View Full Version : Iraq/UN
OK, I'm worried.
If China, Russia or France use their veto and the US goes to war anyway, without the backing of the UN - THIS IS THE END OF THE UN.
C/f THe League of Nations.
We sign up to the rules then don't play by them. SO, if we don't , why should anyone else?
WHy should Iraq comply when the US is flying the the internal legislative face? If I was him I wouldn't...
TBH, I think that the war will just destabilise the West, rather than achieving anything good.
Not in my name.
In our defence I have to say that at least England (or the UK if prefered) tends to abide by most international rules/laws, even when its to our detrement. However our american cousins? pay only lip service to international opinion/. They constantly flaunt international law when it suits them and ride roughshod over anyone whos views do not entirely agree with their own. They speak of freedom and tolerence but only their particular brand.
I wish I didnt feel like this but I'm afraid I do not trust the American government as far as I could throw them. They are hypercritical war mongers.
Not in my name either.
This whole business came about when America decided it wanted to go to war with Iraq, pure and simple. I'm not sure of the reasons - I'm sure very few people are. What has followed since that initial decision is merely to try and legitimise America's plan.
1. They try and prove a link between Al-Quida and Iraq. They fail, despite the efforts of the whole goddam CIA. :D
2. They try to go the UN route, using Iraq's development of 'weapons of mass destruction' as a reason for invasion. When it swiftly becomes clear that the UN doesn't want to go to war yet, for a variety of reasons (like giving the weapon inspectors time to work, like the idea of Iraq being a hazard to anyone right now being very hard to prove), they then say they will go it alone.
3. They try and claim that they need to change the regime 'for the sake of the Iraqi people'. Well I don't see them doing the same to the other regimes around the world that treat their people badly. America may like to style itself as a bouncer for the world (by the way, who the f*ck elected them to that position? Oh, American arrogance did? I see) but I don't remember them giving a flying f*ck about the genocide in Rwanda, about the situation in the former Yugoslavia, about the human rights violations in China... the list is long. In the first two examples, the UN did something (but very late and half-heartedly, in the case of Rwanda). America cared f*ck all about those countries. Then suddenly they give a f*ck about the Kurds? I doubt it...
It's been pointed out that America's plan to go to war is totally illegal under international law. They ignore this issue. After all, who's gonna take America to court? :) Especially if, as Starionman points out (and was previously mentioned in a TV debate a few weeks ago by an american spokesperson) by refusing to go to war, the UN is irrevocably damaged.
Listen to any interview with a pro-war politician - their reasons for going to war are confused - a combination of the above three points, usually. You'd have thought than on an issue that has such a degree of importance ;) they'd have got their motivation sorted...
Bottom line is that America wants to go to war, and nothing anyone does or says it gonna change that. Blair can either sink or swim with this.
Oh, and just to add... ;)
The idea of a massive force going to war against a much smaller one to stamp out the terrorism associated with the smaller one is worse than idiotic.
The terrorists who exist that hate America (in particular the Muslim terrorists) exist purely because of America's foreign policies, which are often very anti-Muslim (consider their unswerving support of Israel, for one). This is because acts of terrorism are the only way such a small body of people can make an impact against such a large nation.
These people are pretty fanatical in their religious devotion, but that's a fact of living with that particular religion. If America wants to 'stamp them out', they have to stop annoying them, and come to some sort of public compromise - it's the only way of dealing with this sort of warfare. Attacking yet another Muslim country is only gonna add fuel to the Terrorists' fire, and add more young men to the queue outside the Al-Quida recruitment office! Unfortunately, American arrogance makes it very unlikely that they will ever change their policies - this would be an admission of earlier error.
Put it this way: the part that will not (cannot) change is that fanatical Muslims exist, and will continue to do so. The bit that can change is America's policies. It's a simple relationship of cause and effect.
