Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

A war against Iraq?

(Page 7 of 18)
> > > >
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Did you catch Tony Blair's speech earler?

It was quite a long speech with questions from MP's throughout.

He gave a detailed explanation of events that have occured over the past 12 years and it was very compelling. There have been 17 resolutions relating to Iraq over the past 12 years and Saddam has made between 5 and 10 "final" declarations, all of which have been proven to be full of lies. There are 10,000 lites of anthrax unaccounted for and 1 single litre can kill over 1 million people. There is also the VX nerve gas as well as huge amounts of mustard gas. He was very harsh (but fair) when commenting on the French and stated that they have clearly acted unreasonably when threatening to vito any resolution containing an ultimatum.
 
Re: [SideShow] A war against Iraq? In reply to
because they dont accept the opinion of the countries who are against war.for example bush said that there will be very serious cosequences for france when they dont change their opinion(they are against!).or better the example germany:germany is offend by the usa,pupils who make an exchange in america are offend and not accepted,they are called again the "crouts" like many many years ago....etc. its so UNFAIR!Madthis attitude destroys all peacefull relations between america and germany and france.

and,hey bush said that thing with 48 hours,but saddam wont go into exile and if he would i'm sure that bush will nevertheless begin this war.

i dont understand this he wants tomake the iraqies free of saddam but with this war he will kill thousands of iraqie children ,women and men...where is the logic?!
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
>>>He was very harsh (but fair) when commenting on the French and stated that they have clearly acted unreasonably when threatening to vito any resolution containing an ultimatum. <<<

Indeed. I had a few emails sent to me recently from a friend in the USA. He was saying that its a shame the French ave forgotten the 50,000+ US soldiers, and British one, who died trying to liberate France after Germany took it over in WWII. Very sad state of affairs. You would have thought they would be glad to back something we feel so strongly about Frown

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk
Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
There are 10,000 lites of anthrax unaccounted for and 1 single litre can kill over 1 million people. There is also the VX nerve gas as well as huge amounts of mustard gas.


No I did not, I hope to catch it replayed here later. Tony Blair will remain a popular figure here in the US for years to come I suspect.

On the issue of WMD. The allied forces are clearly worried about a preemptive Iraqi chemical attack. It has been reported here that release authorization (the authority to use these weapons) has been granted down to the brigade level within certain Iraqi units.

Interestingly, I was just reading on CNN"s web site the following: "Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday. " - full article here.

And of interest, Fox news is reporting that Iraqi troops are already trying to surrender in Northern Iraq.
 
Re: [Andy] A war against Iraq? In reply to
here in my country we got to know that theres no use of war!!sure,saddam should be killed ,cause he's a brutal dictator like hitler was and theres no place for a hitler N° 2.but i think that this is not the only point for bush to begin this war,its too because of the oil and its a thing of revenge.the usa want revenge and after the war,the iraqies want revenge for their dead families and again and again...

and why should saddam disarm(i dont know if this is the right word,cause english is not my language) when he knows that he will be attacked.he would have no defence.

finally i can only say that i'm lucky that i'm living in a country who will not fight in this war....

do you know that in the "völkerrecht" in english the tribe-law(?) it is forbidden to begin an offence war against state A when the state B was not offend before by state A?!so,just think about it.france and germany are the states B they are NOT allowed to make war!!!!

Last edited by:

caramelcream: Mar 18, 2003, 9:16 AM
 
Re: [caramelcream] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
its too because of the oil

I'd like to point out that this commonly expressed argument about the war being about oil is highly inaccurate. Tony Blair pointed out in his speech today that any revenue from oil will be submitted into a trust fund and will be reinvested into the rebuilding of Iraq.

The only people who seem to bring up the issue of oil are those against war. It seems to be included as part of their argument as nothing more substantial can be presented.

Last edited by:

Paul: Mar 18, 2003, 9:13 AM
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
any revenue from oil will be submitted into a trust fund and will be reinvested into the rebuilding of Iraq
Yeah right, I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy to.

