StiShrek

This is what a lot of ppl want in this country. Get a second UN resoltuion and then go about disarming him peacefully????

My God. There are some very thick ppl in this country who dont know the game he is playing. he has no intention ever of appeasing Bush and blair.

If he has flouted UN resolutions for 10 years then why change the record now.

More time for the weapons inspectors. As if they will make a difference!

Why cant these damn tree huggers see this? Do they think that Saddham might be persuaded by words to change his mind?

Bull, bull and more bull. I have heard enough about the anti-war campaign to make me sick.

They argue against war but then ignore the question of how the hell we can disarm this nutcase!
Thye ignore the plight of his own ppl too.

Glenda Jackson and tony benn need to be dis-mouthed to stop this soft arsed pollution.

Case dismissed.

I_dont_giveafvk

Glendas got a face like a smacked **** shes one ugly bint, if she was up for it sending her over would frighten the republican gard enough to not need are boys

imagine waking up to that each day

fast bloke

Most of the anti-war protesters can't see that their actions are making war more likely. If Saddam thinks he is going to get his *** well and truely kicked he might play ball a little, but when he sees millions of people in the UK coming out against the war he will tell the weapons inspectors to bugger off. Blix has stated that there have been no interviews with scientists since the big demo at the start of Feb.... wonder why?

Holy Ghost

there's a job to do. time now to it.

i used to respect tony benn, much as i totally disagreed with his views, as he appeared to be at least be a man of principle. even if misguided.

his interview with saddam changed that. he sat there, trying to look like the wise old sage he thinks he is and fawned - there is no other word for it - over this monstrous man.

i wanted to vomit. bloody ignorant appeasing militant leftie fifth columnist.

who needs enemies, eh ...

TelBoy

Can i ask a question please? Even though i'm sure it's been asked before.

Bush and Blair keep banging on that Maddman Hussein must disarm. Nothing wrong with that as an aim.

But if the *chief* weapons inspector of the UN cannot find anything, apart from a few intercontinental missiles that go further than 90 miles, how can he be said to be resisting disarming??

I'd feel a lot happier about a war if it was obvious that he still has WOMDs. And no matter what anyone on here says, nobody can prove conclusively that he has, can they?

[Edited by TelBoy - 2/27/2003 1:04:47 PM]

I_dont_giveafvk

you see the Rock last night on Channel 5? this **** is lethal and not difficult to hide, it could be anywhere and easily moved

even someone like you and me could be threatend to keep it in the loft and if Saddam tells you too you feckin do

some people are so naieeve its untrue, how can a bunch of inspecters search the whole country

the tree huggers are dreamers

Diablo

Agreed Telboy.

There of course is another issue (playing Devils Advocate for a moment)

Why should he disarm?

Americans have WOMD, have "invaded" other countries, tried to impose their will on others by forceful means and yet it would be unthinkable for anyone to suggest that the US disarms.

Who is really more of a threat to world peace, Hussain or the Bush/Blair combo.

D

StiShrek

Fair point Diablo but the fact of the matter is it is time to choose sides.

Blair/Bush or the extremists. Forgot all else.

There is no middle ground that the tree huggers think there is.

Terrorists are fanatical and are willing to die. That is the key factor!


And Telboy, Iraq knows when the US spy satellites have their narrow corridors of sight up in space so can easily hide their stuff. Also there was a lot of WOMD (anthrax for one) the UN inspectors accounted for in the 90s that is unaccounted for. You really belive he destroyed it?

TelBoy

No, possibly not, but bombing the **** out of him just because we aren't sure he's destroyed them seems scant justification in my opinion.

Let's face facts. If Iraq had no oil, would they care? No.

Like they don't about China, because a) China has no oil and b) with 2 billion reservists, the US might just lose. Pathetic.

Popeye P1

Put it this way, if Osama BIn Laden could hide himself in afganistan, then what makes you think that Saddam can't hide his arsenal??? Iraq is a huge country- it wouldn't be hard.

Luke

Your just worried about the price of "Optimax"........................

This will go wrong.

TelBoy

I agree totally with that, he could easily hide them.

But while we continue to be unable to prove he really has them, what right do we have to hot-step it into Baghdad and rip the country further apart?

But if he actually used them again, in any capacity, then yes, do whatever it takes to eliminate the last bullet from the country. That's what should have happened last time, but the US wasted the opportunity, and now want to get someone, anyone, back for the Twin Towers. Political balderdash.

Popeye P1

I think ppl are more worried about the links he has with Al Quaeda than anything else. He has enough of a chip on his shoulder to fund their little Sorties into the West.

Oh and the price of Optimax too.LOL

The_Gza

He's not supposed to be *finding* weapons - the inspectors are supposed to be there examining the weapons Iraq has handed over and accounting for the tons of chemical and biological weapons already found by the UN during the inspections of the 1990's - it's these weapons that are *missing* and Iraq has so far failed to explain what has happened to them. As someone mentioned on the news, they are in Iraq as inspectors, not detective inspectors.

How easy is it to hide these items in a country the size of Iraq?

Imagine someone telling you and 50 of your mates to try and find an Impreza hidden somewhere in the UK - with the entire country actively trying to hide it from you (on pain of death if you do find it) - whilst your movements are known in advance. Neither wonder they can't find any WOMD!

TelBoy

Gza, all fair comments.

But why invade the country now???

The timimg is just all tied in to retaliation.

Makalu

What is the real issue here?

Dissarm Iraq?
Dissarm Saddam?
Get Saddam out of Office?
Kill Saddam?
Create a Anglo/American Quango called 'Iraq'?
Control Iraq's oil output so that the USA can 'control' oil prices?

If our aim is to simply dissarm Iraq - let Dr. Blix continue his search (but lets face it, he will not find much. We have given Iraq 12 years to think about a suitable hiding place for their toys) In which case - whats the point?

