Should we go to war?Just visit and vote

[Tigs2]

Should we go to war? Some would say we never ceased the war, but should we really send the boys in to Baghdad? (watch 'Blackhawk Down' to see potential outcomes)No need to comment, Just vote, it would be interesting to see if we military guys give the same statistics as the various polls out there at the moment. It does not matter about the fact we may have to do the job, what is your personal view?

[Woff1965]

I want to vote don't know.

[Tigs2]

Woff
Sorry you are right it was a bit thoughtless not to include the 'don't know'. I can't get in to add the category as the poll can only be edited by moderators(I Think)

Tigs


Now moderated to include Don't Know option !!

[adrian mole]

I'll go where I'm sent and do what I'm asked but for the first time in my military career I feel like the aggressor and don't have a warm glow about it. This must be the first time in a long time that we are starting a war. I'd feel happier if President Blair produced some of this overwhelming evidence and am still alarmed we've gone this far in prep and deployment without a Parlimentary vote. It's just a matter of time before someone gets hurt...

[mutleyfour]

Hmmmmmm, could get a lot worst before it gets better!

Could be an Ambulance strike next!

[Tigs2]

Mutleyfour
Dont even go there! After the ambulance strike it will be the police and then maybe the AA!

[Arkroyal]

Hmmm...

Falklands, didn't mind at all, we were delivering our own from an aggressor

Gulf, no problem, repelling an invader from a friendly state.

This one.... Glad I'm out as I think I'd be in Colchester rather than fight for Bush's and Bliar's egos.

[Tigs2]

To the moderator who put in 'Don't Know' Thanks very much!

Ark Royal
I agree, this one has a really bad feel to it. As for Blair, I think he is finished. If we stop prior to conflict it wont change things, he has lost the public anyway, and if we do fight, I will be suprised if he makes it to the next election.

[solotk]

Can you add, "No, because they have no idea of how to run a war" Tigs? lol

Rather than board spam, I've added this link in Jet Blast.

This is what happens, when civilian "Strategists" get involved in war planning

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79394

[Buster Hyman]

Sorry chaps, wandered into this forum & thought I'd have a vote.

I have to agree with adrian mole. The "west" are the agressors here, until there is tangible evidence to suggest otherwise. If we live by a certain standard, then we must uphold that standard by acting accordingly & with the support of the UN.

I feel concern for the good men & women who are severly outnumbered in the region, especially if the Arab world do not support this.

:(

[steamchicken]

Falklands - Right as hell! They invaded 'em, we made them a fair offer (UN Plebiscite of the Kelpers) and they refused.

Gulf - Yes. The 'Raq just decided to conquer the next door neighbour. That's not on, especially when full of oil.

Kosovo - Yes. Milosevic's lot were a cancer on European society and really ought to have been stopped much, much earlier. Not so sure about the conduct of the war.

Afghanistan - Clearly. The power base of the enemy (their strategic centre of gravity) was there, so pretty obvious to smash it and nail as many of them as possible. And disposing of the Taliban wasn't a bad fringe benefit. Concerned about the reconstruction/development/political campaign running down, though.

Gulf War II: The Mother-in-Law of all Battles. Wrong, wrong, wrong, economically, politically, morally and strategically.

[Tourist]

Yes!
Fight for job security:D

[John (Gary) Cooper]

Can't go along with Dubya and the Princess on this one,

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

They ALL need controlling from the USA to The Ukraine from GB to China :eek:

[SASless]

I vote for going....we have unfinished business from before. The Gulf War ended with a truce and thus is officially still underway. Bluntly speaking, I see this as a continuation of that war which so many of you feel was right and proper. We left Korea unfinished and see what a mess we have today.

There comes a time when the uniformed mafia has to earn its pay and this is one of them. I cannot understand the shortsightedness of those who cannot see the need to remove one of the major dangers to peace in the Middle East. Iraq's neighbors want Saddam gone, it is in our national interests to see him gone, and if we were willing to go to Yugoslavia because of the Human Rights issues.....then why are the nay sayers willing to ignore the evil conduct of the Saddam bunch?

As to the smoking gun issue....if I know you to have a gun....hear the gunshot....and see the bleeding corpse on the ground.....why is it on me to prove to the whole world that you have hidden the gun in your house? Even in the UK, the cops will get a search warrant and kick in the door if need be to find that gun.

As to feeling like an Agressor....get real....wake up and smell the coffee! Until the Arab parts of the world enjoy democratic freedom and economic prosperity we will continue to be attacked by their disenchanted who have been taught it is the Western World's fault for their situation when it is actually the policies and actions of their own inept dictatorial governments.

