Iraq - Do you believe the Govt Dossier?
26 September 2002, 04:31 PM
#61
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
help us topple saddam and reclaim our country.
Does America really need to take on this pseudo "hero" stance? Because it isn't washing with a lot of people!!! America Batman and the UK it's side kick Robin........only nowhere near as effective as the original character
I am sure it would please the Iraqis more to have assistance in toppling Saddam themeselves. Not this brutal interference that our two countries seem so hell bent on doing.
Yes, he needs to go, but a massive war IMHO would need to be the very last resort.
26 September 2002, 05:06 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it doesn't necessarily mean a massive war. it does not mean serious civilian casualties and collateral damage. it's not that sort of conflict (as the gulf war proved).
it's worth pointing out that the iraqi opposition (in exile in washington and london) has no means to effect the toppling. they have neither troops nor air supportn nor any assets of substance they can quickly put on the ground.
toppling saddam requires a controlled, armed incursion that firstly immobilises saddam's machinery of state (communications, security, oil, petroleum, lubricants, transportation).
it simulataneously entails persuading, if possible, the iraqi military's chiefs of staff to turn against saddam, allowing a temporary govt to be formed and the top echelons of saddam's regime to be cleared out (ie imprisoned or assassinated).
in effect, it's putting into operation what was at one stage considered at the end of the gulf war but was collectively nixed because it went beyond the boundaries of the UN resolution authorising the use of force to eject saddam from kuwait.
no-one's trying to be the last action hero - don't let anti-american hysteria in the media kid you otherwise.
this isn't like waving a magic wand. this is seriously heavy. and neither us nor the americans want to do it *****-nilly because of the unpredictable effects a war may have on the financial markets and the price of oil - both of which are critically linked to our economic prosperity.
it's a carefully calculated risk with the aim of reducing the wider risks to security if saddam remains in power. our politicians may be odious for the most part, but they most definitely are *not* gung-ho bullying warmongerers. it's too expensive come election time.
it's worth pointing out that the iraqi opposition (in exile in washington and london) has no means to effect the toppling. they have neither troops nor air supportn nor any assets of substance they can quickly put on the ground.
toppling saddam requires a controlled, armed incursion that firstly immobilises saddam's machinery of state (communications, security, oil, petroleum, lubricants, transportation).
it simulataneously entails persuading, if possible, the iraqi military's chiefs of staff to turn against saddam, allowing a temporary govt to be formed and the top echelons of saddam's regime to be cleared out (ie imprisoned or assassinated).
in effect, it's putting into operation what was at one stage considered at the end of the gulf war but was collectively nixed because it went beyond the boundaries of the UN resolution authorising the use of force to eject saddam from kuwait.
no-one's trying to be the last action hero - don't let anti-american hysteria in the media kid you otherwise.
this isn't like waving a magic wand. this is seriously heavy. and neither us nor the americans want to do it *****-nilly because of the unpredictable effects a war may have on the financial markets and the price of oil - both of which are critically linked to our economic prosperity.
it's a carefully calculated risk with the aim of reducing the wider risks to security if saddam remains in power. our politicians may be odious for the most part, but they most definitely are *not* gung-ho bullying warmongerers. it's too expensive come election time.
26 September 2002, 05:11 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly we very half heartedly tried to assist the marsh arabs etc in Iraq to rise against Saddam after the gulf war but it blew up in their faces and they paid a terrible price for their efforts.
I see that the soldiers who were standing by to step in if there was to be a fireman's strike have been withdrawn and are in training for fast deployment overseas.
I see that the soldiers who were standing by to step in if there was to be a fireman's strike have been withdrawn and are in training for fast deployment overseas.
26 September 2002, 05:21 PM
#64
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sick of seeing the hyped up crap in the media, I do not bother watching or reading anything anymore.
The Financial Times provides a good common sense read without the flowery bullsh1t of papers like The Daily Mail let alone the friggin' Sun
Anyhow...........working together with the Iraqis will achieve more, except this time let's make sure Saddam is taken out instead of doing a half hearted job.
Innocent lives will be lost, but hey like anyone gives a crap anyway
Are human lives THAT dispensable nowadays??????
