Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[Clear Skies]

I love how everyone thinks sources that contradict their view are useless...
It's a SOURCE, dammit! ICM get the general elections right to within 2% or so. They know what they're doing, and aren't idiots. Therefore the numbers stand against yours, unless you have inside information telling me why ICM shouldn't be considered to be reliable...

[Bosh]

Hitler always intended to kill them, Mein Kampf makes this clear.

Hard to tell, really. But basically when it looked like he might lose the war there was only one way he could make any kind of solution final...

There is a lot I agree with here.

thanks

If it were not for Israel

The US has been dragged into enough trouble because of Israel, if they want any more help (if, of course, the war is about helping Israel) they should get their own house in order first (ie a return to '67 borders and compensation in lue (sp!!) of right of return) before we even think about fighting a bloody $200 billion war to crush Iraq.

However, I understand that all of our former Arab allies, save for Syria, are "privately" on board for a renewed war.

Yeah its hard to tell because if they come out publically they'll have large-scale PR problems at home, but I'm a bit doubtful about the Saudis and without them and the Syrians we're running fairly low on arab Persian Gulf War allies...

It is my point here that we are in the position we are in because of early appeasement by Clinton and Annan.

And Reagan and Bush Sr. aren't to blame in the least?

[Adam Smith]

OK, Now What??

THIS BBC article indicates that

the inspectors would have unconditional access to all sites of suspected weapons of mass destruction - but not to eight presidential palaces which are covered under a separate agreement between Iraq and UN.

Which takes us back precisely to where we were four years ago. What part of the words "all" and "unconditional" does the UN not seem to understand?? I read in other articles, which I can't lay my hands on right now, that the eight "presidential palaces" in question cover a total of 12 square miles and include over 1000 buildings. Clearly asking to inspect these areas is NOT like asking to walk into Saddam's living room unannounced.

Boshko:
I agree with much of what you say regarding mideast stability, but would you really have these corrupt Arab regimes, which have been decried in many other threads, acting as the canary in the moral coal mine?

Chegitz:
I knew you would like my type of Republicans.
Stick around and I will introduce you to our local congresswoman who has been endorsed by the Sierra Club over her Democratic challenger.

[Ned]

Bosko, Of course we were "soft" on Saddam prior to Kuwait. However, that entire prior "appeasement" flew out the window because of the war.

However, the war ended on a "conditional" note: Comply with these cease-fire terms or we renew the hostilities was the message we delivered to Saddam.

It is my understanding that the weapons inspectors made tremendous progress during the first two years, finding and destroying a large quantity of weapons. Thereafter, the defiance began in earnest - right about the time of the assassination attempt on Bush, April 1993. Clinton responded with a few missiles on a intelligence agency in June, citing the attempted assassination. What kind of response is this? This was the first attempt in history by a foreign power to assassinate an American president.

His is a snippet from a history of the dispute:

"July 6-29, 1992 Iraq refuses an inspection team access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture. UNSCOM said it had reliable information that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities. Inspectors gained access only after members of the Council threatened enforcement action.

January 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM to use its own aircraft to fly into Iraq.

June-July 1993 Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM inspectors to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two missile engine test stands."

[chequita guevara]

Let me go out on a limb here and suppose why people who are opposed to the US acting unilaterally are okay with the US acting multilerally. I'm going to guess their major motivation isn't whether or not Hussein has WoMD. I would say their major motivation is the US's relationship to the rest of the world. Either they do not want the US to damage its image, and get even more people to hate us or they don't want the US to act like an empire, but rather a responsible member of the international community (and not a vigilante cop).

I had to deal with these types in the last Gulf War. Our coalition officially came out in favor of: sanctions, going to the UN, and going to Congress. Yeah, starvation is better than bombs, the US isn't gonna bribe all the SC countries, and the Democrats have suddenly developed a spine. One of their big "victories" was in December, where they had recieved a promise from a Chicago Alderman to put forward a resolution in April to oppose the war. As if we weren't going to already be at war by then. As if war fevor wouldn't have made that resolution more unwelcome than a skunk in tent.

Course, I was just a communist. What did I know? Once we started acting on our own we were able to really put together some action. Only reason anyone showed up to their rallies is because we mobilized hard and got TV attention when we publically created a new coalition. Made a lot of mistakes, then, but my positions weren't any of them.

At this point, I'm pretty close to saying, F*** it, the US is never gonna back down, there is no victory over imperialism to be had. Just let them get it over with and end the Iraqi people's misery. Even a short bloody war will cause less harm in the long run than these monsterous sanctions. But that's abstention, not support.

[Ned]

Che, I can almost feel your pain. Now you know what Vietnam felt like to many Americans. Even if you thought American was wrong to intervene in the first place, you had to hope for the best. But even when that turned sour.... It was really agonizing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Fez
I am sick and tired of the damn bias on this forum.

I am really pissed off in seeing these biased threads posted with some highly misleading garbage.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass, honey-buns. I thought you were on self-imposed vacation? Besides, why don't you stick to commenting on your own political parties, since you stopped proclaiming yourself an American who's daddy is going to be the next ambassador to some hole in the ground, and now call yourself Spanish?

