"no war" sign

[jjc]

Okay, Abewsed, for the sake of argument I am looking at a child who is playing with the pin of a live grenade. What do I do? I either turn and run, or I wallop them and take the thing off them (not sure which I'd choose, suppose it depends on who the child belongs to and how noisy they are ).

If we put this into the context of Saddam Hussein we have effectively been saying 'put it down now, or you are going to get hurt'. He has then put the grenade down (or simply stopped playing with the pin in front of us) for ten minutes before picking it back up. We then go back to 'put it down now, or you are going to get hurt'. This, I agree, cannot go on. We need to take the grenade off him. If that entails using force then so be it, but surely we first say 'give me the grenade, or else...'

You ask how many times he has been given a final warning and ignored it? I ask how many of those 'final' warnings have truly been final? It strikes me that the wording of the resolutions against Iraq to date have never gone so far as to say that the result of flaunting them will be war. Even 1441 talks of reports 'to the Coucil for assessment' and 'serious consequences'. We have all seen how the Iraqi regime like to play the odds, and frankly the odds may have seemed worth playing to them. After all, no country before was prepared to come out and say that the next step would be war.

THIS is why I feel that a new resolution, setting out the consequences of ignoring it, is needed, either to force the Iraqi regime to comply or to give validity to any future action. Until that is done we would be undertaking military action with the support of neither the UN nor the people.

You are correct, 'a hundred weapons inspector searching an area covering 169,235 sq miles (Iraq), searching for a weapons dump, is like looking for a needle in a haystack'. But then that isn't actually the job of the weapons inspectors, is it? The job of the inspectors is to inspect the evidence presented to them by the Iraqi regime.

As your list indicates, we already have a pretty good idea as to just what the inspectors are expecting to find, and the regime in Iraq is supposed to be supplying the inspectors with all the cooperation they need to prove that those weapons, and the facilities used to create them, have been accounted for and ,if required, destroyed.

In his last report to the UN, Hans Blix stated that 'Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process'. If this cooperation continues and the inspectors are able to trace all of the missing weapons would that not be a far better position from which to deal with the inhumanity of the Iraqi regime? I don't expect Saddam Hussein or his loyal followers to walk into The Hague and surrender any time soon, but until we are sure that the consequences are not going to involve retaliation with chemical and/or biological weapons I see no other way of getting them there (and I don't for a second believe that bombing Iraq will make them suddenly see sense and surrender. As I recall, Saddam used the bombings in the Gulf war to bolster his support).

You asked several question, so I feel it is only right that I give my personal answers:

Do you think Saddam is telling the truth and the US and UK are lying?
No. I don't believe that Saddam is telling the truth for a second. Do I believe the US and UK are telling the whole truth? Possibly, but I'm not quite convinced of that either.

Do you think Saddam will try and start a Holy War?
Possibly. But then if, as you say, the rest of the Arab states are only supporting him as a brother and not because they truly trust him, will they join in? If it were so easy to start a Holy War, wouldn't the Taliban have succeeded?

Do you think Saddam will use weapons of mass destruction?
He has proven his ability to do so in the past. Do I think he will use them now? I'm not sure, he would have to be insane to do so - but then he could well be insane.

Do you think he is or was supporting terrorists, since 1990?
Yes. Along with the US and many other countries, Iraq has been supporting terrorists.

Do you think he is still murdering innocent people?
Yes, I do.

Do you think he is a threat to peace in the Middle East?
Absolutely. Do I think he is the only threat to the Middle East? No.

Do you think Saddam should be left in control of Iraq?
Absolutely not. Do I think the US should get to appoint (sorry, monitor the elections for) a diplomatic regime? No. I think that the Iraqi people should be free to make their own decision (and before you start, yes, I am aware that under the present regime they do not have that choice).

Who do you trust the most, Saddam or UK/USA.
Got to be the UK. The choice for second place? Don't really trust either of them at the moment. Not sure where the USA is going to stop on its path of war. N. Korea? Libya? At least with Iraq we know from the outset we are dealing with liars and cheats. (sorry, I seem to have just gone off on one).

Who would you prefer to be governing you, Saddam or UK/USA?
See last answer... same for this one.

Okay, so that was the Q&A session over. Your turn, but only one...

The weapons inspectors are in Iraq as we type. They are, they report, receiving the kind of cooperation from Iraqis that they need to complete their work. So long as (and only so long as) this cooperation continues, what, exactly, is the problem with allowing them to complete their work?

And whilst you ponder that question, here's a little bit of a teaser for you....

The following two quotes are taken from a document titled, 'Differentiation and Defence: An Agenda for the Nuclear Weapons Program', House Policy Committee, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, February 2003.

The 1993 prohibition against research on low-yield weapons (under five kilotons yield) is a significant barrier to a robust advanced development program. Congress should consider repealing this ban.

The Congress should support the revitalization of the nuclear weapons advanced development program. The Nuclear Weapons Council should reestablish such a program consistent with the capabilities-based approach for national security.

This, from a country who have demanded (and been given) immunity for their troops from the International Criminal Court (including trials for war crimes).

This, from a country who have rejected the Kyoto treaty on combating global warming, despite being the greatest emmitor of CO2 in the world.

This, from a country whose President has stated that the support of the UN for military action against Iraq, whilst nice, is not essential for the US to go to war. In other words, UN support or not, the USA will make their own minds up. Good democracy, and fantastic respect for allies.

Now, do we trust that the USA have the common interests in mind, or are they looking more at 'what can the USA get out of this'?

Like I said, just a teaser.

[squidge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2533897.stm

Iraq is a terrifying place to live. People are in constant fear of being denounced as opponents of the regime.

They are encouraged to report on the activities of family and neighbours. The security services can strike at any time. Arbitrary arrests and killings are commonplace.

Between three and four million Iraqis, about 15% of the population, have fled their homeland rather than live under Saddam Hussein's regime.

These grave violations of human rights are not the work of a number of overzealous individuals but the deliberate policy of the regime.

Fear is Saddam's chosen method for staying in power.
The United Nations Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly, over many years, condemned Iraq's human rights record. But Iraq continues to flout UN resolutions and to ignore its international human rights commitments.
On 19 April 2002, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to "the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror."

On torture:

Torture is systematic in Iraq. The most senior figures in the regime are personally involved.

Saddam Hussein runs Iraq with close members of his own family and a few associates, most of whom come from his hometown of Tikrit.

All real authority rests with Saddam and his immediate circle. Saddam is head of state, head of government, leader of Iraq's only political party and head of the armed forces.

Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions.

An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime.

Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences.

In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family.

These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others.
According to an Amnesty International report published in August 2001, "torture is used systematically against political detainees. The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the acceptance of its use at the highest level."

Although Iraqi law forbids the practice of torture, the British Government is not aware of a single case of an Iraqi official suspected of carrying out torture being brought to justice.

Treatment of women and children:

Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment.

Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International.

The dossier says that BBC correspondent John Sweeney said he had met six witnesses with direct experience of child torture, including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet.
Prison conditions:

Persecution of the Kurds:

Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced terrible suffering.

Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over to the non-governmental oprganisation Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards.
Persecution of the Shia community:

The Shia community, who make up 60% of Iraq's population is Iraq's biggest religious group.

Saddam has ensured that none of the Shia religious or tribal leaders is able to threaten his position. He kills any that become too prominent.

Harassment of the Opposition outside Iraq:

The UN Special Rapporteur has received numerous reports of harassment, intimidation and threats against the families of opposition members living abroad.

Methods of torture:

Eye gouging

Piercing of hands with electric drill

Suspended from ceiling by their wrists

Electric shock

Sexual abuse

Mock executions

Acid baths

Conclusion:

This dossier does not include every Iraqi's personal story of suffering, caused by Saddam's regime, known to the British Government.

There are sadly far too many to mention them all. But the evidence in the dossier is a faithful representation of what ordinary Iraqis face in their daily lives.

Saddam Hussein has been ruthless in his treatment of any opposition to him since his rise to power in 1979.

A cruel and callous disregard for human life and suffering remains the hallmark of his regime

http://www.amnesty.ca/lightdarkness/iraq.htm

Dr. Hussain Shahristani, one of Iraq's top nuclear scientists,
was tortured after refusing to develop an atomic bomb for the Iraq
government. Amnesty International research has recorded
extensive evidence pointing to how prisoners in Iraq are
subject to torture, including beatings, being burned with acid,
electric shocks, and even amputation.