The Financial Times provides a good common sense read without the flowery bullsh1t of papers like The Daily Mail let alone the friggin' Sun
Anyhow...........working together with the Iraqis will achieve more, except this time let's make sure Saddam is taken out instead of doing a half hearted job.
Innocent lives will be lost, but hey like anyone gives a crap anyway
Are human lives THAT dispensable nowadays??????
26 September 2002, 05:23 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly right
that was what was nixed and that's why it failed so dismally. created a goddamned ethnic slaughterhouse right under our noses. people started umming and ahhing because it went beyond the UN mandate.
that was what was nixed and that's why it failed so dismally. created a goddamned ethnic slaughterhouse right under our noses. people started umming and ahhing because it went beyond the UN mandate.
26 September 2002, 05:31 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
full military support, free the country, then stop the sanctions (first things first).
absolutely agree about the palestinian situation. they have to have a state and the israelis have to have to have a state. i think only the most rapidly pro-israeli and pro-palestinian supporters would argue against that now. as always, it is the extremists who get in the way of the sensible solution.
absolutely agree about the palestinian situation. they have to have a state and the israelis have to have to have a state. i think only the most rapidly pro-israeli and pro-palestinian supporters would argue against that now. as always, it is the extremists who get in the way of the sensible solution.
26 September 2002, 06:01 PM
#71
Skipjack and AndyPandy: LOL at you two~ "gone to buy a history book".
Well you can both fukc off!
:
Seriously, guys, I've gone quiet 'cos I've had to deal with the other car today- the bl**dy indicators don't work, and it's a wheel/airbag off job!
Reading from my history book (oops), I note that being a democratic state doesn't necessarily give you the right to interfere in other's internal politics, (Dubya: take note please).
Nor is it OK to attack, subjugate, bomb, fire rockets at, or otherwise put down others, just because they don't happen to be in your country.
I do think that Israel/Palestine is the issue here. No-one has yet explained to me why it's OK for the Israelis to ignore UN resolutions for thr last "n" years, but it's NOT OK for Saddam to do it?[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
OK' I'll accept that the USA is isolationist. I suppose that's why they abstained from voting in the UN last time we needed their help/support? (Falklands).
It must also be the reason that they got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Cuba,........need I go on?
Come on guys, don't let's start believing the blasted politicians......please?
Well you can both fukc off!
:Seriously, guys, I've gone quiet 'cos I've had to deal with the other car today- the bl**dy indicators don't work, and it's a wheel/airbag off job!
Reading from my history book (oops), I note that being a democratic state doesn't necessarily give you the right to interfere in other's internal politics, (Dubya: take note please).
Nor is it OK to attack, subjugate, bomb, fire rockets at, or otherwise put down others, just because they don't happen to be in your country.
I do think that Israel/Palestine is the issue here. No-one has yet explained to me why it's OK for the Israelis to ignore UN resolutions for thr last "n" years, but it's NOT OK for Saddam to do it?[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
OK' I'll accept that the USA is isolationist. I suppose that's why they abstained from voting in the UN last time we needed their help/support? (Falklands).
It must also be the reason that they got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Cuba,........need I go on?
Come on guys, don't let's start believing the blasted politicians......please?
26 September 2002, 06:37 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop bringing up the Falklands all the time.
The Americans sat on their hands for a bit until Thatcher got on the phone and gave Reagan a bollocking. The yanks then gave us (within 48 hours) the worlds best air to air missile system (I forget it's name but without it we would have lost more ships (and very probably the war) to the French manufactured exocet (remember HMS Sheffield !!). They did enough to get us out of the crap !
Attacking Israel would invoke a nuclear response, just like what would happen if Saddam had them !
Nobody doubts that the Israel Palestine situation needs sorting out a.s.a.p. along with many other hot spots throughout the world. Lets sort out this pillock first before we make the world a eutopia for everybody else.
Now the yanks have a strong leader unlike that wimp Clinton we may get more of these global issues sorted out (fingers crossed).
The Americans sat on their hands for a bit until Thatcher got on the phone and gave Reagan a bollocking. The yanks then gave us (within 48 hours) the worlds best air to air missile system (I forget it's name but without it we would have lost more ships (and very probably the war) to the French manufactured exocet (remember HMS Sheffield !!). They did enough to get us out of the crap !
