Iraq - Do you believe the Govt Dossier?
25 September 2002, 10:26 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: 1600cc's of twin scroll fun :)
Posts: 25,565
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Boomer,
650km WAS the limit of his missile range during the Gulf war, he would have definately advanced and with cheap russian tech on the market 2000mile missiles are readily available to anyone with the money.
As for the UN.... First hand knowledge that they are a bunch of whimps that wont do anything except get out of the way (and let those who are working for them suffer [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] ) so unless they change their softly softly attitude and put their foot down its all going to be the same as it was last time.....
Tony
650km WAS the limit of his missile range during the Gulf war, he would have definately advanced and with cheap russian tech on the market 2000mile missiles are readily available to anyone with the money.
As for the UN.... First hand knowledge that they are a bunch of whimps that wont do anything except get out of the way (and let those who are working for them suffer [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img] ) so unless they change their softly softly attitude and put their foot down its all going to be the same as it was last time.....
Tony
25 September 2002, 11:31 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but you have to let the UN inspectors try to do their thing. Military force should only be used when all other means have been exhausted, which so far they have not. While I doubt they (the inspectors) will get the unconditional access Iraq has agreed to, you have to give it a chance. Unilateral action by the US (and probably by the UK - ie, without a UN mandate) is totally unacceptable IMHO. I fear haw things will turn out if this happens.
I agree Sadam needs to be prevented from harming other nations, but we must to it the right way. I think Ian has the process down about right
BTW, why is everyone going on about nuclear weapons. I think the chemical/Biological ones that pose the greatest risk at the moment.
I agree Sadam needs to be prevented from harming other nations, but we must to it the right way. I think Ian has the process down about right
BTW, why is everyone going on about nuclear weapons. I think the chemical/Biological ones that pose the greatest risk at the moment.
25 September 2002, 11:36 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, I read the dossier yesterday. I agree it does give an indication of his possible WMD and gives some facts regarding his regime, but there was nothing in it the convinces me that we need to take military action now. I think containment and monitoring are the way forward, and if this fails, then back it up with strikes. What ever we do, it needs to be sanctioned through the UN.
25 September 2002, 12:06 PM
#35
Sending in the UN is a waste of time to though. Yes Iraq has said they will give the UN unlimited access (whether this will be the case or not, is yet to be seen though) but more importantly the Iraqis will only let them see what hasnt been hidden! Yeh sure, send them in before bombing him, but what will it achieve? nothing. Only gives Saddam more time to make his chemical n biological weapons or plan his next invasion/terrorist attack or whatever 
So send in a crack special ops squad and waste im I say. They should have done this in the Gulf in the first place when they had the opportunity.
So send in a crack special ops squad and waste im I say. They should have done this in the Gulf in the first place when they had the opportunity.
25 September 2002, 12:20 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask you all a question? Yes America wants Saddam, but be honest with yourselves. How would you feel if Bin Laden Had had flown these planes into your home town and city and killed 3000 people many of whom may have been your friends do you think that you honestly would feel the same as you do now. America is right to feel threatened by Saddam and his previous history does not bode well I suggest all of you look at to-days SUN and look at some of the Real pictures of what he has done to his own people, I do not like the thought of waar innocent people being killed, I don t particulary like T Blair and his govermewnt, but they were elected by the Majority in the UK and it is his job to protect every citizen of the Uk anywhere in the world.
Personally I would have a rapid strike force into Iraq ie SAS and SBS Find saddam and either bring him out of the country to stand Trial for crimes against humanity or Assisnate him if need be, The World can only be a better place without him. Bush is right We must all fight the growing threat of Terrorism throughout the world including Israel, and NORTHERN IRELAND and Mugabe to name but just a few.
If Saddam can rule the Middle East you will not be driving scoobys etc you will have to drive electric power because he will stop the flow of oil and whether you like it or not Polotics and Econmy all have their part to play in this conflict. These are purely my own Personal views and I dont ask you to agree or disagree with me, I respect your views and hope you will aford me the same.
Personally I would have a rapid strike force into Iraq ie SAS and SBS Find saddam and either bring him out of the country to stand Trial for crimes against humanity or Assisnate him if need be, The World can only be a better place without him. Bush is right We must all fight the growing threat of Terrorism throughout the world including Israel, and NORTHERN IRELAND and Mugabe to name but just a few.