tim rome
09-03-2003, 22:23
UNSCR 1441 stated that sadam had to destroy all WMD's and provide proof of doing so. the finding of missiles last week proves that he has not done so. It is not for the weapons inspectors to wander around a huge country looking for weapons that he may or may not have hidden it is up to sadam to hand over all weapons that contravene the resolution. The resolution states that if he does not comply then he will face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.. now it doesnt matter whether u are for war or against it, but one thing is clear to me and that is that u dont get more SERIOUS than war, so if Russia and China and France vote against war then the question to ask, surely should be "why have you now changed your minds"
Marky Boy
09-03-2003, 22:48
this is what could happen
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml
possibly :D
Nathan_200sx
09-03-2003, 23:05
I havent had the pleasure of readind any of the above but if the french are involved then **** em. the usa has only had 200 odd years of independace so there more like us than any french,russian, german ****er. Thats unleess they didnt step in a little scrape we had about 50 years ago :rolleyes:
Originally posted by tim rome
UNSCR 1441 stated that sadam had to destroy all WMD's and provide proof of doing so. the finding of missiles last week proves that he has not done so. It is not for the weapons inspectors to wander around a huge country looking for weapons that he may or may not have hidden it is up to sadam to hand over all weapons that contravene the resolution. The resolution states that if he does not comply then he will face SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES.. now it doesnt matter whether u are for war or against it, but one thing is clear to me and that is that u dont get more SERIOUS than war, so if Russia and China and France vote against war then the question to ask, surely should be "why have you now changed your minds"
1) A missile is not a weapon of mass destruction - this term refers to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
2) Agreed, the weapons inspectors shouldn't have to cover the whole of Iraq to find the weapons, but if Saddam has any hidden, do you really expect him to just say "oh, sorry, there ya go"? :) He claims that he has complied, and Dr Blix & his team are checking up on the sites he has told them about. No-one's mentioned him scouring the entire country (yet) :)
tim rome
09-03-2003, 23:16
a missile is quite a good method of delivering a chemical biological or nuclear warhead though, would u not agree, which is why those missiles are illegal (they can travel further than allowed by the previous resolution)
Originally posted by tim rome
a missile is quite a good method of delivering a chemical biological or nuclear warhead though, would u not agree, which is why those missiles are illegal (they can travel further than allowed by the previous resolution)
Indeed. But the payload is the important bit. :) A missile without a nasty (=C,B,N) payload is just a big firework ;)
tim rome
09-03-2003, 23:31
so why would you have a missile then???
As a weapon, like sticks 'n' guns 'n' bombs 'n' tanks. With an explosive payload.
They aren't (yet) trying to stop him having any weapons at all - this is something I guess countries are allowed as a form of defence against unfriendly neighbours.
Although I reckon he'll have very few large weapons left soon (once the Stealths have paid a visit... ;) )
call me awkward...
Put yourself in a dictator's shoes.
Now, a major foreign power is threatening to take over your sovereignty (btw illegal by UN law).
Do you
a) roll over, pass up the lube and get rogered?
or b) fight for what you believe in?
Now, you are the leader of the US.
You are being taken to court for all the human rights violations that have occured in the last few years.
do you
a) arm yourself to the teeth and proclaim death to all invaders?
b) roll over over the lube?
somehow the situations are not that different...
Scary...
My neighbour has a tree in his garden and I know for a fact that he has a ball of string! Should I take him out in case he builds a bow and arrow - you never know - he has the capacity to decimate half the street!
Sounds like a sensible plan...
:(
I'm sitting on the fence on this one I'm afraid. Can't see a good argument either way.
One thing that puzzles me is - How come America and other country's can have weapons of mass distruction and some can't? Who decides who's allowed these weapons and who's not? It doesn't seem fair to me.
Dunc.
The Al Samoud missiles weren't "found" by the UN inspectors. The UN & USA have known about them for years ( they're retro engineered missiles based on ones the USA originally supplied them ). They were included in the 20,000 page document which Iraq supplied to the UN several minths ago.
Once again the media & government agencies used this "find" by the UN inspectors to report a fact in a more sensational way. Whether this is spin from the government "encouraging" the media, or just the media reporting news badly I'll leave you to decide.
Iain
Papa Lazarou
10-03-2003, 10:18
Originally posted by Lewis
The Al Samoud missiles weren't "found" by the UN inspectors. The UN & USA have known about them for years ( they're retro engineered missiles based on ones the USA originally supplied them ).
Just a small point but they are AFAIK based on Soviet supplied SA2 Guideline surface to air missiles, nothing US supplied.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 10:22
Originally posted by Papa Lazarou
Just a small point but they are AFAIK based on Soviet supplied SA2 Guideline surface to air missiles, nothing US supplied.
Yep, you're right there, unless the US have started supplying Russian missiles :rolleyes:
Ok, I bow to your better knowledge. But my point is that these have been known about for a long time, they were declared to the UN *but* the US government held had a press conference announcing that these had been "found"
I'm getting dizzy from all this spin
Originally posted by Tombs
It's been pointed out that America's plan to go to war is totally illegal under international law.
Was September 11th legal under international law ? Sometimes laws are not enough.
Right... so this 'find' is the best they can come up with, is it? They can't even find a teeny weeny little bottle of sarin, or something?
