If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The purpose is to stop Saddam being a threat to anyother nation, yes? To reduce his capacity to ever use agression on another sovereign nation because that is bad and wrong (:rolleyes: )
Yet we are told that inspections are about disarmament, surely this is wrong, they are about rendering Saddam incapable of agression.
The preseence of inspectors and allied forces on Iraqs borders renders Saddam completely harmless, this is the goal thus it is already done.
We are told we are 'running out of time' why?
The French and German 'cowards' (How many wars is France fighting and how many are we? :rolleyes: ) had the best idea (same as Joes first suggestion)
Er... I think you will find an answer above, and on other threads and elsewhere: containment, deterrent, UN inspections and support for opposition groups.
Edited to add : Presumably 'having balls' means rubbing your hands at the forthcoming display of awesome military power from our great nations and watching the war from the comfort (and safety) of your own home while declaring that war is a last resort and a painful decision, but one that had to be taken to stop the suffering... :rolleyes:
Is that actually DJP, or Thanatos or Diesel?
Seriously!
PS Thanks for the inspiration for my new avatar Al!
WARNING: v long post No, I don't believe in war, but I would reject it less. Must he comply? He is of no danger to us, which is what all the politicians are harping on about. And war presumably doesn't threaten the lives of innocents? I cannot understand the argument 'We are going to war to save lives' in this situation. Whilst it may have applied to, say, the second world war, when Jews were in concentration camps, a war here would just create large numbers of refugees. ...is a very helpful change, and that's not the only improvement. No, but civilians aren't the enemy. Indeed, based on the reports of defectors from the Iraqi army, they don't want to fight, and perhaps we should try to minimize their deaths as well. Best way of minimizing deaths? No war. Just because you haven't done anything wrong, doesn't mean you don't have anything to hide. If the British and American Governments, and this applies to all governments all over the World, don't have anything to hide, then why do they not make all information, including that about their defence systems, their intelligence networks, etc, freely available? An example you might understand better: your parents question you about your sex life. You haven't done anything wrong, but you don't really want to tell them about your heavy S&M fantasies do you? I've already answered this. Someone has to take their finger off the trigger. Iraq isn't going to, so perhaps the rest of the world should.
Do tell me, did this policy apply in the Boer War?
My Opinion?
That inspections in Iraq HAVE worked, STILL work and will CONTINUE to work. If America wants to flex its muscles FINE; Fly some spy missions and send in more inspectors.
How many WMD attacks has Saddam perpetrated recently? Or since inspections began?
This 'war' is a needless distraction for the world and particularly the US from our other problems...
Who's forgotten
Kyoto?
Star Wars or NMD?
The way the Presidency can be bought?
Blairs increasing power that has no constitutional checks?
Zimbabwe?
Argentina?
The Euro?
Increasing world hunger?
Lawless Central Africa?
etc etc etc
and the big one from which most of the hatred of the west comes today;
Palestine and Israel.
Sort that one out and you will immediately win friends across the arab world!
Killing each others children was never the answer and will never begin to be.
Lets show a little maturity and stop degrading ourselves to Saddam and other terrorists levels.
I believe I discussed the 'compliance' thing in the other thread. Take a few steps back and try to see the situation in perspective. Iraq invaded Kuwait over a decade ago, and used gas against the Iranian army and a Kurdish village (without any censure from the US, the CIA even claiming years later that the Iranians used gas first) before even that.
Now, Bush and his cronies are talking about attacking Iraq, not in retaliation for Irqi aggression, but because Saddam is being 'un-cooperative' with the people looking for weapons that haven't been used for over a decade. It's such a ridiculous proposition that they feel compelled to rope in fantasies about links to al-Qa'ida, and compare Saddam to Hitler (even though Kuwait, unlike Czechoslovakia in the 1930's, was swiftly liberated), and tug at people's heartstrings by telling us how much the Iraqi people will rejoice at Saddam's overthrow (something which was never part of the deal; the US even allowed to Saddam to remain in power when the opposition in Iraq had a real chance of deposing him).
All these things taken together, it's clear that such a muddled response to Saddam's regime leaves something missing from the equation. That's why nobody trusts Bush or Blair's intentions towards Iraq, and why the best they can realistically hope for is to leave the inspectors to do a thankless job ('Thankless' because their real job, as far as Bush is concerned, is to give the US an excuse to invade Iraq, and it's just too late to do that, now). Bush/Blair have already demonstrated that they don't do 'realistic', though.
As long as the US and UK continues to pay the bill to do so, huh?
And no, unfortunately, the goal is not accomplished.
Sorry for the length of this.
Thank you for finally answering the question.
