"no war" sign

[jjc]

Hmmm. Playing the part of Devil's Advocate for just a moment, I'm not entirely sure that Abewsed's representation that the French are trying to 'go with the flow' is entirely accurate.

Jean-David Levitte, the French Ambassador to the US, made his comments in response to what the French Foreign Minister's Office called a 'strictly hypothetical question'. Funnily enough, no news outlets appear to be reporting the actual question that was asked (even CNN, who asked the question in the first place), but I imagine it went along the lines of: 'What would the French response be if Iraq used WOMD against coalition troops?'

What Jean-David Levitte said in response to the hypothetical question was:

If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation.
It seems to me as though this is a statement that the French will reconsider their stance should chemical or biological weapons be used. It seems a long way off a promise of military assistance.

Also, I'm not sure that France ever claimed that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction. I believe that their position (along with Germany, Russia, and the majority of the Security Council) is that the Weapons Inspectors should have been given more time to complete their work. The resolution was, in the words of the Russain Ambassador, 'not going to fly' because it set tests and deadlines for Iraq to comply but did not call for the Security Council to reconvene and agree that those tests and deadlines had not been met.

Despite the media and political 'spin' which seems almost to have created a promise from France to veto 'any' resolution, that isn't quite what happened. Chirac actually said:

There could, effectively, be a majority of nine votes or more for a new resolution, one which would authorise war. If that was the case, then France would vote 'no' . . . because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq.
What Chirac was talking about was a resolution which would explicitly authorise war.
If a resolution were introduced which contained a final set of tests to determine, within a defined deadline, whether or not Iraq was cooperating with the UN, AND that resolution called for the determination of success or failure to be made by the entire Security Council, then I believe that France would have agreed.

In fact, Chile proposed just that. They proposed a resolution, which defined six tests (not dissimilar to those proposed by the UK). The Chilean resolution had a 30-day deadline (rather than the ridiculously short 10 days from the UK/US). The main difference was that a declaration of war did not automatically follow. The success or failure of the resolution would be determined by the Security Council. Of course, the US shot that idea down in flames before it had really had a chance to take shape. Why? Because they wouldn't be able to railroad the Coalition into war without the Security Council assessing the situation?

The point is that we need to take what the politicians and press say with rather more than a pinch of salt (I suggest a fistful). It took a lot of digging to find an actual quote of what Chirac said, rather than just a report along the lines of 'France say they will veto any resolution'. It took a lot to find the actual Chilean proposal to the Security Council.

We have been led to believe that the French objection was one to the notion of force in any situation. We have been led to believe that not only by the press, but also by our politicians. It simply is not true. The French objection was to the use of force when the Weapons Inspectors were still able to perform their jobs.

It may be true that the debate as to whether we go to war or not is now passed. Parliament has voted and war is now coming. But if we close the book on this debacle now then we are ignoring some issues that seriously need to be examined.
Whether they got the end result they wanted or not, the actions of some politicians and some media outlets have been far from impeccable. We even had reports that Cherie Blair (who was elected by who, exactly?) was phoning around female Labour MPs to rally support.

I think that after this conflict is over there are a lot of questions which a lot of people need to answer.

[Anonymous]

rachelle
There will be millions tuning into Sky TV/CNN to watch what is going on in Iraq and else where. It will virtually impossible to miss the media. Each will have their own theories as to how the war should and will go. Then there will be images from Saddam’s side showing the misery and death caused to the Iraqi people. The US/UK will show the smart weapons hitting the targets etc. The reason this will be shown worldwide is that we want to see it. Otherwise the media would not show it!

Wars like this is like a horror movie. We know that the scary bit is coming and we cover our faces, but yet we still watch through the wee slit between our fingers. We are by nature a curious race; otherwise we would still be walking about with a club in our hands and living in caves. That is natural. We might not like it but that is the truth of it.
Like everything there are two sides to the story. We have people who watch the “show” and sit back and enjoy watching the death and destruction. The others sit and watch the horror of war. I have already argued about the humans being animals first and foremost. But yet most people have compassion. This compassion is our human side.
The simple way to show the difference between the sick and the “normal” would be when we see dead men, women and children or even our own soldiers. The sick is the one smoking a Cuban Cigar and eating pop corn, grinning from ear to ear getting the jollies off watching others misery.
The normal, is the one that watches the same thing and genuinely feels for those who have been killed. This is the majority of humanity, of which you are speaking about.

The next people are those who are taking part in the War. Yes they will sit back and watch the destruction of instillations, see dead Iraqi soldiers etc. They will probably say “great one less to worry about” etc, even smile when a smart weapon destroys a target. This is a different viewpoint. They are the only ones really entitled to have the cigar and popcorn. This is a psychological approach to warfare, they have to show a bit or a lot of hatred to the enemy (this depends on the individual), otherwise how can they be expected to go and fight a war? They are entitled to be macho, switch off their feelings, pretend it is not a human life, but pretend the Iraqi is a target on a firing range. Most soldiers switch off their feelings during war, but afterwards the human part comes back. That is why so many soldiers have breakdowns after the conflicts. Some become religious. They reflect on what they have done or seen.
I remember a few years ago the media showed a Scottish soldier (Argyll & Sutherland Highlander) singing a John Lennon song, whilst burying a civilian in the Balkans. The media made out he was uncaring and uncompassionate etc. But the way I saw it was he “might” have been switching off from the reality of war. To do this soldiers try to see the funny side of things, or try to make light of the reality. Make out they are hard/macho etc. To the Civilian they are uncaring. We call this “sick humour”, which is the every day part of the British Army. It is the psychological approach to doing a very nasty, dangerous job.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a difference between the people fighting and the people watching warfare and how they react. By all means watch the TV. But this does not mean that everyone is sick. I will probably watch the TV and smile when I see destroyed Iraqi instillations and tanks etc. One less for the US/UK to worry about etc. But at the same time I will feel sorry for the innocent losses of the civilians. I will feel sorry for the US/UK casualties, especially those hit by friendly fire. That is the reality of war etc. But if I was to go publicly and say I was getting my jollies off by watching this on TV. I think I would see a doctor! But if the end comes swiftly and with as few casualties as during the last war, I will be celebrating, but not before! So maybe I am a wee bit sick, who knows?

I am sure that some will disagree with what I have said and the way I have said it, but this is the only way I can explain it.

I hope Bill, jjc etc and their concerns are proved wrong and that you can go and tell both they were wrong etc. If this happens, it will mean that the War was a success. But most victors are humble to the losers and say nothing. I will just sit back and state that we (UK) still have the best trained Army in the world, with the US coming second. But Fiona and Marion will disagree with that fact, that is called pride in your nation.

I love it! France is back peddling fast!!! The French are showing their true colours!

I truly hope the live TV show is short story, which does not turn into and ongoing soap opera!

[gleeber]

War is awful!! Im with President Bush and all the other leaders of this world who see people of the ilk of Saddam Hussein as a danger to the world. My only hope is that before this evening is out, Saddam and his cronies will take the opportunity given to him by President Bush to leave Iraq. Otherwise, i fear by this time tomorrow it will be started.

I remember Sept 11th 2001. I knew within a few minutes of the atrocities happening that the world had changed. Im sure you all remember the feeling. Now that the change is beginning to kick in, all of us, conspiracy theorists, tactitionalists, politicalists, realists or whatever other "ist" are beginning to feel uncomfortable with the change.

I have admired President Bush ever since the events of Sept 11th and his handling of that situation. I saw a nations hurt in his face, and later a nations hope in his face and now i see a nations determination in his face. A determination that we will be allowed to live our lives in as much freedom as is possible for the common good of all. For that reason Saddam must go, and yes, after him, any other regime or individual who puts that freedom at risk.

Every one of us, our opinions formed by unexamined introjected modes of thinking, prejudices, biasis or whatever other type of manufactured fear will be sitting, like Londonwicker, zapper in hand watching the events unfold in front of our eyes,(apart from you Niall) always looking out, never looking in, wondering how can we change the world ? Never wondering how the world can change us.

What teaches young squirrels to collect nuts in the autumn or who teaches young swallows to fly to Africa for the winter?
Why do i hear nationilist Scotsmen singing the praises of a murderous rebel like William Wallace. Where did they learn that?

The war on terror is in its early stages , we will all have a price to pay.
Get used to it, find God and pray or alternitively keep posting on CCWS.

[Anonymous]

:D well tree-huggers........the sick........is the one who gassed 5000 iraqi kurds,men women and children..........im going to enjoy watching that desspot and his ilk,suffering like they have never suffered before.the mother of all bombs is on its way.you fly with the crows............you get shot with them.............cheers london.......ps pass the popcorn. :D

[Anonymous]

MadPict
The bottom line about the British Army is that when one enemy goes away, we want money spent on the NHS etc. But then a new enemy pop up and shows themselves. We (UK) like to think we are powerful and capable of “projecting power” anywhere in the world. But the sad fact is that we do not have the kit. So we do it on the cheap! Out-dated equipment or more honestly, it would be better if the fighting was done in Europe, as that is where the equipment is designed for. But I can’t see Saddam saying he will enter the battlefield in Europe. Also our supplies are designed to go across a stretch of 20 miles of water and then on to Germany. Not around Gibraltar, through the Red Sea on to the Gulf.
Most of the British Army agree there are better cheaper weapons out there, but they do not have “Made in the UK” stamped on them. But then again we are used to that, we were unprepared for the Crimea (1854-6), Indian Mutiny (1857-58), Boer War (1899-1902), WW1 (1914-19), WW2 (1939-45) and lots more wars.
On about the Americans. During the Battle of Arnhem (1944), the US 82nd & 101st Airborne Division were under the British Command and as such their rations came from the UK. They could not understand how anyone could survive, never mind fight on the meagre rations supplied to the British Army! Nothing has changed in 60 years!
But I wonder if the AA has been mobilised?

jjc
Ok, we will play with words. The French said that the WI should be given more time to discover if Iraq had WOMD. They were implying that the Iraqi’s had destroyed all of its WOMD. They were to veto any new resolution whatever it said. They were saying the Iraqi’s were innocent etc. Now they are letting the world know (via the side door) that they will help the US/UK if needed. I personally hope they don’t turn up in the Gulf, as it might make it hard for the US/UK to distinguish who is the real enemy, France or Iraq! But yes the Devils Advocate does not say they are going to help and yes they still say the war is wrong etc. I just hope they stay away, and we (US/UK) deal with them afterwards. Nothing like trying to jump the fence at the last moment, whilst keeping the gate open just in case!
The French and the Chilean’s know before they put 30 days on the table, that the US/UK could not wait that long. Summer time temperatures ranging from 90-130 deg F!!!!! Then in NBC suits! Take it from me and I am sure MadPict will verify this. NBC in winter is hard enough, never mind summer.

But whatever, just sit back and watch the French try to do a u-turn!! I have a crystal ball, and it says, that the real reasons the French were against US/UK will come out soon enough. Then I will say, “I told you so.” One other bit to note: We (the UK) have made our bed, and in that bed is the USA! Whether we like it or not, we have only one true Ally, it is the USA! But I prefer them to French anyway, so I can live with that.
The French and their out look is déjà vu! Their language not mine! But it seems 1990/91 is again being repeated in 2003.

We are guaranteed to have an investigation after the war, both official and un-official. I just hope that the investigation is sooner than later.

One other bit that I am surprised that has not been broached by now, is the issue of Friendly Fire. Note: It is acceptable to have 15% casualties to friendly fire during war. Not a nice thought! That too will be investigated. As I am sure that during the conflict, some poor sod will make a mistake and some other poor sod will die because of it. Hard not to make mistakes with all the aircraft, tanks and weapons in a confined area.

[jjc]

I saw a nations hurt in his face, and later a nations hope in his face and now i see a nations determination in his face. A determination that we will be allowed to live our lives in as much freedom as is possible for the common good of all....and they say that one slightly inane, somewhat detached, sneer can't tell a thousand stories… eh, Rich?

Abewsed, I have to take issue with your statement that because the French were calling for more time for the Weapons Inspectors they must have believed that Iraq had destroyed all of its WOMD. There is no logic in that. The Weapons Inspectors were making progress. They were investigating the truths of the statements made to them. They were enforcing the will of the UN to destroy the al-Samoud II missiles. They had a clear and defined purpose, and they were still on track. If we didn't intend them to complete that task, why give them the opportunity to start it in the first place?

Also, they were not going to veto any new resolution whatever it said. They were going to veto any new resolution that paved the way for war without further consultation with the Security Council. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for France to want to have the final say in whether their troops go to war, in the same way as I would never expect Tony Blair to sign up to allowing Bush to declare war in our name and with our troops.

The act of war is a serious act and I cannot believe that any nation would sign away their right to discuss and agree on the final decision to engage in that act. Yet we expected France, Germany, Russia, everyone, to do just that. We expected them to agree to a resolution that would most likely mean a declaration of war between France and Iraq would be made by the President of the United States. Was that not at best grossly ignorant of our governments, at worst deeply insulting to our European allies?

Thanks for bringing up the 'friendly fire' issue. I had thought that I raised it in a previous post, but can't find it… guess I got carried away on a different subject.
It's an interesting point because according to the DoD, 52% of the British troops killed during the gulf war were killed by friendly fire. 25% of the American troops killed were killed by friendly fire. 15% of the wounded were friendly fire casualties.
These aren't, by any standards, acceptable figures.

Abewsed, you will almost certainly have more details on this than I do, but my understanding is that neither the MoD, nor the DoD, have implemented any of the systems which are designed to lessen the threats of friendly fire. According to a news report I saw last week our tank crews still have to rely on symbols painted on the tops of their vehicles to identify themselves to friendly forces. Are we really prepared for this war???

Personally I wouldn’t like to rely on a splodge of paint to identify myself to any gung-ho, glory driven 'allies' who are racing across the desert yelling 'Yee-haw' and shooting at anything that moves…

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif

[hotrod4]

As the time on my post states it is now 6 1/2 hours from imminent war.
Not a nice thought but i can gaurantee my 1000000000000 % support for our lads and lasses in the gulf.
I note people will spend hours typing out replies on this thread but the number of replies on forces radio ia APPALLING!
I dont know how some of you have the gal to call yourselves British or as the branch caressers may say were Scottish.
Do you honestly think saddam would care if you were north or south of the border no chance!!!!(just look at the north and south of his country).

I find it a disgrace when people aren't supporting our troops.
How would you feel if your son or daughter was there and the locals around you couldn't take the time to boost morale.
I better stop now b4 i get more annoyed i've been in that boat looking from the inside and the thought of folks at home keeps your spirits up .I pray and hope for EVERY single one of them, i've wished them luck.
CAN YOU SAY THE SAME????????????????

[jjc]

Hotrod4,

I don't know why so many people believe that those of us who have voiced our concern over the government's handling of this whole issue don't support our troops. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I would like to think that our forces recognise that one of the reasons that many of us are objecting to the government's actions is that we don't want our troops to be put at risk needlessly.

I am deeply concerned for the safety of every member of our armed services. They put themselves in danger to protect my way of life and my safety, and I thank them for that. Recognising the incredible sacrifice that they may make for me, my conscience does not allow me to sit silently by whilst my government plays political games that may cost them their lives.

The jobs that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen do are far more than mere jobs. They are ways of life. They don't roll up to work around 9am and start to wind down around 4pm. Weekends, bank holidays and Christmas are not their own. They are under equipped and over stretched.

Do I pray for them? Of course. Do I wish them luck? By the lorry load. Will I sit idly by whilst their dedication and patriotism is taken for granted? Never.

I want to make it clear that my protests are against the incredible efforts that the governments of the US and UK seemed to have gone to in order to ensure that any possibility of a peaceful end to this conflict would fail. Our armed forces have a difficult and arduous conflict ahead of them and it would be less than human to wish them anything but success and safety just because I disagree with Tony Blair and George W. Bush.