And they still think there's justification for war... :(
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 10:38
Originally posted by Lewis
Ok, I bow to your better knowledge. But my point is that these have been known about for a long time, they were declared to the UN *but* the US government held had a press conference announcing that these had been "found"
I'm getting dizzy from all this spin
You may find that these were listed as destroyed. They were already previously banned under another resolution.
And if the UN knew that Iraq had these, then it is obviously living up to what is expected of it.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 10:42
Look at it in a different light.
I'm a mad dictator who takes pleasure in gassing my own people, murdering my own family and torturing my enemies.
I enjoy lettig my own people starve, wilst I live in prosperity.
I have huge stockpiles of Anthrax, VX gas, to threaten m neighbours and other countries.
I'm told I must get rid of my Anthrax, VX gas etc
What should I do.... such a decision. "As if they really think I'd get rid of them - when I'm trying to get my hands on Nuclear weapons."
Well, according to the IEAE there is no evidence that they are trying to re-start they're nuclear weapons programme :
They have not tried to buy enriched Uranium
They can not make enriched Uranium
They have not got any equipment for manufacturing centrifuges
They have not tried to buy any centrifuges or equipment to make them
They do not have the high strength magnets required
They have not tried to buy any magnets or the equipment to make them
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 10:58
Originally posted by Lewis
Well, according to the IEAE there is no evidence that they are trying to re-start they're nuclear weapons programme :
They have not tried to buy enriched Uranium
They can not make enriched Uranium
They have not got any equipment for manufacturing centrifuges
They have not tried to buy any centrifuges or equipment to make them
They do not have the high strength magnets required
They have not tried to buy any magnets or the equipment to make them
So the hundreds of tonnes of yellow cake tha twere photographed by the media last year is for the Iraqi people to eat is it?
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 11:00
Originally posted by Lewis
huh ?
Yellow cake, a compound of Uranium that is used in the manufacture of enriched Uranium.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 11:02
Saying they haven't tried to buy these things is like saying that Saddam has not bought equipment to manufacture Anthrax, which strictly speaking is true.
What he did buy however, were mobile fermenters to manufacture Antibiotics, which can also be used to maufacture bacteria.
I think we have a moral right to eradicate people like Saddam. I know that's not stricktly the reason for wanting to do it, and it hasn't been done before to other countries, but I think it should be done - therefore I am for the War. If there was a peaceful way to get him, that would be better - but there isn't.
Mate, I'm just going by what El Baradei reported to the UN on Friday ( I have trouble remembering last week, let alone last year ). He was pretty adamant that they are not capable of mfg enriched uranium.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 11:12
Originally posted by Lewis
Mate, I'm just going by what El Baradei reported to the UN on Friday ( I have trouble remembering last week, let alone last year ). He was pretty adamant that they are not capable of mfg enriched uranium.
And I am sure the Iraqis would tell the UN if they had. :rolleyes:
and El Baradei who's the expert in this, appointed by the UN, has got it all wrong ? His team have not investigated properly and just taken the word of Iraq ?
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 11:26
Originally posted by Lewis
and El Baradei who's the expert in this, appointed by the UN, has got it all wrong ? His team have not investigated properly and just taken the word of Iraq ?
I don't believe any man would be able to find out if a country had a secret Nuclear program, if that country seriously wanted to keep it hidden. At the end of the day, he can only go by what information he is given. And he has also stated that Iraq has not been completely coooperating when it comes to this.
Remember, the weapons inspectors aren't detectives.
He maybe correct when he states that they do not have the capability to enrich Uranium, however that isn't to say that they aren't trying.
Nathan_200sx
10-03-2003, 11:44
In 1994, Middle East Watch-Human Rights Watch issued a report entitled "Bureaucracy of Repression" that summarized findings from the documents. While no master plan to exterminate the Kurds emerged from the papers, the report said, "the evidence is sufficiently strong to prove a case of genocidal intent."
Most notable among the findings, it added, "is the unequivocal evidence we have been able to accumulate of Iraq's repeated use of chemical weapons against the Kurds." Researchers also unearthed "an impressive documentary record" of an Iraqi campaign to raze all Kurdish villages and deport their populations, as well as considerable evidence of executions and other illegal reprisals.
One important document from 1989 also outlined a "plan of Action for the Marshes," which called for poisoning the water, burning homes, and imposing an economic blockade in Iraq's southern marsh areas.
Notice
"is the unequivocal evidence we have been able to accumulate of Iraq's repeated use of chemical weapons against the Kurds."
so they have proof he's had it, they have proof he's used it they just cant find it. But that doesnt mean he doesnt still have it. what should we wait for ? Sadam in a Bio suit walking down the streets dousing families in the stuff?
