Warning: Undefined array key "birthday" in phar://.../vb/vb.phar/api/notice.php on line 1
Blair facing revolt over Iraq -
Apolyton Civilization Site
The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Blair's support in Britain and majority in the House of Commons will allow him to do as he pleases on these issues.
Interesting to see these America-haters get so upset about the potential overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a murdering dictator. These people blindly oppose America whatever it does.
"I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer
"I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand
The US want's to use it's millitary might to topple a regime it doesn't like with no provocation other than that dislike.
Agreed the said regime is probably one of the most brutal and dangerous in the world but the US has both toppled far less dangerous regimes before (Grenada) and propped up some pretty brutal ones itself (South Vietnam).
Most of the time the US claims to be 'fighting for democracy' and yet it in the past it has helped dictatorial regimes (most of Latin America in the 1960's and 1970's, most of the Middle East and Pakistan today) that serve it's interests and undermined democratic ones (Chile) that don't.
With a track record like that is it any wonder that the rest of the world feels nervous about letting the US topple any regime it dislikes?
If the US does topple's Saddam's regime they could regain a lot of the world's trust by installing a proper democratic system in the country.
However this would probably involve:
1. Actually occuping Iraq for several years - and accepting the US casualties this would inevitably produce - whilst the social and political infrastructure was developed (as was done with Germany and Japan after WW2).
2. Ignoring the complaints of US-freindly regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Kuwait that would dislike seeing a true democracy in their region - even if it means losing their friendship (much like the falling out of the USA and USSR afer 1945).
3. Pouring large amounts of aid into Iraq (probably around $10-$20billion a year for 5 years) so that a strong economy can help protect the new democracy (rather like Marshall Aid).
And I don't see the US being as alturistic as this.
Originally posted by el freako
The US want's to use it's millitary might to topple a regime it doesn't like with no provocation other than that dislike.
I believe that the US has plenty of reasons to topple Saddam beyond merely disliking his regime. The most obvious is Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country, a direct violation of the agreement that ended the Gulf War. If Iraq violates that agreement, the US has every right in the world to depose Saddam.
I do agree with you, however, about the US being hypocritical about "fighting for democracy". I dislike when the US uses this sort of rhetoric as it is dishonest and limiting. 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 would be a nice byproduct, however, if it is possible.
KH FOR OWNER! ASHER FOR CEO!! GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I believe that the US has plenty of reasons to topple Saddam beyond merely disliking his regime. The most obvious is Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country, a direct violation of the agreement that ended the Gulf War. If Iraq violates that agreement, the US has every right in the world to depose Saddam.
Did the agreement mention CIA and Mossad agents or weapons inspectors?
Now, if I ask myself: Who profits from a War against Iraq?, the answer is: Israel. -Prof. Rudolf Burger, Austrian Academy of Arts
Free Slobo, lock up George, learn from Kim-Jong-Il.
Seems likely that not even Britain is going to aid the US in a strike against Iraq.
So much for "we'll rally the world". Nobody is listening, and nobody wants to help the US. Sure, I doubt the US needs the help, but it does show how "pro-American" the rest of the world is. In the end, it will only hurt the US when it finds itself alone and isolated without any allies to call on. Great going Shrubya!
And as soon as Saddam is removed, everyone will come crawling to the US to try and get a say as to whom will be leading the new government and will be sure to let us know that they really were behind us all along. They had to appease their constituancy's short sighted and hate filled anti-Americanism, after all.
It's okay though, we'll remember who was siding with Saddam the whole time.
"Let us kill the English! Their concept of individual rights could undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!"
Did the agreement mention CIA and Mossad agents or weapons inspectors?
Irrelevant. Baghdad has violated the terms of a Cease-Fire. Which means, hostilies can resume at any given moment. And, wait, the best part is: International law allows it.
As for britian....They will come along. And we have 'a' coalition 'on paper' anyway, without them if all else failed.....So without a doubt we are coming.
Oh and.....
Britain Denies Cabinet Dissension
Britain Denies Cabinet Dissension
By ED JOHNSON
.c The Associated Press
LONDON (AP) - A senior minister denied media reports Saturday that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government was divided over whether to back possible U.S. military action against Iraq.
Britain has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the war on terrorism, but news reports have said Blair's increasingly hardline stance on Iraq has split the Cabinet and prompted senior ministers to threaten to resign.
``Reports of a Cabinet split on this are in fact completely wrong,'' Labor Party chairman Charles Clarke told the British Broadcasting Corp. on Saturday.
More than 60 legislators have signed a motion expressing worry about British involvement in any military conflict with Iraq, and lawmaker David Chaytor said Friday he feared the Labor Party could be split over the issue.
The Financial Times quoted an unidentified government source Friday as saying that there was talk of low-level resignations, and adding that members of Blair's Cabinet might also quit.
But asked whether ministers had voiced support during a Cabinet meeting Thursday for an attack on Iraq, if it was called for by President Bush, Clarke said the question had not arisen.
``That wasn't the nature of the discussion. We were not having a hypothetical discussion of that type,'' he said.
Clarke said the prime minister wanted to ensure international support for the war on terrorism.
``His position is that ... the U.S. must internationalize what they are doing, work with other people in the world community, to achieve the goals that we have, for example, on terrorism and other areas,'' Clarke told the BBC.
He said Blair would ``urge caution'' and took the position that ``any action in these fields is only likely to succeed if you have got the world community united in dealing with it.''
During his visit to Australia for the Commonwealth summit earlier this week, Blair gave his strongest backing yet for Bush's stance against the ``axis of evil'' supporting terrorism - Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
``We have got to act on it because if we don't act we may find out too late the potential for destruction,'' Blair said in an interview with Australia's Nine Network television.
The United States has demanded the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq and has hinted that it might expand its war on terrorism to the oil-rich Mideast nation.
"I predict your ignore will rival Ben's" - Ecofarm
^ The Poly equivalent of:
"I hope you can see this 'cause I'm [flipping you off] as hard as I can" - Ignignokt the Mooninite
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.
Thats an opinion. Amazing how you can rationalize a madman's paranoia... A spy was found, true. But Spy's were of course needed to point out some of these more hidden sites
Umm.....and actually he did Technically, he hasnt allowed inspectors back in. Technically, the cease fire is over. Technically ; we have theright to bomb him back to the stone age.
Tweet
Comment