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/we....RVoo_CD2.html

The dossier includes the story of Um Haydar, a 25-year-old woman who was dragged from her house and publicly beheaded in 2001 after her husband, suspected by the authorities of involvement in armed opposition activities, fled Iraq.
Guards took away her children and mother-in-law, and they have not
been heard from since, the dossier said.


http://www.sundayherald.com/30414

Meanwhile, in Abu Ghraib, Jamal, Ali Abbas and others were witnessing
the worst of the Iraq authorities' political retribution.
Forced to clean out basement torture areas, Ali Abbas recalls
seeing inmates who had been subjected to electric shocks,
and others kept in cupboard-sized cells without light
and lined with shards of broken glass.

http://www.caabu.org/press/documents...iraq-1999.html

in the period 1992/1997, landmines placed by the Government of Iraq have caused more than 15,000 casualties of which 30% of the victims were children.

http://www.khilafah.com/home/categor...D=5926&TagID=2

TEHRAN -- Government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh said here on Wednesday that Iran insists that Iraq had used 6,000 tons of chemical bombs against its citizens during the eight years of Iraqi-imposed war from 1980 to 1988.

Ramezanzadeh told a press conference that there is enough evidence to support the assertion that Iraq had used the bombs and Iran has been among those demanding necessary reparations to that effect by Baghdad.

He said Iraq had repeatedly used chemical weapons against Iranian combatants and innocent civilians, adding that the use of such weapons had left numerous victims.

He added that the number of the victims succumbing to chemical injuries is rising in Iran, IRNA reported.

[squidge]

The above is the reality of life in Iraq - htere are many many other examples of this in the web.

I do not apologise if the details are upsetting. This is the life that Iraqi people have to put up with.

The UN has failed consistently to make any difference to this and other regimes who callously disregard human rights. The USA and the UK have the chance to topple Saddam and to encourage the formation of a new decmocratic government. This will be painful - the birth of something new is often painful and fraught with difficulties but what do we do?

Saddam is insane - i have no doubt of that. He also has ABSOLUTE POWER. No government to put the brakes on, no opposition to question his actions, no sanity to see the despicable nature of his regime, no laws which can hold him to account, no compassion, no fear. Are there many other nations which have all of the above? Where the countries with weapons of mass destruction are concerned none are so completely in the control of one single mad man.

I hate the thought of anyone dying as a result of war or the actions this government takes - a government i voted for. However, the UN has no teeth and cannot be relied upon to make Saddam toe the line - he just will not. Saddam HAS to be toppled - he isnt a naughty child, he isnt a person with whom you can reason.
He is MAD and POWERFUL and DANGEROUS.

Is it about OIL?

I think it might be but only partially. Given that SAddam is all of the above do we really want to have this man in control of anything let alone oil reserves? I think not. LOok how he set alight Kuwaits oil fields during the gulf war. The environmental damage this man could do on a whim is terrifying.

Do we know everything?

Of course we dont. It amazes me that people who argure their points as intelligently as some of you do , expect that we will know everything. We will never know everything. We have a governement to know everything and an oppositions to question everything. Thats why we vote. I really hope that not one of you has ever woken on election day and said " Och I cant be bothered today" Fortunately i dont have to make a decision about whether to go to war or not. I have elected people to do that for me.

Finally - Walking away from this is not an option. We have to do things which are distateful to us all at some points in our lives and i believe this is one of those times. Its not about some old debt and who kisses whose butt. It is about the issues i mentioned in my previous post and the fact that Saddam is a serious and real threat to peace and safety of millions of people throughout the world. He has to be stopped

[Drutt]

It amazes me that people who argure their points as intelligently as some of you do , expect that we will know everything.

Squidge - nobody is demanding that we know everything. We're merely requesting that, before war is declared in our name, we are given adequate reason and justification for doing so.

The human rights abuses are tragic but occur all over the world. The UK cannot act as the world's policeman. I agree that something should be done, and that sanctions over the last decade have not worked. However, if you think that the human rights abuses are the actual reason why the UK and US governments are seeking to go to war, you are very naïve.

This is just the more palatable reason they are providing you with, you are falling for it... I would prefer the real reason, be it oil, Dubya's ego or some idea conjured up by the US government to demostrate just how powerful they can be (oh, how tiresome US arrogance can get at times). That way we could make a choice based on the truth.

Quite frankly, I would like some more adequate evidence provided which indicates that we are heading towards a war for a more noble and just cause than Dubya proving to his daddy that he's a big tough guy who can do war too.

If this evidence is obtained from the weapons inspectors or the spy planes, so be it. If Iraq forms a real and immediate threat and it is proven, so be it. Until then, a war will not be supported by the majority of British society. I see no good reason to just automatically trust the government just because we have a democratic process... they have agendas just as any group does and those who do trust them should learn to read between the lines.

[jjc]

Squidge,

Firstly, sorry if this seems like a personal attack on your post. I just spent quite some time writing a response and my PC crashed, so I'm a little angry... it isn't all you...

You shouldn't apologise for the dossier that the government submitted. True, it does contain some horrific information concerning the abuse of Human Rights in Iraq, but the truth often hurts. Of course, if that document had not turned out to be mostly plagiarised from the thesis of a student (who now seems to have dismissed many of his original findings) it may have held more weight with the press and public, but there you go. Plagiarism or not, I don't think we could call it a fabrication.

However, I think perhaps you are being a little too trusting of our government. This dossier was produced by the government in response to calls for them to divulge their reasons for seeking war with Iraq. It is, so far as I can tell, a document which details the horrendous crimes committed against the people of Iraq by their leader. I suggest you take a step back and look around the globe.

Let us start in Zimbabwe where opposition to the leadership can result in sever reprisals including assault, abduction, rape, sexual torture, destruction of property, and murder.

Or we could go to Uganda where you could face torture, execution, rape, death threats, and unofficial detention.

How about Nigeria where the government has been linked to extra-judicial executions and torture.

Unfortunately, the list does go on and on.

I am not for one minute suggesting that the fact that it goes on all around the world makes any kind of a case for the atrocities inside Iraq. Obviously the situation within Iraq is untenable and must be dealt with.

What I am suggesting is that you take the information we are receiving from our government and you look beyond it. The dossier references Human Rights abuses as the reason for their apparent desire to enter into a war. I ask myself why this only applies to Iraq. Is it because of the weapons of mass destruction? Possibly, but then why not mention them in the dossier? Perhaps it is because the weapons inspectors are currently receiving the cooperation they require to deal with them, or perhaps because our allies in the US are drawing up plans to develop new nuclear weapons themselves? I don’t know.

Do we know everything? Of course we dont. It amazes me that people who argure their points as intelligently as some of you do , expect that we will know everything. We will never know everything. We have a governement to know everything and an oppositions to question everything. Thats why we vote. I really hope that not one of you has ever woken on election day and said " Och I cant be bothered today" Fortunately i dont have to make a decision about whether to go to war or not. I have elected people to do that for me.

As I have mentioned in several of my posts that I feel we are not being told everything, I can only assume that you may be referring to me here.

In answer I would ask you to look back to my other posts on this subject and in this thread. In the past, wars have been declared by parliament and announced to the people. This time the government seemed to have a desire to convince us that this was a just and noble effort. They leaked information to us that they believed would rally us behind the war effort. Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending which argument you wish to make), some of us looked beyond the information we were being spoon fed, and started to ask questions. For example, if the reason for this war is a moral one based on Human Rights abuses, why did the government leave it to the ECB to decide if the English Cricket Team should travel to Zimbabwe?

What I would like from my government is enough information to convince me. Tony Blair seems to be convinced. He is not a stupid man. If he is convinced then I would like to know why.

Oh, and please tell me that you don’t honestly believe that your only obligation in the management of this country is when you elect your MP? We elect our MPs based on their beliefs, election promises, and previous performance. We elect them because we agree with the stances that they take on issues such as drugs or asylum seekers. We may even elect them because of the party they are standing for. But once they are elected we should not, and must not, just sit back and allow them to run the country however they like until the next election. Our MPs are in parliament to represent OUR views when making decisions. If we do not tell our MPs what our views are, how will they know?

Finally - Walking away from this is not an option. We have to do things which are distateful to us all at some points in our lives and i believe this is one of those times

True, walking away from this is not an option. Yes, we do have to do things which are distasteful to us when there are no other options. Thankfully, there are other options. I am going to ask you the same question as I asked Abewsed. What, exactly, is the problem with letting the weapons inspectors do their jobs?

