That was my motto for many years, but it's only recently that I've worked out it's not usually the correct reaction. Sadly, once it's established, it's a very difficult pattern of behaviour to break out of.

however, not sure you can say we armed al qaeda. unless i've been sloppy and missed something, its funding comes from bin laden himself (billionaire inheritance) and the likes of iran, syria, libya, yemen and the other usual sponsors...

thank you i_don't_giveafvck.

may the sun be always on your face and the wind at your back.

turbo kitty

I aint a victim anymore though, I spent 2 years being a victim

Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

What a selection of countries there, all also gagging to blitz the West.

HG, once this war is over, will you be demanding the US/UK governments take action against these four, seeing as the priority of threat will have moved them into focus??

Or will we have to wait for The Sun to convince us all that they're jolly horrible people and that "our boys" should go and teach them a lesson?

whoa, easy tiger. don't deliberately misinterpret what i'm saying.

no in answer to your question.

it's entirely down to these countries themselves if they want to move themselves into focus by funding al qaeda. and i would imagine it's a place they don't really want to go to be honest.

i was simply listing a selection of countries that are well-documented in their support for terrorist organisations down the years - from the IRA, red brigade, baader-meinhof to FARC, and depending on your POV, the PLO.

ergo, they are the 'usual suspects' with good reason. but who's to say they have helped al qaeda? i don't know.

all i do know that bin laden is a cosmopolitan saudi of great personal wealth...

HG, i'm not "deliberately" doing anything, i'm just asking where this will all lead us, based on your theory of prioritised risk.

So, if Iraq is out of the way, who's next?

Do we continue down the list until we find somebody who's nuclear, and quietly disregard them, or what?

How far down this list is the US for their inaction over the IRA? Hmmm, bit "difficult" that one, got an eraser? Who's next?

Let's just waste everyone that's not American or British !

That way Americans could be world champs at American Footie, Netball and rounders and we could be champs at everything else. Wales could appear in the finals of the Soccer World cup every 4 years and Scotland might even win it :D. We'd have to call it Soccer until we wasted the Yanks :D

Jasey, they already ARE "World Champions" at American football. And baseball. And basketball. And Indy car racing. And ice hockey.

Even though nobody else takes part. :rolleyes:

Does this tell you something about the American psyche? Hmmmm.

Careful Telbo - the Canadians might argue about Ice Hockey. The American psyche is indeed at the heart of this whole problem. They are $hitting themselves just now - they will attack Iraq and the will Attack N Korea - they might think twice about China but they would probably attack them too - they wouldn't use ground forces though :eek:

When Terrorists kill 3000 in one go the stakes are raised - when they kill them in America the World had better watch out !

Time to stop worrying about your endowment policies and wether or not they will pay off your mortgage - the future's bright - fcuking bright !!!

Ok, i'll concede that the NHL is a Cnadian/US combination. Although the Toronto Mapleleaves were the last Canuck team to become "World Champions", some years ago now. Anyway, i digress.

"prioritised risk" isn't my theory, just the name i give to the how many western foreign policies are now being shaped.

where will it take us? that's the $64,000 question.

it's not as simplistic as working one's way down a list.

foreign affairs are perfectly fluid.

9/11 let a cat out of the bag. now we can either let the cat wander around or we can try to put it back in the bag.

deterrence is a very powerful political weapon. if you demonstrate that you, as a nation or group of nations, do not intend to let a situation go unchecked, then others who might have considered fanning the flames of that situation tend to take note and modify their actions.

if, whether by diplomacy or force, this particular door is slammed on both saddam and bin laden, then it makes it harder for al qaeda to open others.

for all the rhetoric, nobody likes fighting - covertly, overtly or once-removed. as long as things afterwards can reach a position of equilibrium and relative acceptance between opposed parties, then things settle down.

that's the ideal - and hoped for - outcome. but it might not happen that way. things could be stirred up and a whole new set of threats emerge. we could see tribal warfare: all the old genies coming out of the dusty bottles of historical confrontation.

personally, i don't think it likely. again, despite all the rhetoric, many countries are scared of the US and its western allies. not just militarily but crucially in economic terms. they may need food aid, loans or support in entry to our business or consumer markets. and some just hate us, for fair reasons or foul, and fear the big stick.

i'd say that the most interesting area of this whole thing is the potential effect of a new, elected administration in baghdad on the rest of the middle east.

israel, for all its faults, is currently the only state with a democratically elected government in the entire region.

what could happen with two? how will the iranian govt react if their people start wanting to try it? ditto the saudis? and the syrians. might we see the growth of popular democratic movements elsewhere? this is probably what regimes in the region feel the most uncertainty about. and to an extent, with things as they are, there's a sense of 'better the devil you know' with saddam.

what i do know is that doing nothing - or just attempting half-arsed containment - will store up greater problems for the future.

i'd love to see this thing cracked without a shot being fired. but i do think that it has all gone too far and the cost of inaction become too great.

nor is it about picking on non-nuclear states. the china of tiananmen square is not the china of today. likewise the china of 2020 will be far more like the rest of asia. it is making progress on all fronts but will inevitably go the way of the former USSR as totalitarianism always does. patience combined with the economic carrot.

the north koreans? well the government is simply off its rocker. the country is disgracefully poor and is about to endure another famine as a direct result of atrocious government. their difference with the UN and the US goes back to 1951 and the korean war, a conflict that has never been offically declared over. there have been many spats - and border incidents - between north korea and the US ever since. lots of hot air from both sides. you are more likely to see their nuclear weapons programme shelved in return for aid via diplomacy rather than through a shooting match.

