Ahh so you're one of these conspiracy theorists that Radio 5 have been reporting on the past two days, and I've yet to hear anybody they've interviewed give 'you types' any credibility whatsoever. But then I suppose you think the BBC have been had, and they're in on it too?
I've not taken to read too many of your posts but you come over extremely anti GW2, would you not be the very same person jumping up and down if an airliner was to be shot down departing Heathrow, bemoaning the fact we should have done something to prevent and would have been able bar the fact that all our troops were preparing for a jolly in the sunshine?
Not at all - I just don't trust this 'government' to make sound decisions. And after "that dossier" fiasco especially, I don't trust them to tell us the truth either. B'liar is an egomaniac and as such is dangerous. Period.
I also do not allow myself to be blindly spoon-fed by the media (an 'organisation' that I am quite familiar with)
What ever gave you that idea? Yes I am extremely 'anti GW2' for two main reasons:
1. I don't see possesion of WMD as enough reason to invade a country, smash the place up and then impose our 'faultless western ideologies' there. It is Saddam's intent to use WMD that we must establish first. In that case, let's rock!
2. There are far more important (and pressing) issues, namely; North Korea and the Israel/Palestine situation.
..would you not be the very same person jumping up and down if an airliner was to be shot down departing Heathrow...
Any terrorist attack, no matter what the scale, is a tragedy, however it is my belief that if the UK/US were to unleash its so-called can of "whoopass", the resulting terrorist backlash would be intensive and relentless. Not to mention the fact that it would likely set West-Arab relations back 500 years....
The current situation is in danger of causing an almighty shítstorm from which we (the human race) may never recover.... I hope I'm wrong...I really do.
I don't profess to have the definitive answer to global terrorism either...I just feel that the current path we are on is an arrogant, belligerent and highly destructive one.
In conclusion, I will be no doubt be heading out there in the near future and, despite my objections, I will carry out my duties, as required of me by Her Majesty's Government, to the best of my abilities.
Do you just sit in box with your fingers in your ears going la la la la la all day then? I'm interested on how you do manage to form an opinion when you don't trust the media, don't trust the governement, come to think of it do you trust anybody other than yourself?
I'd be interested to see how North Korea and the Palestine issue manage to rate themselves above the Iraqi one? Are North Korea's WMD more dangerous than the Iraqi ones? We surely can't stomp into their country? Lets talk with the comrades? And how does the Isreali's shooting dead stone throwers worry us? Maybe if we look the other way it will all go away?
As for what would be unleashed, we don't appear to be fairing too well with the status quo. I think there is a long line of volunteers ready to do their worse without any 'whoopass' from either the Yanks or us. I'd rather we were pro-active and suffer, than just suffer. I personally feel the Iraqi / Bin Laden situation are two entirely seperate entities, but it doesn't stop me thinking that it's time to depose Saddam once and for all. I suppose if Hitler was about today, and he wasn't invading anybody, we'd sit back whilst he marched people off to the gas chambers? Maybe we'd send in a Red Cross team to monitor.
This diverged well beyond what I orginally wanted to say which is you're off your trolley if you think this is all rigged as some attempt to sway public opinion. In your mind you are of the opinion that the 'government' are unable to make sound decisions, what make's you so sure that they think they could pull off a stunt like this?
If you are going to get on a high horse over dictators and people behaving in "Bad form" then why aren't you jumping up and down about what is currently going on in Zimbabwe?
Mugabe is a fcuking nut job, conducting genocide and is getting away with it.......
Also on what grounds do we have to invade Iraq? Yes Saddam is a thug and a mentally unstable egomaniac. However, there has as yet been NO definitive proof of the existence of current WMD's in Iraq presented, even the UN inspectors are asking for more time so that they can try and find something. As to North Korea I personnaly feel that the fact that they have Nukes and a quite happy to use them is better grounds for intervention - Chem/Bio war fare will kill every living thing in the area of impact and its surrounds, the stuff will linger for a time and then degrade - nuclear war is pretty permenant.....which would you rather see?
The implications and possible ramifications of invading Iraq and alienating the Gulf states and the Arab world could potentialy be devasting - to the economy of the western world (which is going down the pan anyway), the mid east relations with the West, massive ramping up of terrorist recruitment and activities and it will in NO way help to resolve any outstanding issue v's Bin Laden.
And while i'm having a rant - the way in which the govt is going about kitting out and equiping the soldiers to go the Gulf is an absolute fcuking disgrace......The whole thing is a badly thought out farce.
Line Grunt, I strongly agree with you that the way the Government has gone about this deployment to the gulf is quite appalling! Whilst Blair has appeared resolute and single minded in his actions most of Whitehall seems to have been dithering in the background unwilling to commit to a decision. Regardless of whether Blair is right or wrong in perusing his current Iraq policy, if there were the slightest chance of deploying troops into offensive operations in Iraq then soldiers should have been given adequate preparation and training time. That means getting them into country, acclimatised and prepared for warm weather ops. For too long in the build-up to the Gulf deployment the firemans strike has taken priority over GW2, consequently troops are deploying with less preparation and training than they deserve or need.