JJC

[Anonymous]

jjc
If we go back a few years. You will see that 2003 is not the first time, since 1991, that nations have threatened to attack Iraq. The issue here is that the US/UK said they were going to attack Iraq and allowed others to join them, in a coalition. If no one else wanted to take part, they would go it alone. This was after 12yrs of crimes against humanity, attempts to rearm (al-Samoud II), attempts to smuggle in (possible) weapons and attempts to research WOMD etc. This was after Saddam on a yearly basis threatened the USA and UK with terrorist attacks. This was after Saddam went out on the streets of Baghdad and celebrated the destruction of the Twin Towers and the loss of 4,000 innocent lives. This is after Saddam has ignored rules set down by the UN. This is after kicking out the WI before they could complete their mission.
I don’t believe the US/UK asked France to supply them with military aid. All they asked was to allow them to invade Iraq with the backing of the UN! The US also stated that they would go to war, without UK troops if need be. This dead line was supposed to be last Nov. But UN countries decided to play by the book. Iraq played for time. Time ran out!
France, Germany, Russia, China and the UN blocked the US/UK at every turn. There is no way that anyone can say that Saddam has showed full co-operation over the last 12yrs, never mind in the last 18 months. He has used the split in the UN to his advantage. The French & Germans have used the spilt to try and get the US out of Europe.
The Russians never asked for UN backing when they attacked Afghanistan.
The Chinese never asked for UN backing before attacking Vietnam over the oil fields in the South China Sea.
France never asked the UN for permission over conflicts in Central African Republic, or Chad, nor Libya, nor Algeria, nor Morocco, nor Ivory Coast, nor Congo, nor Madagascar,
The Germans have not attacked anyone, because they are not allowed to.
Suddenly the French have a conscience!! I think not! But then again they might have been annoyed that they were ignored during the last Gulf War and again they were not asked to participate in this one. Or could it be that UK showed their alliance with the USA before France?????

Yes the Friendly Fire percentages for the last war is more or less correct. The total coalition forces killed were 175 and 502 wounded (there were also 39 Arab casualties, but I don’t know how many killed or wounded). Against over 30,000 Iraqi solders killed and unknown wounded. The UK had 24 killed, 9 were due to friendly fire and 10 wounded. Whilst this is a high percentage, it does not show the true arithmetic. The coalition killed compared to the Iraqi killed is about 0.5%. Also the casualties were vastly under what the coalition expected.
The two main Blue on Blue incidents were the two US and two UK Armoured Vehicles attacked by US Apache helicopters and two A-10 Thunderbolts. Whilst I will not go into the incidents, as they are very controversial (two sides to each story). They were both needless, but they did happen. Both times were due to lack of communication and human error. With all the best will in the world, this will happen again and again and again. As far as I know every conflict, including the Falklands have had blue on blue incidents. Even British “live firing training” have blue on blue incidents every year. It is unavoidable, it seems to be part of warfare, and someone will make a mistake, which is what we call being human.
Since 1991 the US/UK have been putting a lot of effort into ensuring that BoB are kept to a minimum. But as I have said each year a British soldier is shot in training and that is with Safety Officers watching over them. In fact some of the Safety Officers have been known to be shot.
The way they have tried to overcome this is by improving communication and command and control. They have also fitted some of the vehicles with IFF (identify friend or foe) systems. Or to be more accurate (for the UK) they were supposed to have! But it might be that cutbacks have see to that, the same way the mobile canteens were! They have the Orange Triangles on “each” vehicle, which are “supposed” to be kept visible at all times.
The main difference is that aircraft and helicopters are now dedicated to Regiments, Brigades and Divisions. So rather than having their HQ miles away, they should be kept up to date as the battle moves along. Also they will be told to ensure that before firing, all vehicles have to be positively identified. Though if the war does go into street fighting, then the BoB will occur.

I also think it is unfair to blame our “allies”, as the British Tornados and Jaguars were tasked with bombing targets, rather than “Close Air Support” which the USAF were tasked with. Note: the words Close Air Support! That means that the munitions dropped will be in close proximity of the friendly troops. There was even the time the SAS were being attacked by the Iraqi’s during the Gulf, in which they asked the USAF (F-15’s I think) to attack their own position, as they were being over run. Luckily lady luck was on their side and they all escaped with minor injuries. They could have been easily part of the BoB!

Incidentally about the Gung-ho, glory driven 'allies'. I have seen the documentary, heard and read the incident involving the US BoB incident with their two Bradley's. I would say that the commander of the Apaches was far from being gung-ho. In fact he did everything to prevent firing. His last words before firing were something like… “I hope to god, they are not friendlies”. But yet with all his effort not to fire, he was ordered by his commander, who was miles behind the lines. He was court-martialled, not his commander!

Then also the “allies' who are racing across the desert yelling 'Yee-haw' and shooting at anything that moves…” The main reasons the two above incident happened was due to the US and UK troops moving to fast. The 1st UK Armoured Div advanced too far, they had to be ordered to stop. The A-10 was not told that allies had advanced into an area that should have been only occupied with Iraqi’s. So the British were also racing across the desert.

I think the US/UK are as prepared as best as they can be, taking in humans will make mistakes, especially under stress, fear, fatigue and even a bit of gung-ho (UK included). But I hope they have better IFF other than a splodge of Orange paint to identify themselves. As there is equipment out there to let a pilot know who they are aiming at, or rather who not to aim at. But then again what cost is a life? Not a lot when it comes to cutbacks, but priceless to the families.

hotrod4
I have come across on this thread (no war sign) anti French (me), German (me), Russian (me), China (me), UN (me), USA (others), Governments (all). But I can’t remember anyone being anti British Forces; some have been close to anti US Forces, or rather their methods. I think every one is behind the troops.
The theme has been anti-war/pro-war. Trying to understand warfare and what the troops are faced with on both sides. I have looked at some sites and I think this on is more honest than others, but I could be bias. I believe all that have been involved in this argument/discussion are 100% behind the troops and wish them all a speedy and safe return. I will support them from my computer and TV. I am safe, they are not. The reason I am safe, is because we have soldiers “who fight for those who cannot fight for themselves”.
51st Highland Div motto, “on the day of battle, friends are good”. I hope we all class the troops as friends, including the US troops. As the only friends they have just now are themselves. US & UK.

[Anonymous]

:D ahhhhh they have been lobbing in cruise missiles at saddam,and his nasty offspring...yaaayyyyy.2 iraqi divisions want to surrender.....!!!!!!!!.my remote is red hot......sky news providing best coverage.wouldnt it be nice....if we had gotten saddam and his family.............??????????.now wheres ma popcorn...lol...london corrospondent........londonwicker...lol..byeee :D confirmned mass surrenders..........over 40,000 troops..yaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[MadPict]

Hope you have got a good gas mask londonwicker - unlike the asylum seeker "frontline" you seem to be on, you may need it when the terrorist decides its payback time.

[Anonymous]

typical thurso guy.........open your mouth ........and nothing comes out.ill treat you and your remarks with the contempt you deserve..........

[MadPict]

Thurso guy? [lol] [lol] [lol]
Way off target, a bit like the opening shots of your "movie war"!
Guess you get your intel from the CIA?

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/borgsmile.gifMadPict
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/MadPict/images/gruff_ext.gif

[jjc]

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/target.gif
Hmmm… I'm not sure if you set IFF up for me to fall into, Abewsed, or if I just stumbled across it all on my own. But I walked into it, all the same.

I accept that your knowledge of military hardware is better than mine, and that you almost certainly know more about the IFF systems than I. However, my understanding is that the situation has not changed since the Gulf War, when considerable concern was raised around the serious difficulties involved in identifying allied troops.
What follows is a letter from Lt Col Andrew Larpent (Rtd) to the editor of the Daily Telegraph. It was sent in January of this year.

Sir - In 1991, I was the Commanding Officer of the 3rd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers Battlegroup throughout the Gulf war. During the ground phase of the campaign, nine soldiers under my command were killed and 12 seriously injured as a result of a tragic mistake by US Air Force pilots, who engaged and destroyed two of our Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles. The negligence of the pilots responsible for this incident was established at the subsequent inquest in 1992, at which a verdict of "unlawful killing" was returned.

It is now almost 12 years on and some of the soldiers who were under my command in 1991 are still serving as members of the 1st Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, part of 7 Armoured Brigade, based in Germany. As I write, they are preparing to be among the first to be deployed if the Government decides to commit British ground troops to any operation against Iraq. At least one soldier in the Battalion is the brother of one of those killed in 1991.

As recently as last year, Canadian soldiers have been casualties of US "friendly fire" in Afghanistan. The risk of such incidents in war is very great, and I am aware that the matter has been the subject of a Ministry of Defence study. However, the fact that no technical protection system has yet been introduced to enable Allied aircraft to identify Allied ground vehicles and troops is a failure that is difficult to excuse. There has been plenty of time over the past 12 years for a solution to this problem to be found. The MoD answer - "We are working on it" - is unacceptable.

I believe that the Government and the MoD must be challenged on this issue. The fact that the same soldiers are now preparing to undertake operations in the same theatre, with nothing more to protect them from their own allies than the same fluorescent marker panels that we carried on top of all our vehicles in 1991, smacks of serious negligence on the part of the MoD.

Our chiefs of staff and politicians should consider very carefully the risk that they could be imposing on our troops and how they will answer to the nation if yet more British soldiers become casualties in similar circumstances. It is essential that urgent attention is given to providing an effective "identification friend from foe" (IFF) system for frontline vehicles as a precondition to the commitment of British forces to close combat operations involving the US Air Force. Reassurance for soldiers and their families that this matter is being given the attention it requires is urgently needed.
We should also remember that US pilots have been (and almost certainly still are) prescribed amphetamines by their own Air Force to combat fatigue. The pilots involved in the case in Afghanistan (mentioned in the letter above) were pressured to take amphetamines by the Air Force prior to the mission.
Aside from the fact that Amphetamines are illegal, they can also cause:
- Psychosis: Symptoms may include paranoia as well as delusions, hallucinations and bizarre behaviour.
- Violence: Users may become suddenly violent for no apparent reason.

The overall impression given in the speeches of US politicians and by documentary programs (such as the hilarious 'World's Scariest Police Chases' – which incidentally rarely has to leave the US police forces) is that the psyche of the United States is overly geared towards being the hero of the day.
How many times have we seen footage of a nose-to-tail, high-speed police chase racing through the residential streets of some town or other whilst the police either shoot out the tyres of the speeding villain, or simply push them off the road with their own cars? How many interviews with the vindicated policeman have we seen where the action is justified because 'it was him or me' or 'I did what had to be done to bring him down'? It often seems that when faced with the safe route, or the heroic route, heroic wins every time.

I'm not anti-American, and I don't mean to sound as though I am. If somebody wants to spend their entire life seeking out (or even creating) opportunities to be a hero, that's up to them. But combine that ideal with psychosis-inducing drugs, a multitude of high-powered weapons, and a barely functional method of identifying your friends, and you are just asking for trouble.

Abewsed, the trouble with your argument that the US and UK went to the UN out of courtesy is that they are basing the legality of their action on UN resolutions. That is what sets this conflict apart from the others which you have mentioned. We are supposedly acting on behalf of the UN, but without their authority.

The US and UK took resolution 1441 to the UN Security Council and said, 'look, Iraq is in breach, we need to go to war'. The Security Council disagreed, by majority. If the basis for action is really Iraq's refusal to meet the requirements as laid down in the UN, then the UN MUST be the ones to decide if that basis is sound. That is the democratic process.

It would be completely acceptable for Bush and Blair to make the case for war on the grounds of a pre-emptive strike to combat a clear and immediate danger to our nations. They tried. They failed to prove the case so the war effort switched back to the UN. They asked the members of the Security Council to declare war on Iraq, and regardless of the numbers of troops from each country involved, that declaration of war would be from each and every one of them. A member of the UN cannot go to war against a country to enforce the will of the UN without also bringing along every other member of the UN.

I'm not saying that what the Iraqi regime has done, or is continuing to do, is ever going to be acceptable. But we have disregarded the majority will of a group of nations in order to enforce the will of that group of nations (and if that sentence fails to make much sense, you are getting the point).

The United Nations is based on democracy. The UK and US resolution was a document authorising one man, Bush, to determine when and why all member nations would go to war against Iraq. That is hardly democratic and it is hardly surprising that at no time (including prior to the French threat to veto) did the majority of members agree.

Londonwicker – have you been dreaming again? 40,000 Iraqi troops in a mass surrender? Two Iraqi divisions? If you truly support our troops how about you stop making foolish statements which belittle the awesome difficulties they face? If you are making your statements merely to wind people up then Niall's diagnosis of 'sick' doesn't even come close.

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[Anonymous]

:D well jjc.....tree-hugger supreme,you were ovbiously sleeping in the early hours of this morning,when these reports came through on cnn,sky,and al-jazerah tv.pay attention lad....the wars started.....what is the point to your desperate ramblings now jjc.......?????????.back in the late 1970,s in wick,every friday when you read the groat,in the letters section,there was a certain guy from bexley terrace,who bored me stupid with his non-sensicle musings..mmmm i forget his name.the horse has bolted jjc......!!!!!!!!!. london corrospondent londonwicker :D

[jjc]

So Turkey have opened their airspace to the Coalition... along with a decision to send their troops into northern Iraq supposedly to 'marshal refugees in a frontier buffer zone'.

Of course in addition to refugees Turkey is concerned that the Iraqi Kurds are going to use the war to create an independent state, increasing unrest amongst Turkish Kurds.

So what do we do if the possible secondary motive of Turkey, which Iraqi Kurds fear so much, comes to fruition? Iraqi Kurds are already struggling (and succeeding) to create a democratic, independent state in Northern Iraq. They already have freely elected officials and their own government. What do we do if Turkey use this opportunity to beat down that new democracy?

What can we do? Call on the UN? Not any more. Object? How, we've just invaded Iraq without international support.

Is this the first of many unforseen problems that could arise from our decision to reject the UN?

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[hotrod4]

I was awakened at 02:40 GMT by the sounds of explosions was i dreaming???? no FINALLY war has started> I dont want to spout on about the pros and cons of war(i'll leave that to......?)all i care about at the moment is that it is over swiftly with minimum loss of civillian life but maximum loss of the "elite" Republican guard.("elite" they couldnt hold a candle to 22 or the marines or para)

All that is in my mind is our lads and lasses ,good luck and win it swiftly inch'allah.

[/img]

[Anonymous]

jjc
No you were not set up. I know there are IFF systems built for armoured vehicles. I just don’t know whether they have them US or UK. But Lt Col Andrew Larpent sums it up! There are ways to ensure that BoB is lessened, but cost comes into it.
As you are seeing on TV, the US/UK are using the nigh time to their advantage, but it is hard to make out Iraqi soldiers from US/UK soldiers in a battle. Because of this any type of firepower, whether it is bombs or bullets, can and will miss the target, which could mean some other soldier is hit. An example is; someone throws a grenade into a building or trench, another soldier does not see this and assaults the trench/building and ends up being killed or wounded as a result.
What I was trying to get across is that it is easy to blame the Yanks for hitting their own or our troops, but most are genuine accidents, which could be avoided. Whether through miss information, wrong map references, bad aiming, lack of sleep, panic, nerves, fear or a million other combinations. BoB will always happen. The best way to prevent this is by training. But the Army has been cut back, money is lessened, so training is lessened etc. Then another real problem is, that after four days combat, the unit “should” be rested for four days. But as regiments have been amalgamated, as with the Queen’s Own and Gordon’s, where there were two battalions, there is only now one! Now one battalion has to do the job of two. So it could mean that they are fighting for eight days and rested for two. Then you end up with battlefield fatigue, otherwise nerves are on edge and lack of sleep = mistakes/errors etc.