Attacking Israel would invoke a nuclear response, just like what would happen if Saddam had them !
Nobody doubts that the Israel Palestine situation needs sorting out a.s.a.p. along with many other hot spots throughout the world. Lets sort out this pillock first before we make the world a eutopia for everybody else.
Now the yanks have a strong leader unlike that wimp Clinton we may get more of these global issues sorted out (fingers crossed).
26 September 2002, 06:52 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you still can't distinguish between israel and iraq then nothing i, or anybody else says, will convince you. and the palestinians are no bunch of saints. even if they kill themselves trying to become one.
by the way, we did receive covert support from the US during the falklands with the immediate supply of the then brand-new AIM 9L sidewinder air-to-air missile which gave our aircraft a marked advantage over those of argentina; plus substantial amounts of shared intelligence from the US (and france) that resulted in our govt being able to buy up worldwide stocks of excocet anti-ship missiles before the argentines could. it's all a matter of public record if you look.
the US is isolationist in the sense that it does not *willingly* involve itself. WW2 turned it from isolationist to internationalist. but not by choice.
vietnam was all about JF Dulles's 'domino theory' and the prevailing belief at the time that if one nation in a region fell to communism, the others would soon follow. it was certainly catastrophic and an utter waste. but it was not about putting bovver boots on for a laugh.
i'm sorry but korea was a UN-sanctioned campaign involving a multinational force and fought under UN stewardship and command (see, it can do it if it tries). M*A*S*H was a TV series.
cuba? don't think the US ever attacked cuba. regarding the missile crisis, well would you have wanted nuclear-capable ballistic missiles parked 90 miles off your coast, controlled by the USSR and a hardcore marxist with a big beard? (who also took control of his country by force incidentally).
grenada? it was over within two months and if you remember, the US invasion turfed out a marxist military government allied to fidel castro that had taken control of the country in a bloody coup.
i have little faith in what politicians say. i have more faith in having a curious - and open - mind. gets you behind their spin and the politically-motivated headlines, know what i mean?
by the way, we did receive covert support from the US during the falklands with the immediate supply of the then brand-new AIM 9L sidewinder air-to-air missile which gave our aircraft a marked advantage over those of argentina; plus substantial amounts of shared intelligence from the US (and france) that resulted in our govt being able to buy up worldwide stocks of excocet anti-ship missiles before the argentines could. it's all a matter of public record if you look.
the US is isolationist in the sense that it does not *willingly* involve itself. WW2 turned it from isolationist to internationalist. but not by choice.
vietnam was all about JF Dulles's 'domino theory' and the prevailing belief at the time that if one nation in a region fell to communism, the others would soon follow. it was certainly catastrophic and an utter waste. but it was not about putting bovver boots on for a laugh.
i'm sorry but korea was a UN-sanctioned campaign involving a multinational force and fought under UN stewardship and command (see, it can do it if it tries). M*A*S*H was a TV series.
cuba? don't think the US ever attacked cuba. regarding the missile crisis, well would you have wanted nuclear-capable ballistic missiles parked 90 miles off your coast, controlled by the USSR and a hardcore marxist with a big beard? (who also took control of his country by force incidentally).
grenada? it was over within two months and if you remember, the US invasion turfed out a marxist military government allied to fidel castro that had taken control of the country in a bloody coup.
i have little faith in what politicians say. i have more faith in having a curious - and open - mind. gets you behind their spin and the politically-motivated headlines, know what i mean?
26 September 2002, 07:04 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers skipjack, and to think that people laugh at me when I walk down the streets in stripey pyjamas 
This whole debate highlights how difficult it must be for negotiators in political / religiious situations across the globe. Some people find it difficult to listen to reason or hang onto the past too much, quoting misdemeanours of their neighbours. Keep the past in your back pocket but never forget the present.........world events can change very bloody fast!!
This whole debate highlights how difficult it must be for negotiators in political / religiious situations across the globe. Some people find it difficult to listen to reason or hang onto the past too much, quoting misdemeanours of their neighbours. Keep the past in your back pocket but never forget the present.........world events can change very bloody fast!!