I think that you may be underestimating (or as Bush would say, ‘misunderestimating’) the potential for this conflict to go wrong. As I have said before, if we go into this conflict without the backing of the UN we are in breach of international law. If we are in breach of international law, how can we expect to enforce the same law elsewhere? How can we pick and choose which laws suit us and expect countries such as Zimbabwe, Pakistan, India, etc. to follow them to the letter? If we lose the high ground we will never regain it.

Also, without the backing of the international community, how are we supposed to convince the Arab states that this was a lawful and justified war? Do we want to find ourselves fighting Iraq’s neighbours because we were in such a rush to do what we felt was right?

If we allow the weapons inspectors to at least try to do their jobs then we can avoid much of this risk. If the inspectors come out of Iraq next month saying that they were unable to do their jobs we will almost certainly go to war. However, we will have the support of our allies throughout the world and we will have stayed within the law.

I hate the thought of anyone dying as a result of war or the actions this government takes - a government i voted for. However, the UN has no teeth and cannot be relied upon to make Saddam toe the line - he just will not. Saddam HAS to be toppled - he isnt a naughty child, he isnt a person with whom you can reason.
He is MAD and POWERFUL and DANGEROUS.

Again, I posted an observation about the treatment of a naughty child, so I assume you refer to my post here. If you would be so kind as to go back and re-read that post, you will hopefully see that I did not intend to suggest that Saddam be treated like a naughty child. Far from it, as I agree that he is a very dangerous man. What I am suggesting is that he has shown in the past that he will back down from his defiant stance if he is threatened directly. Up to now the resolutions from the UN have not done that, instead they have threatened consequences with no clear details of those consequences.

This is why I, and I believe a lot of others, would like a new resolution making it quite clear that if the Iraqi regime does not fully support disamament, the consequence will be war. Given that document either Iraq will cooperate, or we will be able to go to war without becoming the aggressors.


----

By the way, I looked up the stuff on Human Rights abuses on the Amnesty International website (http://www.amnesty.org) - a link which I got from your post.

I may be wrong, but the gist of your post was that war should be declared sooner rather than later in order to prevent further Human Rights abuses. I found it interesting, therefore, to find that Amnesty International are running an online petition calling upon the UN Security Council to assess the human rights and humanitarian impact of any military action against Iraq.

I also found it interesting that Amnesty International are calling for action against the USA for their continued use of executions. In addition the library contains numerous documents from Amnesty International regarding the detainees in Guantanamo.

The following may also be of interest to you:

UK: Internment one year on -- no hope in sight (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/...f=COUNTRIES\UK)

UK: Basic rights denied after 11 September (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/...f=COUNTRIES\UK)

UK: Rights Denied: the UK's Response to 11 September 2001 (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/...f=COUNTRIES\UK)

I guess we can all improve a little.

To sum up, I would like to quote a press release from Amnesty International.

USA/Iraq : Not in the name of human rights

In his speech to the UN General Assembly today, President George Bush made reference to the serious human rights violations perpetrated upon the Iraqi people by their government. In the background paper distributed to the media, several references were made to Amnesty International's reports published over the years on the human rights situation in Iraq.

" Once again, the human rights record of a country is used selectively to legitimize military actions." Amnesty International said.

" The US and other Western governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and ignored Amnesty International's campaign on behalf of the thousands of unarmed Kurdish civilians killed in the 1988 attacks on Halabja.'

" As the debate on whether to use military force against Iraq escalates, the human rights of the Iraqi people, as a direct consequence of any potential military action, is sorely missing from the equation."

" Life, safety and security of civilians must be the paramount consideration in any action taken to resolve the current human rights and humanitarian crisis. The experience of previous armed intervention in the Gulf has shown that, all too often, civilians become the acceptable casualties of war."

" In the event of military action there is a serious possibility of large flows of refugees and the internal displacement of thousands of people. A humanitarian crisis can emerge caused by difficult or impossible delivery of basic supplies leaving shortages in food, medicine and the destruction of civilian infrastructure and institutions."

[squidge]

jjc and drutt

I am not getting into this business of going through and dealing with every issue you raise in your posts - to be honest that is what makes posts overlong and tedious and difficult to follow . I have spelt out simply what is important to me. I have no expectations that you will agree with me or i will change your mind but i do have the right to post my opinions same as everyone else. I do not belive that attacks on iraq should be sooner rather than later but i will support them when they happen. I am not naive - I am aware that there are hidden agendas and issues which i am not aware of or do not fully understand. I know human rights breaches happen all over the place - yes jjc including the uk and the us - but i was trying to illustrate the fact that Iraq is a society with a regime "resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." The same cannot be said about the us and the uk - even in our worst nightmares.

The human rights issue is an important one to me - that is the point. It may not be to others but it is to me. It is not the only issue - add the other things i said about saddam to the human rights issue and you wil see that there are a whole lot of reasons why i support this proposed action.

I was not for one minute suggesting that our vote is where our responsibility ends- completely the opposite - it is where it starts. People complaining and challenging need to start that by excercising their right to vote - without voting we cannot hope to begin to change things.

I find it disappointing that this thread has evolved into a long series of posts which simply contradict points made in previous posts. What posting of this type does is discourage people from putting their views across for fear they will look foolish or because they do not feel articulate enough to keep up with the rest of you. Well i have put my opinion across and it is exactly that - my opinion and my reasons. I thank god that i am able to do that without someone knocking on my door and shooting my children. I am sure that many Iraqis would love to have that priviledge too. I hope that one day they will have.

[fionarich]

I wanted to comment about the New York Post, the newspaper that showed the tasteless photos, and a few other things.

I have lived in the US for years (and I have a place in Edinburgh, as well) and to be honest, I have never even heard of the New York Post. Sounds like a small-time tabloid type of paper. The New York Times on the other hand, is a legitimate paper and I have seen no such pictures or articles of this type in any legitimate US newspaper.

It seems to me that it seems more appropriate to call the possibility of invading Iraq a Police Action, rather than a War, and that rather than a "pre-emptive strike," it is actually an enforcement of the disamament that he agreed to when he lost the Persian Gulf War and surrendered. Niall Fernie says that this is a war that most of the people in the United States do not support. Based on the recent polls that I have seen, and what I hear people saying here, I would have to say that is not at all accurate. The people protesting are actually a minute fraction of the 265 million people that live in the USA. I live in Hollywood, only a few thousand yards from where the center of the "War Protest" was being held and I must say that the turnout was very small, especially by California standards (and people here LOVE to protest). The few (2-3) thousand at the most, compared to the 15 million people that live in and around Los Angeles (Hollywood is located in Los Angeles), was not significant. I walked down myself to take a look.

Many Americans think that we should have taken care of Saddam 12 years ago, but that obviously didn't happen. They do believe that he is a real threat and that it is unlikely that he will voluntarily step down. I have heard plenty of Iraqis living in the US say that they hope that the US goes in and liberates Iraq, as they believe that their people deserve the chance to be free and free from Sadaam Hussein's reign of terror.

Of the recent polls that I have seen:
- 56% of American's support Bush in his decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein
- 51% support him going to war, even without a UN mandate.
-79% thought that Colin Powell had made his case for military action with Iraq

Is it really about Oil?

Think about it. That may have something to do with it, but the reality is that the US already buys oils from Iraq (food for oil program) at a very low price, as well as from other countries (Venezuela is actually the 4th largest supplier of oil to the US). The price of petrol in the US is approximately .95p a Gallon, which shows that they are not short of cheap oil for fuel. The price of oil & petrol will likely go UP quite a bit, if there is military action in the Persian Gulf Region.

Do you really think that Bush would risk the lives several hundred thousand US troops just for some even cheaper petrol? Turkey is demanding double the 6 billion that the US had offered in aid, in exchange for use of Turkish soil to base troops. Where is the savings, once you add up the cost of the military action, and the rebuilding of Iraq afterwards? The Economist magazine reports that France and Russia are likely to benefit the most from the invasion of Iraq, as they have pre-existing contacts with Iraq for cheap oil. The world has turned a relatively blind eye to the fact that regardless of the UN sanctions that prohibit Iraq selling oil, France & Russia have enjoyed a "special relationship" (i.e., have been buying cheap oil from Iraq, on the side) for years.

Saddam Hussein does have weapons and he has hidden them well. He has has 12 year to disarm and has refused to do so. If he had done so, all sanctions would have been lifetd and Iraq would have rejoined the world economy. However, he has preferred to keep his weapons, play his games and defy the UN.