Read the full story here :-
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/studies/2002/dec/18_irdp.html
Visit the links to the other document's they've found, it's a bit shocking realy
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 11:48
Just another thought...... qusetions of how much of a threat is he directly to us.
Remember the last Gulf War? When we were legitimately liberating Kuwait (Or should we have just left them.) He set light to the oil feeds and dumped tonnes of oil into the gulf.
Whether you like it or not, those clouds of smoke did affect us.
And he has said that he will do it again.
Originally posted by Nelson
Was September 11th legal under international law ? Sometimes laws are not enough.
9/11 was a TERRORIST attack NOT one by a set nation intent on declaring war on America.
Terrorism is not a set target, it lurks in the shadows. Thats why it works.
So while were on this big moral crusade and we've known about this for the past 15 years or so, then Why the F@*k haven't we done anything about it in the past?
This has nothing to do with freeing the people of Iraq. Its just a benefit to the war (Possibly)
My biggest concern is that it won't end with Iraq. If America fails to get satisfaction then where next? And what if North Korea starts.
The future potentially doesn't look particularly rosy:(
Originally posted by AshT_200
Remember the last Gulf War? When we were legitimately liberating Kuwait (Or should we have just left them.) He set light to the oil feeds and dumped tonnes of oil into the gulf.
Whether you like it or not, those clouds of smoke did affect us.
WTF:eek:
How much Sh!t does the good ole US put into the atmosphere every day? And what happened to the US recently when they tried to get some agreement on toxic emissions???? The US said FOOK OFF WERE DOING WHAT WE LIKE:mad: :mad: :mad:
Originally posted by AshT_200
I don't believe any man would be able to find out if a country had a secret Nuclear program
So how does anyone know he has a "secret" program ?
Originally posted by AshT_200
Remember, the weapons inspectors aren't detectives.
Then why are they there ? They're job is to find the items, or evidence of the items. By definition doesn't that make them detectives ?
Originally posted by AshT_200
He maybe correct when he states that they do not have the capability to enrich Uranium, however that isn't to say that they aren't trying.
How can he try to make enriched Uranium if he has no capability ?
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm having a pop at you Ash, I'm just really cynical about the media & the way Gov's use the media.
If the weapons inspectors aren't trusted to do the job they were given, and do it thoroughly, then they shouldn't be there.
I'm not pro or anti war. IMHO I don't think that we ( Britain ) should just blindly follow the USA, and that we ( British people ) should be given more information by the gov. and less hype & opinion.
That's my rant over with. I really should do some work now :)
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 12:11
They weren't put there to find the stuff. They were put there to study what they have said they have done and doing to ensure compliance.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 12:16
On the subject of September the 11th. I hate this 9-11 crap, they did find evidence that some of the terrorists involved DID have dealings with Iraqi Government officials.
What this involvement was is not known, but I'm sure the Iraqi's said, "destroying the World Trade Centre is a bad thing to do and you must not do it." :rolleyes:
And trying to get the parts to enrich Uranium is as good as trying to enrich Uranium.
Originally posted by GrahamB
So while were on this big moral crusade and we've known about this for the past 15 years or so, then Why the F@*k haven't we done anything about it in the past?
This has nothing to do with freeing the people of Iraq. Its just a benefit to the war (Possibly)
As I said, justice for Iraqi's is not what is primarily driving this war, but if that is a result, then I'm for it. I said that we hadn't done this before - but that doesn't mean it's not right to do it now.
Originally posted by AshT_200
Remember, the weapons inspectors aren't detectives.
Why don't they send Columbo in ? - he'd sort it !
"Just one more thing that's troubling me, Mr Hussain...":D
Just want to clarify one point before I give my opinions. IMO the Security Council is but one part of the UN. When they say the UN is made irrelevant if the US attacks without UN backing, what of the many UN organisations such as UNHCR, WHO, WFP, UNICEF, etc. that are doing a very good job?
As for the topic at hand. I am drawn between attacking Iraq and not. Having worked in Baghdad a few years ago I would stress that the biggest villain in the whole conflict is the sanctions.
Don’t forget that Iraq was not an impoverished nation before the invasion. And although you did not want to be on the wrong side of Saddam, he had a good welfare system and people did not go hungry.
So in my opinion the situation is this. Either confirm that he does not have any weapons and drop the sanctions or go to War and then drop sanctions. The worse thing is to continue the containment process.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 14:42
Originally posted by Nick
The worse thing is to continue the containment process.
Which is what the Anti War camp is all about.
Originally posted by Nick
And although you did not want to be on the wrong side of Saddam, he had a good welfare system and people did not go hungry.
I believe he likes to give the Kurds a taste of mustard gas every now and then !