26 September 2002, 07:14 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amen to that.
right, i'm going to the pub, probably to discuss more important things like amanda holden's bottom and the likelihood of leicester city being promoted back to the premiership.
right, i'm going to the pub, probably to discuss more important things like amanda holden's bottom and the likelihood of leicester city being promoted back to the premiership.
26 September 2002, 11:10 PM
#77
Hey, when you two have finished congratulating each other, will one of you explain to me just what it is that Saddam has done RECENTLY, (since we're not allowed to dwell on the past?
And all this help the USA "gave" us? They SOLD us the stuff, just like they did in WW1 and WW2.We're STILL paying for their "help".
Dubya should fight his own war...AFTER he's sorted out his own sicko society.
Alcazar
And all this help the USA "gave" us? They SOLD us the stuff, just like they did in WW1 and WW2.We're STILL paying for their "help".
Dubya should fight his own war...AFTER he's sorted out his own sicko society.
Alcazar
27 September 2002, 02:34 AM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there's none so blind ...
*how about breaking all 16 UN resolutions passed against him since the end of the gulf war? fact.
*why do you think the MOD has spent £300m (of our money) in the last decade funding denial-of-flight strikes in the no-fly zone? fact.
*why has he blocked nearly all attempts by UN weapons inspectors to assess suspicious sites? fact.
*did he not attack his own kurdish minority immediately after the end of the gulf war with (his remaining) tanks and helicopters to suppress an internal uprising? with considerable loss of civilian life? (remember the 'safe havens' for the kurds, operated by the british army?). fact.
*has he not attempted to buy uranium from africa? fact.
*did he not execute one of his own *sons* in the late 90s for disloyalty? fact.
*did not the UN weapons inspectors find and demand the destruction of calutrons (for the enrichment of uranium ore) in the mid 90s? (in other words, the mechanical means for the purification of uranium to weapons grade material). fact.
*does he not still possess an estimated 200 tons of VX & sarin nerve agent, not accounted for by UN weapons inspectors? fact.
would you like to rephrase your question? didn't think so. because you don't listen. you don't *understand*.
the list is longer than my knowledge extends and is clearly longer than you either like or would admit to. mate, all you seem to be able to do is get in a huff when the factual and logical frailties of what you say are pointed out to you. (you did suggest that the korean war was an example of US adventurism - as opposed to the historically-documented UN-backed multi-national campaign it was - did you not?)
US assistance? of course it comes with a price tag. international politics is a barter economy: do you really think such alliances come for free? political friendship has a price. always.
you think what you want. that's your right. if, in the light of documented fact, you cannot gracefully accept that an opposing PoV may have some redeeming merits, why don't you just climb back into your tabloid, bigoted teepee and give us all a break?
*how about breaking all 16 UN resolutions passed against him since the end of the gulf war? fact.
*why do you think the MOD has spent £300m (of our money) in the last decade funding denial-of-flight strikes in the no-fly zone? fact.
*why has he blocked nearly all attempts by UN weapons inspectors to assess suspicious sites? fact.
*did he not attack his own kurdish minority immediately after the end of the gulf war with (his remaining) tanks and helicopters to suppress an internal uprising? with considerable loss of civilian life? (remember the 'safe havens' for the kurds, operated by the british army?). fact.
*has he not attempted to buy uranium from africa? fact.
*did he not execute one of his own *sons* in the late 90s for disloyalty? fact.
*did not the UN weapons inspectors find and demand the destruction of calutrons (for the enrichment of uranium ore) in the mid 90s? (in other words, the mechanical means for the purification of uranium to weapons grade material). fact.
*does he not still possess an estimated 200 tons of VX & sarin nerve agent, not accounted for by UN weapons inspectors? fact.
would you like to rephrase your question? didn't think so. because you don't listen. you don't *understand*.
the list is longer than my knowledge extends and is clearly longer than you either like or would admit to. mate, all you seem to be able to do is get in a huff when the factual and logical frailties of what you say are pointed out to you. (you did suggest that the korean war was an example of US adventurism - as opposed to the historically-documented UN-backed multi-national campaign it was - did you not?)
US assistance? of course it comes with a price tag. international politics is a barter economy: do you really think such alliances come for free? political friendship has a price. always.
you think what you want. that's your right. if, in the light of documented fact, you cannot gracefully accept that an opposing PoV may have some redeeming merits, why don't you just climb back into your tabloid, bigoted teepee and give us all a break?