Pick a country and stick with it.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Let me go out on a limb here and suppose why people who are opposed to the US acting unilaterally are okay with the US acting multilerally. I'm going to guess their major motivation isn't whether or not Hussein has WoMD. I would say their major motivation is the US's relationship to the rest of the world. Either they do not want the US to damage its image, and get even more people to hate us or they don't want the US to act like an empire, but rather a responsible member of the international community (and not a vigilante cop).

See, ther I was thinking that a nation acting on it's own against the wishes of the UN (Rest of the World) was a rogue nation...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
20 missiles? Don't need 'em if you leave him alone.

20 warheads? That could blow up Vancouver, San Fransisco, San Diego, The Canal, Miami, Norfolk, New York, Philidelphia, Boston, Halifax, Montreal, London, Liverpool, Marseilles, St Petersburg... That would leave 5 more to deliver by container to other places.

Not one of those places is reachable by any Iraqi missile. Try again.

Why is everyone so fixated on missiles? Note that every city mentioned is a port or can be reached by sea...

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Possibly as many as 20 missiles, and an airforce that could only threaten Iran and Syria. You can have the biggest stockpile in the world, won't do you no good if you can't deliver them. Hussein can't take over the world with one or even a handful of tiny bombs. He couldn't even stand up to the US when had a viable stockpile and weapons platforms, let alone now.

And before you give me any crap about giving it to terrorists, there is absolutely no indication Hussein would turn his weapons over to anyone, let alone people who would just as soon use the weapons right back against him. It is far more likely that terrorist will get such weapons from the Former USSR or from Pakistan.

Your debating chi is weak, your form sloppy. Go and practice, grasshopper.

who said anyhting about taking over the world?
The reason why Saddam didnt use WoMD in the Gulf War was because his life was never directly threatened. Had he of used WoMD the entire world would have been calling for his head. However, if his very life would have been threatened, then he would have used them in a heartbeat because he would have been in danger anyway. But now, when there is a clear intention of a regime change, he may feel it necessary to protect himself with the WoMD. That is why this is a most dangerous situation.
And just because there is no indication of Saddam affiliating with terrorists doesnt mean there is no possibility, especially if one considers he uses his own men instead of outside terroists.

Kman

[notyoueither]

Imagine the Saddam who has 1 or 10 or 20 war heads.

Imagine the Saddam who used to (maybe still does) enjoy watching torture sessions.

Imagine the Saddam who has just been told by a third doctor that he is terminal and will be dead in 6 months.

Imagine the Saddam who says, what the f***.

There is no reasoning with such people. Reason is not their strong suit. I think they are called psychopaths...

[Lemmy]

Saddam is bad, right?
And the US want to take him out, but what about the nations that may have helped Iraq? Maybe sold weapon to them, or just have good relations with Iraq. What about them?
Should they be sanctioned or something, are those governments any better then Iraq's gov. Are there such nation btw?

[Roland]

As we are going simple terms here...

Why attack Iraq ?

- Saddam is evil... well, he's been evil for more than 20 years, didn't matter when the west liked his war against Iran

- Saddam has womd and will use them... well, Musharraf is a lot further, but since the Americans think he's their *****, no problem

- Saddam is linked to El Qaeda... nice try, Rumsie, but the only evidence you have are shifting claims about the Pargue meeting that is not even supported by circumstantial evidence

- bringing democracy to Iraq. That has to be the funniest one. The Bushies were oh-so outraged when Mubarak had a peaceful democracy advocate thrown into jail in a farce trial, or when there's a coup in Venezuela against some annoying Leftie... buy some bridges.

- Saddam could become a pain in the ass sitting on 2/3rds of the world's oil supplies ? Now there's a good reason.

- A war fits so well in the Rovian screenplay ? Excellent reason.


It's also unfair to equate Bush and Blair here. I can't for the **** of it imagine that Blair wants this war the way the Bushies want it. He is just playing it differently from Chirac or Schröder, and may even succeed....

[Ned]

Roland, Factor in wilful breach of UN resolutions, the no fly zones where combat is occurring on a daily basis, punitive sanctions that harm the Iraqi people and an attempted assassination of a US president.

Do you really want this violence to go on indefinitely?

Well if you do, send in the Austrian airforce to protect the Kurds and Shi'ites. The US should not have to carry the bulk of the burden to implement Roland's ideal future for Iraq.

[Roland]

Well dear Ned why don't you put your ass on the line, when we are at getting personal ?

"wilful breach of UN resolutions" - just like Israel.

"the no fly zones where combat is occurring on a daily basis"

- This is an argument for what ?

"punitive sanctions that harm the Iraqi people"

- This is an argument for what ?

"an attempted assassination of a US president" - really ? A pretzel attack ? Or did Saddam take a page out of the CIA's bestseller "how to fail at killing Fidel" ?

"Do you really want this violence to go on indefinitely?"

As if the US installing a puppet in Baghdad would solve it.