Never said Saddam was a saint. However he does not look that bad when compared to some of the African gov/rebel leaders. Yet I dont see the US charging in.
AshT_200
10-03-2003, 16:17
The US is in some African countries as part of a UN peace keeping force, until the UN decided to pull out.
It was a UN led drive in Africa.
It was a UN led drive in Africa.
Exactly - a UN drive - not lead by the Americans. Lets face it the Americans couldnt care less about any countries record on human rights unless there is something in it for them. Where were they when Saddam was killing the Curds? Where were they when corrupt governments in Africa let thousands of their own people starve to death? Where were they when Argentina invaded the Falklands? Where were they on numerous other occasions?
Stockpiles of WMD - wonder who amongst the superpowers has the largest stockpile of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and have they used them?
America uses atomic weapons in WW2 - America uses Agent Orange, Napalm and God only knows what else indescriminantly in Vietnam - America uses depleated uranium shells in the last gulf war (there is such a fuss at the moment about the possibility of terrorists using 'dirty bombs' wonder where they got that idea from?
If, in this war only the guilty suffered then OK, so be it, but if we go ahead with this maddness there will be many many innocent people killed and for what? A fear, a possibility, political gain, popularity!
Sod this - there has to be other ways
Another thing to bear in mind is (and I'm 99% sure I'm right) is that Bush hasn't got anything to lose - he's near the end of his term of office.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I agree with the fact that the sanctions are probably one of the biggest culprits in this war. They have removed a lot of things from the ordinary Iraqis - including pencils. Pencils? Hmm, graphite can be used for all sorts of things apparently...
I think we should have a mass invasion of Newsnight.... Storm the stage LOL
But if US attacks without UN backing... where does that leave any of us?
Nismo_Freak
11-03-2003, 12:20
Originally posted by GD1
It was a UN led drive in Africa.
Exactly - a UN drive - not lead by the Americans. Lets face it the Americans couldnt care less about any countries record on human rights unless there is something in it for them. Where were they when Saddam was killing the Curds? Where were they when corrupt governments in Africa let thousands of their own people starve to death? Where were they when Argentina invaded the Falklands? Where were they on numerous other occasions?
Stockpiles of WMD - wonder who amongst the superpowers has the largest stockpile of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and have they used them?
America uses atomic weapons in WW2 - America uses Agent Orange, Napalm and God only knows what else indescriminantly in Vietnam - America uses depleated uranium shells in the last gulf war (there is such a fuss at the moment about the possibility of terrorists using 'dirty bombs' wonder where they got that idea from?
If, in this war only the guilty suffered then OK, so be it, but if we go ahead with this maddness there will be many many innocent people killed and for what? A fear, a possibility, political gain, popularity!
Sod this - there has to be other ways
I suppose using nuclear weapons is different than dropping tons and tons of firebombs on innocent British and German civilians at night via thousands of bombers. I suppose that wasnt mustard or chlorine gas being unleashed on the stalemated battlefields of WWI. That couldnt be diseased ridden bodies behind flung over the walls? We can all be accused of using WMDs. America did drop the bomb twice. But if you look at it from a numbers perspective you can see how it not only saved countless American and Aussie lives, but Japanese lives as well.
Agent Orange wasn't unleashed to cause chemical destruction to troops. It's purpose was a defoliating agent that would allow US forces to use heavy ordanance to expose areas heavily used by the VC and NVA.
Napalm? Since when is napalm a WMD... ? Lets see here, Napalm vs. 50 megaton Hydrogen Bomb. Although napalm is a destructive element, it is not as destructive as a gas attack, bio attack, or nuclear attack. I'd be like saying a grenade is a WMD.
When Saddam was gassing the Kurds in the North I dont know where the US was. I also didnt see the UK, France, Germany, or Russia there either.
About the depleated uranium. Many un-educated people hype the usage of depleated uranium simply because its base element is used to produce nuclear weapons. There are roughly 3 types of uranium found. Enriched Uranium has a higher radioactivity (reaction rate) than common uranium, this is what is used in nuclear reactions. Common Uranium is found in its normal radioactivity state. Depleated Uranium is about 40% less radioactive than common uranium. Testing from Iowa University determined that the "Gulf War Syndrome/Sickness" was a result of the uranium's "heavy" metal properties and most cases were found in people that came in direct contact with the metal on a consistant basis. Essentially its similar to lead in effect. Old British sailors ate off of lead pewter plates which led to an accumulation of lead in the kidneys (also where uranium has its effect). Traces of both chemicals are detected in urine. There are plenty of websites and groups that claim the DU rounds caused defects in children. Of 33 tested soldiers the worse cases still had 7 children total, non exhibited any defects or abnormalities. These troops ot only came in contact with the substance daily but a few of them had shards of DU embedded in them from friendly fire incidents.