27 September 2002, 09:59 AM
#79
Hmmmmm.
You can usually tell when the other PoV is rattled, 'cos they descend into abuse.
OK, I'm out of my "bigotted teepee", (teepee???), {"tabloid??" which tabloid do you read? The bl**dy SUN would attack Saddam tomorrow on our own!!}, and I ask again (not wanting to rephrase, you see), "What's he done to US, RECENTLY?" And I do mean US, not his Kurds, and not something that he MIGHT do?
You know, something that's our business? And something that numerous other states aren't doing right now, states that we aren't even talking of bombing?
Get real: it's about Dubya's testosterone problem and the OIL!!!!
Oh, and by the way, what do you think a government of THIS wionderful country would do to it's people if there was an armed uprising? Invite us all to tea? I think not. Orgreave springs to mind. Or perhaps I'm bringing up history again? Rather like your arguments then?
Cheers for now,
Alcazar
You can usually tell when the other PoV is rattled, 'cos they descend into abuse.
OK, I'm out of my "bigotted teepee", (teepee???), {"tabloid??" which tabloid do you read? The bl**dy SUN would attack Saddam tomorrow on our own!!}, and I ask again (not wanting to rephrase, you see), "What's he done to US, RECENTLY?" And I do mean US, not his Kurds, and not something that he MIGHT do?
You know, something that's our business? And something that numerous other states aren't doing right now, states that we aren't even talking of bombing?
Get real: it's about Dubya's testosterone problem and the OIL!!!!
Oh, and by the way, what do you think a government of THIS wionderful country would do to it's people if there was an armed uprising? Invite us all to tea? I think not. Orgreave springs to mind. Or perhaps I'm bringing up history again? Rather like your arguments then?
Cheers for now,
Alcazar
27 September 2002, 10:31 AM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
less abuse than you happily dish out to pro-hunt supporters.
there's more than one tabloid by the way, including one that takes your viewpoint. can you tell what it is yet?
rattled? dream on, buddy...
looking forward to testing your intellectual mettle again some time in the future. don't forget now: amazon.com!!
there's more than one tabloid by the way, including one that takes your viewpoint. can you tell what it is yet?
rattled? dream on, buddy...
looking forward to testing your intellectual mettle again some time in the future. don't forget now: amazon.com!!
27 September 2002, 10:51 AM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have to agree that alcazar is talking nonsense.
Arafat started as a terrorist and still is one. the israelis know that he still coordiantes the suicide bombings and even offers cash incentives to families of "martyrs", how can you mae peace with someone who you know wants you all dead. He has even documented all his plans in a book which is available if you can speak arabic.
He wants all the jews wiped out simple as that.
sound familiar.
hitler managed to kill 6 million jews in one go. Now there are only 12 million left one state the size of wales (at the moment) to call their own.
Have no idea how large the area of the arabic nations is, but I think it is somewhat bigger and richer than israel. Certainly large enough for the 1000 million (1 billion) muslims on earth to feel they have a homeland. More than enough to house the tiny population of palestinians.
There is a lot of supressed history on this matter which people need to read before they pass judgement.
reading this thread makes me smile to see that at least some people are not blinkered by the biased reporting of foreign press. To compare the government of israel to the terrorist activities of the likes of bin laden and hussein is just a joke.
skipjack, nice to see such well thought out and informed writing. a pleasuer to read.
btw. also agree with the sentiment that I would not tell a surgeon how to operate or a teacher how to teach, it isnt my expertise either. hence if military advisors believe their intelligence, who am I to question them? they have had it right so far, and we are all still alive.
Arafat started as a terrorist and still is one. the israelis know that he still coordiantes the suicide bombings and even offers cash incentives to families of "martyrs", how can you mae peace with someone who you know wants you all dead. He has even documented all his plans in a book which is available if you can speak arabic.
He wants all the jews wiped out simple as that.
sound familiar.
hitler managed to kill 6 million jews in one go. Now there are only 12 million left one state the size of wales (at the moment) to call their own.