My argument was that the French did not have to supply troops, just backing. The other argument all of the opposing countries (other than Germany) have in the last 40 years took part in conflicts without UN backing. This includes Argentina v UK; this was an action without UN backing by either side. OK, so the Argentineans invaded the Falklands and the UK had a right to retaliate. But I don’t remember the UN saying to the Argentines get out of the Falklands or forming a Coalition forces. WHY????? Because the Argentineans were under a Dictator! It seems to be that if you are a Dictator you can “LITTERLY” get away with murder. But the GOOD GUYs (US/UK) have to abide by the rules. The UN does not act consistently; it goes to some countries and “asks” them to stop breaking the rules. When they ignore the rules, they send in “police”. Who are unable to stop the rules being broken. The UN has shot it’s self in the foot. The US, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Russia and China have shown the weakness of the UN and shot it in the head! Whose fault is this? The US/UK? No! If the UN had allowed Saddam to be sorted out during the past 12yrs and/or prevented him from rearming with weapons and/or WOMD, we would not be where we are now. But due the weakness of the UN, Saddam has been “allowed” to rearm and possibly hold/produce WOMD.
The main bit is the UN has no authority! It is biased towards humanity, which allows crimes against humanity. It has allowed itself to become too weak, through too many rules. It stretched itself too far with legal/humanity rules and now the elastic has broke.

The US/UK tried to prove a case for action against Saddam. It could not, because other countries were blocking them. So they gave up! The UN is allowed to miss the rights and wrong of a dictator, who ignore the UN, but looks very closely at the ones that are trying to abide by the laws! Because of this, I believe that the UN is finished. What we need to look at is what comes next? It would have been better if they just went and liberated Iraq and ignored the UN. But, no, they played by the book and got caught in the spider’s web of rules.

Imagine if France, Russia or China was hit on Sept 11th instead of the US. And be honest with yourself. Do you think they would not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Especially after he was filmed on the streets of Baghdad celebrating the atrocity? “I” think the USA showed restraint in waiting a year and a half!

Regarding the Turkish – Kurds; I will put a bet on the US/UK sending troops to the north to “safeguard the oil fields”. Which will act as a buffer for the two sides! Turkey will not get the oilfields! The Kurds might, but not Turkey. Plus I am sure Special Forces are up there right now. It might be that is where the Airborne are going, as long as everything goes according to plan!

[jjc]

The US/UK tried to prove a case for action against Saddam. It could not, because other countries were blocking them. So they gave up!
Hmmm… Blair and Bush were blocked from proving their case for war by other countries? How, exactly? Wouldn’t that mean that they didn't have the evidence they needed to prove their case when they took it to the Security Council? If they had that evidence, how on earth could they then be blocked?

I believe that the US/UK are far more to blame for their inability to prove their case, than are the likes of France and Russia. They failed to prove their case because their case was based on a premature assumption that the Weapons Inspectors would fail. As the threat of force had the (seemingly undesired) effect of pushing Iraq into cooperation, the Weapons Inspectors were able to report increased success. As the Weapons Inspectors reported increased success the majority (and I stress majority, not just France) of the members of the UN Security Council recognised the possibility of a peaceful route to disarmament and called for that route to be explored fully.

Of course, as soon as those countries voiced their opinions the press, public, and even the politicians fell on them like a pack of hungry wolves. Despite years of friendship and diplomatic relationships, we suddenly saw them as our enemies. Rather than consider the possibility that they just might have a valid concern, we dismissed them out of hand as anti-American. Rather than listen to the objections of our allies we accused them of siding with Saddam. We have set back international relationships by decades, just to avoid having to consider the possibility that those who objected to our actions just might have a point.


My argument was that the French did not have to supply troops, just backing.Oh well, that's all right then. Of course I see the difference now… So long as they weren't expected to send troops, they should absolutely have set aside their concerns as to whether that action was right or wrong. Are you serious???
Whether their troops were involved or not, the US and UK were asking France to approve of the war. We should not expect them to set aside their reservations just because they are only expected to put their name, and not their forces, to the war.


Imagine if France, Russia or China was hit on Sept 11th instead of the USHang on a second, I thought this war was about a 12 year refusal of Iraq to comply with UN resolutions?
Are we now saying that this war is the US's reaction to a terrorist attack by a Saudi, orchestrated from Afghanistan?
Or are we just saying that the world should recognise that the US suffered and should be allowed to reap their revenge when and where they see fit?

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[Anonymous]

jjc
It seems that France is now more concerned with the rebuilding of Iraq, than aid! I have not heard from France anything about supplying aid to the Iraqi civilians. Only that they want the UN to be in charge of the rebuilding! Sort of says it all!
Who were our friends? France? Russia? China? They have always been our political enemies. Whether it is this present climate or past climates. Diplomatic relationships, with France have always been strained since the end of WW2. That is why they broke away from NATO. Russia has been the biggest threat to the UK from 1945-88. They are still our political enemies. China, they are too far away, but they are still political enemies. Germany is the only one I don’t really see as a political enemy. But that is just my point of view.
You stated:
“They asked the members of the Security Council to declare war on Iraq, and regardless of the numbers of troops from each country involved, that declaration of war would be from each and every one of them. A member of the UN cannot go to war against a country to enforce the will of the UN without also bringing along every other member of the UN.”
I was pointing out that the US did not ask for any other countries soldiers to get involved. There were no Russian soldiers involved in the last war! You can keep going on about the French and others saying that the war is illegal. All wars are illegal! France, Russia & China have not been known for their humanity in the past. But all of a sudden in 2002/3 they show compassion to Saddam and you try and make out they are right! As you said “are you serious???” There are too many people watching what is happening and getting bogged down by the Law/Legality of a system that is proven not to work for more than the last 12yrs.

The point I am trying to prove, is that the UN does not work today, it did not work in 1991 or in 1998. In fact it has not worked for 30 years. It has become too political to operate. It has become too compassionate to Dictators that use their own people as “human shields”. This conflict is not about war with Iraq, it is about removing a very dangerous family and friends. Who try and terrorise their own people and other nations. The final proof is that other nations can use it for their own political reasons, as proved today and 12yrs ago (by the same people). The message that US/UK are sending to the world is that terrorism will not be tolerated; the 30yrs of terrorism is coming to an end, one way or another.

Note: “30th Mar 1984 the UN Security Council censured Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the fighting front.” What does that mean? “Bad boy, don’t do it again!” Now that sounds like a threat, eh! Then on 10th June 1984, the UN helped to get a cease-fire after both side’s bombed civilian areas. It did not last long! UN peace “talks” failed in 1985. Sept 1987 the UN voted for an immediate ceasefire, which was ignored by both sides. In fact Iraq increased the front line divisions from 12 to 40! So much for the UN vote! It was only when the Iranians defeats and losses were too high to continue that they sued for peace, through the UN. So now we know what the UN is good for! If one side is loosing the UN are called in, but not until then, even when WOMD are being used! If you want me to bore you I could give other countries as examples where the UN failed. In fact I find it easer to find UN failures than successes, as there are more!

I AM saying that the reaction (today) to Saddam stemmed from Sept 11th and in 1991. Are the US/UK doing the right thing? Yes! Proof??? Where are the “mass” demonstrations from the Arab World? Yes we have demonstrations in some Arab countries, but it is not the majority, in fact it is well within the vast minority! They majority are staying at home, waiting and praying that the end will come soon. It seems to be, that the LACK of protests from the Arab countries, indicate whose side they REALY are on. The only big protest is from Russia and France!

Regarding the US (you forgot the UK) reaping their revenge: So far they are targeting Government, Military and Saddam targets. The amount of Iraqi’s surrendering is vast for two days fighting! 51st (Iraqi) Div surrendered! As far as I can tell, it was not really hit. In fact it was stated it was intact when it surrendered. This is against a “foe” that is attacking “their” country! It would seem that they see the US/UK as “liberators” not the “bullies from the west.” Don’t think for one moment the Iraqi’s cant fight!
During the Iran v Iraq War (1980-88), the Iraqi’s put up fierce resistance to attacks by Iran. They also showed courage in attacking the Iranians. To the extent that they were seen as verging on fanatical. During the last war, they suffered about 300,000 killed, and it took a month of bombing to persuade them to surrender.
So far 8 UK and 6 (two killed in combat) US personnel are lost and I my deep sorrow goes out to their families. But it is light losses for 48hrs fighting. You can be sure that the Iraqi, military and civilians, have lost more. But lets be realistic eh! It looks like (so far) the US/UK are being proved right in their actions. If we are to believe Saddam and his sidekicks, the Iraqi’s hate the US/UK and will fight to the bitter end. I think if people open their eyes they will start to see the real feelings of the Iraqi’s. Don’t get me wrong, I think the fighting will get worse before it gets better and a lot more people will die before Saddam runs or dies!

The bottom line is that eight British “boys” have died fighting for the “liberation” of Iraq. I believe that the vast majority of US/UK soldiers see this war as liberation, rather than an invasion. I just hope they are proved to have died in a honourable and just cause. But the future will be the judge of that. One British commander gave his men/women the option, off going to war, or not! If they did not believe in the fight, he did not want them. I have not heard of any refusing to fight.

[fionarich]

Well spoken (written), Abewsed (and hotrod & much of what Londonwicker says)!

The conflict has started and unlike the opinions of some, the US/UK are not there to destroy the infrastructure and kill innocent civilians. They are there to remove Saddam Hussein who has had more than ample chances to disarm and has chosen not to do so.

A poll of almost 800,000 people on AOL this evening showed 79% believe that the boming was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein. The US/UK are there to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppresive dictator who causes trouble for everyone in the Middle East. Although sad to have lost anyone so far, soldiers go in with the knowledge that they risk their lives. Although no-one looks forward to actually being a casualty, most soldiers have accepted the risk and find that the cause of freeing the oppressed is worth the risk.

The exiled Iraqis in the US have said they are worried about their relatives still in Iraq, but are glad that Saddam may soon be removed, so that Iraqis can be free and enjoy the same liberties and democracy that those of us in the West enjoy. Quite a few Iraqis in the US gladly stepped up to show scars left over from being tortured by Sadaam or those in his inner circle, on the news this evening.

I believe that the UN is ineffectual. With only 3 conflicts ever sanctioned by the UN (Vietnam, 1st Persian Gulf War & the bombing/invasion of Afghanistan) , how can anyone believe that a war/conflict MUST be sanctioned by the UN, when most countries never even bother to ask? It seems that only those with limited understanding of: world history, the UN and its history and international politics, cling to that belief.

Hopefully this conflict will be over soon and as peacefully as possible. I suspect that in the end, that Americans will not take control of the Iraqi oil as those protesting have predicted. I will be surprised if the oil is not controlled by a trust that will benefit the people of Iraq themselves, as this is what is being announced on the news, as the plan for the oil.

Cheers,

Fiona Rich

[Maggie Bruce Milton]

POST REMOVED BY MODERATOR

[jjc]

Abewsed,

I once had a manager who, to put it within the confines of the auto-censor, couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag. Having heard on the whisper-circuit that we were generally unimpressed with his skills as 'boss' he gathered us all into the board room and gave us the old 'if you don't like my style, there's the door' speech. Guess how many of us went? That's right, not one.

It is probably true that most soldiers fighting in Iraq see this war as liberation, and not invasion. But to say they were given the choice whether or not to fight, and they all chose to fight, is hardly proof. We all know that the army is not a democracy. We also all know that when given the 'there's the door' speech, there really is only one option. The no-consequences choice that you are presented with actually carries more consequences than bear thinking about.


It seems that France is now more concerned with the rebuilding of Iraq, than aid! I have not heard from France anything about supplying aid to the Iraqi civilians.
Really? That's odd, because when the EU leaders met last Thursday and agreed $10m of emergency AID for Iraq, France insisted that the aid be agreed only if the EU explicitly refrained from mentioning help with reconstruction. That seems a little odd for a country ignorant of aid and concentrating on reconstruction, does it not?

What France are objecting to are the plans that the US and Britain have to administer Iraq following the war.

Blair called for the EU leaders to back a new UN resolution authorising a "post-Saddam civil authority in Iraq". On the face of it, not such a big deal, but then look back to the US plans for Iraq just last Thursday.

The US intends to put two US generals in charge of Iraq for the initial post-war phase, whch will include finding and destroying WOMD.
Over time, control will then be passed to the Iraqi Interim Authority who, as they are not democratically voted by the people, would be little more than US chosen puppets.

The US will, of course, maintain control of external defence and internal security throughout this time and for 'some time to come'.

The French believe that the post-war administration of Iraq should be carried out by the UN, rather than the US and UK. As this war is about fighting the imminent threat posed by Saddam, do you really blame them for wanting somebody independent, as opposed to a General who, just back in February, was under investigation for abuse of office, to be charged with finding and dealing with that threat? Or for ensuring that the democracy which evolves is not skewed towards political support for the US?

Is it just me (and France?) who believe that finding and dealing with WOMD in post-war Iraq should be done by somebody independent to the US and UK? After all, our political leaders have gambled their careers on those weapons being found…

Of course, the US and UK cleverly attached rebuilding and aid to the same resolution so as soon as France objected to the US plans for post-war Iraq, they also could be seen to be objecting to humanitarian relief. I'm sure that the press will pick up on that, eventually. After all, it only took until Friday for the BBC to finally realise the misleading exaggeration behind the statements of our politicians over the past few weeks.
What has particularly outraged Paris is the repeated claims by British ministers that during negotiations for that elusive second UN resolution on Iraq, President Chirac peremptorily ruled out military action "in any circumstances".

What he actually said was he would not accept a war-trigger resolution in any circumstances while UN weapons inspectors were making progress.

You seem to be missing the point with your assertion that France were not asked to supply any troops. It really doesn't matter whether they were asked to supply troops or not, they were asked to send the UN to war. Take a quick look at the UN charter. In particular, Article 2 paragraph 5:
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.Britain and the US were not asking the UN to allow them to go to war, to turn a blind eye if you like. They were asking the UN to ratify a resolution taking the UN as a whole to war. Whether they supplied troops or not (and do you really believe that if France did approve of action, they wouldn't send troops?) they would be ratifying action which they did not approve of. We expected them to forget their concerns and objections just because their soldiers would be safe. Would we do the same if the situation were reversed?

Please, please, please don't say that your proof that this war is right is really that the Arab world isn't up in arms supporting Saddam. The proof should have been that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The proof should have been a real, tenable and active connection to al-Qaeda. The proof should have been that every member of the United Nations Security Council studied the evidence before them and came to the conclusion that this war is right. The proof should not be that the Arab states are leaving the US and UK to it.

Besides, the Arab countries are protesting. We have seen anti-US riots in Jordan following the start of the war, anti-war rallies in Egypt, Saudi-Arabian statements regarding what they see as an "act of aggression", condemnation from Syria of Washington's unilateral action.

More poignantly, only Kuwait has joined the 'coalition of the willing'. If, as you say, a LACK of protests proves the case for war, what do you make of a LACK of backing???


how can anyone believe that a war/conflict MUST be sanctioned by the UN, when most countries never even bother to ask? It seems that only those with limited understanding of: world history, the UN and its history and international politics, cling to that belief. Perhaps, then, you might explain why the UN route was chosen by Bush and Blair? Or why they based their justification for war on a UN resolution? Or why they have based the legality of their actions on the wording of previous UN resolutions? Or why they have now drawn up a further UN resolution for post-war Iraq? You aren't suggesting that Bush and Blair have a limited understanding of world history, the UN and international politics, are you????? Rather than following the lead of your government and simply questioning the knowledge and understanding of everybody who disagrees with you, how about you take a little time to think about what you say before you say it.

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[jjc]

Well, Maggie Bruce Milton, it seems that somebody has decided we are mature enough to be trusted without the auto-censor... well done. You've proved them wrong so quickly, they must be astounded. [disgust]

A bit of consideration for the different age groups who might be reading this thread wouldn't go amiss, would it?

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[Anonymous]

jjc
There is one fundamental difference between you boardroom speech and the ones the troops got. If you left your firm, you would find a new job. If you stayed, the chances are that you would have more time to get a new job or “lump it”. The difference with a soldiers, is this… They go, they “live”. If they stay they might be killed, or at best have to live with their conscience! The two are as different as Mars and Jupiter! The two are planets, but millions of miles apart!
It might surprise people out in the free world, that the military have a conscience, one with which they have to live with. I think this was more the point of what the Commander was making than anything. If they did not believe in the fight, go and get a store man’s job, but don’t stay with the front line troops. They would be more of a hindrance than good. As all need to be able to do the job when the bullets, bombs start flying.