Last year in the USA, 2 teaspoons of Anthrax (sent through the mail) killed several people and cost miilions of dollars in clean up fees.

Saddam Hussein is known to have stockpiled the equivalent of 5 million teaspoons of Anthrax. he has shown no indication that he has destroyed any of it. This along with all of the weapons that he has stockpiled over the years and which he is clearly hiding.

Perhaps he is not the only evil dictator in that part of the world, but he is the only one that invaded his neighbors (Kuwait). He lost the Gulf War and as a condition of surrender, he agreed to disarm. He has done nothing but make a fool of the UN and its inspectors over the past 12 years or so. He also gassed an entire village of 5,000 Kurds (which he videotaped, and was shown on the news) within Iraq, just to try out some poisoned gas that they had made (a lethal chemical weapon).

He has spent years allowing his people to starve, rather than disarm (while he lavishly spends the proceeds of the illegal sale of oil to Russia and France-as these 2 countries are well known to buy his oil, regardless of the UN sanctions). In the 10 years following the war in the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein had 50 lavish palaces built for himself inside Iraq, while his people have gone without. The number of civilan casulaties is likely to be less than any previous conflicts. Since the Persian Gulf War, technology has improved and targeting has become much more accurate. How many people have died in the Afghanistan conflict? Not that many, although any civilian casualty is a shame. Not many people realize that more Americans die in the US in 1 year, from car accidents than died in the entire Vietnam War. Of course, any casualty is a shame, but some reports say that in his 30 years in power, that Saddam Hussein has killed up to 1.5 million of his own people, and that number likely excludes the number of people that he used as human shields during the Persian Gulf War.

Say what you will about the US, but you will notice that whenever a conflict arises, the world expects the US to step in, provide troops and aid, and to foot the bill. The US does still have peacekeeping forces around the world including Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as the Sinai peninsula, in Egypt and many other places around the world,and the US taxpayers are the ones paying for it. Europeans love to criticize the US, including Britain, but where does everyone want to move to? Not hard to guess. And the truth is, that if it hadn't been for the US, Europe would have been completely overrun by Germany and the Nazis. Americans, for all of their flaws, pride themselves of being the "defenders of liberty and freedom" and they have no aspirations or desire to colonize Iraq.

I remember the Persian Gulf War very well as I was there, helping to liberate Kuwait during Desert Shield/Storm (as a ((female)) Sergeant and US Paratrooper, in the 82nd Airborne Division). It is also likely that I will be there once again, very soon as I am currently a 2LT in the US Army Reserves. (All this and a British passport also).

Most people in the US did not run out and buy duct tape and plastic sheeting (no-one that I know did), but the US weather service does recommend that people be prepared for any type of disaster (especially one due to weather). In light of the recent weather , I thought that I would include an e-mail that my mother passed on to me, regarding disaster preparations. Don't laugh- it actually seems to be good advice for anyone (esp. anyone living near a nuclear facility or any other potential target)!:

Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: Disaster Preparation

As an Emergency Manager with the U.S. Government, I have privileged
information to the current events and those events that may happen in
the near future. At this time, I want to take this opportunity to give
you some general advice for survival if a terrorist act hits very close
to home that could potentially incapacitate you. Here are some
suggestions to be prepared:

Treat this situation as if it were a major earthquake or other natural
disaster.

1. If terrorism strikes in your state or even region, cellular phone
systems will go out due to the overloading of the system and the
resultant crash of the network. Also your regular phones may be
disrupted and the state of emergency may result in 1/3 of your region's
lines being turned off for periods of time so that the system doesn't
overload. This is similar to rotating blackouts, only on the phone
lines. Thus, develop a plan for you and your family members so that you
can either meet or be assured they will know how to regain contact with
you.

2. Also consider that if family members work or frequently travel to
another city, roads may be blocked or unsafe to travel. Thus, arrange
for those members away from the general home area to divert to a close
friend's house in the city they frequent. Have them stay there until the
"all clear" is given. You (and they) will be more assured of their
safety. Have backup friends, too. Consider you will not be able to
communicate with them for at least four to 24 hours -- again, AT LEAST.

3. Ensure that you frequently refuel your vehicles and that they are
always full with gasoline. Those of you who frequently let your car go
below * tank may not get you home if stuck in local traffic. The last
thing you want is to run out of gas. Remember, gas stations need
electricity to run; and in a terrorist situation, they may be
ordered to shut down -- even if there is electricity available.

4. ALWAYS carry cash and lower dollar bills. In a situation with
communications failure, no store can process credit card/ATM
transactions because these require phone lines. If you frequently forget
to keep cash on you, have $40 in loose bills stored in a secret spot in
your car that you use the most. This way, if you get caught on the road
without cash, you have that secret stash.

5. Keep enough water on hand for ONE WEEK. Freshly bottled water. This
is because our municipal water systems ARE at risk. One week will be
sufficient for trucked water to make it in. The traditional three days
is too short.

6. Have your pantry STOCKED with food for one week, too. This should be
food that is very simple to make. You should also have enough packaged
food for a few days that require no cooking, should the electric systems
be taken out.

7. It is a good idea to have a portable emergency kit in a large duffle
bag containing the above items, should you (God forbid) ever need to be
evacuated. This way, you can grab the bag and go. Essential items
should include medicines (for one week's supply), toilet paper,
toothbrushes and paste, hand sanitizer, water/food, flashlights,
portable radios with plenty of batteries, pen and paper, whistle, rope,
duct tape, blankets, general toiletries, and anything else you feel to
sustain you for ONE WEEK. Believe it or not, this can all fit into one
large duffle bag for a regular sized family.

7. Pets. Make sure you have the appropriate carriers for your pets and
plan for extra water and food for them. It is a good idea to buy a small
bag of food for them and store it with that emergency duffle bag. Also
store leashes/collars, and extra water. Do NOT leave pets unattended. In
emergency situations, they know something is wrong, become frightened,
and may try to even run away. Be mindful of this.

8. In extreme cases, the Red Cross and local governments utilize Amateur
Radio as a way to pass welfare traffic. The terrorist acts in NYC left
Amateur Radio as the ONLY means of communications in or out of the city.
The city's 9-1-1 dispatch center was on the 12th floor of one of the
towers. That went down and so did their 9-1-1
system for the whole city. If you evacuate, it is best to go to the Red
Cross and have HAM radio pass welfare traffic to your loved ones across
the country.

9. If you are home when a situation occurs, STAY THERE. DO NOT go out
and drive around or wander. Subsequent events can immobilize you away
from home and create undue worrying from your family. Doing this also
hampers emergency efforts and obstructs life saving efforts. STAY OFF
THE PHONE. Calling everyone in the world ties up the phone system and
obstructs emergency services. It is best to CALL ONE party out of state
and have them contact everyone else to let them know you are okay.

10. The notion of this can't happen here was proved wrong. It can and
will happen anywhere. Report suspicious circumstances to law
enforcement immediately. Let them determine the severity of the
situation. If government says get out or to watch out for certain
places, don't take it lightly.

11. Don't panic. Just be prepared. Pull together.
The above can be applied to any disaster (floods, quakes, etc)...It is
also suggested that you research more for other items recommended to
stock up on not mentioned here (like clothing, good walking shoes, dustmasks).

Take care,
Scott Borgioli, Chief Emergency Communication Center
Officer/Incident Commander Chief Radio Officer US Department of Commerce
- National Weather Service

I hope that this was useful or at least interesting!

Cheers,

Fiona Rich

[Anonymous]

My one and only post in this topic:

NOT BY MY HAND OR ACTION DO I SUPPORT THIS WAR

I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY SIDE ENTIRELY IN THIS DEBATE (governments esp)

and to round it off, here is a song I was sent in the mail.

Sung to the tune of 'If you're happy and you know it...'