Bob

http://totallyfreeads.com.au
 
Re: [lanerj] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Iraq at peace:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...,3284-614607,00.html
 
Re: [Andy] A war against Iraq? In reply to
In Reply To:
Indeed. I had a few emails sent to me recently from a friend in the USA. He was saying that its a shame the French ave forgotten the 50,000+ US soldiers, and British one, who died trying to liberate France after Germany took it over in WWII. Very sad state of affairs. You would have thought they would be glad to back something we feel so strongly about Frown


You mean the war that the U.S. didn't want to help out in until they got bombed? I don't think its fair saying the French should feel bad about not helping out when the U.S. were happy to do so until they got attacked in WWII.
Cheers,
Michael Bray
 
Re: [lanerj] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Yeah right, I suppose you believe in the tooth fairy to.

Sigh, I very much doubt when the prime minister makes a speech infront of all his cabinet ministers and several million members of the public he is going to lie.

Some people unfortunately let their judgement become clouded by their opposition to war, or by their opposition to blair/bush.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It seems the general public are shifting to support this war. Opinion polls now show a majority are supporting action.

I was also watching a news broadcast this morning in Jordan and Iraq and the people interviewed (natives) were supportive of the military action as they said it would certainly liberate Iraq.

Unfortunately sandstorms are wearing away the blades of our helicopters and burying tanks Crazy
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
Sigh, I very much doubt when the prime minister makes a speech infront of all his cabinet ministers and several million members of the public he is going to lie.
He's a politician, they do that all the time, but they call them promises. How do you think they get elected.
Your starting to sound like one of my wifes friends. When she was asked her thoughts on the war she replied 'must be ok Mr Bush is a nice person he wouldn't do any thing that was wrong'. I almost fell of my chair.
The western world does not have a very good track record as far as the middle east is concerned -
http://www.slonet.org/~ied/kmuscx.html
Here is a section from the article -

If one has any lingering doubts about the leaders of most resource wealthy nations being puppets, consider this: We all know that a large share of the populations of oil rich nations are poor and the elite are enormously wealthy. What is never considered is that almost 100 percent of that wealth is banked in Western banks and can be blocked at any time. Not only is Western military guarding those resources for the West, , so are Western banks guarding the finance capital which dictates who will process those resources and distribute the finished products. , Any nation's money denominated in dollars, pounds, marks, yen, or the new euros would be instantly frozen any time they revolted and that nation's own currency would be instantly worthless.

And here is some of the involvement with the CIA in the area -
http://www.gwu.edu/...hiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
http://www.latimes.com/...ct11,0,2360915.story

The US economy at present is struggling. I sure that after this very expensive war that most of the wealth generated by the release of Iraqs oil will go right back into the US economy.
There all lining up now rubbing there hands together -
http://smartmoney.com/...20030318-000954-1324

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com.au

Last edited by:

lanerj: Mar 19, 2003, 3:48 AM
 
Re: [lanerj] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
He's a politician, they do that all the time, but they call them promises. How do you think they get elected.

All he can do is specify what he intends to do...if people then still choose to disbelieve him there's nothing that he can do about it. He will just have to do as he planned, which will prove everybody wrong ultimately.

He is fully aware that people assume the war is about oil, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned the trust fund in his speech and so I very much doubt he would do anything other than what he specified he would.

If people aren't going to trust the government it may as well be abolished.

People are always going to accuse the government of lying, simply because the goverments choice of action is contrary to what those people believe or support. Anti-war protestors claim he is lying and pro-war folk say he's not...it's a game of opinions.

As far as I'm concerned, Tony Blair is a well-balanced, intelligent, sensible man who's ultimate goal is peace and the security of the country and so I am quite happy to trust his decision making.
 
Re: [caramelcream] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hmm I was just thinking here...

"When" the war starts in a few hours, if Saddam were to launch a WMD when he claims he has none, would that change your judgement at all?
 