Lastly, as long as you are in uniform, when given an order, pack your kit, clean your weapon, sharpen your bayonet, and do your duty. Your leaders did not ask for your opinion nor do they want to hear any dissent nor is it proper. As an officer you have a responsibility to lead. I suggest you do so or get the hell out of the military service and join the civvie world where you can unionize and fight management all you want.

Now is the time to trust your leaders and perform your duty in a manner that honors those that fought before you and sets an example for those that will fight in the future. To do anything else dishonors your service and your personal obligation to your country.

I was wounded in combat with an armed enemy and know firsthand the ugly reality of war. I also believe failing to stand up when needed is a far more ugly thing than war. World War II should have taught us all that lesson. Do we want to wait until the Iraqi military has nuclear weapons and substantial means of deploying other WMD's against our troops or hit them before they are fully equipped to do catastrophic damage to our forces?

[Tigger_Too]

"The Gulf War ended with a truce and thus is officially still underway"

WW1 ended in a truce (armistice). Watch out Germany!

[escapee]

So SASLess what do you advocate; by the sounds of your post I think you would like to:
Attack the rest of the arab world.
Attack North Korea
How about China too
or Russia for its conduct in Chechnya or Israel for still occupying parts of Palestine contary to UN resolutions.
I don't trust my political leaders, and certainly not the current incumbent in the Whitehouse. When we are told to go I will, and do my job! But it will not be hooping and hollahing.

[tug3]

Xcuse me for poking my nose into a place where it has no business, but come off it SASless, I thought the donation of a brain to medical science was only meant to happen post-mortem!

Oops, almost forgot the precedent set by a certain President, silly me!

Rgds (Esp. to all 'Eastbound traffic')
T3

[ClearBlueWater]

SASless, that is exactly the kind of simple one dimensional world view promoted by the USA administration, and clearly supported by you, that has the rest of the world including Europe jumping up and down in apoplectic fear and anger.

I could easily address each of the factors you use to reason in support of an attack on Iraq but I won't insult everyone's intelligence and their ability to apply it to a basic history, sociology and politics. We can all work out the arguments against an attack on Iraq in a trice.

In the big scheme of real WORLD events, by which I mean those impacting the largest number of people who are most geographically dispersed and representing the broad range of human experience, most of it pretty miserable, the biggest menace on the street today is not Iraq but the one you're all too ready to defend which I suspect is not the one you think you're about to defend. It's not American blood, not really, and it certainly isn't American soil, although some of your administration would certainly like Iraq to become dependent on the US so it might as well be American soil. No, we're about to blow to smithereens thousands of men, women and children to maintain US hegemony over the world. The US has the military and economic power to control the world and thereby continue to plunder its wealth at everyone elses cost, and it is going to maintain that position at any cost regardless of any sense of morality. Iraq is about controlling the Middle East and therefore controlling its oil. At least that's what MOST PEOPLE think and they can't all be completely wrong.

[SASless]

Escapee....

The rest of the Arab world does not pose the threat that Iraq's current regime does....and more of them are aligned with us in this than are publically admitting. Korea is merely using this opportunity to tweak our nose.....they will self-destruct through their own incompetence before we have to deal with them through force of arms. Those who fail to see the need for political change within the Arab countries need to read the UN Report that was done recently which points out the root causes for the disenchantment of the young people.....their antagonism is directed towards those of us in the Western Societies by their leaders who wish to point the finger of blame anywhere but where it should be pointed...at them. A study of economic factors alone indicts the Arab world's refusal to join the modern world.

Simple issues like a 25% unemployment rate within Saudi Arabia.....despite 65%of the workers in the country being foreign nationals begs the question of why there is any statistically significant unemployment at all in Saudi. The simplistic answer would be to determine what jobs could be filled by indigenous persons and then give that number of foreigners the boot. The Uk does something similar by requireing "work permits" for non-British persons.

What are you going to do....when the US lays out enough intelligence data to confirm the "smoking gun" as it is called? Will you become like a born again Christian and jump onto the bandwagon waving banners and proclaiming your complete dedication to the elimination of evil?

You can flap your gums....but when you apply a reality test to the situation....I dare say your leaders understand the need for Western action in the Middle East better than you do. Politicians seldom take such unpopular stands without good reason. I do not for an instant believe Tony Blair is so naive as to think he can survive this if all of the reasons we are giving are trumped up and bogus. George Bush may not be the most articulate of speakers....but his character is unimpeachable.