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might it knows no borders!, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq

[Anonymous]

Drutt: I am correct is stating that a U-2 Spy Plane is unnecessary. At the beginning of the Gulf War the US did not have a satellite dedicated to Iraq. Now they do. The way it works, is much like Satellite TV (I.e. SKY), which is in a constant Orbit above UK/Europe. Off the top of my head, I think there are three satellites dedicated to Iraq. The first one went up between Aug 1990 and Jan 1991. It was before the land war started. I would assume that all three give different “real time” imagery, i.e. Infer-red, Radar and photo imagery.
Also there are other ways in which the US can monitor the area. There are unmanned aircraft, which has been used in the Gulf War and since. The ranges of these aircraft vary, but they can stay airborne for hours. In fact if you remember the gulf war, some Iraqi soldiers surrendered to one. The first surrender to an unmanned aircraft.
The whole idea of U-2 Spy Planes is totally laughable; it is a nice gesture, but a wasted one. Again it is Saddam’s way of a compromise, which again is not a real compromise, as the area is being watched all the time.
I am sure that jjc was laughing at some of my opinion. If I have offended jjc, I am truly sorry. Tell me where the substance is lacking as; I know Saddam is a nutter. He should be in an asylum. I also never stated the US was wonderful, but they are better than Saddam. But then again the anti-US don’t want to admit what the US has done for other countries during and since WW2. That to me seems unfair, as they have done more good than bad.
Again I could go over the old argument of what if Saddam is left to his own devices.
I could say that the UN has had over a decade to sort Saddam out.
I could say that it would be better for the Arabs to sort Saddam out.
I could say that my real fear is that it could end up pear shaped if the US & UK don’t have Arab backing.
I could say that I am worried that if Saddam is overthrown the new order could lead to a civil war amongst the different sects.
I could say that I don’t trust Russia and France.
All of the above is in past arguments…
I cant remember stating that the US & UK should go into Iraq with all guns blazing. What I have stated is that it is time for something to be done about Saddam, once and for all. If for no other reason than a humanitarian reason. I also stated that it should not be for political gain.
“No war at any cost”. It is exactly what people are saying. People are saying that it is not our problem etc. That it is only over oil (which is partly true).
You state “Few people have said there should be no war at any cost - but it is reasonable to request due consideration and care before heading down a route which may leave us all living in a more frightening and violent world in the future.” If that is the case consider what might happen if we wait another ten years!
Now if that sounds like a warmonger, then you need to read it again. But then again I did suggest that Saddam does the decent thing and blows his brains out. That I think would solve most of the problems. But then if I wanted a war, I don’t think I would have suggested that.

Jjc: Child argument: We asked him to put the grenade down ten years ago and it has not worked. He has improved his Scud Missiles to a greater range. Not just fixed them. What I am worried about is what type of warhead he planned to put on the end of it.

I agree with you on the wording of the UN resolution being “final”. The UN have not been firm enough with Saddam and his like. The UN likes to be politically correct, the nice guy to everyone. That is their biggest weakness and Saddam is using it. Saddam only understands one thing and that is force. I checked the UN site for areas of conflict. I was amazed at how many countries are being “Policed” by the UN. 14 countries still have UN troop “policing” it. From the 1940’s one area, 1950’s one area. 1960’s one area. 1970’s two areas. 1990’s eight areas. 2000 two areas. There have been 31 (according to my count) areas of conflict that the UN has been involved in since it was formed. 1940’s = 1, 1950’s 2, 1960’s =2, 1970’s = 3, 1980’s = 3, 1990’s = 18 and since 2000 = 2. Is the world safer now than during the Cold War?

Now if we take a look the numbers of areas the UN have been involved in, there were 11 conflicts between 1940’s and 1980’s. Then since 1990 = 20 areas. Now what I am trying to get across is that the UN is no longer the force it was in the 1940’s, 50’s 60’s 70’s and 80’s. There are more and more countries ignoring UN resolution. Why? Because they are now “policing” the areas. Sometimes there has to be action taken rather than policing. The wrongs have to be punished. Not like in the former Yugoslavia, where they wait seven years and once it is over, then look at punishing people for “crimes against humanity” etc. It is like a policeman watching someone murder someone, then arresting them. The idea is to stop the action, or at least stop it as soon as possible. We know Saddam is guilty of thousands of acts against humanity. If we are not sure then we give him a fair trial. Not leave him to go on and on and on.

You are correct it is not the job of the weapons inspectors to find the sites. They should have the sites identified to them, and then they check them. We can’t expect the Iraqi Government to show the UN where the site is, can we? But when you don’t know where the sites are, what do you do? That is why there are at “least” three satellites over Iraq 24 hours a day.

Ok I will not laugh drutt, but the statement; “Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process”. It is the “principle” bit that has me baffled. What does it mean? Is this more politically correct wording, that means nothing.
If the UN weapons inspectors find all the missing weapons, then the war does not start. But I would like the UN to take action against Saddam for the rest of his crimes.
Yes Saddam did use bombing (Israel) to bolster his support, but it did not work. In fact it was to drag Israel into a War, which then would then break up the coalition.
I see we are in agreement on all the questions in principle. One point I will make (one I think I made before), I do not want the US, UK or UN to decide who takes over Iraq, if Saddam is booted out or killed. That has to be made by the Arabs! Also if US, UK and others do use military action against Saddam, then once it is over, they leave ASAP. The (political) argument is to protect “our” national interests, i.e. terrorism. No to govern a country or control the oil.

I am laughing again (sorry Drutt) but does anyone trust the USA? Even themselves? But then again we can say that about “all” governments as they all have their own agendas.

Jjc wrote. The weapons inspectors are in Iraq as we type. They are, they report, receiving the kind of cooperation from Iraqis that they need to complete their work. So long as (and only so long as) this cooperation continues, what, exactly, is the problem with allowing them to complete their work?

My answer to the above, is how can we ever trust the Iraqi Government now after a decade of lies, or at best being “strangers to the truth”? How can we be sure that they have not made more weapons or set up factories in (lets say) Syria? How can the weapons inspectors be sure they got the lot? It is a big playing field to cover and if they could not cover it in the last 10 years, how long would it take to do it now? 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? I personally would prefer Saddam and his regime removed and then search for the weapons. If there are none, then we say, “sorry Mr Saddam, we were wrong, but you are still sacked”.

The teaser: “and Defence: An Agenda for the Nuclear Weapons Program', House Policy Committee, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, February 2003.”
Before we start; the idea for a low-yield nuclear weapon came about during the Cold War. The idea was that if the USSR attacked NATO in West Germany, their armour could be funnelled into areas where low-yield nuclear weapons could be fired by the artillery against the USSR tanks. This would obviously stop their armour thrust. Or when the USSR used chemical weapons on NATO troops they could retaliate with Low-yield nuclear weapons. The reason for this was simple in theory. NATO could not stop the masses of Soviet Armour. By the time the US got its reserve forces to Europe, the war would be over. Also why risk thousands of US lives in convoys across the Atlantic. It confined a “small” nuclear war to Europe (mainly E & W Germany).
That is the very quick explanation of how this low-yield came about.
The problem was that it was a no go.

We use small nukes (low-yield). The Soviets use NBC. We us more small Nukes. The Soviets use Nukes. We use bigger Nukes, they use bigger nukes etc. The idea was a non-starter. The small Nukes were developed for Artillery, Aircraft, Ships, Cruise Missiles and Anti Submarine. Like most plans, it had flaws; it might not stop in Europe but go to an all out Nuclear War and end in Armageddon.
Britain and other European countries did not like the idea of Europe becoming a nuclear battleground, whilst the USA and USSR were left unscathed. So “myth” has it (only hear say remember), but the story goes that every RN Ballistic Missile Submarine had one Missile aimed at the US just in case they did not get involved fully. Whatever fully means. France was supposed to be the same. But as I said it is only myth!
The reality was probably all sides US, France and UK. Had at lest one missile aimed at each other just in case they changed sides.
Today the idea has resurfaced. This time with a difference. You use a small nuke on a country that does not have the capability to hit back. Or against a country that you have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction, before using a small nuke.
This time it is to be used against hardened bunkers that are buried deep underground. During the Gulf War, Saddam had his HQ’s in underground bunkers. But Saddam, being the “clever nutter” had done his homework. He had worked out at what depth his HQ’s would be safe from bombs, missiles etc. The US and UK did some thinking after the Gulf War about how a bomb could penetrate deep enough to destroy HQ’s which were dug in deep. Also with Afghanistan, the same applied to the problem of the caves. The UK came up with the Grand Slam and Tallboy invented by Barns Wallace (Dam Buster bomb) during WW2. These were built to destroy heavily fortified targets. Modify the bomb with modern metals and explosive. Drop it from great height and it would go faster than sound, which would penetrate deep into the ground before exploding. End result end of HQ! But the US decided to look at small nukes, to do the same job.
My personal thoughts: Keep away from the Nukes. It is nice and easy, but history has shown us it is not the way forward. Especially if another way is available.