Have no idea how large the area of the arabic nations is, but I think it is somewhat bigger and richer than israel. Certainly large enough for the 1000 million (1 billion) muslims on earth to feel they have a homeland. More than enough to house the tiny population of palestinians.
There is a lot of supressed history on this matter which people need to read before they pass judgement.
reading this thread makes me smile to see that at least some people are not blinkered by the biased reporting of foreign press. To compare the government of israel to the terrorist activities of the likes of bin laden and hussein is just a joke.
skipjack, nice to see such well thought out and informed writing. a pleasuer to read.
btw. also agree with the sentiment that I would not tell a surgeon how to operate or a teacher how to teach, it isnt my expertise either. hence if military advisors believe their intelligence, who am I to question them? they have had it right so far, and we are all still alive.
27 September 2002, 11:14 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they have had it right so far, and we are all still alive.
27 September 2002, 11:16 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
youc ant please everyone all the time.
9/11 makes me feel sick everytime I see the crashes. The intelligence all over the us and uk knew well in advance that something was up. I was even told by a friend in the uk a month before to watch out as big stuff was coming.
it doesnt mean they can prevent every act. But they can do something to keep things in check and they are tryign their best. No one wants WW3, and not treading carefully here could lead to it.
9/11 makes me feel sick everytime I see the crashes. The intelligence all over the us and uk knew well in advance that something was up. I was even told by a friend in the uk a month before to watch out as big stuff was coming.
it doesnt mean they can prevent every act. But they can do something to keep things in check and they are tryign their best. No one wants WW3, and not treading carefully here could lead to it.
27 September 2002, 12:16 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In a house
Posts: 5,153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't matter anyway who rules the world. On 22nd December 2012, the world would be invaded by aliens and we'll all be slaves.If that doesn't happen, in the year 2020 a huge asteroid would crash into earth killing 75% of us instantly and leaving the rest to die a slow painful death.
27 September 2002, 02:27 PM
#86
Well, hello again, girls.
Skipjack: So where's my reply? You know, the one to my pointed questions? Don't try to duck it by being clever at my expense, it doesn't bother me, and it won't wash. I'm an expert in being taken the p*ss out of, my last job saw to that. "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
AdamM: So who mentioned Arafat? I don't condone what the Palestinians are trying to do, but they are a stateless nation, thanks, in part, to us and the USA. Their lands have been annexed for YEARS now and the Israelis refuse to give them back, or to deal with them, or to obey UN resolutions.
Which was my question, if you'd bothered to read it: WHY can the Israelis get away with the same things Saddam has done, and NOT get attacked? Because they've got the bomb? If so, that reduces us to the level of a playground bully, one who picks his targets by looking for someone who annoys him, but can't hit him back.
And I ask again: what has Saddam done RECENTLY, to US, that is our business? And if there's nothing, then WHY NOW, and not some other time during the last 16 years??
BTW: I loved the comment from one of you two about people having to pay for help during wars. I hope that Tony the Taxer is not going to hold his breath for Dubya to pay us for the bits we've done so far. Or rather, I hope he does......for a very long time!
And as regards us having only 50 aircraft to their 12x50: OUR lads are flying the dangerous anti-radar and low level runway-destroying missions. Theirs go in when we've made it safe, then they shoot our troops. Some payment, eh?[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Bye for now,
Your friend, Alcazar.XXX
Skipjack: So where's my reply? You know, the one to my pointed questions? Don't try to duck it by being clever at my expense, it doesn't bother me, and it won't wash. I'm an expert in being taken the p*ss out of, my last job saw to that. "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
AdamM: So who mentioned Arafat? I don't condone what the Palestinians are trying to do, but they are a stateless nation, thanks, in part, to us and the USA. Their lands have been annexed for YEARS now and the Israelis refuse to give them back, or to deal with them, or to obey UN resolutions.
Which was my question, if you'd bothered to read it: WHY can the Israelis get away with the same things Saddam has done, and NOT get attacked? Because they've got the bomb? If so, that reduces us to the level of a playground bully, one who picks his targets by looking for someone who annoys him, but can't hit him back.
And I ask again: what has Saddam done RECENTLY, to US, that is our business? And if there's nothing, then WHY NOW, and not some other time during the last 16 years??
