Should we go to war?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bad CO, Jan 24, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Bad CO

    Bad CO LE Admin Reviews Editor Gallery Guru

    Your chance to vote on this crucial issue...
  2. I wonder what the breakdown of voters is?
    In - Out - TA - Reg etc! ??? :eek:
  3. The problem is, if/when we do go in, what will we actually be fighting?
    Anyone with a gun, in uniform, or anyone that has had sanctions imposed on them for 12 years, has got nothing to lose, and just wants to defend his home?

    I'd like to see what the rules of engagement are on this one because if we're not careful, we'll have generations of Iraqi suicide bombers wanting to meet Allah in a street near you.

    If Maddass has got WMD and the US/UK govt know their location, why don't they tell the inspectors where they are?  I suspect the answer is that when all the troops are in place and ready to roll, the arms inspectors will find something "right at the last minute" so we could go in.

    I just feel that Bush and his lapdog are working to a different timetable and I'm fed up with them insulting everyone's intelligence.

    You've got to ask yourself how did we get from some nutters flying jets into the WTC to something that should have been sorted out 12 years ago and then ask yourself what would have happened if we had left SH alone?

  4. At the end of the day, it will be an illegal invasion of sovereign territory whether approved by the UN or not. Even if it is proven he has WMD - so what?  What gives anyone the right to invade/kill/destroy/capture?

    If we do it alone, will the UN recognise the illegality and send a UN force to challenge US/UK PLC's actions?  Technically, they would be obliged to do so - and where would that leave us?

    It is Saddam's INTENT to use these weapons (if they in fact exist) that must be established first......

    ...then, and only then, will I change my sig! ;D ;D ;D
  5. CGS

    CGS War Hero Moderator

    If we DO do this, then the enemy within has every chance of pulling off something far more horrid than 9/11
  6. CGS

    Perhaps you should pop back to "Ethical concerns"

    Some time since I was able to delve into our "Electronic Battle Box"  But I' sure there is something in there about "Coercion??"  You  do need to be able to show a credible capability for Coercion to be efective???

    There was a lot of hype about what was going to happen after we went into Afghanistan, I must have popped to Tescos whilst  Aramgeddon struck.

    Could it be that our convetional force could be used as a lever for an Irregular Iraqi force in the same way that the Northern Alliance did the business in Afghanistan??

    On the home front

    Please all remember that the Info Ops war started weeks ago.  This :

    is probably somebodys NAI or DP, if  not, its certainly an AII (Area Of Intelligence Interest

    There is an amount of live ammunition lying about on these threads that the likes of the Grauniad and the New Statesman could well use to shoot back at us.  Not only will this salve their bleeding hearts, it can be used to undermine public support for us to do our job

    Line Grunt's post above could be the tip of the Iceberg.

    Please: don't let the media do to us here,  what they did to the spams in Somalia and Vietnam  :eek:

    Eagle: PS

    Two barrels of RICIN in spain.  So just how many completely innocent civvies are going to have to die before you decide to change your sig?????
    (Perhaps U need to speak to someone
    in  media ops  M 8  ??)
  7. well said that man. carry on
  8. There is too much lizard-weaseldom creeping in here.  We are going, our blokes need the support so stop whingeing.
  9. Where the blimmin hell have you been?

    Oh, and welcome back by the way :)
  10. CGS

    CGS War Hero Moderator


    Listened.  Heard.  Do you really think that the think-tanks, radical party media and the geneally misdirected liberal sets not think this already?

    Do you not think that by provoking this debate, the major sectors of the media in this country are not proving the positive rather than the negative?  What better opportunity do you think we posess in order to strengthen our position than to have some thinly veilled criticism of morale in order that we can trounce it in every way by showin stories of the opposite?

    Now don't get me wrong,  I'm VERY assured of the right path here and that If the boots fit you should wear them.  Look at the Czechs:

    For those of you who don't do the language, the press has apparently canvassed the opinion of the public, who are furious that their govt has not been strong and has let their boys home.  That, I would suggest is  the kind of media attention we require.  Since then there have been hundreds of soldiers volunteering to get it on and go out to the Gulf because of the media reaction.

    My comment was mereely made in relation to this kind of potential threat:,,1-553638,00.html
  11. CGS

    well wound up, however no smk without fire??!
  12. Eagle, you said:
    Not strictly true. The UN charter overrules all other treaties, laws and charters, and the charter allows use of force against another country to take place in two circumstances: when covered by Article 41 (self-defence - not applicable in this case) or "specifically authorised" by Article 42 (when authorised by the UN Security Council resolution).

    An Article 42 action is the case in point - the USA claims that SCR 1441 authorises force - and most other countries claim it doesn't. All previous Article 42 (also called Chapter VII) SCRs, from SCR 80 about the Korean War to SCR 687 about Kuwait, used unambiguous language such as "by all necessary means", or "all measures necessary".

    So, despite all Bush's posturing, and whatever your opinions on the causes and effects of the whole thing, there are only 2 alternatives:

    1.   If the US/UK go in without a further unambiguous SCR, we'd be breaking international law.
    2.   If the UN passes an unambiguous Article 42 SCR, then international law, and public support, would be on our side.

    On current form, I'm guessing we're all going to be outlaws. And as B'Liar didn't claim an Armed Forces derogation from the International Criminal Court (unlike the USA), then we're (uniquely amongst those walking across the Iraqi desert) legally liable outlaws to boot.

    Vote Labour... and become a War Criminal. :(
  13. Thanks mate. Nice to be back.

    There is too much lizard-weaseldom creeping in here.  We are going, our blokes need the support so stop whingeing.

    er, well said THAT man. uh, carry on as well.

    we know it's happening. There's no point in whining at things as large as this (ooer)Let's put the game heads on and get on with it. Even if it means finding, somehow, our own moral reason for doing it. you never know they may even be better than the reasons we've been given already. We are the people that fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. Some over there can't. So we will. I know there is a list of countries just as bad, or worse, but sadly they are untouchable at the moment. For whatever reason. So let's go there and do it, watch each others backs and come back in one piece. And don't forget a very valuable lesson. Something we all need to learn.......

    The grid of the desert rose at night ;D
  14. Have you took the shilling?
    Did you take the oath?
    Are you spending your 12% X factor?
    Do you have your CO's permission to publicly criticise your Prime Minister?
    Think you shouldn't have to fight a war you don't believe in?
    It's no good creaming the benefits and then deciding you have a conscience when you are asked to earn your wages.
    Let's get on with it and leave the clergy to debate the moral issues.  One thing is for certain, there'll be a prayer somewhere that explains we are in the right.