Holy Ghost

you are saying everything I dont have the ability to say

thought about being an MP

I_dont_giveafvk sounds like You_do_giveafvk ;):D one thing for sure is they_dont_giveafvk_about_us_and_will_do_what_they_ want. I'm off to get ready for the pub, then a curry :D

Just to throw in another thread for discussion here....

Who says this 'dispute' is not about oil and arms???

Dick Cheney - Vice President
Former CEO of Halliburton - an Oil services company that had dealings with Iraq. They produce oil.

John Ashcroft - Attorney General
Supporter of the National Rifle Association. He is a gun fanatic.

Don Evans - Secretary of Commerce
Chairman and CEO of Tom Brown Inc. ( A billion dollar Oil and Gas company) He produces oil.

Secretary of Defense - Donald Rumsfeld
Consistent opposer of arms control and the SALT II Treaty with the Soviet Union. He is a gun fanatic.

Spencer Abraham - Secretary of Energy
Opposes research into sustainable energy - approves of drilling for oil in Alaska (which was voted out of bounds on environmental grounds) Has links to GM and Daimler Chrysler..... err cars use oil.

Colin Powell - Secretary of State
When not fighting wars, he sits on the board of Gulfstream Jets and AOL Time Warner. Gulfstream use oil.

Norman Y Mineta - Sec. Of Transport
Has links to Northwest Airlines, United Airlines, Greyhound, Boeing and Union Pacific. They all use oil.

Andrew H Card - Whitehouse chief of staff
CEO of American Automobile Manufacturers Assoc. and GM's chief lobbyist. Cars and ..... Oil.

National Security Advisor - Condoleezza Rice
Sits on Chevron board of Directors - Chevron OIL that is...

Shall I go on?

Sure Saddam is a nutter and I would like to see him removed as much as the next person but... tell me there is not a hidden agenda to all this!

Mak.

very kind of you to say IDGAF.

thought about it, yes. but i prefer to harry my MP (rutland & melton) and let him take the flak.

cop-out or what? :p

although I generally dont give a fvk i do give a fvk about this something are too important to not give a ****

i think Bush dont give a fvk about those muppets in the London bus as human shields what twats

I've just had a thought - what If the FBI (remember poor Mr Bond) think that Nasser Hussain is something to do with Iraq and get their South African mates to arrest him and hold him for three weeks - We might have a chance of beating the Aussies :D

Pub - here I come ....

One other eventuality -- what happens if Saddam backs down? No war -- no more lengthy discussions on foreign affairs and armed diplomacy on Scoobynet? Perish the thought :)

well googled.

i say it isn't for one.

sorry to labour the point again but iraq produces only 7% of the world's oil. the US imports only 14% of its oil from the entire middle east.

if there is a war, in dollar terms it will cost more than the entire worth of iraq's oil. so why not just buy it all and save cash and lives?

america's oil position is no near bad enough to warrant grand theft. quite the opposite.

the middle east is not the sole provider of oil. ask the sultan of brunei. fields in the south china sea (malaysia, borneo, brunei) - as yet untapped - contain more oil than in the whole of the middle east.

your evidence is circumstantial and contains not one iota of evidence.

brickboy

if saddam backs down? (by that i assume you mean that he follows resolution 1441 to the letter, as requested by the UN).

can't see it happening. it's not in his gameplan. he's buying time by trying to cause a carefully crafted diplomatic split. and in the short term he's succeeding.

he might destroy a couple of al-samoud missiles. or 'find' a pint of sarin. not good enough. he won't voluntarily strip himself of his most potent weapons.

would you?

Its about share prices - not oil prices!

If you can control oil prices (through reducing the ability to produce it / sell it etc...) then you also have limited (but real) control over share prices of cars planes etc...

Iraq holds 11% of the worlds oil reserves by the way - second only to Saudi Arabia who hold 25%.

Why have US stock prices risen (for the first time in history) on the promise of an armed conflict????? Go take a look....

Mak.

i would imagine that they have risen because any conflict will be short, quickly won and come with the promise of massive infrastructure rebuild projects.

off you pop to conspiracy corner...

Mak, i think most people expect shares to rebound because a short sharp war would remove much of investors' current uncertainty.

But they haven't risen anytime recently, not according to my charts!

i declare this post well and truly spent.

go forth & get bladdered.

Hang on, you're appeasing the liberals & do-gooders by doing that ... ;)

Shrek will have the last words.

Bugger off tony benn and glenda jackson!!!!!

Case is dismissed.

Excellent thread.
Lets go and kick some ass :D