If Saddam can rule the Middle East you will not be driving scoobys etc you will have to drive electric power because he will stop the flow of oil and whether you like it or not Polotics and Econmy all have their part to play in this conflict. These are purely my own Personal views and I dont ask you to agree or disagree with me, I respect your views and hope you will aford me the same.
25 September 2002, 12:28 PM
#37
As has already been stated on here, the pictures in today's SUN show what Saddam did to his own people in 1988--WHEN BOTH THE USA AND THE UK WERE SUPPLYING HIM WITH SH*TLOADS OF ARMS AND MONEY TO FIGHT THE THEN ENEMY: IRAN! So who's to blame?
BTW: if we're being pedantic, B.Liar and his mates were certainly NOT elected by a majority of the voters of this country!!
BTW: if we're being pedantic, B.Liar and his mates were certainly NOT elected by a majority of the voters of this country!!
25 September 2002, 12:45 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do have a point yes proportional representation and whether you and I Like it or not and I dont He is the Prime Minister until we vote him out. and I agree we as a Country are not whiter than white but we are British and we have to protect our interests and our citizens all over the world
25 September 2002, 02:31 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alacazar
remember the context of the iran-iraq conflict. iran had seized the US embassy in teheran and held 53 US civilians hostage for nearly a year. fundamentalist muslim ayatollah khomeini had ousted the shah, preaching death to the west at all costs, in particular the US.
a frighteningly tyrannical new iranian regime posed a threat to the whole middle east (and yes, our oil supplies) and iraq, under hussein, was the only country capable of holding iran in check.
so iran and iraq go to war for eight years between 80-88 and kill maybe a million, million and a half of each other.
iraq, *at the time* was deemed the lesser of the two evils from the western perspective, so we provided him with material support to help contain iran. a case of "he's a son of a bitch, but he's *our* son of a bitch." that, unfortunately is realpolitik. it has always been this way since the formation of nation states and is not a unique invention of the US.
(by the same token, would you say that the USSR's contribution to the defeat of germany in WW2 was questionable because it had previously signed an alliance with the *****? of course you wouldn't. the same applies today: times & circumstances change).
it is now saddam that poses the most active threat and he is a known state-sponsor of terrorism. the biggest threat, as i have said many times on similar threads, comes not from conventional exchanges between the west and iraq, but from the proxy-use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against us on our own soil, supplied to terrorists by iraq in the short, medium or longer term. and also the possible use of same by saddam on his neighbours or even against israel.
saddam has broken all 16 UN resolutions imposed after the gulf war: he will obfuscate at any opportunity. in fact, i greatly admire his brinksmanship: no-one else comes close.
however, he is a loose cannon and one equipped, partially today, with the worst weapons imaginable. he has also become a monstrous brute who subjugates his people relentlessly. this is his (& the UN's) last chance: we must have total, transparent and unfettered inspections without conditions. and fast.
if these are breached, we have no choice but to use force and close him down. for good this time. i don't want a war, but sometimes it's the only way to solve an intractable problem. if it does come, i hope it is quick and i hope it is done right and i hope some good comes from it in the long term.
i have to say, i'm continually dismayed by the level of knee-jerk, ill-informed anti-americanism on this BBS. i'm no great supporter of bush but i'm also dismayed by the sneering personal abuse levelled at him here.
remember the context of the iran-iraq conflict. iran had seized the US embassy in teheran and held 53 US civilians hostage for nearly a year. fundamentalist muslim ayatollah khomeini had ousted the shah, preaching death to the west at all costs, in particular the US.
a frighteningly tyrannical new iranian regime posed a threat to the whole middle east (and yes, our oil supplies) and iraq, under hussein, was the only country capable of holding iran in check.
so iran and iraq go to war for eight years between 80-88 and kill maybe a million, million and a half of each other.
iraq, *at the time* was deemed the lesser of the two evils from the western perspective, so we provided him with material support to help contain iran. a case of "he's a son of a bitch, but he's *our* son of a bitch." that, unfortunately is realpolitik. it has always been this way since the formation of nation states and is not a unique invention of the US.