Also note that Uranium has a halflife of 4.5 Billion years. Which means it has very low radioactivity. The active element in household smoke detectors is an Americum (sp) isotope (either 123 or 125). It's tons more radioactive than uranium. Although it's radioactivity can not pass through a simple sheet of paper. It's still absorbed by skin cells which can lead to cancer. We naturally absorb uranium radiation everyday as well. This by no means is a reason to coat your house in uranium, or brush your teeth with it.
Corrupt governments in Africa... oh would that include Somalia? Need I remind you that 18 US soldiers died and 84 were injured trying to help Somalians in Mogadishu.
Falklands Conflict, lets see here. I actually studied this in school somewhat.
Circa 1520-1560 - Spanish sight Islands and note them on maps.
Circa 1590 - British notice Islands
Circa 1600 - Dutch notice Islands (first undesputed claim)
1690 - Brits claim islands for crown.
1764 - French create first perm. settlement on East Island
1765 - Brits settle West Island
1767 - Spanish buy out French Island
1770 - Spanish Flotilla arrives and demands Brits leave
1771 - Brits come back
1774 - Brits leave islands for economical reasons (Vive la Revolution!)
1810ish - Argentina arrives on the block
1820 - Argentina claims inhibited Falklands
1831 - Americans come and blow up Argentina settlement (thats nice of em... well they did sieze 3 US boats)
1833 - Afraid the US would take the Islands the Brits re-invade 17th century style.
1964 - UN Coucil says No colonies ... Argentina and UK give arguments to claim
1965 - UN tells the two to sort it out peacefully
1982 - Still arguing
1982 - WAR ... Argentina invades
During the war the US took an active roll in mediation and diplomacy. US Secretary of State Haig helps to enact sanctions against Argentina. Haig also flew to Argentina and tried to find a peaceful agreement to end the war. Shortly after the failure of Haig, Ronald Reagen offers US assistance and backs the embargoes on Argentina.
Peace agreement nearly signed when British sub sinks Argentina boat and kills 400 on board. More war... lots of casualties.
In the end the UK prevails. IMO the war was over before the US could mass troops to commit. In a matter of months the war was over. Look how long it takes to mobilize troops and naval support for Iraq. This is in an age where communication and mobilization is made alot easier via the use of computers and newer units. If you notice the US was involved a few times with the Falklands in the past.
Stockpiles of WMDs. Yes the US has a very very very high amount of these weapons. Its a double edged sword. They prevent wars and they can turn them even darker wars when/if used. There is a difference between the US and say Iraq or N. Korea. The US has a larger power base that requires more than 1 person to turn the key. In N. Korea, USSR (of the old), and Iraq (assuming it has the capability) there is one person primarily in power. If Saddam wants to nuke Israel all he has to do is make up his mind and push the button. Off goes a missle and WWIII ensues. There is a ton of redtape on US usage of WMDs. If ol' Bush wanted to nuke Iraq then it is impossible for him to do so without proper cause. Arguing about stockpiles is like giving 2 criminals guns and keeping 10 for yourself. You know you arent gonna run out and mug someone but those criminals are more likely to. It is hypocritical yes, but the fact remains that the power prevents major wars. Frankly having enough nuclear warheads to implode the earth 10 gazillion times is a little excessive. You only need about 10 to get your point across to even the thickest of people. Plus the USSR/Russia and the US have been slowly disarming their stockpiles left over from the arms race. Thanks to the SALT talks we are slowly lowering the numbers of weapons.
AshT_200
11-03-2003, 12:30
Originally posted by GD1
It was a UN led drive in Africa.
Exactly - a UN drive - not lead by the Americans. Lets face it the Americans couldnt care less about any countries record on human rights unless there is something in it for them.
My point was, that the UN should be doing the same thing with Iraq. You say the Americans want war for economical reasons. These economical reasons are the reasons why France, Germany and Russia don't. Because they are actively trading with Iraq.
And it was the Americans that were pushing for action in Kosovo, where Genocide was going on. Where Europe wouldrather have sat back and done nothing. This action in Kosovo probably saved far more lives than was lost.
Craig David
11-03-2003, 13:57
I can see two direct effects of war:
1) we see the stealth bomber on TV more. It is the coolest thing ever.
