cynicism of a leader that isn't listening to newspaper polls, protest and....well...a whole lot of other European nations that are saying "Nope, this is not going to involve us".
Me saying "This war is wrong" is just a voice on a forum. Germany, France, Russia etc saying "No, this war is wrong" gives my views a little more validity - but only to myself.

I never thought I'd find the day where I agreed with foreign policies of Germany and France.
I have my view, you have yours and neither actually matter. Sure, it's interesting to debate our morals to gauge what others feel.

Sadly though, we're just a microcosm example of the entire world.
Belldandy/USA + England "Bomb Iraq. We must stop Saddam"
Goatboy/Europe "Why? There's no reason to"

This is why this planet is a waste of gravitational pull and why, without joking or sarcasm, I honestly wish to hear that 3-minute warning sounding.
Because I'd kick back, light a smoke and watch the mushroom cloud do what nature's been trying to do with floods, earthquakes, ebola, aids, cancer etc etc.

I'm going for a cigarette and to laugh as we pursue a course of action to defeat Saddam Hussein from acting how he likes in his own country, whilst blatantly ignoring our own problems and taking almost 10 years to raid a mosque and still leave the one-eyed, hook-handed agitator to preach racial hatred.

What a wonderful world...

Flanders wrote:
> Because the Iraqi army is virtually non existant and it will be a
> relatve walk over ?

It's a mistake to think that it's going to be a complete walkover this time. Sure, it's going to be no Vietnam, but even the US Marines are publically stating that they'd expect a 40% casualty rate amongst their forces if the fighting goes urban, which it likely will do. You have ot remember that this time the Iraqi army will not be fleeing from foreign soil, but being attacked in it's own land, it's own soil. Any defender has that advantage.

> Because Dubya was peed after 9/11 and more so when he couldn't find
> Osama and wants to do something to boost the morale of the American
> people ?

I think it's safe to say more than just George Bush were "peed" after 9/11, but I disagree this will raise morale, in fact all the market idicators and polls show a war will be the exact opposite ! I think we have to stop looking at this from a simplified view. I' not trying to offend anyone, but when people say the war is just for reasons as simple as these it seems weird. Think about it, can any world leader really, as in actually do it, send his military to war for reasons that simple. I'm not against anti war arguments and people, after all the whole point of living in a country like the UK is that you can have your say, and don't have to follow the government line on everything if you don't want to. on this issue I do agree with Blair and Bush, but on other things I don't.

Rant over !

~~Belldandy~~

Goatboy wrote:

> If it's about humanitarian causes, why are we ignoring countless other
> brutal regimes?

Because it is in our interest not to, economically and politically. I'm not saying that the imminent Iraqi conflict is a just and noble cause, far from it, but at least some good could come as a result of it (indirectly from our obvious intention(s)).

Also it may send a message to other countries that any threats directed "our" way, will be dealt with in a shrift, uncompromising manner. It may be unfair to ascribe blame on the Iraqis for recent transgressions against "westerners" and this course of action has it's flaws as it creates more Martyrs and terrorists that will "fight" on regardless.

The whole issue of WOMD is not that countries will develop them, it's about what countries do develop them. We have to assume that given the opportunity some unstable regimes would use them. Other brutal regimes are undesirable but are stable politically and have strong economies: they pose little threat even if their views/beliefs differ from our own.

I do agree that before we try and solve other country's perceived problems, we should do so in our own.

The answers however to both situations are hard to find.

Because the Iraqi army is virtually non existant and it will be a relatve walk over ?

Because Dubya was peed after 9/11 and more so when he couldn't find Osama and wants to do something to boost the morale of the American people ?

The sagacious one wrote:
We did so out of guilt perhaps (many
> conflicts between religious sects are due to geographical arrangements
> created by us colonial Brits.) but we also did so because ultimately
> we are a decent nation(s).
---

But why pretend it's about WOMD?
And my own personal belief is this:
What business is it of ours how another country chooses to rule?

Oppresive and brutal regime? Fine, so we should also be invading China with a notorious human-rights record, El Salvador with government approved death-squads and any number of other countries. Why are we not doing anything in Zimbabwe? We have we not intervened in the Angolan situation? East Timoor? Jakarta?
Bosnia, yes we intervened. But only after 9 years of genocide and continual pleas from Ethnic Albanians to help them. And then we only went in as "peace-keepers", which meant not being able to intervene directly in any situation.