(by the same token, would you say that the USSR's contribution to the defeat of germany in WW2 was questionable because it had previously signed an alliance with the *****? of course you wouldn't. the same applies today: times & circumstances change).
it is now saddam that poses the most active threat and he is a known state-sponsor of terrorism. the biggest threat, as i have said many times on similar threads, comes not from conventional exchanges between the west and iraq, but from the proxy-use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against us on our own soil, supplied to terrorists by iraq in the short, medium or longer term. and also the possible use of same by saddam on his neighbours or even against israel.
saddam has broken all 16 UN resolutions imposed after the gulf war: he will obfuscate at any opportunity. in fact, i greatly admire his brinksmanship: no-one else comes close.
however, he is a loose cannon and one equipped, partially today, with the worst weapons imaginable. he has also become a monstrous brute who subjugates his people relentlessly. this is his (& the UN's) last chance: we must have total, transparent and unfettered inspections without conditions. and fast.
if these are breached, we have no choice but to use force and close him down. for good this time. i don't want a war, but sometimes it's the only way to solve an intractable problem. if it does come, i hope it is quick and i hope it is done right and i hope some good comes from it in the long term.
i have to say, i'm continually dismayed by the level of knee-jerk, ill-informed anti-americanism on this BBS. i'm no great supporter of bush but i'm also dismayed by the sneering personal abuse levelled at him here.
25 September 2002, 04:02 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as I don't get called up, I'm perfectly happy to go to war. If the people in the armed forces don't like the idea, more fool them for signing up in the first place. 
25 September 2002, 04:11 PM
#42
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask you all a question? Yes America wants Saddam, but be honest with yourselves. How would you feel if Bin Laden Had had flown these planes into your home town and city and killed 3000 people many of whom may have been your friends do you think that you honestly would feel the same as you do now. America is right to feel threatened by Saddam
I think America should be looking at itself aswell!!!!!
25 September 2002, 06:21 PM
#43
Ah, Mr Skipjack, I wondered how long before you got into this one. I enjoyed our arguments over the foxes too!
I'll answer some of your points if I may?
No, I personally don't blame the USSR for changing sides in WW2, but my dad, who had to fight in it, does. He has always maintained that if they hadn't signed the peace treaty with Adolf at the start, the Germans would not have gone against the rest of Europe. Are we and the USA not as guilty now, since we provided the money, know how, and bits for most of Saddam's arms?
Lots of countries have WMD. They don't use them. Neither has Saddam....yet. Who's to say that he will? And who's to say now? And how do we know that attacking him might not be the trigger that MAKES him use them, if not against us, then against the Israelis? And if he does that, it's goodbye middle east!
And as far as Israel goes, they invented brinkmanship, hell, they invented two fingers to the UN, and the rest of the world. Are we talking about bombing them? No chance, 'cos they CAN bomb us back!!
Sure, Saddam subjugates his people, or some of them, but the Israelis are subjugating the Palestinians, the Zimbabweans are subjugating the white farmers, and the good old USA will subjugate anyone to get it's own way! Look what they did to their indians and their coloured brethren?
I still say, why now? And why us? As has been said somewhere else, lets support the USA, but lets wait 2 or 3 years before we do it, just like they did to us...TWICE![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I'll answer some of your points if I may?
No, I personally don't blame the USSR for changing sides in WW2, but my dad, who had to fight in it, does. He has always maintained that if they hadn't signed the peace treaty with Adolf at the start, the Germans would not have gone against the rest of Europe. Are we and the USA not as guilty now, since we provided the money, know how, and bits for most of Saddam's arms?
Lots of countries have WMD. They don't use them. Neither has Saddam....yet. Who's to say that he will? And who's to say now? And how do we know that attacking him might not be the trigger that MAKES him use them, if not against us, then against the Israelis? And if he does that, it's goodbye middle east!
And as far as Israel goes, they invented brinkmanship, hell, they invented two fingers to the UN, and the rest of the world. Are we talking about bombing them? No chance, 'cos they CAN bomb us back!!
Sure, Saddam subjugates his people, or some of them, but the Israelis are subjugating the Palestinians, the Zimbabweans are subjugating the white farmers, and the good old USA will subjugate anyone to get it's own way! Look what they did to their indians and their coloured brethren?