Yes the EU is debating as to what aid to give. But there seems to be other countries that are prepared to give aid, without rules/concessions. The rebuilding is not aid, it is a program. What is needed “immediately” is aid (food & medicine), which has been lacking for over 12yrs. I saw an Iraqi asking for those two items, not a housing estate. Or is this another stumbling tactic by France? Now lets see, $10 million!! That is what in pounds? Not a lot coming from the European community, is it? The Iraqi’s have a lot more Saddam’s frozen assets = £260,000,000. I will also guarantee you there is more than $10,000,000 worth of aid, ready to be shipped or flown into Iraq by the US/UK! In fact I suspect the Red Cross has more waiting than that waiting to go in.

Now wait a minute! France does not want the US to have two Generals in charge of finding any WOMD? That seems a bit odd! Could be that they have something to hide! France will know that the US/UK troops cannot win a war and then just pull out. They will have to secure the country, to prevent a civil war, at least until a new info structure is built, that suits the ARAB World (not France’s). Also the French want the Yanks to rebuild Iraq, but not stay to rebuild it! How can they rebuild a country and not remain? I will ask you a simple question. Who has the equipment just now to build bridges? Who have the equipment to supply tents/medical centres etc? Or would you rather the Iraqi’s wait for months whilst contractors submit prices? There is organisations in the military that can rebuild or lay new bridges, provide tented cities for the displaced, provide medical services for those that need it. They alls can provide a police force to ensure that the civilians are protected from a civil war! Believe France, but look under the toilet paper and see what is really there.

I do not believe the US/UK will stay in Iraq any longer than they have to. But seeing as they are liberating the country (not France). I would not expect them to just leave the country on day two of the end of hostilities. Unless they wanted a civil war = Iraq v Kurds v Turkey v Iran v Shiite etc. You are grasping at straws (France) and coming up with egg on your face!

No the FRENCH do not believe “that the post-war administration of Iraq should be carried out by the UN.” They don’t want US/UK to have control or support of the New Iraq (like in Kuwait or Saudi)! Why? It has nothing to do with human rights, world rights etc. It is political; France has already lost billions because of an Arms deal with Iraq that has fallen through (last year)! They want anyone other then the US/UK to reorganise Iraq! Why? In case they can prove that they were correct in liberating Iraq! If things pan-out then the US/UK will have good relations with Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia etc. Most of the Arab World, which could be a disaster for France who has tried to, block the US/UK since 1990! It could be that they do not want “pay-back-time!”

Now we do agree! I would prefer an independent WI to search for any WOMD in Iraq. But now we come to a problem! Who picks them? UN, US/UK, France? There is no one that all three could agree on. I agree the US/UK are gambling on finding WOMD. Without them, the justification for war goes out of the window. Oh, they still have humanitarian and weapons to justify their actions, but the big one is WOMD!

I am not going to play word games with the backstabbing Chirac, who waits until Blair leaves than gives a press conference! His statement means the same thing! He has made his bed, now he is trying to justify it!

All of these countries supplied military assistance, in one form or another, during the last war.
Argentina = 2 ships. Australia = 3 ships. Bahrain, Oman, Qatar & UAE = 300 troops. Bangladesh = 6,000 troops. Belgium = 6 ships. Canada = 1,700 troops, 3 ships and 18 aircraft. Czech = 200 troops. Denmark = 1 ship. Egypt= 35,000 troops and 480 tanks. France= 10,000 troops, 480 tanks, 14 ships and 38 aircraft. Germany = 6 ships. Greece = 1 ship. Italy = 10 ships and 8 aircraft. Kuwait = 7,000 troops and 34 aircraft. Morocco = 1,500 troops. Netherlands = 3 ships. New Zealand =? Niger = 500 troops. Norway = 1 ship. Pakistan = 6,000 troops. Poland =? Saudi Arabia= 20,000 troops, 200 tanks and 300 aircraft. Senegal = 500 troops. Spain = 4 ships. Syria= 20,000 troops and 270 tanks. UK= 25,000 troops, 170 tanks, 15 ships and 60 aircraft. USA. = 320,000 troops, 2,200 tanks, 100+ ships and 1,800 aircraft.
Other countries that supplied humanitarian aid, but no military aid!
Afghanistan. Austria. Bulgaria. Finland. Honduras = 150 personnel. Hungary. Iceland. Japan. Luxembourg. Malaysia. Philippines. Portugal = 1 ship. Sierra Leone. S Korea. Taiwan. Turkey = 2 ships. USSR = 4 ships.
As you can see countries like USSR did not agree with the war, but still supplied four ships, which were used to supply humanitarian aid. The same thing was asked by the US/UK this time. It has worked in the past, why is it condemned now???? Or are the goal posts being moved?

Please, please, please watch the Arab world! The Arab world is not protesting! There are a few thousand on the street, but not the majority! Syria has to object to the War! They are pals of Iraq! So there are riots in the street by a few thousand and that is the voice of their people! The Arab world is sitting back as they cannot condone an attack by the West on a fellow Arab country, even although the indications are that they want rid of Saddam and could well agree with the war!

We are going around in circles here. The US/UK tried to play the “game,” with trying to get UN to sanction a war! It did not work as four countries (who all have dubious war records) were against it. So they do as the Majority of those few countries have in the past, and went it alone. As Foinarich pointed out only three wars have been sanctioned by the UN, since its formation Korea (1950-53) (not Vietnam), Gulf War (1991) and Afghanistan (2002). I am not going to waste my time by listing all the countries that have been at war/conflict since 1945. But needless to say they are in the three figure brackets.

But JJC, keep backing France and I think you are going to lose, as the Frog’s are going to get nailed when evidence comes out of Iraq about secret talks between Saddam and Chirac, regarding rearming! New missile systems (that is going to please the Israeli’s), new Mirage fighters and new AMX-30 Main Battle Tanks etc. Oh, also nice big fat bank accounts! Trust me, the proof is out there, but not yet used. The Governments suspect it, but can’t prove it yet. The best thing Chirac could do is stay quiet and hope that the US/UK say nothing public, but the more he blocks them, the more chance it will be released. Some are hitting the news now, but that is only the crust, just wait for the meat!!!!!! But the public’s mood has changed since the war started.

JJC we are just going around in circles, saying the same old thing, time and time again. I am sure you, other and me are getting the points made. The UN issue has been hashed over time and again, it is old news. Lets try and stick to new issues or at lest not go over the same old stuff? The future will prove one way or other who is correct, you or me. If you are proved correct, then say I told you so etc.

[squidge]

Its been interesting though


I am concerned about the rebuilding of the country and about the suggestion that turkish troops have entered the kurdish part of northern Iraq. I understand ...i might be wrong though... that turkey believes it had a raw deal at the end of the second world war when it lost this part of land. I also understand that there are a lot of turkish speaking people who the turks feel it is their duty to "look after" . As there are a lot of kurdish people in the part of turkey which borders Iraq then Turkey has concerns that a Kurdish country would be established which would take away part of their land.

This seems to me to be a little time bomb in the making.

[jjc]

But JJC, keep backing France and I think you are going to lose, as the Frog’s are going to get nailed when evidence comes out of Iraq about secret talks between Saddam and Chirac, regarding rearming!Lose what? This isn't a competition. I'm not debating this to win my argument. I'm debating this to make people aware that there are questions that our government needs to answer. I'm debating this to ensure that the MPs calling for anti-war demonstrators to shut up and back our troops don't manage to brush aside the genuine concerns that people have over government actions. I'm not arguing that Chirac deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (although his Algerian counterpart did…). I'm merely concerned that our MPs and press can misquote somebody who disagrees with their opinion, and the entire nation reverts to referring to the French as 'Frogs'.

As for secret talks between Saddam and Chirac regarding rearming. If (and that is a BIG if) evidence comes out that Chirac went to Iraq (or vice versa) to discuss rearming the Iraqi regime then, absolutely, that is despicable. Does it excuse the actions of our Prime Minister and the President of the United States? Not for one minute.

The government seems to have pulled off a fairly remarkable PR coup here. They have managed to remove themselves rather effectively from the limelight and turn public anger towards their French counterparts. How have they done this? By a series of simple misquotes and statistical lies.

We have heard the claims that the French are somehow single-handedly responsible for the abject failure of our Prime Minister to win international support for his buddy Bush. This despite there being no single point in time when there was even a 'moral majority' for action. How we can blame the French, I don't know. Perhaps, abewsed, you could explain exactly why the French are to blame?

We have heard, countless times, that the French stubbornly threatened to veto a second resolution, 'in any circumstances'. Blair, in his speech before Parliament last week, even said "Then, on Monday night, France said it would veto a second Resolution whatever the circumstances.". The trouble is, that isn't what France said, and Blair misled not only parliament, but the people of Britain. Look at the text of what was said and you will see that Blair has carefully chosen to quote only a part of a sentence, completely changing the meaning of what Chirac said.

And we blindly accept that Blair and Bush were somehow sideswiped by the duplicitous French. Somehow France are responsible for the whole debacle.

We can debate the issues with France until we are blue in the face. We can go back and forth until the troops come home, and then for months longer, blaming the 'Frogs' for this, accusing them of that, hating them for the other. The truth of the matter is that Blair failed to prove a case for immediate action against Iraq. The truth of the matter is that there are questions that he needs to answer. The truth of the matter is that we cannot lose sight of the fact that Blair is responsible for the actions of this government, and not (by any stretch of the imagination) Chirac.

As for the Arab world, Abewsed, we could also go around and around on that one. There are not millions of people out on the streets of the Arab states protesting the action in Iraq, but I would recommend that you look back over the statements that their leaders have made in the past few months. I suggest you look there to see if they have actually approved of this action. I didn't make up the quote from the Saudi leadership when they called it an "act of aggression".

And I don't know how many times this issue of 'did we, or did we not need UN backing' will come up, but it strikes me as being a very simple one to argue. Do we need UN backing to go to war? No, we don't. Did we need to prove a credible threat from Iraq? Yes, we did. Did we prove that threat? No. Instead, we relied on UN resolutions. We declared Iraq in breach of UN resolution 1441 (and all of the previous resolutions). We based this war on the declarations and decisions of the UN. THAT is why we needed UN backing for this war.

Squidge. I totally agree that the Turkish issue is just ripe to blow up in our faces. I'm shocked that more has not been done to prevent them, or at least publicly condemn their views. The Iraqi Kurds have formed what is, essentially, a separate state in Northern Iraq. They have their own (entirely democratic) government. They have their own economic system. Turkey fears the formation of this separate Kurdish state and are desperate to beat it down. How can we not do our utmost to protect the natural democracy already in place in Iraq since that is our ultimate goal anyway (unless of course it is because it will be a democracy that does not owe its existence - and loyalty - to us)?

It was interesting, was it not, that Turkey chose to use humanitarian concerns and a potential threat of terrorism to justify entering northern Iraq? Sound familiar?

Anyway, abewsed, your debate seems to be rapidly slipping away from the war issue and turning into an anti-French tirade. I'm not French. I'm British. My concerns are not with the French government, they are with the actions of my own government. I'm not interested in spending my time defending the French government against mistruths and accusations, which my government has started solely to draw eyes away from themselves. My interest is in ensuring that my government does not manage to perform this most astoundingly worrying act of self-righteousness without being questioned and held to account.

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[Bill Fernie]

I completely agree with what you say about the misleading statements about the French threat to veto. This has said over and over again and mis quoted so often by politicians as if we are all bound to acccept it as fact when it is blatantly not. The selection of a few words out of context to completely change the meaning is perhaps why the French president is so angry with Tony Blair and our government.
I like many people want to see a successful outcome of the current crisis now that it has started but as my folk pointed out here and elsewhere there are many things that might have altered because of the action now being taken. Not least of which might be the outcome of future elections in both the UK and in Scotland. A lack of trust in what politicians say has lead to growing apathy over the years and with local elections suffering more than any. The current crisis may help galavanise the anti-war movement in to other political action or it may not but almost certainly it will affect the way many people vote.
The war may be won but will the peace be achievable in the longer term and what are the ramifications for the UN, NATO, Europe , the Labour Party and perhaps the fortunes of other parties as it all unfolds over the next two or three years.
But one thing is for sure if the electorate are to be treated like fools then there will be little sympathy for the politicians who might have our loyalty for the country and the forces who serve us but leave us with little choice when they blatantly take action that the majority did not want - no matter what the outcome.
If anyone is looking for some of what was said or not said you will find a great deal of it on the Guardian Unlimited Iraq Special at http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/0,2759,423009,00.html
One of the big differences with this war is not only the sheer amount of information available online but the huge range of places to debate the issues and the the number of folk emailing each other about the situation must surely be unparalleled in history. This factor alone may be having longer term affects than many politicians might relish. It is uncontrollable in any meaningful way but it still requires the vigilance of all of us to sit on any wrong statements like the ones used to get us into this war. But then it looks as if we were going to go in anyway no matter what public opinion thought. That is the story that has still to get its ending................it may not be a happy one.

[fionarich]

Once again Abewsed's comment's are right on the mark. I wonder what jjc when everything that he has said is proven to be correct. Funny how jjc feels the need to make a point that she is not French, but British, realizing that she is so supportive of them that that is the conclusion that many may draw.

Not all French support France's position, either. My mother is French (married to a Scotsman) and she says that her sisters in France report to her that there are plenty of people there who are ashamed of Chirac and think that he is making a fool of himself.
It seems that most people they know in France think that Bush & Blair are right to remove Saddam from power.

Two nights ago, on a national news program (perhaps on "60 Minutes" or "Dateline NBC") they had a group of Iraqi women who were interviewed, who had lived in Iraq under SH's rule, before escaping to the West. These women spoke about their experiences at his hands and things that they or their family members had witnessed and had been subject to. There is much that they said, but it is so disturbing, that I am afraid that this posting would be pulled even at the sanitized mention of any of it, but all were unbelievable human rights violations.

But don't take my word of this. You can watch the actual footage of a news story that aired 4 months ago, called Iraq: Truth & Lies in Baghdad. The Journalist is British, named Sam Kiley. This story appeared in a news story on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service, a news organization that is funded almost entirely by donations from individuals, and is thought of as an intellectual and idependent news organization, with as little political influence as possible). There are 5 video segments- #2, is the one that chronicles the Fedayeen Saddam (Iraq's Secret Police), headed by Uday, Saddam's eldest son, is particularly eye-opening.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/vid5602.html
[url]

Instructions for anyone that hasn't used this function before:

Click on the "dial up" under the "watch video" (unless you are lucky enough to have broadband). You can also download "real player" from there, if you don't already have a program that allows you to see streaming video clips. The video will pop up in a separate window and after you double click the link, and it finishes buffering (loading), just click the play button on the video window.

There are 5 segments, which is the entire show. It takes a while to watch with a dial up connection, but it is well worth the time & effort and is a real eye-opener.

Cheers,

Fiona Rich

[jjc]

Once again Abewsed's comment's are right on the mark.
In which case, I presume that you have no problem with Abewsed having called your mother and Aunts 'frogs'???

And by the way... as I have previously mentioned in this very thread, I am actually a bloke.

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[fionarich]

JJC,

Actually I have no problem with the term "frogs"- what a silly thing to get upset about. The British (and Americans and I am sure every country) has slang terms that they use to refer to others.

I thought that in previous posts you said that you were a lassie. My apologies, although I must admit that from your postings, I would have never guessed that you were male. ;)

Cheers!

Fiona Rich

[jjc]

My apologies, although I must admit that from your postings, I would have never guessed that you were male.
Oh, and why's that? Perhaps because no red-blooded male could be against an unjustified war in Iraq?

I have just finished watching the whole of the PBS news program that you posted a link to (isn't broadband great?). I agree that the human rights abuses that the Iraqi regime has perpetrated are diabolical. However - and I realise that this may not be a terribly popular opinion - the human rights of Iraqi citizens are NOT why we went to war. We went to war with Iraq because the US and UK claimed credible evidence that Iraq was continuing to not only harbour, but also develop, chemical and biological weapons.