BTW: I loved the comment from one of you two about people having to pay for help during wars. I hope that Tony the Taxer is not going to hold his breath for Dubya to pay us for the bits we've done so far. Or rather, I hope he does......for a very long time!
And as regards us having only 50 aircraft to their 12x50: OUR lads are flying the dangerous anti-radar and low level runway-destroying missions. Theirs go in when we've made it safe, then they shoot our troops. Some payment, eh?[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Bye for now,
Your friend, Alcazar.XXX
27 September 2002, 02:46 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he's back, he's bad, his views are slightly mad ...
iiiiiiiiiiiiiit's alcazar!
**
pointed questions? as blunt as a worn spoon more like. not worth mine or anyone else's time dismantling your nonsense again.
not till you start stringing together a cogent argument that uses fact rather than ill-informed supposition.
i'm busy right now but feel free to try again :-)
byeeee!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiit's alcazar!
**
pointed questions? as blunt as a worn spoon more like. not worth mine or anyone else's time dismantling your nonsense again.
not till you start stringing together a cogent argument that uses fact rather than ill-informed supposition.
i'm busy right now but feel free to try again :-)
byeeee!
27 September 2002, 06:53 PM
#88
D'oh!
I can't make 'em any more pointed than they already are. AND I already said: stop trying to clever off to get out of answering.
I'll try once more. Please amswer the questions I put to you in the text before you lost it and started abusing people, or accept that you're defeated, and give in gracefully.
See ya ladies.
Alcazar.
PS: I'm sure you're female. My wife does this "taking the p*ss to get out of answering" thing too!: Shouldn't your username be "Skipjackie"? :::
[Edited by alcazar - 9/27/2002 6:56:01 PM]
I can't make 'em any more pointed than they already are. AND I already said: stop trying to clever off to get out of answering.
I'll try once more. Please amswer the questions I put to you in the text before you lost it and started abusing people, or accept that you're defeated, and give in gracefully.
See ya ladies.
Alcazar.
PS: I'm sure you're female. My wife does this "taking the p*ss to get out of answering" thing too!
: Shouldn't your username be "Skipjackie"? :::[Edited by alcazar - 9/27/2002 6:56:01 PM]
28 September 2002, 12:46 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what's he done to us recently?
(sigh) he's broken all 16 UN resolutions passed against him. as the UK is permament member of the security council that is partly responsible for the passing of security council resolutions and their enforcement, he is defying not just us, but every member of security council and every UN country that the security council represents.
he has done nothing to us physically since the gulf war. yet. and that is the point. the risk of him doing so represents a clear and present danger. not just to our security but in the wider sense of de-stabilising the middle east and posing a threat to our economies which are critically underpinned by oil.
(i don't mind admitting that oil is an important issue. it is. i like my privileged, first-world life style and want it preserved. that privilege also imposes certain - moral - responsibilities that, via government, i want to see discharged. and they include the removal of monstrous, inhumane and dangerous scum like saddam hussein.)
an analogy for you: a dangerous criminal on the loose, with known psychopathic tendencies, comes into possession of say, a handgun.
you're a policeman, charged with protecting your community, and you know this individual has killed before. you also know that he has come into possession of a lethal weapon.
do you sit back and wait for the criminal to kill someone? or do you actively seek him out and prevent a crime of murder taking place by disarming him, arresting him, so rendering him no longer a threat to the community?
you know the answer to this question. it is the latter option. if the police were to sit back and do nothing, then you would rightly be questioning their fitness for the job.
i can't make it clearer than that. if you cannot make sense of this simple analogy because of your paranoid, bigoted anti-american and conspiracy-obsessed mindset then that's a shame.
that's not abuse by the way - you're no doubt a jolly decent chap -simply an observation on your lack of logic coupled with your poor grasp of current affairs and history.
i'm sure you won't agree with what i've just written & frankly, i'm not bothered. i have both the logic and the facts on my side.
you take a risk with your own security if you like. i will not risks with mine. and i think you will find that it is the latter view, held by the majority of normal-thinking people, that will prevail.
(sigh) he's broken all 16 UN resolutions passed against him. as the UK is permament member of the security council that is partly responsible for the passing of security council resolutions and their enforcement, he is defying not just us, but every member of security council and every UN country that the security council represents.
he has done nothing to us physically since the gulf war. yet. and that is the point. the risk of him doing so represents a clear and present danger. not just to our security but in the wider sense of de-stabilising the middle east and posing a threat to our economies which are critically underpinned by oil.