I still say, why now? And why us? As has been said somewhere else, lets support the USA, but lets wait 2 or 3 years before we do it, just like they did to us...TWICE![img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
25 September 2002, 06:49 PM
#44
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats wrong with all of you? I can't believe there are so many of you against stopping a madman, have you not heard of the things he does? even to his own people? This bloke will bomb the US and UK at the first opportunity, fancy a dirty bomb in the middle of London? He needs to be stopped and if it came to it I'd sign up and open a can of Iraqi whoopass. I'm just pissed they didn't kill him first time around.
25 September 2002, 07:39 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC, USA
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As has been said somewhere else, lets support the USA, but lets wait 2 or 3 years before we do it, just like they did to us...TWICE!"
First off, the USA doesn't need anyone's support to attack anybody. The UN is a joke. It has no power to enforce any of it's resolutions. Secondly, any assistance the UK can provide is appreciated, but it certainly wouldn't be substantial when compared to the overall strength of the US military. For example, the UK provided about 50 aircraft during the Gulf War. In comparison, the USA provided 6 aircraft carriers, with about 50 aircraft on each carrier.
As far as your historical reference is concerend, it took the USA 2 or 3 years to enter WWI and WWII because the USA wasn't a superpower. America didn't have a large army, a sizeable airforce, or a modern Navy at the start of either world war. When you are isolated on the other side of the world, that tends to happen.
That said, I don't support Bush or this war.
First off, the USA doesn't need anyone's support to attack anybody. The UN is a joke. It has no power to enforce any of it's resolutions. Secondly, any assistance the UK can provide is appreciated, but it certainly wouldn't be substantial when compared to the overall strength of the US military. For example, the UK provided about 50 aircraft during the Gulf War. In comparison, the USA provided 6 aircraft carriers, with about 50 aircraft on each carrier.
As far as your historical reference is concerend, it took the USA 2 or 3 years to enter WWI and WWII because the USA wasn't a superpower. America didn't have a large army, a sizeable airforce, or a modern Navy at the start of either world war. When you are isolated on the other side of the world, that tends to happen.
That said, I don't support Bush or this war.
25 September 2002, 09:29 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little MIss WRX, you will note in my reply that I said Northern Ireland!!!!! including all the terrorists that exist in that land not just the IRA!!!!!! both Catholic and Protestant organisations have been responsible for the Murder and killing of Innocent Men Woman and children within the Provence, America, UK and all who are against Terrorism should work towards peaceful ways if at all possible to rid the the world of these evil people who have NO RESPECT for any other views than their own and have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. We have tried the softly softly approach many times in NI and it still does not stop the Terrorists from kneecapping, bombing maiming and killing, so surely now is the time to deal with fire with fire. send in the SAS we know who they are. however at this present time Saddam poses the biggest threat to the civilised world at present and he must be dealt with 1st and the rest of these barbaric people need to stand in line knowing that no place on earth is safe for them to hide.
I for one am Glad that America is our Ally and yes it is so easy to criticise them and they do deserve it on many occassions, however The American people are very proud of the strong bond that has been forged between our country and theirs.
Lest we ever forget and certainley 6 million jews wont, Hitler was a Terrorists who wanted to rule the world and have a superior race, a bit like Bin Laden and Saddam they must be stopped and any sensible intellegent person in the world would understand that sometimes war is the only way to rid the world of these tyrants who show no respect to anyone.
I for one am Glad that America is our Ally and yes it is so easy to criticise them and they do deserve it on many occassions, however The American people are very proud of the strong bond that has been forged between our country and theirs.
Lest we ever forget and certainley 6 million jews wont, Hitler was a Terrorists who wanted to rule the world and have a superior race, a bit like Bin Laden and Saddam they must be stopped and any sensible intellegent person in the world would understand that sometimes war is the only way to rid the world of these tyrants who show no respect to anyone.
25 September 2002, 11:00 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The title of the thread is "Do you believe the Govt Dossier".
I have no reason not to. The people who wrote it were chosen to represent this country, and I will let them decide our fate.
Why?
