Blair facing revolt over Iraq

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by faded glory
Technically ; we have theright to bomb him back to the stone age.

You are bombing him anyway, right or not.

But if you send in the ground troops, we will at least find out if he actually has weapons of mass destruction.

[Makeo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Nah; if they sent the Mafia instead of weapons inspectors, he was not bound to let them inspect anything. So he violated nothing at all.

(Just curious) Are you a Holocaust denier, too?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Makeo
(Just curious) Are you a Holocaust denier, too?

Why should I deny the Holocaust? And why 'too'? What undisputed fact do I deny?

[Kyle]

Re: Re: Re: Blair facing revolt over Iraq

Originally posted by paiktis22


oooh, I'm shivering in my boots

Yeah, that's right.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Why should I deny the Holocaust? And why 'too'? What undisputed fact do I deny?

The UN cease-fire terms of '91.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lonestar
The UN cease-fire terms of '91.

I do not deny the terms. Saddam has to accept weapons inspectors; he doesn´t have to accept CIA or Mossad thugs. If you are serious about playing by the rules, what´s so bad about inspectors from Switzerland or Sweden? AfaIk, Iraq wouldn´t object to them.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I do not deny the terms. Saddam has to accept weapons inspectors; he doesn´t have to accept CIA or Mossad thugs. If you are serious about playing by the rules, what´s so bad about inspectors from Switzerland or Sweden? AfaIk, Iraq wouldn´t object to them.

Last I checked, the previous UN Head of Inspections was a Aussie.

I don't think the Swedes are well informed about secret chemical weapon factories.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I don't think the Swedes are well informed about secret chemical weapon factories.

I don´t think there are any secret chemical weapons factories. They don´t have the needed resources. I think all this babble about Saddam´s weapons of mass destruction is a hoax.

Though if you attack their country, I hope I am wrong.

[Makeo]

CT: Maybe you also think WWII was all the Allies fault for being so mean in the Versailles Treaty...

[GeneralTacticus]

CT: Maybe you also think WWII was all the Allies fault for being so mean in the Versailles Treaty...

It was, partly...

I don´t think there are any secret chemical weapons factories. They don´t have the needed resources. I think all this babble about Saddam´s weapons of mass destruction is a hoax.

I believe it wasn't 'til the Gulf War that it was discovered how much of his weapons program Saddam was hiding. How do we know he isn't up to it again?

[Ramo]

My main problem with the war is the probability of the Turkey's annexation of Northern Iraq, an area dominated by Kurds.

IMO, Turkey wouldn't accept any other possibility, and our invasion relies upon their support.

[Saint Marcus]

A rag-tag of Labour backbenchers isn't going to change Blair's mind.

Just shows your ignorance of British politics, Mark.

Speaking of ignorance, since when are cabinet ministers "a rag-tag of labour backbenchers"?

[Az]

All hail the great revolutionary :

http://uruk.uruklink.net/iraq/bio.htm

[el freako]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

We should just admit that we are acting in our own interests, just like every other nation on earth. We need to take out Saddam because he threatens the US and our interests, not because of some moral obligation to bring democracy to Iraq.

That's a very dangerous precedent there...

By that definition the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified, as was their hegemony over eastern europe.
It also justifies Japan's attack at Pearl Harbour and Hitler's attack upon France.
It could also be said that the US, by keeping bases in Saudi Arabia, was 'threatening' Al Kaida 'interests' so that it was justified in the Sept 11th attacks.


It's a generally accepted facet of international diplomacy that you have to have a legitimate reason for going to war - Faded Glory's citing of the break of the cease-fire agreement is the best I can see - but your assertion that the US could do it just because it's in their 'interest' set's a terrible precedent.
If every acted only in it's own narrow 'interest' the world will become an extremely dangerous place.

[Solly]

I'm a little undecided on the "bomb Iraq" issue.

Some questions:

For those wanting to attack Iraq...

1) If the US/West is going to inspect Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't Iraq also have the right to inspect all of the United States' and other coutnries' weapons?

2) Will bombing Iraq REALLY counter terrorism? How does removing weapons of mass destruction stop the primitive hijacking of a vehicle in order for it to be flown into a symbolic building or two?

3) Why the delay since September 11th? Are our (the West's) military forces so ineffective that they can only attack one small third-world nation at a time?

For those criticising the plan to attack Iraq...

4) Why do we see the same posters campaigning against Bush/US no matter what the issue at hand is? Afghanistan, Iraq, Kyoto treaty - we get the usual anti-American hordes led by Saint Marcus, Paiktis et al. It strikes me that your positions aren't very well thought - you simply look to see what the US is going to do next, and immediately form an opinion against it merely because of the US. Have your own opinions, rather than being anti-Bush

Thank you.