Your President and my Prime Minister have clearly stated that resolution 1441 is their basis for war. Resolution 1441 is in relation to disarmament. Whilst we are all shocked and horrified by the terrible atrocities of Saddam and his followers, we have to recognise that there are numerous other regimes around the world which also abuse human rights. Either we go to war against all, or we go to war against none. We CANNOT be perceived to have rules for our friends to follow and rules for our enemies. That is not democracy.

Interestingly, the third section of the PBS webcast deals almost entirely with the Iraqi nuclear programme. The clear impression that Sam Kiley gave is that he believed that he was being shown only what the Iraqi regime wanted him to see and that they were hiding an active nuclear programme. The Weapons Inspectors investigated and found no evidence of a nuclear programme. I mention this not because it somehow defuncts the whole issue of human rights abuses, but simply to show that no matter how well presented a news broadcast is, it will still be open to the personal opinions and bias of the journalist involved.

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[Anonymous]

:D well,well,jjc still beating the same old tiring drum i see.lets talk about the french.they were always going to veto,any resoloution put forward,however cleverly worded it was put.then they have the cheek to say,we want to be involved with the re-building of iraq.lol...i think that is going to be a big non-starter,dont you think.its good to see that saddams personal overseas fortune has been frozen,and that iraqi oil,will be used for the benefit of the iraqi people.i see the terrorists have been at work again too,a sgt in the us army,throws in 4 hand grenades,injuring 16 of his fellow soldiers in the process,and killing 1 other.it reminds me,of the 11 young british men,currently sitting in camp x,guantalemo bay,cuba.and ofcourse the notorious sniper in washington,john mo-ham-hed.they all have one thing in common,there religion.a religion that tells them,to kill the non-believers,and infidels,where-ever they stand.it kinda puts one off,that brand of religion for life.were moving closer to baghdad by the hour,with very few civillian deaths so far.sky news has un-doubtly had the best news coverage.sunday morning was spent with skys david boden,bombing the iraqi positions.wow....what a show......!!!!!!!.yes folks,whether this war was legal or not,the end result is a forgone conclusion.the downfall of that filthy iraqi desspott,so loved by many.saddam hussain.you only have to look at this mans past record on human rights abuses,to justify a good reason for going to war.jjc the horse has bolted.....and your still trying to close the gate.....lol...shhhhh. london corrospondent............londonwicker :D

[Anonymous]

squidge
The Turkey claim comes from the end of the Ottoman Empire after WW1. The Ottoman Empire included Turkey, Syria, Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. During WW1 it captured parts of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Yemen. It also controlled parts of the Balkans before WW1. So the claim by Turkey to have owned Kurdistan would be the same as saying that they own, all of the above countries.
Kurdistan is part of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. It was a nation at one time, but not now. They want independence. It is more complex than that. It could be two reasons for the Turks putting troops into the border. 1/ to secure their border from a Kurdish war. 2/ try to grab the oil in the north. If it is 1/ then they are probably acting in the best interests of their country. If it is 2/ then they will be fighting US/UK troops. The US/UK will not allow them to take the oilfields, as this is a deception on their part. Which means they did not allow the US troops to attack from the north, so they could grab the oilfields. Also if they do try and take the oil, NATO Sentry AEW’s will be removed from Turkey, which means they will have no radar coverage, other than what their own aircraft has. The US on the other hand will have AEW total radar coverage. This means the Turks will be blind, in the air and on the ground! If it became war, their military would be blind to incoming missiles. Not a position they want to be in. Also they want to be part of Europe and this will not help their case. But then again, if they have oil = money, who cares about Europe?
I would say they are securing their border and trying to play a very dangerous political came, to get some of the concessions of the oil fields. As I said before, they want a pipeline from Iraq, through Turkey to one of their ports on the Med. This could be what they are after. But whatever, they will not be allowed to gain the oil, by deceiving the Yanks!!!! But I think it is to encourage the Kurds to leave Turkey and go back to Iraq.

jjc
Ok, we will debate to make people aware of the arguments. But I still don’t want to go over old arguments, ok. So we try and keep the arguments fresh.
The argument about the legitimacy of the war, will and can only be answered after the conflict. As the proof or lack of proof lies in Iraq. The US/UK need proof that WOMD are in Iraq. We can’t argue that until the war is over. The legitimacy, about the UK, is none existent, as parliament backed the war. So the argument is will the UN, which cannot be argued until the end of the conflict. My odds are one Bush and Blair, they know they have to find WOMD, and they know they are there. I am sure that Saddam (being mad, as I am not allowed to call him a nutter) will not give up his most powerful weapons. He is a control freak; he would like the idea that he can pull the wool over the UN and the rest of the world. But again the proof lies in Iraq.
Tonight there are reports of WOMD being found. Now whilst I am sceptical, I listened to Ritter (a WI) who claims that the site is in the wrong place, that there has never been any evidence of WOMD factories in that area! I say, he is lying though his teeth! I have a map in front of me from 1992 that shows two WOMD factories in that area! He said that he is sceptical about the WOMD. I must admit that I am as well. But and a big BUT, maybe that is why the 3rd Mech Div went racing up towards Baghdad! One bit that I like though is that the report was first released in the Israeli papers! Stinks of Mossad! Now, if anyone has the intelligence on where they are, the Mossad are the ones to know, as their lives depend on it!

Now wait a minute!!!! PR coupe against the French (Frogs/Snakes or whatever). I am saying that the French have been doing a PR coupe against the US/UK. It is a two-way system! The truth will come out! Just look at their history since WW2 and tell me whose side they are on??? Show me where Chirac said he would look at a new resolution and then decide whether he would consider using his veto? We know that Blair and Chirac had a private meeting! I don’t know what was said! Nor do you!
Yes I will accept what Blair or Bush said, before I will believe Chirac. So yes I will blindly believe Bush before France!
Ok, so Blair can’t prove a case for war! UN can’t prove a case for no war! Blair has been trying for 8 months. The UN has been trying for 12yrs! The truth of the matter will be answered soon enough. The truth will come out; I have no doubt about that. I hope that WOMD are found, so that the troops that have died and the ones that are going to die, will have died in a just cause. This also includes the civilians, but that is ok for me sitting nice and safe in front of a TV. I also hope that we find WOMD, so the US and UK can be justified for removing Saddam.
Today we have no proof of WOMD in Iraq, but also the UN have no proof that he does not have WOMD. If Saddam has WOMD he is in total breach of the UN (for 12yrs), so we have intent, so war is justified.



I agree with the Arab Nations statement! War is an act of aggression!!!! They are telling the truth! You can’t kill people and say it is not aggressive! It is also weird, the US/UK are allowed to use Saudi’s airspace! It is also odd that Missiles have been fired over Saudi, which in any circumstances is classed as an act of war! But have they objected?
You stated…
“Do we need UN backing to go to war? No, we don't. Did we need to prove a credible threat from Iraq? Yes, we did. Did we prove that threat? No.”
OK, did the UN prove there is no WOMD in Iraq? Are they positive? No. Is France positive that Iraq has no WOMD? No, otherwise they would not have threatened Saddam if he used them against US/UK!!!! I would say France is the same as US/UK with their suspicions of WOMD in Iraq!

You can’t argue about the UN, without arguing about the French, Germany, Russia and China, as they were the major ones against a war. I have to argue about France, as they were the real obstacles against a war with Iraq! We can argue about legality without bringing up UN etc. You are trying to say that we acted illegally. I say so what! This has never in the past bothered Russia in Chechnya (1994-2000), Afghanistan (1979-88) over 60,000 killed or Czechoslovakia (1968). France in Algeria (1954-62) over 174,000 killed, Chad (1956-90), Indo-China (1945-54), Morocco (1952-56) etc, etc I have went through all of this before. You can’t just argue about the rights and wrongs and exclude France, Russia and China. You want to argue about why we went to war. So we also have to argue why France etc were against it!
Of course my argument is with France, as my first post stated… I asked if the UN was any good! It also questions France, Germany, Russia and China’s reasons for blocking the US/UK! That was my first argument, and it still is!!! I am not changing anything! So it is not “rapidly slipping away from war etc” as you put it. The argument has always been there.
You want to pick on Blair and Bush reasons. I want to pick on France’s reasons. It is a two-way argument! Fair is fair. I am saying in time the truth will come out. But we are going over the same old arguments for what? We have to wait until new evidence or lack of evidence comes to light.
You state…
“My interest is in ensuring that my government does not manage to perform this most astoundingly worrying act of self-righteousness without being questioned and held to account.”
My interests are when WOMD are found, France, Germany, Russia (I don’t care for China) as they are supposed to be our allies and part of Europe, they are held to account. Or are you forgetting the EU already (the European Government)? You are starting a conspiracy theory about the US/UK. At least there is proof that France started an arms deal with Iraq! That is not a conspiracy theory!

Bill…
I agree that after or even during this War. The outcome will not be pretty. Maggie never survived the War. Nor did Bush! Saddam has though (so much for justice)! People will make their minds up over the next Government, through what happens during this war and after it.
Also take note: The majority that are backing war has risen! It will fall if the casualties rise too much. That is why the emphasise on the troops is not to get drawn into a bloody fight/battle. They are picking the small units off one at a time. As one reporter stated the casualties for Goose Green was far larger than that of today. Yet Goose Green was only a few Km away and the US/UK have advanced 100’s of Km! The Falklands War cost us 237 military killed & 759 wounded and 18 civilians killed. But as I said before the Iraqi’s can fight and the war will get worse before it gets better.

Thanks for backing me Fiona again, as it is getting lonely out here, especially in the political arena (my pet hate)!

jjc
I am happy to be called a “Haggis Basher”, the sheep bit I will leave out as it uses a bad word and I have not been caught YET! The Germans = Huns, Krauts etc. Russians = Ivan, Commies. China = Chinks. Arabs = Rag-heads. All countries have nicknames, some good, and some bad. Some I can’t use for it is classed as racist now. But as the French voice is their Government, I have to include all of them.
I have to laugh, as I think Fionarich just questioned your sexual preferences in a very nice way!!!! Now that is what I call good English! Sorry jjc, but I thought it was funny!!

[jjc]

Ok, so Blair can't prove a case for war! UN can’t prove a case for no war!Okay, Abewsed, I let it slip twice but that makes three times now that you have said that Blair either can't or didn't prove the case for war.

You seem to be saying that Blair didn't prove his case, but that's okay because the UN couldn't disprove it. What kind of logic is that? Surely with something as serious and risky as war you MUST prove your case and cannot simply declare war based on a lack of disproof?

Show me where Chirac said he would look at a new resolution and then decide whether he would consider using his veto?
Show me where Chirac said he would veto any new resolution, whatever the circumstances?


You want to pick on Blair and Bush reasons. I want to pick on France’s reasons.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the government have pulled off an incredible PR coup. You are saying that Blair failed to prove his case for war. Why, then, do you expect France to just follow along and clear the way for war? Why, if Blair failed to prove his case, are we even concerned with the French? Why are we not looking at our government and asking them what on earth they are doing? Why are we not questioning Blair for his blatant misquote before the House of Commons? You have been thrown a decoy and have gone for it – hook, line, and sinker. THAT is the PR coup!!!

It is probably true that, at some point, the Coalition will find proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Does that make a difference to the US/UK case? In a sense, yes. It will prove that the Coalition suspicions were well founded. It will prove that Saddam was, indeed, in breach of resolutions.

However, the fact remains that, when we went to war, Blair had failed to prove his case. I'm not entirely sure that you can back-date justification for military action. Can you really turn around after the fact and say 'see, I told you so'? Does that proof not HAVE to be in place BEFORE action starts, if only to justify the risks?


My interests are when WOMD are found, France, Germany, Russia (I don’t care for China) as they are supposed to be our allies and part of Europe, they are held to account.
Okay, France and Russia are suspected of illegal arms trade with Iraq, but Germany? I assume that, by including them in your list, you mean that they need to be held to account for disagreeing with us? Abewsed, I really had more respect for you than this statement deserves. The very nature of a democratic society is that you are allowed to disagree without being 'held to account'. You are supposed to be able to hold true to your own values and beliefs without being attacked as a traitor. If we lose that, we lose democracy.

--

Abewsed, you're right. We are both going around in circles, repeating ourselves again and again. That doesn't especially bother me because those circles constantly change shape (I know... it's a circle, how can it change shape? It just didn't work with ovals) and size. Each post contains a little extra information, occasionally intermingled with acceptance of a previous argument. That's how debates take place.

The earlier pages of this thread are, perhaps, the most honest examples of personal opinion and genuine public debate that I have seen since this crisis began. Previously we have managed (in the main) to conduct ourselves with a level of maturity and a degree of politeness that doesn't seem to exist in our own government. We have respected others and earned respect ourselves and have, on occasion, even defended those of opposing views when they come under unwarranted and off topic attack.

Unfortunately over the last few days this thread seems to have degenerated to the state where slurs and insults are not only accepted but congratulated.
Abewsed – I have Chinese and Arab friends who objected quite vehemently when I showed them your last post.
Fionarich – I have no desire to defend my sexuality for your, or anybody else's, entertainment.
Londonwicker – I hope that one day you recognise the differences between a religion and religious extremism.

I feel very strongly about this subject, as is evident from my postings here. I have put a lot of time and effort into what I post and have tried to ensure that what I write is accurate and meaningful. I don't want to see all of the hard work that so many of us have previously put into this thread wasted.

I have thought long and hard about it over the weekend and have decided that the only way to stop this debate from spiralling out of control is to gracefully bow out now. Thanks to everybody who took part with me, either agreeing or disagreeing. I learned a great deal whilst reading and writing here. I hope that others will step in and continue to question our elected representatives and their actions throughout this crisis.

On a final note, I have ensured that my MP, as my representative in parliament, knows my opinion on this matter. I suggest that you all do the same. Whether you are for or against the actions of this government, it is vital that your MP knows what his or her constituents believe in. You can find their name and contact details here http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/.

http://www.apcu29.dsl.pipex.com/smilies/tin-hat.gif JJC

[rich]

Can anyone doubt that the Arab world feels humiliated and ashamed by the military action of the British and US?
SO what is going to happen in the coming battle of Baghdad - or should we call it Baghrad to commemorate another military disaster by an invading force?
The Iraquis will undoubtably lose the battle. But they will win the war.
Just as the Irish won their war in the rubble of the GPO in 1916.
Martyrs are worth entire armies. And the UK/US armies are going to create many of them.
I must say looking back over these posts that we are all talking to each other. Nobody is talking about the Arabs. All posters here are congratulating themselves one way or another on their open-mindedness and toleration, their hatred of tyranny; their benign versions of the new world order etc. etc.
Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant!
When the alliance of the willing is standing around in the rubble of Baghdad certain questions will have to be answered. Who pays for reconstruction? Whose army will have to police a bitter population who have learned to hate us? Whose cities will be threatened by a revitalized Al Quaeda?

[MadPict]

i see the terrorists have been at work again too,a sgt in the us army,throws in 4 hand grenades,injuring 16 of his fellow soldiers in the process,and killing 1 other............
......they all have one thing in common,there religion.a religion that tells them,to kill the non-believers,and infidels,where-ever they stand.

It was 3 grenades - and he did what countless US servicemen have done in the past. He "fragged" his immediate officers due to some grudge. It happened in Vietnam. It has happened time and again in US training(boot) camps. Until the investigators do their job, to assume this was done as a terrorist style attack is wrong.