Because I have no understanding of their jobs. I won't tell a doctor how to operate, or a teacher how to teach.
What makes me think I am in a better position than an intelligence officer to instruct our military serviceman how to safeguard his own family's life...
I have no reason not to. The people who wrote it were chosen to represent this country, and I will let them decide our fate.
Why?
Because I have no understanding of their jobs. I won't tell a doctor how to operate, or a teacher how to teach.
What makes me think I am in a better position than an intelligence officer to instruct our military serviceman how to safeguard his own family's life...
26 September 2002, 01:43 AM
#48
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TonyBurns
"Boomer,
650km WAS the limit of his missile range during the Gulf war, he would have definately advanced and with cheap russian tech on the market 2000mile missiles are readily available to anyone with the money."
...strange that this new information was not in the dossier then
mb
"Boomer,
650km WAS the limit of his missile range during the Gulf war, he would have definately advanced and with cheap russian tech on the market 2000mile missiles are readily available to anyone with the money."
...strange that this new information was not in the dossier then
mb
26 September 2002, 10:48 AM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alcazar
if hitler hadn't signed the molotov-ribbentrop pact he wouldn't have gone against the rest of europe?
great respect to your father as a veteran but the facts of history prove him wrong. the peace pact was a ruse to keep the USSR out of the equation long enough for hitler to take and secure western europe before rolling east. he wanted france to pay back for the treaty of versailles and the east for his lebensraum policy. idealogically, he didn't want war with us because of the cultural and historical bonds he perceived between the uk and germany.
the best source for this whole area is Churchill's personal war memoirs, published in 1947. it's nearly 4,000 pages but it's all there. ditto with lord allan brooke's secret diary, chief of the imperial general staff (CIGS), published last year.
the real issue, today and then, is appeasement: if we hadn't appeased hitler in the 30s, WW2 would have been avoided - or at least hugely more contained. ditto if the league of nations had done it's job instead of abrogating its responsibility - like the UN tends to do today.
you cannot compare israel to iraq:
1. israel has a democratically elected government last time i looked. iraq does not. in fact, israel is the only democracy in the entire middle east.
2. israel has not used CBW, internally or against any other country. iraq has.
3. israel does not subjugate its own people and has not waged a genocidal war against its own minorities. iraq has.
you seem to have a problem with the US's late entry into both WW1 and WW2 and that we should now return "the favour". the US is a traditionally isolationist nation - that is not a subjective point, that is political fact. they were dragged into both conflicts by external aggression. historial and political fact.
you say why now? the coalition forces, headed by the US, followed the UN resolution in the gulf war to the letter: ie kick saddam out of kuwait but no more. when we could have easily finished it. 11 years of chicanery by saddam now mean we may have to do it again, with the UN or without it.
there is only one question of any relevance here: action or inaction. based on historical precedent, action is clearly the lesser of the two evils. if that means taking life to save life, then so be it. i'm not sure saddam and his cronies' lives are worth that much anyway.
if hitler hadn't signed the molotov-ribbentrop pact he wouldn't have gone against the rest of europe?
great respect to your father as a veteran but the facts of history prove him wrong. the peace pact was a ruse to keep the USSR out of the equation long enough for hitler to take and secure western europe before rolling east. he wanted france to pay back for the treaty of versailles and the east for his lebensraum policy. idealogically, he didn't want war with us because of the cultural and historical bonds he perceived between the uk and germany.
the best source for this whole area is Churchill's personal war memoirs, published in 1947. it's nearly 4,000 pages but it's all there. ditto with lord allan brooke's secret diary, chief of the imperial general staff (CIGS), published last year.
the real issue, today and then, is appeasement: if we hadn't appeased hitler in the 30s, WW2 would have been avoided - or at least hugely more contained. ditto if the league of nations had done it's job instead of abrogating its responsibility - like the UN tends to do today.
you cannot compare israel to iraq:
1. israel has a democratically elected government last time i looked. iraq does not. in fact, israel is the only democracy in the entire middle east.
2. israel has not used CBW, internally or against any other country. iraq has.