(i don't mind admitting that oil is an important issue. it is. i like my privileged, first-world life style and want it preserved. that privilege also imposes certain - moral - responsibilities that, via government, i want to see discharged. and they include the removal of monstrous, inhumane and dangerous scum like saddam hussein.)
an analogy for you: a dangerous criminal on the loose, with known psychopathic tendencies, comes into possession of say, a handgun.
you're a policeman, charged with protecting your community, and you know this individual has killed before. you also know that he has come into possession of a lethal weapon.
do you sit back and wait for the criminal to kill someone? or do you actively seek him out and prevent a crime of murder taking place by disarming him, arresting him, so rendering him no longer a threat to the community?
you know the answer to this question. it is the latter option. if the police were to sit back and do nothing, then you would rightly be questioning their fitness for the job.
i can't make it clearer than that. if you cannot make sense of this simple analogy because of your paranoid, bigoted anti-american and conspiracy-obsessed mindset then that's a shame.
that's not abuse by the way - you're no doubt a jolly decent chap -simply an observation on your lack of logic coupled with your poor grasp of current affairs and history.
i'm sure you won't agree with what i've just written & frankly, i'm not bothered. i have both the logic and the facts on my side.
you take a risk with your own security if you like. i will not risks with mine. and i think you will find that it is the latter view, held by the majority of normal-thinking people, that will prevail.
28 September 2002, 01:06 PM
#90
Yep, I don't agree. No surprise there then.
What I still fail to understand is this:
Why Saddam? Why NOT the Israelis? Why NOT Mugabe? And why NOT any other tyrants/despots out there? Oh sorry, I forgot, they don't have any oil.
The problem is that it's ALL about oil.
And the bigger problem is that you're undoubtedly right: we'll go to war against him, because the majority of the "sheep" out there will follow ANYTHING the government tells them, because "we voted 'em in, they have good intelligence, so let's blindly follow them wherever they lead." Oh dear.
Sad-- but it won't be people like you or me doing the dieing. It'll be innocent Iraqis (along with a few undoubtedly guilty ones), and OUR troops/airmen.
Just so that smug unthinking folk in Britain can rest easy, feeling safe from a "Tyrant" who has actually never done ANYTHING to us, and probably never will. Aren't we good? Aren't we clever? We saved the world. BULLSH*T!
And please don't trot out the age old view that that's what they get paid for.
"Dulce et decorum est,
pro patria mori."
Except when it's you that has to do the dieing!!
I'm sorry to say that this will be my last post on this subject. The minds of government were made up weeks ago, and yours is as closed as you seem to think mine is. Pity, as you seem quite an intelligent bloke.
I just hope that neither of us gets to say "told you so".
Yours, in sorrow,
Alcazar
What I still fail to understand is this:
Why Saddam? Why NOT the Israelis? Why NOT Mugabe? And why NOT any other tyrants/despots out there? Oh sorry, I forgot, they don't have any oil.
The problem is that it's ALL about oil.
And the bigger problem is that you're undoubtedly right: we'll go to war against him, because the majority of the "sheep" out there will follow ANYTHING the government tells them, because "we voted 'em in, they have good intelligence, so let's blindly follow them wherever they lead." Oh dear.
Sad-- but it won't be people like you or me doing the dieing. It'll be innocent Iraqis (along with a few undoubtedly guilty ones), and OUR troops/airmen.
Just so that smug unthinking folk in Britain can rest easy, feeling safe from a "Tyrant" who has actually never done ANYTHING to us, and probably never will. Aren't we good? Aren't we clever? We saved the world. BULLSH*T!
And please don't trot out the age old view that that's what they get paid for.
"Dulce et decorum est,
pro patria mori."
Except when it's you that has to do the dieing!!
I'm sorry to say that this will be my last post on this subject. The minds of government were made up weeks ago, and yours is as closed as you seem to think mine is. Pity, as you seem quite an intelligent bloke.
I just hope that neither of us gets to say "told you so".
Yours, in sorrow,
Alcazar