Re: [lanerj] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Quote:
The western world does not have a very good track record as far as the middle east is concerned -
Iraq does not have a very good track record as far as anywhere is concerned. Here are excerpts from the previously posted article at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...,3284-614607,00.html “There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders.”
Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: “Women were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.” For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddam’s Iraq.

Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq — which some people still claim are illegal — the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.



For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
 
Re: [BeaverheadRiver] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I've already read the article By Ann Clwyd thanks anyway.

Bob

http://totallyfreeads.com.au
 
Re: [lanerj] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Hmm the plot thickens...

Baghdad has a channel all the way around it and there are some thoughts that Saddam will fill it with oil and set it on fire to prevent troops entering.

I can't help but laugh at the Iraqi PM I just saw stating that any troops invading Iraq would face certain death....well I hope it turns out my laughing is not undermined.

Last edited by:

Paul: Mar 19, 2003, 7:29 AM
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Apparently so far 17 Iraqi soldiers have surrendered already. It's only a tiny number but still.

I was watching an interview with an Iraqi lady earlier who was saying everyone hates Saddam but they show support for him on tv because they are scared of being killed...they don't actually support him.

Sky News also just showed the latest video from the Ministry of Defence. It was taken by the camera on the helmet of a fighter pilot and there was a second jet next to him which he was filming...it was an awesome sight. They were flying over Kuwait.

Last edited by:

Paul: Mar 19, 2003, 12:30 PM
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
It will be a challenge just to manage all those who want to surrender. But we're prepared for it.

Won't be long now.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Yes let us hope it will be fast and few casualties - get it over and done with... :-)

Klaus

http://www.ameinfo.com
 
Re: [klauslovgreen] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Earlier I was about to post that I thought it would be over really quickly. The US are expecting to drop 3000 bombs/missiles within the first two days.

Then I heard that Saddams cousin is in Basra which is where the ground troops will hit first and they will be compacted together. This cousin is supposedly responsible for launching the chemical weapons and the thinking is that they are going to wipe out a load of US/British troops with such a weapon.

Last edited by:

Paul: Mar 19, 2003, 2:00 PM
 
Re: [Paul] A war against Iraq? In reply to
Well the majority of the population centers will fall fairly rapidly and without much encouragement. However, there could be some significant holdouts.

Most of what happens depends entirely on the Iraqi army. How many of them are willing to fight for Saddam? Not the conscripts, they'd rather be home.

How many of the professional Iraqi officers would rather serve a future elected Iraqi government...versus dying for the old, or being tried for its crimes?

Iraqi troops have to go to know employing chemical weapons will come with terrible personal consequences. Retaliation will be swift, total, and extremely final.

This could be over in a blink, but there are no guarantees in war - other than it always has its price, which is usually not determined by the pundits.
 
Re: [ArmyAirForces] A war against Iraq? In reply to
I think everyone is expecting it to be quick. I just have a feeling Saddam may have some surprises up his sleeve, however futile they may be.

I hope I don't miss all the action when I go to be in about an hour Wink

Last edited by:

Paul: Mar 19, 2003, 3:22 PM
 
Weapons of Mess Disruptions In reply to
In response to this unjustified, illegal and hypocritical war I would like to propose the Weapons of Mess Disruption.
Gather all your eggs, tomatoes and flour from your larder and bombard them at the Whitehouse and Parliament. With thousands of us pelting these insane war-mongering idiots, it will be difficult for the politicians to walk away without egg on their faces

Peace = Love
 
Weapons of Mess Disruption In reply to
In response to this unjustified, illegal and hypocritical war I would like to propose the Weapons of Mess Disruption.
Gather all your eggs, tomatoes and flour from your larder and bombard them at the Whitehouse and Parliament. With thousands of us pelting these insane war-mongering idiots, it will be difficult for the politicians to walk away without egg on their faces

Peace = Love
> > > >