2) the money markets plummet further. I don't fully understand them but stashed some dosh in there two years ago on somone elses advice. This will cost us all loads one way or another. and scupper my plans for a bitching S14a.
tim rome
11-03-2003, 17:21
france dont want a war because like has been said, they have billions invested in iraq and are hoping everything will die down and sanctions lifted. Chirac is a good buddy of sadam also the french never do anything unless it will actually benefit themselves
(just look at bse, they have more cases than us and are still not selling our beef in their shops because its economically better for them to sell their own)
Russia, well i cant recall any one really wanting them to invade afganistan but they did, they are also really worried about what the world will find out after a war (mainly all the russian military equipment sold illegally to sadam over the last few years)
as for germany this has gotta be the first time anything this big has happened since ww2 that they can involve themselves in so they just want their 15 minutes of fame.
Nismo - all nations have the capacity to use terrible weapons of war including our governments, I was not intending to single out America, however it has to be said that in recent history they are widely documented as having used them quite frequently. I cant pretend to be any sort of an expert and on some points I must bow to your superior knowledge but on others I feel you are wrongly defending your government.
It can be argued that the use of the atomic bombs was unnecessery as the Japanese government were on the verge of surrendering, and just who did those bombs kill? soldiers? Strategic militery bases? no innocent people!
Thousands of innocent people were killed during air raids by all nations in WW2, surely that is an argument against war!
Agent Orange is a defoliant yes, but it was widely known to be a rather nasty chemical that was used regardless of its known effects.
In Somalia the American troops were part of a UN force - they did not play a part in resolving the conflict in any other way - yes American troops were killed but how many inocent people were killed in those conflicts? Both our governments are the same I am afraid - they act only too often when there is something in it for them.
Depleted Uranium - if its so relatively harmless then what the hell is the point in using it in the first place - stick to normal AP rounds.
Falklands - yes we British colonised the islands, right or wrong, but the present inhabitants wanted to remain a British colony so we took action - we did not encroach on any other nations sovereignty and we did it with the full backing of the UN and our own people. America played a part in trying to prevent the war yes but they did bugger all to assist us in fighting the war - oh sorry they did offer us an old and outdated carrier should one of ours be sunk but they did nothing to activly support our troops during the battles. Also in retaking the Falklands we did not kill any civilians, only the combatants.
On a final note - a rather unfortunate one - in the last gulf conflict Britain lost more troops to friendly fire than enemy fire and American casualties due to friendly fire were almost as bad.
I am not knocking the American people in general, but the governments who sanction this mass murder. Bush seems to excitable as far as this war is concerned and Blair is following meekly in his footsteps.
Nismo_Freak
12-03-2003, 01:25
Originally posted by GD1
Nismo - all nations have the capacity to use terrible weapons of war including our governments, I was not intending to single out America, however it has to be said that in recent history they are widely documented as having used them quite frequently. I cant pretend to be any sort of an expert and on some points I must bow to your superior knowledge but on others I feel you are wrongly defending your government.
It can be argued that the use of the atomic bombs was unnecessery as the Japanese government were on the verge of surrendering, and just who did those bombs kill? soldiers? Strategic militery bases? no innocent people!
Depleted Uranium - if its so relatively harmless then what the hell is the point in using it in the first place - stick to normal AP rounds.
I just quoted some of the things I wanted to comment on.
Depleted Uranium is very very dense. It also upon impact doesnt mushroom, it instead sharpens itself. This makes it a highly effective anti-armor weapon. It's density and hardness also makes it a highly effective element in armor plating. DU takes more lives of the enemy (provided we dont shoot up ourselves again) and protects us. That is why we use DU over Tungsten, Steel, etc.
BTW, If you think the Japanese government was on the verge of surrendering your highly mistaken. We dropped one nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. They then had 3 days to surrender following its destructive explosion. The US recieved no reply and later dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. Which caused the wars end amidst the Japanese fears that the US had another bomb. President Truman wrote in his diary before the first bomb's use that he expressed that the usage of the bombs was to be against a "purely military" target. The bomb caused an estimated 270,000 casualties. As a compairison the Russians lost over 2 million innocent civilians in the war. I'm sure the firebombing of UK and German cities claimed more lives than the bombs. It was a dark dark time in history. If you look at the actual facts the bombs did relatively little harm but had a very large impact on the war. Invading the Japanese mainland and the conventional bombing by US bombers would have easily claimed more than 270,000 US and Japanese lives. Sometimes you have to weigh the costs of two evil things and make a decision.
More documented cases of using WMDs. Agent Orange is not a WMD, it has side effects that effected not only US but Vietnamese personel. But replace the Agent Orange with something to the effect of Botulism, Mustard Gas, Chlorine Gas, VX, Sarin (sp), or any of the known WMDs and you would have noticed a quite different result. So I ask you to find me documented usage of WMDs, by US forces in recent times.