3. israel does not subjugate its own people and has not waged a genocidal war against its own minorities. iraq has.
you seem to have a problem with the US's late entry into both WW1 and WW2 and that we should now return "the favour". the US is a traditionally isolationist nation - that is not a subjective point, that is political fact. they were dragged into both conflicts by external aggression. historial and political fact.
you say why now? the coalition forces, headed by the US, followed the UN resolution in the gulf war to the letter: ie kick saddam out of kuwait but no more. when we could have easily finished it. 11 years of chicanery by saddam now mean we may have to do it again, with the UN or without it.
there is only one question of any relevance here: action or inaction. based on historical precedent, action is clearly the lesser of the two evils. if that means taking life to save life, then so be it. i'm not sure saddam and his cronies' lives are worth that much anyway.
26 September 2002, 12:25 PM
#51
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. israel does not subjugate its own people and has not waged a genocidal war against its own minorities.
26 September 2002, 12:32 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjw
last time i looked, yassar arafat was not an israeli citizen.
please read the words - i clearly wrote "own" people, ie israeli citizens.
i was not referring to the palestinians. they are not an isreali minority. the israeli/palestine issue is not at issue here.
last time i looked, yassar arafat was not an israeli citizen.
please read the words - i clearly wrote "own" people, ie israeli citizens.
i was not referring to the palestinians. they are not an isreali minority. the israeli/palestine issue is not at issue here.
26 September 2002, 12:47 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for war but the only thing that makes me oppose it is the increase in petrol prices. How the hell am I supposed to run my WRX if oil prices end up as $100 a barrel? That would translate to 2pounds per litre for optimax..
26 September 2002, 01:06 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Alcazar...
Sounds good to me...
And how do we know that attacking him might not be the trigger that MAKES him use them, if not against us, then against the Israelis? And if he does that, it's goodbye middle east!
26 September 2002, 04:07 PM
#59
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give the people of Iraq the support and power to overturn Saddam themselves.
My point about the IRA was that it was perfectly fine for America to support terrorism over here until they got a rude and horrific awakening.
Of course there is a **** load of hypocracy (sp?) going on with the USA and the UK, but human nature will never change especially when politics (lying) is concerned.
My point about the IRA was that it was perfectly fine for America to support terrorism over here until they got a rude and horrific awakening.
Of course there is a **** load of hypocracy (sp?) going on with the USA and the UK, but human nature will never change especially when politics (lying) is concerned.
26 September 2002, 04:24 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL andy pandy
little miss wrx: you're right about turning iraq back to the iraqis. problem is, they cannot do it on their own, such is the control - and fear - instilled by saddam's police state.
i don't know if you saw it, but there was an excellent five minute 'short' immediately after the C4 news last night (just before brookie) called "Iraq: Whose Side Are You On?". it was a short appeal by the daughter of the former iraqi minister of oil, executed by saddam (it's beside the point but he was shot 112 times) and now living in exile over here.
her point was simple: help us topple saddam and reclaim our country. for me, that says it all.
regarding the republican thing, ira/sinn fein is persona non grata in washington under the current administration (noraid, who help fund ira/sinn fein has never been a governmental organisation - it's just a grouping of pro-republican individuals, albeit rich and influential) particularly after 9/11 & the FARC incident in colombia where three ira men were arrested.
gerry adams is not welcome there and he will not get the presidential handshake opportunity he did with clinton. it's a small change in the right direction but an important one.
little miss wrx: you're right about turning iraq back to the iraqis. problem is, they cannot do it on their own, such is the control - and fear - instilled by saddam's police state.
i don't know if you saw it, but there was an excellent five minute 'short' immediately after the C4 news last night (just before brookie) called "Iraq: Whose Side Are You On?". it was a short appeal by the daughter of the former iraqi minister of oil, executed by saddam (it's beside the point but he was shot 112 times) and now living in exile over here.
her point was simple: help us topple saddam and reclaim our country. for me, that says it all.
regarding the republican thing, ira/sinn fein is persona non grata in washington under the current administration (noraid, who help fund ira/sinn fein has never been a governmental organisation - it's just a grouping of pro-republican individuals, albeit rich and influential) particularly after 9/11 & the FARC incident in colombia where three ira men were arrested.
gerry adams is not welcome there and he will not get the presidential handshake opportunity he did with clinton. it's a small change in the right direction but an important one.