If our aim is to dissarm Saddam - then the root cause to the problem should be removed - Saddam must go.

If our intention is to remove Saddam from office - what right have we got. Its like Northern Korea plotting a war to get Bush or Blair out of power. Who is to say who is right or what government regime is right for any given country. Many people think communism is a bad thing. The chinese dont seem to be doing too bad at it!!!

Is it our intention to kill Saddam? Does this idea match our western ideology of Christianity? Wouldnt it be better to support an Iraqy revolt and let the Iraqey people decide -after all, its their country, their lives...

Is it control of oil or oil prices we (ie. the USA) want? - If this is the case, most theives just break into a house using force and sometimes commit murder if people stand in their way. So the USA are just common thieves?

We simply dont know what the real agenda is and no one has provided sufficient evidence for a case for any of the above.

Mak.

StiShrek

Telboy we dont attack china since they are nuclear.

You really want to leave saddham in power and let him achieve nuclear capability (or get his hands on a rogue warhead).

Armageddon would be a reality then.

brickboy

Fact -- Iraq does have some WOMDs. We, or our allies, sold many of them to him. However the whole WOMD issue is a complete smokescreen. The IRA & Timothy McVeigh managed very well with home-made explosives or Semtex. Al-Qaida did the same with civilian airliners. One hand grenade on a flight from South America was very nearly a WOMD.

Let's forget the hysteria about what weapons Iraq has or hasn't got. If Saddam launches anything that even looks like it's going to hit Israel or any other "friendly" country, Iraq will be levelled.

As Mak said above, the end does not yet justify the means, IMHO.

Luke

Israel will tell the world when Sadam is a real threat....The moment they beleive it will go against them, They will flatten iraq and anyone else who pops their heads up.

rayman_2

agree mak, alot of talk but still no evidence but we will probably go ahead anyway. What people don't understand nothing has ever been resolved with war. Every country on this rock has the right to bear arms to defend itself. We have WMD probably more then anyone but who police's us ? People have to right to live they want to in there country. Going in and forcing people to live a different way has never worked. Look at afganistan after the bombing opium trade is up by 200% now exports to the west. Women are worse off then before, US bases get attacked daily with taliban or other extremist groups. Oil Pipeline has been build under the watchful eye of US. People still dying left right and centre. Waterworks have been damaged so severly from the bombing it would take years to build or never. Depleted uranium rounds are causing long time effects of cancer and deformed children.

Its easy when you are not in the firing line.

andrew6321

number of UN resolutions broken by Iraq = 14
number of UN resolutions broken by Israel = 168

Everyone take a few deep breaths.....

Holy Ghost

how can women in afghanistan be worse off post-taliban?

how can the afghanis possibly be worse off post-taliban?

as far as i know, the kabul national stadium is no longer used for public executions.

as far as i know, men are no longer arrested and beaten for having a beard of inappropriate length.

as far as i know, gays and adulterers are no longer slowly - and publicly - crushed to death under a wooden door piled high with boulders.

do you actually know how abominable life was under the taliban was? christ, it was dante's ninth gate level of hell.

StiShrek

Rayman2 i think we are a tiny bit more civilised than Iraq and would trust our leader not to use their WOMD inapproriately.

You cant compare our so-called regime with saddhams. We are far too democratic for our own good.

'Look at afganistan after the bombing opium trade is up by 200% now exports to the west. Women are worse off then before, US bases get attacked daily with taliban or other extremist groups. Oil Pipeline has been build under the watchful eye of US. People still dying left right and centre. Waterworks have been damaged so severly from the bombing it would take years to build or never. Depleted uranium rounds are causing long time effects of cancer and deformed children.'

And what about before they went in. Afghanistan was hardly paradise. I bet if you put it to the vote the ppl would prefer the much harsher non-taliban rule as opposed to the much fairer taliban democracy!

If you would like to take the gamble and leave saddham in power and for him to get a nuke then so be it.

scooby-new

Oil, Oil, Oil, Oil.

thats what this is about not Saddam being a madman despot murderer-after all there are plenty of that type we in the West are only to happy to deal with. I say they have the oil- we want it so we go and take it. Simple really. Call a spade a spade not a long handled digging implement.

Holy Ghost

"oil, oil, oil, oil, oil"

is this some kind of magic-mantra chant?

come on scooby-new, if it's all about oil, then explain to me why the US only imports 14% of its oil from the *entire* middle east? explain to me why it's all about oil when iraq at peak production only accounts for 7% of world oil supplies?

my friend, you have it upsides and backwards like many other people here.

brickboy

It only gets 14% of its oil from the middle east because it can get it from other sources ..... for now. However, at the rate the US goes through it, it'll need another trough soon

Holy Ghost

if that were the case, this would have been over and done with in 1991. the middle east does not have a monopoly on oil. some of the worlds biggest oil fields - offshore malaysia and borneo - are as yet untapped and are expected to contain more crude than the entire middle east.

you clearly cannot accept that this is anything other than to do with oil. despite economic import facts that indicate otherwise.

v poor show

Holy Ghost

...and iraq's 7% will do the trick? come on.

if it was about oil, they'd be rolling up saudi as well.

StiShrek

Ill tell you what it is all about.

No-one has noticed things have changed since 9/11??

No-one has noticed the rapid rise of extremist movements intent on obliterating the west????

Some ppl must live in a dreamworld!!!!!!

America are on the backfoot and taking the fight to all the nutters around the world who want a piece of them.

They are getting in pre-emptive strikes rather than living the 'what if' story again like 9/11.

Forget the oil bollocks.

End of...case dismissed as always.

Holy Ghost

...don't forget the new brunei fields. absolutely massive. arabia is not as critical as you think.