As for immunity for troops from war crimes. I think most countries would want this. The Maggie did with the SAS “shoot to kill” incident in Gibraltar and other incidents.
I believe that the US asked for this, when looking at assassinating “someone” (who will remain nameless, but it starts with an S and ends in an S), back in the 90’s as under the Geneva Convention and UN, assassinating heads of state is a no-no. The theory is right, shoot one to save thousands, but it is still classed as a war crime. Or to the Brits it is more commonly known as the “shoot to kill policy.”

I cant answer the Global Warming issue, sorry.

I think Bush stated that he would protect the US at all costs, whether that meant going against UN policy or not. But as I already said above “But does anyone trust the USA? Even themselves? But then again we can say that about “all” governments as they all have their own agendas.” France, Russia, China, USA, UK and Iraq etc all have disregarded the UN at one time or another. It again is another demonstration of how weak the UN really is as a force to be reckoned with.

I see I can leave the human rights issues to squidge from now on, cheers squidge.

Drutt; If the Iraqi Government is overthrown, I don’t care who by, but by someone. Do you think other countries that are doing the same will not take notice? Of course they will, their necks (literally) are riding on it. Look at Africa since the 1960’s and independence, a war zone for the last 40 odd years!
“Imagine all the people living as one” John Lennon. I think most people would like to see that. But it is impossible, because we are Animals, then Humans.
So in a place like Somalia, the UN steps in and ensures a fair election of a government. If then a government is elected and then is infringing human rights i.e. murder etc. The UN then goes in and arrests the accused. Who then is taken to the Hague and tried for crimes against humanity. It is the law that most people live under, so why not the heads of state? That is supposed to be what the UN is there for, not to sit back and watch men, women and children being butchered.
The idea of the UN “was” that the UK & US would not be the “police” of the world. It was intended that they could ask certain countries to be their policemen. The idea “was” that 191 (I think) counties would supply the police. Which gave the UN, the biggest, most powerful-armed force in the world. An organisation that no one could stand up to, including the US and UK.

Also you pulled me up for being rude to jjc, for laughing. You are now being hypercritical, calling squidge “naïve” for having a different opinion to you. I hope you did not hurt squidge’s feelings.

I think everyone so far is trying to be honest with his or her own beliefs. If we did not differ we would not be talking. In fact I have a lot of respect for jjc and his/her opinion, though we differ. By this discussion, we might learn more, than what the Government is telling us. Or what the Media wants us to believe. It is good to get your feelings out in the open, even when we have very strong feelings. But please if you are setting the rule, please try to stick to them. For squidge, misguided might have been more politically correct, rather than “very naïve”. But I am bias, as I agree with most of what squidge is saying.

You say that the majority of the British do not support the war. Where is the proof? 1,000,000 men, women and children took to the streets to protest against war.
That means out of a population of 55,000,000 - 45,000,000 are not bothered about a war. Or another way of looking at it is that 98% does not care about the war, or 98% are for war! We all know that this is rubbish. But I don’t think I have ever heard of a protest for war.
Blair, a man who is accused of caring more for his points than anything else, has the lowest points in his career. By the way what are the points? Do you get that from Burger King or something?
We are great for saying the majority, when the majority stayed at home. The only way we will know what the majority want is at the next election. If we can find a decent party to vote for.

I think fionarich speaks for most military personnel, UK included, and for the US side of things.

[jjc]

Squidge,

Sorry. My computer is behaving itself again and I'm a little less stressed...

I don't blame you for not wanting to indulge in this volley of huge posts that I seem to have started habitually sending (you should see my emails at work recently. Even the shortest of messages has started to span three or four pages - I guess it's just habit). Your point is well taken and I shall try my hardest not to indulge in too many verbal tirades in the future.

It is difficult though, because I believe in what I am saying. So does everybody else who posts here, hence the success of the boards. I'm not sure about Abewsed and the others, but my head is starting to hurt from pounding it on this wall. We all have our beliefs and opinions and I doubt that what I am typing will change yours, just as other posts have failed to change mine. Why do we continue? Perhaps because we are frustrated that there aren't many avenues open to us lowly citizens to express what we believe?

My point about Human Rights violations being a global issue was in no way intended to excuse the actions of the Iraqi regime. What they have done, and are doing, is wrong - pure and simple.

My concern is for the future. There are two ways that a war with Iraq can be fought; legally, or illegally. Fionarich suggests we would be better calling it a Police Action instead of war, and enforcement rather than a pre-emptive strike. Fine. We can dress it however we like, it will still be an act of aggression unless we have a UN resolution to absolve ourselves. If we go to war without the backing of the UN then we can call it a anything we like, but the truth is that we will never again be able to rely on the international laws to protect ourselves or others from the same action (*thwack* - ouch, the head again).

Without the international laws that govern (or are supposed to anyway) the way we, and our governments, go about things the "defenders of liberty and freedom" will be little more than the strongest nation dictating their will on others and imposing it through force and intimidation - but hey, at least the troops will have immunity from prosecution for any war crimes they commit.

I am reassured to read that it seems now to be only the US who feel that they do not need a second resolution in order to go to war with Iraq. Perhaps there is something to be said for public opinion after all.

The New York Post is, apparently, the eighth largest paper in the US and is the fastest growing paper in the states. However, it isn’t so much the size of the paper, as the sentiment. Whilst that sentiment may not be as blatantly obvious in the NY Times, I think that their placing an advert for commemerative prints of the VE Day edition on the same page (web, not print) as their article 'Chirac Scolding Angers Nations That Back U.S.' speaks volumes.

Disappointingly our own press has started to follow suit. The following is the cover of the Sun, as distributed in Paris:


I am ashamed that the press of this country can resort to such personalised attacks. Here we are, a bunch of (and I hope you forgive me for this) very ordinary people, debating a topic which will affect us all. We have been hot under the collars in a few posts, a little bit humerous in others, but we have remained mature about it. What does it say for the state of a nation when this is seen as an acceptable thing to do? I may not agree with Chirac's stance on a second resolution, but a little respect doesn't go amiss.

For the record, I really don't want to move to the US, I want to move home to sunny Caithness.

[Drutt]

abewsed - with regard to the spy planes, I will stand by my argument that this is a great step forward. The UN is not provided with real time imagery provided by the satellites (I believe the CIA restrict the access - perhaps they fear it will reveal things that are not in their interests). The spy planes will provide the UN with their first access to real time photography of Iraq.

Imaging satellites pass over Iraq every few hours - the fact that they have to orbit means that we don't get the constant, detailed, real-time imagery that spy planes could provide directly to the UN weapons inspectors.

I am not anti-war at all costs. I would agree that the UN must give a final message and they absolutely must mean it. But we need a second UN resolution and we need wider international support. With this, we could go in to topple the Iraqi regime which has caused suffering and poverty and death over the last 3 decades. Without it, it is an act of aggression which may lead to a wider Middle East war which lasts for many years.

I guess at the end of the day we agree on our fears about what will happen without wider Middle East backing. And I accept that things could go pear shaped whether we go to war or not. I worry about the state of the world we inflict upon our children and grandchildren... and while I argue that our aggression will result in a more frightening world, I accept that doing nothing could lead to just as much fear and violence.

I will accept that you have not argued that the US and UK should storm Iraq with all guns blazing, but this is what the US seem keen to do (and they'd drag the UK along with them for good measure). It is this that I find alarming. If we can get a second resolution and greater international backing then I would accept moving in the direction of war. I just think that the weapons inspectors should be given time to do their job. They went back in only a few weeks ago, after having been thrown out in 1998. After all the diplomatic effort that went into getting them back in, they need time to get on with the job.

I worry that Tony Blair keeps changing his argument and his justification for war. It makes him look shifty. It makes me wonder what his real reason is, and I can't trust him. I did not mean to cause offence to squidge by saying it was naïve to trust our government, so if I did squidge, I apologise.

squidge - I absolutely understand your humanitarian angle on this debate, and can't dispute the tortures or killings that occur every day in Iraq. I am grateful for every day that I wake up free from fear and free to speak my mind. As I have said above, I am not anti-war at all costs, but I hope that our government will proceed with care, just as Amnesty International ask for the humanitarian impact of war to be considered before committing to war.

I am sorry that you feel this thread has degenerated to a level where people may feel discouraged or intimidated about expressing their opinion - I would certainly not wish to contribute to this discouragement, and I apologise if you feel that I have. Of course everyone should feel free to express their opinions and their feelings about the threat of war.