......the act of inciting terror in the hearts of defenseless civilians, the wholesale destruction of buildings and properties, the bombing and maiming of innocent men, women, and children are all forbidden and detestable acts according to Islam and the Muslims. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the violent events some have associated with Muslims. If an individual Muslim were to commit an act of terrorism, this person would be guilty of violating the laws of Islam.
http://www.islam-guide.com

[Anonymous]

To the dumpkoff who cant make the connection/fact between the us seargant,and his murderious ways.i never mentioned muslims....why did you.????...it kind of really blows out your weak willed theory as to why this guy did this.everyone knows why he did this.....!!!!!!!.youve ovbiously had your head in the sunday post yesterday,in a blissfull state of ignorance,when this happned. These acts were,and continue to be,orchestrated in the name of religion,by the twisted few. bye london ps.if that seargant was aggrieved by the actions of say,maybe one officer,then why throw the grenades into individual tents.....killing 1,and injuring 16....?????.madpict you know as well as i do,why this dess-pott did this.And no doubt he shall gain his just rewards. ;)

[MadPict]

To the dumpkoff who cant make the connection/fact between the us seargant,and his murderious ways.i never mentioned muslims....why did you.????...it kind of really blows out your weak willed theory as to why this guy did this.everyone knows why he did this.....!!!!!!!.youve ovbiously had your head in the sunday post yesterday,in a blissfull state of ignorance,when this happned. These acts were,and continue to be,orchestrated in the name of religion,by the twisted few. bye london ps.if that seargant was aggrieved by the actions of say,maybe one officer,then why throw the grenades into individual tents.....killing 1,and injuring 16....?????.madpict you know as well as i do,why this dess-pott did this.And no doubt he shall gain his just rewards. ;)


i see the terrorists have been at work again too,a sgt in the us army,throws in 4 hand grenades,injuring 16 of his fellow soldiers in the process,and killing 1 other.it reminds me,of the 11 young british men,currently sitting in camp x,guantalemo bay,cuba.and ofcourse the notorious sniper in washington,john mo-ham-hed.they all have one thing in common,there religion.a religion that tells them,to kill the non-believers,and infidels,where-ever they stand.it kinda puts one off,that brand of religion for life.

2+2=4...................

[Anonymous]

lol...madpict,i never mentioned the m word did i.........???????????.shame on you,putting words in peoples mouths..tut..tut.....bye london

[Bill Fernie]

As JJC the debate seems to have had a good airing perhaps its time to wind this one down. I think a few thanks are in order to all of you who put in so much effort on all sides with plenty of thought making for one of what I found the most interesting threads for quite while. Sorry I did not have time to research more myself.

And thanks to the two folk who put the postcards out at the hospital - their small action certainly had one result they could not have predicted. I will resist following that remark up.

There will undoubtedly be many more possible threads from the current crisis. Does everyone agree this one should be rounded off and new threads started on the crisis if folk want to get into the ramifications of the situation.

[Anonymous]

jjc
I stated:
“I am happy to be called a “Haggis Basher”, the sheep bit I will leave out as it uses a bad word and I have not been caught YET! The Germans = Huns, Krauts etc. Russians = Ivan, Commies. China = Chinks. Arabs = Rag-heads. All countries have nicknames, some good, and some bad. Some I can’t use for it is classed as racist now. But as the French voice is their Government, I have to include all of them.”
You stated:
“Unfortunately over the last few days this thread seems to have degenerated to the state where slurs and insults are not only accepted but congratulated.
Abewsed – I have Chinese and Arab friends who objected quite vehemently when I showed them your last post.”
Now I will say “sticks and stones” etc. It seems to me that you are saying I am calling people Rag-heads, Chinks etc. Take a look at the wording. I did not say I called them that! Also it is a fact, people do call people names. We in Caithness say we are having a Chinkies tonight etc, this is not racist. Well if it is, it is news to me and probably most of Caithness. What count is in what contexts the words are used etc. So please (as I have pointed out in the past) do not try and put words or contexts in my mouth. Or ever try and imply I am racist!!! But it could just be that I am taking your wording in the wrong contexts.

Now with that out of the way.
I also do not think you are leaving this discussion because of the “slurs and insults”, because we have had loads of that in the past. Also I think you are too mature to worry what others think about your sexual preferences, but then again, I did see the funny side of it.
So I suspect another reason. You don’t have any more arguments. The next stage is that the end of the conflict will shed light on who is right and who is wrong, US/UK, UN, France, Germany, Russia, China etc. If WOMD are found, end of story US/UK were/are correct in their actions. If they do not find WOMD, then all hell will break loose. It could end up in a political war across the world!

But anyway JJC if you are not coming back, it was nice and at times frustrating arguing, debating, agreeing with you. I wish you all the best for the future. As I said before I hope all you dreams come true.

But to finish off. I want to point out one thing that annoys me with the anti-war side (not you). I have been watching the SNP, Liberals etc. Now they are concerned about the humanitarian side of the war, especially aid. I find this two faced, as they were willing to sit back and let the WI search for months and possibly ages. If the WI found no WOMD, they would (I assume) be willing for an evil dictator continue with crimes against humanity. Sorry, but I am missing the point they are making. What is the difference? This to me is total madness!!! If Saddam stays, crimes against humanity will continue!!! You might want to ask John Thurso that, just as a point of interest.

[Anonymous]

rich
My perspective of what the Arab World is thinking is this: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and defiantly Kuwait are happy that Saddam is being removed from power. Iran and Egypt are in two minds as they are probably happy that Saddam’s military force is being destroyed, but they might not be happy that the West is doing it. Syria and Lebanon will not be happy, as they see another anti-Israeli nation falling by the wayside.
The Arab World will not be happy that non-Arab nations are bringing order to their area. So yes they are humiliated. But they will be happy if stability is returned to the Middle East. As long as the US/UK, and probably the UN, do not over stay their welcome.
As we can see the Coalition is making huge progress. It might be too much progress! As we can see their supply lines are stretched to the limits. I suspect that they will use the captured airbases at H2 and H3 to bring in supplies and shorten the supply line.
Troops are being ferried up to the Turkish/Iraq border. This is to open a new front in the battle. But it is probably more to ensure the Turks do not try and take the oil fields in the North.
For the battle of Baghdad/Baghrad this will take two or three days to position the coalition around Baghdad. Then they will need rest and re-supply. They have been advancing for 5 days now; so the troops need rest, say two to three days before a battle will start.
I do not expect the US/UK to attack the city, as this will end up a Baghrad. Too costly in lives both military and civilians. Rather I believe they will use new weapons. They have the technology to destroy tanks, but leave the building next to it intact. These weapons fire a shaped charge that penetrates the top of the tank and explodes inside, thus containing the blast. Below is a site that shows how it works. I believe today they can use one at a time, rather than as clusters that are shown on the page.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm

The problem is with the Iraqi Troops, will they play the game and come out and fight? Or will they set up ambushes and use street fighting tactics? With modern weapons the US can destroy their tanks and artillery, whilst (trying to) keeping the civilian casualties low. But like Stalingrad, the troops might be forced to bring the fight to the Iraqi’s. I have been trying to figure out how they will gain Baghdad and I am still puzzled as to how they can do it, without a lot of casualties on both sides. I know they can destroy their weapons, i.e. tanks and artillery. But getting past individuals and small groups is another problem. This is where the real difficulty lies.
What I think they want to do is liberate Basra, get food and aid to the city. Show the Iraqi’s that the US/UK are nice guys and that life could be better than living under Saddam’s rule. Then the converted Iraqi’s use their mobile phones and media to tell the relatives and friends in Baghdad, how wonderful the US/UK are. It will be the “hearts and minds” tactics that will win the day, not bombs and shells. Though it takes both, the use of determined force and humanity. The hearts and minds will have a better longer lasting effect, than nightmares of bombs, shells and dead bodies.
Unlike the 1916-22 uprisings where the British and the Black and Tans did not care for hearts and minds. Ireland was a campaign of force with no consideration for the Irish people. This campaign needs the people to choose between a new Iraq and Saddam. The US/UK are hoping that the Iraqi people opt for a new Iraq without Saddam. The only way is to keep the civilian and military casualties low. Show that Saddam was/is an evil regime. That young Iraqi’s fought and died for his own greed/power etc.
It can work, but it is going to take a lot of skill and time. The focus now is on the Iraqi’s, not Bush and Blair, that will come later. Without the Iraqi peoples backing, you are correct, the US/UK will win the war, but lose the battle. That then means that people have died for nothing.
The reconstruction will be paid out of Saddam’s bank account, frozen assets and by the oil. It will not take long for the money to come back into the country once the oil is flowing again.
The policing should be done by the Arab Nations, not by the US/UK or even the UN.
If al Quaeda rises again, then the targets are obvious! New York, Washington, London etc. So this means the war is not over after Iraq, the same as it was not over after Afghanistan.
One bit that has not been questioned. If the US/UK means to bring stability to the Middle East. Does this mean that Palestine is next? As long as Isreal and the Palestine’s are fighting, there can be no stability in the Middle East, with or without Saddam!

Bill
I think the thread should die out naturally. If others want to keep it going, let them. If they want a new post, so be it. Or do you want it to end?
It seems hypocritical to try and end it when hotrod4 started it and later when he asked/told JJC and myself to end it, JJC said that it was freedom of speech and choice to continue it. Seeing as this is about freedom etc, let it die out naturally. If people stop commenting on this thread, it will soon die out.
I am sure JJC will be back, as the future will hold new arguments! Whether he comes in this thread or a new one, who knows. But it (seems) it is one sided now as there seems to be only pro-US/UK left. Bit one sided!
Also if the statements/arguments become ridiculous, then if will die out sooner than later.

[Bill Fernie]

I have no problem with the thread continuing if everyone feels there is more to say. i just thought that as we were now in a different phase there might be more opportinities in opening up new threads to take on the situation as it develops both on thoughts on the war and the humanitarian probelms that will flow from it.
If everyone elese thinks they would rather continue here then that's fine with me.

[rich]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Abewsed.
Clearly the situation is extremely fluid on the battlefield.
The neo-con sections of the US media promised us cheering Iraquis urging the alliance forces ever onwards. They also promised us conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction. So far neither has materialized.
One of the dangers of the war has been that it could split iraq into three or four component parts - Shiite, Kurdish, Tribal, Baathist etc etc.
But another possibility is opening which I call the Edward First scenario. Edward First is the Plantagenet King credited with hammering the Scots into a nation.
It would be ironic if the alliance military misadventures had the effect of hammering Iraq into a solidly anti-Western nation!
But last night I was watching CBC televison here in Toronto and there was a good hour long debate among the Iraqui exile community.
Everybody was against Sadaam but they were also passionately opposed to the United States. The consensus was that if the USA/UK won the war militarily then it would be left to the emerging Iraqui democracy to fight (by political or any other means) the puppet government that the alliance would install.
Virtually nobody was buying the White House line.
ALso, keep an eye on things in Turkey......

[Anonymous]

rich
There is a true saying in the Military. “The battle plan only lasts until the first round is fired.” The problem is that what the US/UK want the Iraqi’s to do, does not always fit in with the Iraqi plans. The Iraqi soldiers are conducting guerrilla warfare and trying to suck the US/UK into street fighting. The US/UK on the other hand they cant afford to get involved in street fighting, so for now are trying to attack from a distance.
Saddam has the advantage (for now), as he does not care what happens to his people. I even suspect that he would want civilians killed on a massive scale. The US/UK do not want to harm the civilians. But the enemy is hiding amongst the civilians. Catch 22.
The US/UK are trying to seek/keep the backing of other nations. Saddam does not care what other nations think; he is out for self-preservation. As one general stated “ there is no such thing as a civilised war.” The US/UK are trying to keep conduct a civilised war.
So it is stalemate (for now).

The only options are to starve the enemy out. But the civilians will starve as well. This is not an option.
They could shell civilian population, which will involve killing civilians. Again not an option.
They could send the troops in on the ground to seek out and destroy the enemy. This will incur high allied casualties, high civilian and Iraqi soldier casualties. Again not an option.
What ideally the US/UK want is the civilians/soldiers to rise against Saddam. So far this is not working. If and went the Republican Guards are destroyed of damaged enough, this might change. But whilst they are there, it is not going to happen, unless some want to become martyrs against Saddam.

What the US/UK are betting on is time and smart weapons. So far the time is going good. They have advance to the outskirts of Baghdad, where the hard-core of Saddam’s military is holding out. When you look at the casualty rate for the US/UK, it is very low, compared to the Falklands War. During the Falklands it cost about 5 (UK) killed for every mile advanced to Port Stanley.
They have cut off the Baghdad from the rest of Iraq. But then again, Saddam helped in this as well, by positioning his troops in the cities.
So the next real gamble is the smart weapons and new tactics. As to have seen on the news, the US/UK have been using snatch and grab tactics. This is where they go in and destroy/capture high-ranking officers. Taking away some of the command and control.
As I said the smart weapons can only do so much, then the troops have to go in and destroy the remaining info structure.
Public are impatient. They want the war over now, so do the Iraqi civilians as do the US/UK military forces. But reality is that this is just the warm up period. The main fighting is yet to come and I have to admit, the rising casualties could (sadly) be just around the corner.
The Politicians and the military wanted the cheering people to come out and show they are happy with being liberated. There is one problem with this. There are still soldiers/civilians that support Saddam, and they are the ones in the middle of the population threatening anyone who shows pro-US/UK support. Hard to argue with a gun to your head, especially if it involves your family as well.
Or it could be that the Iraqi people are happy with Saddam! Hard to believe for a westerner, but the Arabs are not Europeans or Americans. The US/UK are hoping that the Iraqi’s will see Saddam as the Germans saw Hitler. After WW2, Germany did not revolt against the Allies. But then again they were not split into four different “clans”.

The WOMD are not found yet. I believe the “yet” bit. I also believe it is there, it just has not been found/confirmed yet. Saddam is to mad to give them up (totally). But if there are no WOMD, then Bush/Blair and the rest are going to have a real problem with Europe/UN/the rest of the World. If it is a bluff on their part, it is a very dangerous one to be playing. So I believe they know that the WOMD are in Iraq. Also I think Colin Powel is a honourable soldier/person. I trust him as a person and as a soldier, I do not think he would state that the Saddam has WOMD when there is no proof. I think they know where the WOMD are/were, but can't get there hands on them to show the world yet.

Yes in the past liberating Armies were seen as invaders. The two best examples of this were Vietnam (USA) and Afghanistan (USSR). This is why they need to go in destroy Saddam’s regime and then get out. Or it could end up another N Ireland, but instead of the IRA v UDA etc. It could be the Shiite, Kurdish, Tribal, Baathist etc, with the US/UK and/or the UN stuck in the middle. The only way out is by letting the Arab Nations control Iraq. It will show the world that the US/UK intentions were not for self-gain. Also if there is civil unrest, then the US/UK are out of the way and stops a holy war etc. There will be civil unrest whatever happens. Saddam disappears, the people are granted rights and freedom etc. It could blow up like the Yugoslavia after Tito died.
I personally don’t agree that a Puppet Regime will work. This is because the nation is already divided into separate “clans”. A proper Arab Government has to be set up. But before that the country has to be rebuilt. Education, food etc has to be allowed back into the country. The people have to see that a new Government could bring better conditions. Until that is done, I believe United Arab Government has to be set up. Say, Iraqi post war Government is made up of Kuwait, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt and the UN. The reasons I pick those Arab Nations are because they seem peaceful enough (today!). Say in 4 years time an election could be held and the new Iraqi Government is formed etc.

I think the Turkey situation is the least of the worries just now. There are/will be enough US/UK troops sent to the border to ensure that the Turks keep out of Iraq.
Time is of the essence. The more this war drags on (and it has only been 6 days). The more time it takes, the more Arab World will become concerned/outraged. So far most of the opposition is from the Western World. But that could change if the civilian population casualties rise.

The other thing coming to the front now, is the political attacks on the French and Russians, especially regarding arms sales. This was known months ago, but it seems to be used to try and take some heat of the US/UK and to justify the war or to explain the anti US/UK stance that they took. I am sure the CIA/MI6/Mossad etc all have the evidence to attack politically France and Russia. Well they have had 18 months (and more) to collect it. Also they have had 12yrs to find out if Saddam has the WOMD or not.
It will be interesting to find out what the Iraqi’s really want after the gun to their head is taken away. I just hope this war is worth the cost. If not and it turns out to be wrong or a big lie, then young and old have died for nothing. But until then I will trust Bush and Blair. What option do we have, eh? Trust Saddam? Also what the public are not seeing/hearing is what been talked about behind closed doors. So we still don’t know the truth!
Bit of a contradiction: trusting Politicians, who make their living by lying!!!!!

