Why not leave inspectors there with a small back up force in a permanent base in Kuwait ? It could all be paid for by the yanks while Britain spends its cash on hospitals schools and asylum seekers instead. What does Tony have to gain by sideing with the USA since they are determined to attack anyway. The British influence will be tiny anyway so leave them to it.

There is no doubt that 9/11 changed the way in which problems such as these have to be addressed.

I have respect for other peoples opinions, and I appreciate the very good arguments for no war. In fact, Mr Blair claims he is still committed to a peaceful solution, but Saddam is really taking the pi55.

I think the thing that annoys me the most is all these people saying "no, don't do it" but not once have I heard "do this instead." I grew out of my gun-ho phase, and a peaceful solution is obviously the most desirable way out, BUT Mr S Hussain seems determined not to allow this to happen, WHY?

But why wasn't everyone demanding action over resolution 687 then?

"Enough is enough" in my book is when we have irrefutable proof that the guy still has stuff which the international community has agreed to be illegal. Which, whatever anyone tells me, we haven't got now.

If the USA had any consideration for Human rights with regard to Foreign policy then 9/11 would never have happend. Invading Iraq will only stir up more hatred and more terrorism so how is it a solution to anything. Next will be Syria who at least genuinley harbour terrorists and I suppose the USA will keep going until they have invaded all the countries they don't like. Bringing world peace by conquering the world what a great plan.

Jason, i think the world is a different place now. We're talking nuclear, so the price for getting this wrong could be a lot higher. Which is why the US is barnstorming Iraq, pussy-footing in Korea and totally ignoring China.

[Edited by bros2 - 7/3/2003 3:26:58 PM]

To be really honest, I'm getting to the point where I can't be arsed anymore. I'm off to the moon, plenty of water, and where par5's are nice and easy.

1441 could state anything it likes but it does not make anything morally right. The consequences of invading Iraq when they quite clearly have no way to defend themselves could be far worse than the few litres of Bio weapons Saddam has left.

Americans are going to cry again...

I think that its not going to go to "Plan"

Well, I was the first person to answer this post, ans when I've come back to it, it's running at 3 pages.
I've read the whole lot with interest, and agree with bits from both sides.
What I HAVEN'T found though, once again, is anyone giving any reason whatsoever why the Israelis are allowed to get away with disobeying UN mandates, year after year after year after year after...................
WHY the Iraquis, and NOT the Israelis???

"insightful."

I understand your reply ..dont blame you.

Because many influential Americans are Jewish.

Somebody tell me i'm wrong.

Alcazar, 'cos Israel is our friend ;)

Thought for the day: Jesus was a Palestinian. Think about it.

Alcazar - UN resolutions relating to Israel are based on Chapter VI of the UN charter and are officially recommendations as to a way of attaining a peaceful settlement, with no threat or suggestion of military force.
UN resolutions relating to Iraq are based on Chapter VII, which means they are backed up by the threat of military action by the UN.
So basically Israel can choose to simply not take the advice of the UN, whereas Iraq do not have a choice.

I'm not suggesting this is right, just saying that the resolutions are very different.

Steve

Its soooooooooooooooooooooooo un PC to mention these facts about israel.

Everyone is too scared of saying what they want to say in the media because of the amount of media control held by jews .

chapter VI & chapter VII

i didn't know that. thank you steve: that is a *killer* piece of knowledge. but as you say, doesn't make it right.

bennboys always use the old "well look at israel ignoring the UN" trick as a counter. this differentiation rather does torpedo the argument below the waterline.

alcazar :p i hope you read the relevant post ...

HG, that's always been the case, but America's "blind eye" policy towards Israel is as immoral as their unauthorised use of force against Iraq now, if we're going to bandy about UN resolutions...

Jase, don't go there. Let's not get this locked fella.

"Flippers" Jason..

WW2 is a completely different situation so not at all relevant unless you consider Hitlers anger at Germanys loss of WW1 which helped to spark his desire to return Germany to power hence WW2.
If you don't think the USA's invasion of Iraq will increase the anger felt by terrorists and increase the number of them then frankly you are an idiot.

Jason

I never ever take offence here on scoobynet. Feel free!!!!

Luke

don't agree tel,

that may always have been the case, but few (including me until an hour agoo) know about the difference between chapter VI and chapter VII.

it does make it difficult to compare breach of resolution by israel and breach of resolution by iraq as they are, by UN definition, of different levels of severity.

as was posted, VI is a non-mandatory recommendation to restore peace, VII is a mandatory request to comply. in diplomatic terms, it's apples and pears - although you can of course argue that they are both fruit ;-)

i wouldn't argue against the fact that the US does turn something of a blind eye to the sins of israel. it's to be expected - the jewish community in the US is huge, rich, well-connected and stretches right through the corridors of power. unsurprising then that israel is a US ally. countries will tolerate the misdeeds of their allies much more so than those of their enemies - doesn't make it right but it is unavoidable human nature.

i'm very wary of bring cod-morality into the equation.

israel and palestine should not be viewed as a moral question - not least because your view of immorality is an israeli view of survival and self-defence: it is a subjective state which makes diametric opposition insoluble and encourages extremism.

it is a case whereby the palestinians need a place to live in peace and the israelis need a place to live in peace. it is a practical problem that has to be dealt with on practical terms, on the basis of mutual concession with a view to mutual satisfaction.

a good start would be to see 1) the back of a clapped-out yassar arafat who no longer carries his people and 2) the back of a very aggressive ariel sharon who is the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

ditto the sitch with iraq: it's not about the moral mission to depose a dictator. down that route madness lies with a 'hitlist' as long as your arm.

it's about an exercise in risk management; to prevent the convergence of rogue state-developed WMD and very active, rabidly anti-western fundamentalist terrorism that is well-funded.

i see no moral case here: the fact that it almost certainly means the end of saddam's regime and a liberated iraq is a bonus. quite a hefty one.

cripes!! go to a couple of meetings, come back and the thread is 4 pages long:eek: I have some catching up to do now ;)

Thing is it may all be academic if the Yanks decide to go it alone without the UK then expect us to mop up behind them [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Uncle

I cannot see the Americans going in without us..... To many little plans to change...If they do BE ASSURED ,many many British soilders/pilots will be with them..Even if this is denied by our goverment

[Edited by Luke - 3/12/2003 6:10:10 PM]

[Edited by Luke - 3/12/2003 6:10:45 PM]

Luke - Took you three pages on a thread about Iraq before posting. Your slipping old bean. :D

Sith


40 ...old????

No way mate.. 40 is the new black

[Edited by bros2 - 7/3/2003 3:19:41 PM]

[Edited by bros2 - 7/3/2003 3:19:53 PM]

[Edited by bros2 - 7/3/2003 3:20:16 PM]