There are aspects on which we disagree, and where we will never persuade each other of the absolute value of our own argument. There are also some aspects of this debate where we seem to agree but we're coming in from different angles. I don't expect we'll agree whether going to war or not going to war would be better for humanitarian progress, but we want the same result!

[squidge]

jjc

I too would like to see a UN resolutions which supports the action. The points that Fionarich makes about it calling the action police action and enforcement are what any action against Iraq will be if there is a resolution from the UN to support it. However my big concern is that the UN will back away from this resolution - it wont happen. Even if the weapons inspectors come back and say nope we did not get the assistance we required then the UN will do what it always does and what it has done over the last 13 years which is give Saddam another chance and another. When does taking the moral high ground become avoiding the issue? If the weapons insepctors get the assistance and dont find the evidence of the existence of these weapons why cant they find the evidence of their destruction? It is agreed that Saddam clearly has had and manufactured these weapons so where is the evidence of their destruction if he hasnt got them any more?

Abewsed i absolutely agree with what you said about this - there is no way we can trust Saddam to be open and honest in any shape or form - forget about my naivety - to trust that he is being truthfull is like holding out a leg of lamb to a tiger and not expecting to lose your arm!!! To believe what is being said by this man is naive to the point of insanity.

See this is what i find alarming. Saddam seems to be wriggling off the hook and i think he has to go - Mad bad and dangerous to all of us - if the UN wont do it - then we HAVE to do it.


I like being an ordinary person. I like being able to have the freedoms to buy the sun or the new York Post if i wanted and get slightly snotty and pompous about other peoples opinions , I like to be able to say - I agree and i disagree with issues raised. I like to be able to change my mind when hearing others opinions if i want to - Its great living here.

Drutt, i was perhaps a little overwrought this morning - i never take offence unless i have been trying to post stuff since 11.30 and lost the thing twice - my exasperation got the better of me i am afraid and after a good nights sleep - suitable refreshed and somewhat calmer i feel a little less aggrieved. The latest posts have been far easier to follow, digest and consider so i am mollified.

And finally jjc, you would have loved this last week - the sun has shone - i have walked along reiss beach and dunnet beach. I have strolled around the town and seen people smiling cos the sun is shining. Caithness on a frosty morning is as beautiful as anywhere - it has fair taken my breath away this last week. Hurry home!!!!

[jjc]

Cheers, Abewsed. I'm sitting here typing a promise to Squidge to try to shorten my posts, and all the while you are laying the foundations of my failure... *sigh*... ah well, here goes (forgive me, Squidge).

Firstly, you are right. I have been sitting here laughing at several of the things you have said and banging my fists on the desk at others. The difference is that I then sit back, take a deep breath, and reply to you with respect and without belittling your point of view by laughing - the only reason for which is to say 'look everybody, isn't this a funny statement'.
I have also refrained from resorting to insulting Saddam Hussein on a personal level (nutter or not ) because I believe he has done enough to justify my opinion without it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care if you laugh at my posts or not. I'm old enough, and ugly enough, to live with it.

Okay, so that's that out of the way... let's move on.

The U-2 spy planes are essential for two reasons.
Firstly, because the weapons inspectors asked for them. Let us not make the mistake of second guessing their intentions or abilities, I am sure that if they asked for them, they need them.
Secondly, because they complement the three US KH-11 'keyhole' satellites and three Lacrosse imaging radar satellites which operate on polar orbits that take them over Iraq. The KH-11s take approximately 12 hours to return to position over Iraq, the Lacrosse satellites vary but still have considerable numbers of hours between passes. The combination of satellites means that one passes by every two hours. When the satellites pass over Iraq they have little more than ten minutes over any one target before they have moved on. I'm no satellite expert - this information was scavenged from the web - but surely if a U-2 spy plane can fill the gaps left by satellites it can only be a good thing?

When Drutt suggested due consideration, I don’t think that another ten years was his/her intention. Perhaps they meant that the fact that the US (and now only the US) are prepared to go to war without international backing (or a second UN resolution) points to something of a lack of due consideration.
Due consideration could be as little as waiting for the next report from the weapons inspectors. That would be next month, rather than next decade.
You may think that the UN has become less and less powerful over the years, and you may be right, but if the US take it upon themselves to decide when they will, and will not, listen to the decisions of the UN then it not only loses its teeth, but arms, legs and head as well. You can berate the UN for lack of action, but can you imagine international diplomacy without it? Can you honestly say that the world would be a better place if it returned to the old way of every country for themselves?

The point that I was trying to make with the ‘teaser’ was one of double standards. We have the US decreeing that weapons of mass destruction cannot be developed (and who could disagree?) and that the UN must be adhered to… on the other hand, they can opt out of the International Criminal Court jurisdiction and are contemplating dismissing a treaty preventing the development of new nuclear weapons. Where is the justice here? If we are going to talk about hypocrites, can we exclude the US government?

The official reason given by Washington for opting out of the ICC did not have anything to do with the possibility of assassinations. They feared that the ICC could be used as a forum to persecute US nationals for politically motivated reasons and that it could actually prevent the military from doing its job properly (eh?). How did they get this immunity? They threatened opposing countries with withdrawal of aid unless they toed the line. Very reasonable.

You question Drutt on his/her proof for their claims about support for war. Well, if we look to Mori they have usually got some poll on the go for such a debate, and here are the results.

Q – do you approve of disapprove of the way the President of America, George W. Bush, is handling the current situation with Iraq (the country ruled by Saddam Hussein)?
Net approval (%) = -49
Q – do you approve or disapprove of the way the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is handling the current situation with Iraq?
Net approval (%) = -36
Q – would you support or oppose Britain joining any American-led military action against Iraq, with UN approval?
Net approval (%) = +32
Q – would you support or oppose Britain joining any American-led military action against Iraq, without UN approval?
Net approval (%) = -62

If you look back, Drutt did not actually say that Britain did not support this war. What Drutt said was:

If this evidence is obtained from the weapons inspectors or the spy planes, so be it. If Iraq forms a real and immediate threat and it is proven, so be it. Until then, a war will not be supported by the majority of British society.

This poll backs that statement up fully. If the UN are behind a war (which they would be if a second, and final, resolution fails) then the net approval is 32%. If the UN are not behind a war (which they will not be if the US decide that they can act alone) then net approval is -62%. Can't get much clearer than that.

But hey, if we are going to get picky about sources, let us look at your last post:

“No war at any cost”. It is exactly what people are saying

Can you back this up with evidence? Not according Mori... but we are all entitled to our opinions.

I think fionarich speaks for most military personnel, UK included, and for the US side of things.

No. Fionarich speaks for herself. I speak for myself. You speak for yourself. Drutt speaks for his/her self. We only have to look at our differing opinions to see that.

Squidge. Sorry about that, all done now. And please stop teasing me with tales of sunshine

[Anonymous]

Of the recent polls that I have seen:
- 56% of American's support Bush in his decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein
- 51% support him going to war, even without a UN mandate.
-79% thought that Colin Powell had made his case for military action with Iraq

You say that the majority of the British do not support the war. Where is the proof? 1,000,000 men, women and children took to the streets to protest against war.
That means out of a population of 55,000,000 - 45,000,000 are not bothered about a war. Or another way of looking at it is that 98% does not care about the war, or 98% are for war!

I suggest you read this page before posting any more "statistics"

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html

My belief is that statistics should be totally ignored if you dont know the full story behind the numbers.

And before anyone says it, I'm not attacking the two posters quoted, only using what they have posted as an example

[Anonymous]

While I'm handing out URLs for all to go see, this one CANNOT BE MISSED!!!!!

http://www.whitehouse.org

Please dont miss the section "TARGET: IRAQ", its riveting ?;o)

[jjc]

Niall,

You're right, not a site to be missed. It's going to take me a while to read through it all though...

[Anonymous]

To all: I will try to shorten my replies as well. The board is successful so far; people are looking at it and hopefully trying to understand how this mess started. Places like this message board is the only place people can vent off steam or have their say. So all the typing and reading might be paying off.

Drutt: regarding the U-2 spay plane. You say that the U-2 can provide the UN with real-time photos images, unlike the satellites, as the satellites are governed by the CIA/USA. Have you considered who flies the U-2? It is a USAF aircraft, flown by US personnel. So we have the US in charge of the Satellites and the U-2. So if the CIA are restricting intelligence to the UN, why all of a sudden is the U-2 going to be different. The same intelligence can be withheld, if it is withheld in the first place.