I'm not trying to turn a wrong into a right. I'm trying to educate you on actual facts. Not the spin given by governments, media, or any other source. War is hell, and its a dirty dirty game we play. We must live with the fact that war is human nature. We must also live with our past. Without a past we are doomed to repeat those mistakes that we made in the past.
BTW. If you come up with usage of WMDs in recent times by the US I'd be highly interested, PM me the websites you found them on or any sources you used.
For the other points not listed in the quote I agree with you. Bombings of cities is a harsh and brutal mark in the past. I can only hope that the usage of guided weaponry will help to curve the loss of innocents should we go to war. The past has been plagued by war and strife. Sadly I dont see an end to the carnage any time soon. People disagree and wars are fought. Hopefully the estabolishment of the UN can help to prevent many wars or at least the suffering encured by innocents.
AshT_200
12-03-2003, 21:52
Since 1990 Iraq has flouted 63 Security Council Resolutions, most of these pertaining to his Weapons of Mass destruction and to the repression of the Iraqi population.
The result of this? Absolutely nothing.
A list of 11 of the most important.
UNSCR660
UNSCR661
UNSCR686
UNSCR687
UNSCR668
UNSCR707
UNSCR715
UNSCR949
UNSCR1051
UNSCR1284
UNSCR1441
France is only vetoing to further it's interest in undermining Euro American relations, in order for them to be leaders in a European Superstate that rivals rather than befriends America. Sounds like a wish for another cold war.
IMHO The UN Security Council is failing in it obligations to the security and freedom of the people of this world.
If Bush goes to war, he's got my support.
My point in mentioning the use of weapons in the past was not really to criticise America, or England for that matter, although I have to say that both our countries dont seem to have any regrets for useing such weapons. it was to point out that throughout history the use of these weapons has been for the most part against civilian targets = atomic bombs - thousands killed and children born with terrible birth defects, agent orange = hundreds killed and children born with terrible birth defects, napalm = all of us of a certain age can remember the heart breaking image of that little girl running towards the camera with her skin hanging off her like rags! As far as Im concerned all of the above are weapons of mass destruction.
Will we never learn - why do our so called civilised countries continue to kill innocent civilians? My main problem with all of this is the eagerness with which Bush and Blair prepare to fight. Its not a fu****g game! There has to be another way.
tim rome
12-03-2003, 22:23
correct me if i am wrong but as far as i know, no 2 democratic countries have ever declared war on each other, if this is the case then the sooner we rid the world of dictatorships the better
Originally posted by tim rome
correct me if i am wrong but as far as i know, no 2 democratic countries have ever declared war on each other, if this is the case then the sooner we rid the world of dictatorships the better
Oil dictatorship? Dollar dictatorship? What sort of dictatorship?
tim rome
12-03-2003, 23:15
i mean anything other than a country like this one where you and i or my next door neighbour can be prime minister
Originally posted by Tombs
Oh, and just to add... ;)
The idea of a massive force going to war against a much smaller one to stamp out the terrorism associated with the smaller one is worse than idiotic.
The terrorists who exist that hate America (in particular the Muslim terrorists) exist purely because of America's foreign policies, which are often very anti-Muslim (consider their unswerving support of Israel, for one). This is because acts of terrorism are the only way such a small body of people can make an impact against such a large nation.
These people are pretty fanatical in their religious devotion, but that's a fact of living with that particular religion. If America wants to 'stamp them out', they have to stop annoying them, and come to some sort of public compromise - it's the only way of dealing with this sort of warfare. Attacking yet another Muslim country is only gonna add fuel to the Terrorists' fire, and add more young men to the queue outside the Al-Quida recruitment office! Unfortunately, American arrogance makes it very unlikely that they will ever change their policies - this would be an admission of earlier error.
Put it this way: the part that will not (cannot) change is that fanatical Muslims exist, and will continue to do so. The bit that can change is America's policies. It's a simple relationship of cause and effect.
CHEERS !!!! I wish I could've said that better myself !! Well written, debated and put across.
I'll be one of the first protesting and doing everything I can to stop this futile war if it happens. (Infact i'm doing what I can now... a good site is www.FaxYourMP.com)
AshT_200
13-03-2003, 10:07
Weel the leader of the opposition has just come out of a meeting at Downing St and has declared he now thinks war is imminent.
When it happens, how about being patriotic and showing some support for the guys in the gulf wo are actually fighting. :)
I will support those men my stupid government send to war, I have a very close friend who's a captain in the army and has a small unit of tanks under his command. I dont want him to get bombed by some American A10!!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.