[rich]

The current roster of Arab states and their leaders represent some sort of nadir of the political process. Could anyone seriously allow the Syrians (Assad Sr. having died gave the state as a present to his son, Assad Jr. - a dentist by training!) a role in forming the new Iraqui body politic? To ask the question is to answer it. Likewise for the corrupt charade that is Egypt.
The more I look at the likely aftermath of this war the more I think it will be shown to have been a very BAD idea.
How one might ask do Arabs endure their appalling governments?
The answer is not one from which Bush or Blair can extract much comfort.
It is pan-Arabism. The sense that the Arabs are one people and have more in common with each other as a collectivity than with the apparatus or any single state.
The conquest of Iraq may enable this pan-Arabism to be expressed. A more alarming prospect is the trans-state expression of the other commonality Arabs share - the Muslim religion.
Either way I think it would have been more prudent to keep Sadaam in power. Bearing in mind of course that this war is not being fought for humanitarian purposes but to set up the new American Imperium in the Gulf.

[Anonymous]

rich
Well it might be that things are looking up in the Gulf. If it is true that a revolt is taking place in Basra. We can but all hope.

I remember the Falklands and all the flag waving as the troops set sail. But as the ships got closer to the islands, the more people were not so sure about the coming war. Especially when ships were being hit and sunk. Britain was out numbered and a long way from home. But once the war started, the people had to bit their lips and wait for the end. Otherwise, we had made our bed and now had to lie in it. This is much the same. We are out numbered and a long way from home. The other difference is that the TV coverage is 24/7. So it seems longer, but it is only 5 days of fighting. It can go two ways, good for the US/UK or good for Saddam! But like Hitler and his Victory weapons, Saddam is hoping for a miracle. It might be WOMD or other Arab countries get involved in a holy war.

Like most wars the beginning is sticky. Soldiers are learning the art of combat, what is dangerous and what is safe or safer. Training can only teach you so much. New plans are being updated or changed daily. Mistakes are being made and corrected. Finding out what works and what doesn’t. That is what combat is all about.

I know what you mean about the list of countries. But take a look at what Governments are around Iraq.
Iran (not much better than Iraq). Turkey (part of NATO, so pro-west). Syria (anti-west and still supports Saddam, though very quietly these days). Jordan (had a good king, but the sons in new and pro-west). Saudi Arabia (pro-west and hates Saddam). Kuwait (pro-west and hates Saddam).
Try and pick three that could form a coalition government for Iraq over four years. I would take Egypt, Saudi and Kuwait, as these three have the most stable Governments that fit both the Arab and Western Nations. Egypt still has its fundamentalists, but it has been at peace for years and has a strong voice in the Arab community. So we must class it as stable. I would prefer Jordan, but the new King, is not respected yet by the other Arab countries and looks upon him as being young yet.
Iran, Turkey and Syria have Kurdish problems, so they might not fit the bill.

The Arabs are still governed by a class system. But so were we until after WW2. In fact we still have a class system, the rich and the poor! The rich, get richer, the poorer, get poorer! Facts of life. I don’t think we can overnight bring our culture (which includes democracy) to the Middle East. We have a culture problem in Britain, never mind trying to sort one out in the Middle East.

I am happy to hear any other ideas as to how this aftermath of war will/could be sorted out. One way or another Saddam is finished, so someone has to take over. But if the US/UK takes over, then it will have a very high probability of ending up a new Palestine. The end is a forgone conclusion, it is just a matter of at what cost, in lives. The real problem lies in afterwards. You are going to have a war-torn country with 30yrs of hatred to let loose on each other. I don’t think the USA is ready for a N Ireland (but on a bigger scale). The UK troops are trained for it, but they don’t have the numbers to do it. In fact I think they are having trouble building this coalition, never mind anything else.

Military cutbacks save money, but costs lives!!! Sorry for the wee rant, but it is true.

We can’t go over War or no-War, as that now is part of history. We will read about the hindsight’s/mistakes after the war or even during it, but it is still history. It is the future that is the problem. But I still disagree with the US Imperial State. The US tried that once with Iran and they got bit very hard on the hand for that. I believe, or would rather believe, that this is part of the on-going war against terrorism. It is also ensuring a Stable Middle east for oil to the World, not just the US/UK. If not, I hope Bush and Blair are the next targets, fair trial, found guilty and executed.

In fact the more I think about it, the more I am sure it is not a US Imperialism. They have enough problems with Israel without Iraq. Also they could set up a puppet government, like the USSR did in Afghanistan, which lead to a Vietnam. They don’t want another Vietnam or Lebanon. Na! I don’t think the US wants that. They want to take out the terrorist funds and supporters and ensure another Sept 11th does not happen. They also want to buy oil at a fair price. Take Kuwait, they have kept out of Kuwait affairs since 1992. They have only used its soil to keep an eye on Saddam and to use it as a launching point for this war. The have not taken any part in their politics or Saudi’s, or not that I have heard about.

[rich]

The Bush government is full of imperialists - incredible though it may seem.
The argument goes something like this.
The US won the Cold War.
The US is the only super power.
There is window of opportunity before China and India develop as Super Powers and before Russia recovers.
So it is the American moment. It is time for America's civilizing mission.
America is the bearer of the one true gospel - the religion of market forces.
US corporations pus the ubiquitous US life style backed up by overwhelming physical force will put the world to rights.
Like it did in Japan and Korea and West Germany.
There is even a series of books and articles outlining the doctrine. I can provide you with some titles if you like but I am sure you are as aware of all this as I am.
The trouble is that the US citizen tax payers find the idea of permanently colonizing sandy hot parts of the world a singularly unattractive notion.
But when did the barely elected Bush administration ever listen to the people of America...?

[Anonymous]

rich
You could be right that the US wants to be the next Imperial Nation. Also, that there are people that might want that as well. The only problem is history and the nightmare of Vietnam.
Lets look at how the US/UK are fighting just now. Her are a few rules.
They want people to rise up against the Saddam Regime. If the people do not fight for the US/UK, then the numbers of US/UK casualties will be in the 10’s of thousands. The reason is that the Iraqi’s will do what the Kurds are doing, fighting a guerrilla war.
You can only conquer a nation that wants conquered. Otherwise it will stab you to death, in the back!
If the US/UK take Iraq and make it the 2nd New State (as the UK will be the 1st) then the Middle East will flare up. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have new US/UK military equipment, plus it is on their turf.
The Iranian are coming up to date with ex-USSR equipment and some good kit of their own (oil does not just buy guns, it also buys technology). With their 3 ss Kilo class submarines, they could mine the Straits of Hormuz. Thus shutting of the oil as they did in the 1970’s.
Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia could make life hard in the Med. Never mind all the Arab nations around the Indian Ocean and Gulf. A Holy War will be declared on the US/UK and then “Cry Havoc, let slip the dogs of war!” You wont have to worry about street lighting in London, Washington, New York, Los Angeles etc, the Arab Nations will help with that problem, they will light up the cities for you. There will not be enough smart weapons to go around!
Then there are the European nations including Russia, France, Germany, and Italy etc. They could also make life very hard for the US/UK.
Whilst there might be a dream in the US about the Empire, for today, it is only in Star Wars Films. The cost of both money and American lives would be too great. Remember the USSR went into liquidation due to an arms race. What very few people know or remember was that the USA was not far behind. In fact the USA was for a while under threat of becoming the 2nd Japan!
Bush is asking for another $75 billion, just to back this war. Imagine if he was fighting the Arab Nations!!! Whilst the US is the mightiest nation in the World. It is not Captain Scarlet (Indestructible).

I know that the USA dream of Liberty, Equality and Freedom etc for the entire world. So have all the rest of the Great Nations. The Communist had the same sort of dream. But we both know, that before it can work, the people have to want it. If it is shoved down our throats, then Liberty, Equality and Freedom becomes a joke.
I will give you an example of what happens. We had two World Wars 1914-19 and 1939-45. Who were our allies? France, Italy, USA and Russia in WW1. France, USSR and USA in WW2. Who are our greatest political enemies since 1945? France and Russia/USSR. Today’s allied could be tomorrows enemy. Today’s enemy could be our allies tomorrow.

The USA is interested in their own way of living, to bother with other nations, especially if they have to pay for it. And especially if they have to shed a lot of blood for it. UK is no different; I can hear people saying “look after ourselves before others etc”. This is seen as a war against terrorism against the USA. It could also be stability in the Middle East. Or revenge. Or Oil. But I don’t believe it is World Domination.

No the US/UK can go on their Crusade to defeat terrorism, but not to conquer the world. It cant and won’t happen. But as I have said before, the war in the Gulf could go pear shaped.

This is not directed at you rich, but to people in general…
People forget the USA is not the only Superpower in the World. The Arab Nation is the other. They are united by a Brotherhood and blood; it only needs a just cause to find this out. One good thing is that the Arab Nations cant always agree with each other. But I am sure if someone pushes hard enough, they could and would! Whilst the Arab nations are generally seen by the Western World as being a third world of poor education, don’t for a minute believe it. Take a look at a lot of the top jobs i.e. doctors, lawyers, managers etc and not just in the US/UK, but also in Europe. A lot are children of people that came from the so-called “3rd World Countries” to the UK in the 1950’s and 1960’s. They are intelligent; just because they can read and write in other countries don’t mistake them as second rate. Most of the Middle East is the origins of civilisation, which built great civilisations, cities, invented maths, and medicine etc thousands of years ago, whilst we (in the UK) were still living in caves. And the USA was never heard off.

The last point is that we Scots believe we have a great military history as fighters etc. If we do, we are shadowed by the Arab’s and Asian’s military history. As an example take the Ghurkha’s!!! They mostly, if not all, come from as low as poverty gets (by our standards). But yet they are one of the (if not the) best, noblest and honourable soldiers you will find on this planet today. Imagine if millions of Ghurkha’s decide to fight. Now that is a scary thought! Well if US/UK stirs up a hornet’s nest in the Middle East, this exactly what they could be faced with. I say tread carefully!
Hemall ajjamma-h reesh = A load borne by many becomes a feather.

[fionarich]

Rich,

What makes you think that the American people don't back Bush? If you think that they don't, you are dead wrong. A very small protesters many be against Bush, but that is likely to be more because he is a Republican and not a Democrat, than anything else! Many of the protesters hated him long before any war and are happy to bash him over this conflict! Most Americans (79%+) are 100% behind him, as are those that serve in the military.

The US Senate just voted to support the war, 99-0 and they approved the 75 billion that Busha asked for, to pay for this conflict. Does that sound like the American people aren't supporting Bush? I think not! Additionally, with each day that the conflict progresses, support for the military action increases.

Americans have a history of stepping in, but Americans have no interest in any long-term stay in any other country. Americans have a history of isolationism and most think that this conflict is a necessary evil, to safeguard from future attacks. They also think that if the Iraqi people can have a chance to live without the fear of being terrorized by SH and his regime, then they will have helped to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqi people.

To argue that this is about cheap oil doesn't make much sense economically- especially since the US Government having just voted to approve 75 billion dollars in spending for military and homeland security, and they are expected to ask for as much again soon. Oil was already available on the world market at extremely low prices. 75 billion+ would buy an awful lot of oil.

If Saddam weren't hiding anything, why would he have kicked out WI's after 3 years? Why wouldn't he have invited inspectors in to witness the destruction of any of the chemical/biological weapons that he is known to have stockpiled? He had every chance to disarm and comply for 12 years and didn't. He was gambling that once again the UN & the world would do nothing about his non-compliance. He lost the bet and hopefully will be gone soon.

When other countries in the world (and the UN) have needed help in the past (and present), who do they ask for assistance? The Americans, that's who. The US has responded by sending food, other aid, troops and financial assistance. However, the Americans are the first ones to have stones thrown at them!! Many of the people around the world that hate America and Americans have never even met or known one! Americans don't need be Imperialsts and take over other countries. Most countries are more than happy to embrace American culture, food, fashion et.- no force needed!

Everyone hopes that this conflict will end soon and with as few casualities as possible. This would be much easier if the Iraqi troops were not hiding behind civilians and disregarding the Geneva conventions.

Cheers,

Fiona Rich

[rich]

Fiona, Bush's support is a mile wide and a centimeter deep.
Abewsed, you may find this story interesting. It provides information on the belief system driving the Bush advisors.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC20Ak07.html

[rich]

And this just in from today's Guardian:

A subsidiary of Halliburton, vice-president Dick Cheney's old company, has been awarded a contract by the US army to put out fires and repair damaged infrastructure in the Iraqi oil industry. The value of the deal has not been officially disclosed, but is said to be in the region of $1bn.

Mr Cheney was chief executive of Halliburton until 2000 but gave up his stake in the company on becoming US vice-president. He reportedly still gets about $1m a year "compensation" from the company.

[Anonymous]

Rich,
Lets say Bush wanted to go to war. That would mean he had to predict the Sept 11th attacks. That would give him 8 months to reorganise his Government. Then he has to gear up the Military etc. Not a big time frame. There is only one problem! Colin Powel! He was the US Military spokesperson during the last Gulf War. He was the one that backed the UN in preventing the Coalition from going to Baghdad and removing Saddam. Then this paper is (more or less) saying that Bush and Powell agrees to attack Afghanistan! Then they decide to attack Iraq. After Iraq, they want to take Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
This is a great conspiracy theory and will make a good film. The only problem is to make it real; Bush needs to stay in power. His next election is next year. He now has 10 months to do it. As I doubt that the economy will have recovered by Jan 2004. So the chances are that the US voters will forget Iraq and look at the economy by then. Someone will have to pay for Iraq.
We all have a tendency to forget other peoples suffering. We soon forget the US/UK personnel killed in wars. We soon forget that the civilians suffered etc. The topic that Bush and Blair will have to face is the economy. That is the biggest weapon against a President. The US/UK want lower taxes, lower fuel, and better education. All the things we call important. The last thing we want is a War Monger. The reason is that we all like our little luxuries before paying for war.
I know that soon after this war Blair will have to find money for the Health Service and the rest of the promises that his Party made when elected. A war will be the last thing on his mind. Politics are a very dangerous place and past glories are soon forgotten, but the bad things are never.

The article goes on about the downfall of the USSR etc. And how the USA is the sole power of the world. Not correct. The true power of the USA and the UK are the people. The votes are the real bullets. Don’t get me wrong; the USA will protect their borders from any hostile nation or organisation. If this means that Iran is found guilty of supporting a terrorist organisation, then they will be next. But so will the UK is the same situation. A lot of Middle and Far East countries cannot grasp this. Why? Because they don’t have the luxury of voting in fair election and seeing a once powerful President become an ordinary citizen!

It used to be that the USA and USSR were the warmongers. I totally agree with this, especially during the Cold War 1947-88. Both sides back terrorists/freedom fighters depending on the politics of the day. The USSR is defunct for now. The Cold War is over. So the USA is in the front. So they are the bad guys. But that does not mean they want World Domination. They have that, to a certain extent, now. Most people forget how much it takes to keep an Army the size that the US have. Their Air Force is the biggest and best in the World. No one can match their Navy. The defence budget is colossal. I don’t know how much Afghanistan cost them or how much this war will cost. But it is in the Billions. I think the American people would prefer it spent of themselves, than conquering the world.

In the article it sates:
“Empires are made of blood. The cross, which now symbolizes Christianity and its ideals of mercy and tolerance, was for centuries the sign of power and of the most atrocious death the Roman Empire could devise. Lines of crosses holding thousands of people were erected on the sides of roads leading to Rome warning the foreign traveller and reassuring the Roman citizen of the pitiless power of Rome. Rome was a cruel empire, and it knew it so well that Cato, speaking of the many enemies of Rome, would say: "Let them hate us as long as they fear us.”