The US and UK (we) talk about this second resolution as if it is the second. I am not going back over previous messages, but this is not the second resolution, it is the 8th, 10th, 12th, whatever, since 1990. Lets not pretend this is Saddam’s second chance. All of a sudden (since 1991) the “world” is again taking notice of Iraq. Why because all of a sudden, peace (real peace) is threatened. Because the US and UK are threatening war, to get rid of an evil dictator. One way or the other, I hope this crisis is settles once and for all. Also that it is over quickly and not dragged out for another ten years, with the odd terrorist attack in between.
People seem to forget, that the UK is not a puppet sate of the US. We have ignored their “advice” in the past and will again in the future (I hope). The Falklands War was one occasion. The UK has it’s own opinion and if not “we” can rectify that at the poles.
The weapons inspectors (WI) have been back only a few weeks, “since being thrown out”. Who threw them out? No the US or UK! Who prevented the WI from having time to do their job? Not the US or UK.
Ha ha: Tony Blair looks shifty all the time! I don’t trust him or his party. But then again I don’t trust any party, as it is full of politics and politics are full of lies, miss-truths at best.

I agree with squidge, if the WI doesn’t find the “missing weapons”, then the UN will want more time. Then if they do find the “weapons”, do we take them away, slap Saddam’s hand and say, “bad boy, don’t do it again?” Or will the UN decide for ousting Saddam? Whichever way we look at it, Saddam will need to be ousted. Sorry, but this is the Catch 22. It looks like a war anyway, unless Saddam and his Government do the decent thing! The support of the “civilised” world is needed in any action against Saddam. The more intelligent leaders of the world (who have more information than us) know this. So is the real argument against the US and its military might. Or to be politically correct, its projection of power. The argument is not pro or anti Saddam. It is anti USA! So are we seeing the real objections for war?

Jjc: I see you have been doing you home work, unlike me! I did not know the WI asked for the U-2. I will have to go off and my own homework now and see “if” as I believe/d that Iraq has dedicated 24 hr Satellite/s above. But until then I will surrender the U-2 issue and agree that is will be a benefit to the WI and not a waste of time. But I could be back on the issue.

No I cant say the world would be a better place without the UN, as it still does more go than bad. But it does seem to have lost the plot. They are there to prevent what has been happening in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Not wait until the US & UK threaten action. Or until NATO decides to take action. The UN should be taking action. As I have said the action should be before the crime. If not, during the crime. But not years after the crime.

I got your point about the “teaser”. The problem with the “free” world countries, i.e. US, UK, France, Germany, Australia etc. Is that we have elections. Today we have a nice person (I don’t mean Tony), tomorrow who knows? It is up to Parliament etc to ensure the leaders are kept in step. If we talk about hypocrites, then all governments are included as politics change all the time. But I do take your point and agree with it, it is double standards.

I still think the ICC was looking at assassination. But I need more info to see where the issue lies. The US is no different that the UK or France. If we don’t get what we want we threaten walking out. It is politics

So now we look at polls to decide how our country is to be lead. Polls I think, we will all agree, are not the true figure. It could be 99% of the population are against any action by the US & UK. The only way to find this out is by a Nationwide Vote. In fact I think we would all love to know how the public really view this crisis. As Fiona has stated, the papers don’t reflect the “seen” feelings. I think the polls are the same, whatever for or against.

I am all for another Coalition, rather than US & UK going it alone. Between the two of them, they have the weapons, skill and manpower, to do the job. But there should be a backing by the Arab world. As I have said before it could go pear shaped. There is less chance of it going pear shaped, with backing, not necessarily physical support.

The “No war at any cost”. It is exactly what people are saying.” Is what people are saying, whether it is two, two thousand etc? There are people out there that want to leave the Middle East alone, irrelevant of the cost.

I can only take Fiona’s word for the US, as she is there. Also of all the people I have spoke to, they seem to feel the same. Saddam needs to be sorted out, once and for all. The issue is whether the US and UK go it alone.

I have to agree with Niall “My belief is that statistics should be totally ignored if you don’t know the full story behind the numbers.” As I don’t have a clue as to how we get one minute 1,000,00 on the streets and in the next paper 800,000 and so on. I am sure there is some “pro-Blair” paper out there that says the public is behind the war. Also I can’t get the http://www.whitehouse.org page. I will leave that till tomorrow.

I have tried to keep this short and stuck to the important issues. Sorry if it is long. But I don’t think I called Saddam a “nutter” once. Though he is! :)

[Anonymous]

Jjc & Drutt. I have been doing a lot of reading. And have discovered that there is more than enough Satellite coverage of Iraq. Between Russia, US, Israel, France etc. It seems that every tom, dick and harry has a satellite over Iraq at one time or other. But between the US and Israel (who share there info) they are covering the whole of Iraq 24hrs a day. The shared info between US and Israel makes sense, as Israel would have a high probability of being attacked again by Iraq if a war started. (That is the short version).

This is my own thoughts on the U-2: Lets say the U-2 flies out of Kuwait, it would take about an hour to fly to Baghdad, as it flies about 430 mph. It can stay aloft for hours, but to be realistic, it can only stay aloft until the film runs out. Or if a data relay was aboard it could film forever. The main restriction is that the pilot would need to land, after say 8hrs, if for no other reason than for the toilet. It is a slow and old aircraft, which is about 50yrs old.
The most logical option, if the UN wanted up-to-date images, would be to use another countries aircraft. Like a Russia, France, Germany or Saudi Arabia recognisance aircraft. They all have fast aircraft with the same ability as the U-2. They all have aircraft like the RAF’s Tornado and Jaguar reconnaissance variation, which could be over a site, is minutes. Also if they were a “more friendly” country and the data could not be compromised by the CIA etc. The only benefit for a U-2 is its ability to fly high. This is not necessary as they have permission to fly over Iraq, so no Surface to Air missiles to worry about.
It is just another wasted gesture, as I am sure the US & the UN would prefer a more modern aircraft over Iraq than the U-2.
There is also the UAV’s (unmanned aerial vehicles). Which are just unmanned light aircraft. The US have 25 of the Predator versions, which can stay aloft for 40 hrs taking real time images. The only problem is their speed about 70 mph. This would mean that it would take 5hrs 30min to fly from Kuwait to Baghdad. 11hr round trip, but still leaving about 30 hours over an area, with no need to relieve a pilot. So if it is ability to stay over a site, then a UAV is more suitable. If it is speed to a site, then a faster aircraft would be preferable, i.e. Tornado.

As to the Majority of the population against a war with Iraq: The reason “I” believe that the consensus is “seen” as Anti-War is this:
People who are against something, have stronger feelings than those for it. So they make the biggest protest. Whilst the Pro-side, site back happy. Where as with war, this is even more relevant. As how many people would take to the street for a war? No one wants to be seen as a War Monger (or very few do). So how can you protest about something that you agree with? This is why the anti-lobbyist seems to have the biggest voice, whether it is over war, fox hunting, fishing, roads etc.

Last bit: In Oct 2002, Serbia-Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina admitted that members of their security were shipping equipment to Iraq, against the UN sanctions.
(Janes Defence Weekly 6th Nov 2002) A vessel “Boka Star” was illegally shipping 208 tonnes of nitrocellulose propellant and nitro-glycerine. This was declared as “active coal.” This could be used for propellant for missile engines (Scuds). They also admitted that Jugoimport-SDPR were in breach of the UN arms embargo by overhauling engines for Iraqi MiG-21 and MiG-23 aircraft. I found this site about it. http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N52/ship-52.52w.html

To keep it short, it seems a lot of the UN sanctions are being broken by Iraq and a lot of the stuff is coming in and going out through Syria. Which makes sense as Syria has Mediterranean ports and borders Iraq. Mainly export of illegal oil on the black market.

[squidge]

A good friend sent me these links today

Seems like it might not be only the USA who might have oil as an agenda in this war.

France:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2757797.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2721963.stm

Russia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2670083.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2726269.stm


And the Germans may not have oil interests, but they are alledgedly
responsible for 50% of illegal weapons sales to Iraq!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2584975.stm

So .... Interesting?

Mmmmmm I thought so too!!!!

[gordon the moron]

It has nothing to do with oil otherwise the whole world would be trying to over run the place. Too many ill informed people think George Bush jnr wants Iraq's oil but economics dictates that the less oil in circulation the greater the value of Texas oil and the greater the prosperity of the south eastern region of the States.