When it comes to balls, I think what was meant was that it is easy to criticise without offering an opinion of you own. Question was, do you have the courage to put you own beliefs up there to be shot down as you have done to others.
You answered that one.
I have never said that war will save lives. What I have tried to point out is that we put lives at risk by using a non-violent approach too.
Your arguments were going well until this point. If Iraq won’t take it’s finger off the trigger then that is precisely why we shouldn’t.
Can I ask you what you think the Inspectors role actually is? And how you think they have worked?
You ask how many WMD attacks have been perpetrated since 1991, but that isn’t their role. Their role is to disarm Saddam, to date this is something which even Hans Blix admit the haven’t been able to do.
And how is any of this relevant?
I might just as well ask about my in-growing toenail.
And I’m sure that Al-Qaeda would disagree. But then, like Palestine, they aren’t linked to Iraq either.
So time is a factor?
Let me give you an example (but not a direct comparison).
In 1918 WW1 ended, with certain ceasefire conditions in place. Between 1933 and 1939 most of these were breached. Count the years…
There is a reason that the ceasefire conditions were put in place on Saddam, they are there to ensure that he never uses aggression against an neighbour again. More than that they are there to ensure that he doesn’t have the capability to act aggressively again.
He’s in this for the long run. It’s a typical western reaction to “get bored” with something and walk away. Saddam knows this, just as Ho CHi Minh did in the past. Saddam knows that he will outlast most western leaders because they have to face a vote every four years, and US presidents only sever a max of eight. SO he sits and waits until he gets a President who takes his eye off Iraq. Then he will act.
I’d rather take away his capability to act.
Indeed.
But does that mean that they shouldn’t be enforced anywhere else?
For the patrols over the "no-fly" zone? Nope.
For the satellite survelliance? Nope.
For the pre-positioned supplies in Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Nope.
For the Turkish defence of their border with Iraq? Nope.
For the carriers that sit in the Gulf as part of the package? Nope.
As a matter of fact, what does the UN pay for of the costs of containing Saddam Hussein?
If those who don't vote are charged with having little right to complain or comment, or further the criticisms of France's actions in NATO, How much more does this say about Bush's comments on the UN?
Isn't this something to do with the UN Building being in New York free?
I may be wrong, of course...
You're right there were no ceasefire conditions in place then, and yes the US turned a blind eye.
But things change.
What the UN Resolution (not the US resolution) highlighted was that here is a man in possession of horrific weaponry and who, at that time, was posing a signifcant threat to his neighbours and by proxy the interests of a large percentage of the world. What his history shows is that he is prepared to us these weapons if he feels it is warranted.
That he had the capability to inflict large scale casulaties, and to bully using fear of these weapons, meant that he had to be disarmed. The situation now is that he still has that capability. The only difference is our awareness of that. Unless we disarm him, he will continue to pose a threat and most notably at the moment that the US (in particular) drops it's interest.
When people talk about "how the world changed after 11/9" they think it is just rhetoric designed to link everything to Al-Qaeda. It isn't. The world changed because the US position on "potential" threats changed. What the evnts of that day highlighted for the US is that if you turn your back on a rabid dog, eventually it will bite you in the arse. Or from their perspective, bite them in the arse.
What the US position now reflects is the knowledge of a man who has threatened his neighbours, who still has the capability to threaten its neighbours and who - as a result of the First Gulf War - has an ingrained hatred of the US and anyone who supports them.
They are no longer prepared to turn their back and lay themselves open in such a way as they did with Osama. Better to disarm him now.
Has it? Who told you?
Or is it the media wh have lost interest?
Or is it just that what we are doing isn't being publicised by the Govt?
You shouldn't assume that becuase nothing is being reported, that nothing is happening...
Perhaps we could ask the troops still in Afghanistan hunting down members of this group, or the intelligence service. Perhaps we could ask the family of a certain murdered policeman in Manchester...
And don't you think it's even more peculiar that this happened as America's despair and anger about Al Qaeda grew louder at the US government's failure to dismantle Al Qaeda and capture bin Laden? Nicely timed as the anniversary of 911 approached?
Did you read what I put?
How soon after 11/9 did Bush label Iraq as one of the "axis" countries?
Hmmm..given what I do everyday, I can tell you that the interest in Al Queda has not been lost.
If i see that, or a similar phrase used again I may have to write a long, boring, rambling post about the hypocracy of the western position concerning WMD, and you don't want that! :crazyeyes
I wouldn't if I was you. Otherwise someone would point out - yet again - about willingness to use them "aggressively".
We all know that many western nations maintain a stockpile of these weapons. Name me one leader who has used them.
It may not appear much, but it is significant.
You will also have noticed the entire sentence I used, rather than the selected quote