As for the inadequacies of the equipment they are deploying with what have DLO been doing over the last few years, certainly not contingency planning. ???
And so to Sadam, where have you guys been over the last 12 years? The UN and particularly the UK and US Governments have given his regime more chances than he deserves, had Clinton spent less time soliciting his staff and actually followed a foreign policy we might not be in the current position. It is by applying legitimate force to remove a despot dictatorship that will reduce the threat that exists elsewhere (Korea is but one potential hotspot). If we allow Sadam to get away with 12 years of mocking the UN then we might as well disband the organisation for all it is worth. What do you think he has done with all the chemical and biological weapons that we know he previously possessed? If he had them before he will have them now!
The kit issue is inexcusable. Soldiers being issued with trousers that fit at the waist but only reach to just below their knees - dead trendy im sure, but bloody useless for the desert.
Some one should get sacked, or better yet sent out to the Gulf in what they are issuing to the troops and left to fend for themselves.
I am perfectly aware that Saddam has not been a good boy over the last 12 years (as are the majority of people who post here) - however, the majority of the sanctions imposed on Iraq have been weak and ineffectual and he and his ministers have been able to work around them (with a bit of help from his friends in Europe.....but that is another issue for another thread.) You might as well scrap the Un using that arguement over the issue of Israels lack of compliance......
As I understand it, the majority of Saddams Chem + Bio weapons were destroyed during the previous inspection programmes....though this still does leave him time to have recreated some of them, they cannot be at the same level as they were during GW1.
Where is the clear and present danger to the West from Iraq? Yes they could try and mount terrorist attacks, but not conventional warfare as has been implied....The main threat that Iraq presents is to its neighbours - some of whom have the same record as Iraq for despotism - not the West.
The only main interest to the West is the oil resources located in Iraq + what would appear to the economic interests in the US concerniong Oil, Arms or both. Rory Bremmner made a very interesting comment re this last night on his programme - the crux of which is that the majority of the hawks in Bushes cabinet that are pro war have significant interests in companies that specialise in oil, arms or both those industries - which currently are some of the hardest hit by the economic downturn in the US......makes you wonder, eh!
Where are the clear and definable operational goals, the concept of operations, limits of exploitation and planning for post conflict contingencies etc.? Where is the infrastructure in theatre to support an all out war effort - the Yanks may have it set up, we sure as hell don't. Nowhere that I have come across - even the troops going or in the Gulf don't seem to have a clear understanding of their military and political role in the near future.
I'm not sure that I agree entirely with your conspiracy theory
- the crux of which is that the majority of the hawks in Bushes cabinet that are pro war have significant interests in companies that specialise in oil, arms or both those industries - which currently are some of the hardest hit by the economic downturn in the US......makes you wonder, eh!
But you are quite correct oil is power and I am sure that the US sees the removal of Sadam and the acquisition of his oil as a single objective, when they should be clearly separated. It is of course those very reserves, which destabilise the region. There is clearly considerable western investment in the Middle East, which are potentially threatened by Iraq (thats what GW1 was all about) I see no problem in defending those interests - whether they are worth going to war for again is the issue. However if there is no other way to remove Sadam then conflict it must be.
the problem we now face is that the US and UK are on a one way roller coaster and frankly I see no way off!
I'm fine with that; I'm one of those that doesnt believe that the case needs proving more than it has already, more inspections and more time suits the Iraqi regime just fine. But Blair and Bush need to be careful not to call wolf too many times.
The conundrum now is as you correctly address in your final para:
Where are the clear and definable operational goals, the concept of operations, limits of exploitation and planning for post conflict contingencies etc.? Where is the infrastructure in theatre to support an all out war effort - the Yanks may have it set up, we sure as hell don't.
If we dont have a UNSC agreement and we still have disagreement across Europe, what chance is there of rebuilding Iraq post any conflict. If we leave it to the UK and US to go it alone then the US will likely shape the new regime in its own style, which is the last thing we need. Europe and the UN need to accept that this conflict is going to happen with or without their agreement (unless something quite extraordinary occurs) . They will not prevent conflict, but they must be prepared to dilute the influence of the US in a post conflict Iraq.
Just another conspiracy theory.
ANTHRAX killed a number of American civilians after sept 11th, was it terrorists, well the Anthrax was found to be an American cultured batch, taken from a laboratory in Maryland, thousands of emergency workers were vaccinated against Anthrax, your quest find the name of the company that makes the vaccine (clue theres only one in the whole of America), then find the list of directors of said company, I assure you, you will be amazed who made millions out of this venture!!!!!
Find the oil companies that bush snr and jnr have an interest in along with other leading American politicians, also bush snr OWNS an arms manufacturer that supplies US forces, what does he make ???
Answers on a post card