If it's about weapons of mass destruction, why are we not telling North Korea to get rid of theirs? Why did The French blow up an Atoll? Why are we not using the intelligence we have in arresting known terrorist sympathisers and active-cells here in the UK? The Finsbury Park Mosque for example, has been known to be a hotbed of anti-Western preachings.

If it's about WOMD, there are plenty of other countries to start finger-pointing at as well.
If it's about humanitarian causes, why are we ignoring countless other brutal regimes?

I'm as confused as you are Goaty by it all - This is why we post cynical, sarcastic posts about what is going on - because to us we can see no logic behind what is going on.

Saddam produced a report stating that he didn't have any WOMD's

"Liar" shouted Dubya - let the inspectors in or we will bomb you.

"ok then - come in" says Saddam " You wont find anything though"

So they go in and the press go wild when they find 12 EMPTY warheads in a bunker that was abandoned 10 years ago - Is this the smoking gun that Dubya was after.

I suppose we will have to wait until Monday to hear what the inspectors say with their report.

Something like

" we have thoroughly searched 250 sites and have found no evidence that Iraq is in a position to produce any kind of weapons of mass destruction "

" Liar's he's hiding them in the back of his Merc - send in the B52's"

You could argue a case for repeatedly beating down the Iraqis: if their army is regularly slaughtered and their ability to start the process of creating WOMD diminished with each assult, this demonstrates forward thinking on our behalf. Weren't they the same people who took to the streets in celebration of 9/11 and also tortured our captured troops during the Gulf war? I'm not saying that this makes every Iraqi an enemy/evil but such brutal regimes as Saddam's do need curbing. The general treatment of women is appalling and wo betide any dissidents (or even suspected dissidents) who speak out against it.

The solution is difficult to achieve as we (America et al) only react when we perceive an interest of our own, though we did indeed intervene in the conflict(s) in former Yugoslavia and the recently created countries such as Bosnia. We did so out of guilt perhaps (many conflicts between religious sects are due to geographical arrangements created by us colonial Brits.) but we also did so because ultimately we are a decent nation(s).

Obviously Iraq is going to be punished for previous trangressions and probably the people who suffer will be those already repressed. But there is a glimmer of hope: if only our actions (bringing about a change in leadership) brought some stability to the Middle East, allowing countries to develop in the right direction, then it would almost be a worthy cause.

This time, however, if we promise to assist with an uprising (like we did with the Kurds) we should do so and not simply walk away once Red Adaire had capped the flames of war, greed and economy.

Iraq doesn't either. Nor an air-force to speak of (Northweald presents more of a threat) and an army that is less of a threat than the gangs of dirty-faced kids that lurk outside Blockbuster of a night-time.
I dont know what this is about but I do know the idea of Hussein having weapons of mass destruction is laughable.
UN Inspectors "We found none. We found some empties though".

Here's what I don't get:

Gulf War 1991.
Hussein does not use weapons of mass destruction, nor gas nor bombs nor planes nor chemical weapons. The West suffers 79 casualties. I know Hicks did a routine about it, but it's true.
79 soldiers killed.
He gets owned and gives up.
The USA lets him stay in power.

In the following 10 years, Hussein still fails to deploy any weapons of mass destruction at any point against anyone. He does not, despite being attacked by The West, launch any kind of terrorist activities against those that declared war.
Still no sign or use of WOMD.

You'd think that someone that "deranged" and "evil" would get the huff and use his terrible weapons. Surely a "mad despot" would want revenge for being humiliated on the world stage?
But nothing.
Nor do we do anything for over a decade.
Suddenly, since Bin Laden (using planes and NOT any kind of weapon of mass destruction) attacked the USA - Hussein is back in the bad-books again. Despite doing nothing towards The West nor utilising these WOMD in any way whatsoever.

I just don't understand why he didnt use them in '91 or hasn't used them since. And why, despite unrestricted access, the UN Inspectors finding nothing.
A cynical person might suggest that there is nothing to be found and this is merely politics and posturing because they've been unable to locate or attack Bin Laden at all.
We've just stopped looking, but Saddam is right there waving and smiling.

Let's get him instead.
It's not oil, it's ego.

I think people forget that the majority of people in this country are actually stupid idiots, and probably would support a war against evil tyrant Saddam Hussain. The idiocy of this country baffles me sometimes.

BNP have just got another seat too, apparently. Disgraceful.