The fist bit is true; Empires are made of blood. Whose blood? Not just the enemy, but our own. Britain tried to conquer the world. It did quite well until WW1, and then the cost became too expensive. By WW2 it was not an option to just send soldiers to far off places to kill the “little men”. The UK grudgingly gave the countries back to the people. Now the US is being looked upon as the Romans, and Bush will be Caesar! Only one problem the Caesars did not get voted in every 4 years! They were real Dictators. Our Dictators used to be the Royal Family and the Upper Class (Blue Blood) etc. This is not the 1700 or 1800’s. This is 2003.
But for argument sake, we class the USA as the Roman Empire. So do we class the China as the Barbarians or Huns? The Russians as Vandals? France as the Germanics? Or the Middle East as Saladin's? Then do we accuse the Middle East of murdering millions of Christians both in the Middle East and Europe?
This is today, not yesterday. As I said the vote represents the people and the people will remove Presidents or Prime Ministers. The vote is the most powerful weapon today. So, I believe that if Bush or Blair are on a massive ego trip, then they better start soon, as the Bus will have to stop somewhere.
This might sound racist, but it is not meant to be. If the USA, and/or the UK, are as bad as the Middle & Far East papers are making out, why did, and do, so many people want into those two countries? Could it be that they prefer to live in the USA or UK, rather than staying in their country of birth?
The problem of illegal immigrants is a real problem to the two countries. It just amazes me that life is so good in India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, China, Russia, Turkey and all the other countries, that the people are “desperate” (literally risking their lives) to come and live in the US and UK!! The reason is that the US & UK are better countries to live and bring up their families in, rather than the poverty etc that they try and leave behind.
But if the papers are to be believed, Bush might just save them the problem of coming to the USA, he might just bring the USA to them! But I don’t think so, it would bankrupt the USA! Plus the Americans would not vote him in again. In fact I remember the same thing said about Ronald Ragean.

[Anonymous]

Rich,
Propaganda is a very dangerous subject. This is one of the typical examples. When I read your post about Halloburton wining the contract to put out the oil fire and repairs etc. I thought it was as you were hinting, a stitch-up, old school tie, hand shakes etc…
I was sure Red Adair’s mob was to be involved in the putting out the oil fires. And I was correct.
Quotes:
“Meanwhile, fire fighting teams from Houston-based Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc., a Halliburton subcontractor, are poised to cross the border from Kuwait to cap the wells.”
and
“By 1991 Boots & Coots was so well recognized by the energy industry, it was called upon to put out over 230 of the most difficult Kuwaiti well fires during the Gulf War in a nine month period. When Adair retired, his company was sold and his senior management team formed International Well Control (IWC). IWC acquired Boots & Coots in 1997 reuniting the world's most experienced well control specialists and fire-fighters.”

A brief history, when Red Adair started his Texas business he had two partners. One Boots and the other Coots. In 1978 they decided to form their own company and Red went it alone. In 1991 after the 1st Gulf War, Red Adair retired and his firm was took over by his old partners. So it went in a big circle.
This is no big surprise as this “Red Adair” team was expected by everyone to get the contract as these Oil Wells have very poisonous gases coming from them and they have had the experience of putting them out before.
So I would say the Dick Cheney story is another “red herring” rather than a “red adair.” This sells more papers than if they told the truth. As the truth was that Red Adair’s mob were to get the contract anyway! Only reason is that they have the best personnel to do the job and also they are Americans.

[rich]

And Cheney has no connection with this company?
Maybe you're not worried about who tidies up Iraq after the war but Tony Blair is certainly concerned. He wants the UN to be involved.
Bush doesn't.
So let's see where the big contracts ultimately go and who gets them.

[rich]

Abewsed - On the subject of American imperialism; I do not wish to suggest that the Bush mob are particularly clever or far-sighted. In many ways they are a dumb bunch and without much historical grasp.
Which is why we have this current stupid war.
Neither did I mean to suggest that any US imperialism will be successful and long lived.
But what is important is to realize that, on a day to day basis, this is the gang that are caling the shots (literally). SO it's worth knowing their mind-set.
I would hope, with you, that an outraged US democracy would rush to the rescue by turfing Bush and co from office. My hopes are dimmed a tad when I realize that only millionaires can afford to run for office in the USA. The bread and circus atmosphere that has pervaded Washington this last decade affords some evidence for the USA being a democracy suffering from terminal decadence. (Speaking as a long term decadent myself I have no problem with that but it sits uneasilly with the grandiose utterances of the Bushites about this being America's century)
However the Americans have surprised us all before and they may do it again. Let's hope so.

[Anonymous]

rich
As far as I see the evidence, is that Cheney gave up his connection with Halloburton when he became part of the Washington circle. As far as I can see he has no connections with Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc (Red Adair’s ex-company). So if there is a connection, I can’t see it. Don’t get me wrong; there could be a handshake in it.
IT was expected “Red Adair’s” men were to go in and put the oil-fires out. The reasons are two fold.
First they are the best-known oil-fighters in the world. They have had films, documentaries and books made about their exploits. They have also been putting fires out in war zones and under fire before 1991.
Second they have dealt with the oil-fires from the last war. It seems that these wells are different from ones in Texas etc. They are more toxic. They have been preparing for this for months. The big surprise is that only 9 oil wells were set alight.
So I personally am not surprised that Boots & Coots International Well Control Inc got the contract. In fact if any other company had won the contract, I would be looking for some hidden agenda.

As for the UN being involved. That is for the future. It seems by what we are hearing the French are still going to veto anything to do with the US/UK. But that could change. That is what the big boys are discussing today. We will just have see what comes out. It will be months before the UN could go in and organise a Government anyway. Also the UN would have to get “troops” to police the country. All takes time, equipment, organisation, supplies etc. One thing! I would not expect the US/UK troops just to walk out of Iraq and let the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese or Turkey to run the country! The reasons are obvious. So things have to be agreed.
Whilst the UK is keen to get the UN involved. The US on the other hand is not. Why? Because the UN did not back them, in what they seen as a justified war. So if the UN said they did not want involved (which it wont) the US could live with that! Also France has already stated that they want the US/UK to rebuild Iraq. OK, they can rebuild Iraq, but not with the UN inside running the show.
DON’T expect any French, Germans, Russians or Chinese companies to win any contracts in Iraq, whilst the US/UK are there! My crystal ball said that that will not happen!

Regarding the Presidents of the USA. Like the British Government, the US Government can’t be accused of doing the right thing all the time! As I have said they make a living out of telling “miss-truths”. Sometimes they get it right, other time they get it wrong.
One way to look at this, is by the War Graves where the British Servicemen/women are buried, from the last century (1900-99). China, Japan, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burma, Malaya, Borneo, Iraq, Iran, N Africa, West and East Africa, S Africa, Central America, North America, Italy, Germany, France & Falkland Islands etc. When you look at it the British Military have had personnel killed in every continent, other than Antarctica, but the Falklands came close to it. Where have to politicians died? At home in bed! Sums up the situation. The people who start the wars are the ones (usually) who survive!
If you ask most soldiers what war achieves. He/she will say very little, as politics change all the time. He/she fights for the Governments and situations of those times. That is why the military ignore a lot of politics. Funny really because politics kill them, but yet they are defenceless against it!

As I said, politics change all the time, friends become enemies, enemies become friends etc. But I promise you this, if the USA has any desires for a World Order, they will become my enemies. The same applies to this country. But I don’t think it will happen. Or put it this way, the US & UK people should not allow it to happen!

As I said before, truth = winners, losers and the unknown. We have propaganda from the US/UK, then from the anti-US/UK. What we don’t “really” know is what is the unknown (behind the scenes).
What you are saying about the millionaires running countries is very true. But what Joe Public forgets is that votes are the real power! Many do not use it, but yet it is the ultimate weapon. It can destroy Governments and Royal Families! Years ago the Rich, Royals and Governments were the power. Not now, the people are the power. But yet we forget that the vote = freedom!

I trust the British people and I trust the US people. We are different, but we are united by having the freedom of speech, votes etc. We know one vote means very little, but united, it is the ultimate weapon! I hope the people of Iraq get the chance to discover that a little tick on a piece of paper, can change their lives, hopefully for the better. You never know, this could be the making of a great Middle East country. “Out of chaos comes order!” I hope that this is true. If it happens it means that everyone who suffers in this conflict, might not have suffered in vain.

[rich]

Abewsed - What can I say? Either one is an optimist or one is not.
But it takes a rare kind of optimisim in order to find anything encouraging in this war that the US/UK have got themselves into.
In the words of Talleyrand "It is worse than a crime. It is a MISTAKE"
As for the ballot box, well the Arabs have an alternative called populism. It doesn't work very well, I admit but it does sponsor this sense of pan-Arabism that our foreign policy persistently underestimates.
In the wake of this war pan-Arabism will become a force to be reckoned with. (That last statement is from the Department of Prophesy, a place I am usually reluctant to visit. But these are trying times, so excuse the lapse...)

[marion]

This guy Rich sounds like he is touting the Muslim extremists with his retoric. Sounds like he is pro Iraqui. Hope he is not identified before the British troops return to their home land. Some one might come looking for him to settle their score.

[Anonymous]

rich
I can’t argue with you on the optimist side. I am being optimistic, I have to be otherwise, or it is a sheer waist of time, lives and suffering.
One good thing to come out of it will be the removal of Saddam and a clear message to other dictators that they could be next.
But then the question that everyone wants to know, including myself, who will be in charge of Iraq in a year’s time. Will they be an improvement or a puppet? But we will just have wait and see.
No war is a mistake. It is a deliberate act of aggression. The issue is the war justified. For that, time will tell. In a years time the Iraqi War will be forgotten about. The same as Afghanistan and Balkans etc. There are few that remember the mass murder of both sides of those wars. It is a human thing, the war ends, we go back to our hobbies, TV, films etc. The people that were involved in the conflicts never forget, though!

Today we are looking at the TV screens and seeing a horror show, with a splash of humanity in-between. We at home are seeing this evolve. Also we know that it is going to get worse. But the frustrating thing is that we can’t do anything about it. Some want the war to stop now. This is unrealistic, for the US/UK to say, “Ops, sorry we made a mistake” and pack up and go home.
One side wants peace, with as little casualties as possible. The other side wants this over and done with and accept the casualties. The issues of both of these are not in our hands and that is why we are frustrated.
Both have a valid argument.
1/ If we take our time and try and keep the casualties low as possible. This gives time for Saddam and his Army to react. Thus prolonging the war and inflicting more casualties. Also the humanitarian aid comes into the spot light.
2/ If we say, enough is enough and attack in force. This will lead to street fighting and massive casualties. But it would be over before the civilians starve etc.
So we now have two options and slow war with low (as possible) casualties. Or a short war with massive casualties. Not a nice option, either way.
We can only hope the Politicians and the Military are doing what is best, in a bad situation.

[Anonymous]

This guy Rich sounds like he is touting the Muslim extremists with his retoric. Sounds like he is pro Iraqui. Hope he is not identified before the British troops return to their home land. Some one might come looking for him to settle their score.

Are we reading the same thread here?

Does this mean that you are anti-Iraqi?

How can you say that the purpose of your war is to free the people of Iraq if you are so against them?

I think you'll find that the British Troops (and probably the US ones as well) are all pro-Iraqi, otherwise why would they all be down there trying to free them from their terrible dictator?

[DrSzin]

Just reread the winning essay by a young schoolboy at Caithness Heritage Fair in 2001. I hope the rest of his chllingly accurate predictions do not come to pass sooner than he wrote.... If you missed it its still on the site at http://www.caithness.org/fpb/october/bestessay/
Yon young chiel wasn't alone in the prediction business. The quote below is extracted from a post on last year's thread entitled Thurso, March 19, 2032, and was posted on March 20, 2002 -- exactly one year to the day before the beginning of the war -- gulp. (You may safely ignore the stuff about seals, it was a slightly gratuitous tie-in with a then-popular concurrent thread.)


The Seal Sanctuary on the islands in Thurso River has been protected by EU Resolution since 2004. On only two occasions have EU Peacekeeping Troops been required to intervene to save the seals. The most recent was just before the Fall of the House of Sinclair during the 2011 elections to the Scottish Parliament. The first had been after the collapse of the US economy following George Dubya Bush's disastrous war in the Middle East, during which most of the oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States were destroyed. Bush had ordered the US Navy to quench the nation's need for oil by catching millions of seals and processing their blubber into fuel oil. By then, however, the US Military was disillusioned and virtually bankrupt. The EU, and especially Scotland, was essentially self-sufficient in energy, due to energy conservation, North Sea oil, hydro-electric, wind & wave power, and most importantly, a reinvigorated nuclear generation industry based on 2nd-generation nuclear fission stations situated at Torness, Hunterston, and Fraserburgh. Caithness lost out on that particular boom, and we don't wish to lose out again.

The US economy had collapsed when its EU, Japanese, and even its Chinese, bankers had pulled the plug on its 5 year military adventure in the Middle East. Saddam had been toppled relatively easily, as had Gaddafi in Libya, along with the Ayatollas in Iran. But the cost had been enormous in terms of both human and economic misery. Even the economic & military might of the US had been insufficient to control the Middle East, and the once mighty dollar had collapsed with it.

In the meantime, by keeping out of the wars, the rapidly expanding EU had become the world's only superpower, and the mighty Euro its flagship currency...

I don't know whether or not to be pleased that I had already sussed Dubya's intentions a year ago.

I also predicted Japanese support for the war (if not the bankrolling aspect), and I even predicted the Euro's new-found strength in a rapidly exanding EU ! :cool: I perhaps misjudged the reaction of a large fraction of EU members, mind. :confused But, hey, I even predicted the arrival of windmills.

I just hope to God the rest of the Middle East "predictions" don't come to pass...

Bill, do I get a prize too?

[rich]

What can we reallistically expect in the way of reconstructing Iraq as a western style democracy?
Not much.
To have a democracy you need certain institutions such as 1) common law 2) free press and universities 3) a non-corrupt civil service 4) loyal citizens.
Iraq has none of these things and never has had them and likely never will.
Please note that in Japan and West Germany - often cited by Bush apologists as the model that it can be done all of the above institutions existed or had existed prior to the war.
There are political traditions in Iraq but infortunately none of them are democratic. From the 1930s on there was a tradition of the armed forces taking control, there was a tradition of clanship in the north and south, there was a tradition of paying off powerful chiefs, there was a tradition of religious intolerance.
But what could you expect from a country spatchcocked together by the British out of three former porvinces of the Ottoman Empire?
The question is how long will US/UK armed forces remain in Iraq to reconstruct it democratically?
Not long.
Look to them to dump the whole sorry mess back into the lap of the UN. The only alternative to that is full blown imperialism. Altnhough elements in the Bush administration might welocme this the US people will likely kick them out of power before this happens.
Grounds for optimism?

[friendlymel]

hi ive read this with alot of intrest.
firstly, the war was about oil.
im just glad my son has just returned and is safe.
It was a long hard worrying wait while he was there.

[katarina]

does anyone know what is happening in Afganistan now? Has the removal of the Taliban improved the lot of the people? Why do we not hear any success stories?

[George Brims]

There isn't much news coming out of Afghanistan because there isn't much good happening. The government daren't go outside a small area around Kabul for fear of being killed. Although the Taliban are out of power, the country is still mostly run by men on the conservative side of the Islamic spectrum. Basically it's a country run by regional warlords, as it was back when the British Empire first started interfering there. Worst of all from a Western point of view, the growing of opium poppies is now iwdespread again, so a lot of cheap heroin is headed our way. Afghanistan has pretty much been abandoned by "the coalition" as forces are diverted to Iraq.

[scotsboy]

Still a LOT of military activity going on in Afghanistan, also as George says the majority of the country is run by Warlords………not sure about Hamid Karzai’s Islamic “credentials”, but he is seen by many in the middle east as a puppet for the US of A.

[katarina]

Excuse my naivitivity, but why don't they just fly over the poppy fields and spray them with weed killer?

[George Brims]

Besides the sheer scale of the problem, there are also probably a fair number of Stingers (houlder-launched anti-aircraft missiles) floating around the area. I'm sure the warlords would use them if their crop was threatened. Ironically of course those were supplied to the Mujahideen by the CIA, to help them in their fight to kick out the Russions. The Russians had the Hind attack helicopter which was giving the locals a real harrd time, but the Stingers put them out of business.