The world political situation is constantly changing....the Cold War is over...France, Germany, and to a certain degree, the UK do not have to rely upon the USA for their defense thus they can feel more independent. That is the reason they are taking the stand they are....but in time they will be there, at least the French will. We kicked the backbone out of the Germans the last time and they have not recovered yet so it is no surprise they are timid about getting into a punch up.

We will resolve the Iraq issue....then we will attend to Korea....and at some time we will find a way to promote peace in Israel and Palestine. But each time, we will always look to our own national interests in doing so....even if that "alienates" our allies. The French realize they need the oil from Iraq...and I am sure your government does as well. After all , it was the British Government that drew up the national borders of Iraq.....probably used the blueprints from Northern Ireland for the design from the results of it.

[Bubbette]

Hmm, all these European voices of appeasement and anti-Americanism reminded someone of an earlier time:

"He finds today's Europe "amazingly" similar to that of the 1920s in other ways too: "its love of self-determination and loathing of imperialism and war, its liberal Germany, shrunken Russia and map of Europe crammed with small states, with America's indifference to Europe and Europe's disdain for America, with Europe's casual, endemic anti-Semitism, her politically, financially and masochistically rewarding fascination with Muslim states who despise her and her undertone of self-hatred and guilt."

Gelernter proposes that 1920s-style self-hatred is now "a dominant force in Europe." And appeasement fits this mood perfectly, having grown over the decades into a worldview "that teaches the blood-guilt of Western man, the moral bankruptcy of the West and the outrageousness of Western civilization's attempting to impose its values on anyone else." "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/659rpqyj.asp

[tug3]

SENSEless

Your mention of Iraq and Norther Ireland in the same breath shows a degree of insight I hadn't credited you with:

Both places have been / continue to be under British rule and into both places the US has poured arms and funds resulting in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children, many of whom were 'non-combatant' innocents.

Still feeling smug?

Then as you mentioned Israel can I ask this, (Any anti-Semitic jibes that follow can take their place alongside any anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-whatever. As an atheist I regard them all with equal degrees of contempt and cynicism), why does the US continue to veto motions brought before the Security Council condemning this particular state which is also in possession of WMDs and in breach of UN resolutions? Is the fact that their nukes aren't pointed in your direction the governing factor? Or are the 3 wise monkeys of Capitol Hill, Pentagon and White House fulfilling their roles of hear/see/speak not when it doesn't suit? Or is it simply that the life of a ten year old Palestinian boy whose head was blown in half for having the audacity to throw a stone at a main battle tank not worth that of a similarly poor soul murdered in the events of 9/11?

You tell me 'cause I sure as hell can't work it out!

Rgds
T3

[Bubbette]

*not commenting on Palestinians who send drugged up catatonic Palestinian children to be used as war fodder*. . . . .yet.

however, re the UN, since Libya is chair of the Human Rights Commission, who cares what iota what that racist, barbaric organization thinks or "votes"?

[tug3]

BB

Okay, so perhaps not my final word - but Israeli MBT vs "drugged up catatonic Palestinian children" is justified?

Next thing you'll be saying that Chinese T62 vs 'Hyped-up, unarmed pro-democracy activist' is also justified!

Give me a ******* break!!!! You can't have it all ways otherwise the stench of hypocrisy will choke you to death. An abuse of power is an abuse of power - pure and simple. It shows a contempt for human life equal to that of any terrorist group or dictator you care to mention.

If the UN is so corrupt, trivial and packed with special (anti-US) interest groups, why does the current US administration put so much store in what the UN concludes in justifying its own actions? Answer, because in a world where threats of econonic and military action coupled with blatant double standards are the currency of the last great Super-Power and self-appointed 'Global Cop', it can!

Rgds
T3

[Bubbette]

I don't really know; I think it's pathetic. In any case, guess who's about to head the UN Disarmament Committee? Iraq.

[tug3]

BB

It is the very freedom our governments are about to send thouands to supposedly defend that promotes such principles as participation for all, including those with whom we may not agree. How can you bemoan the presence of any country at the UN? If it was only permissable for friends and allies of the US to take part it would be a pretty small club. If history is anything to go by the membership would be completely different every 30 years or so. Even Iraq had a 'Special Relationship' when Iran was out of favour and many would argue that, given its record of support for various terrorist groups, Libya was merely a convenient 'patsy' for Clipper 103.

However, a degree in politics and international affairs I don't have so here endeth my contribution. Feel free to discuss, ridicule, insult, whatever. We have the freedom to do so - might as well enjoy it!

Rgds
T3

[Bubbette]

The UN is a racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Western organization. It should be disbanded. It does no good in compared to the Western tax dollars that fund it.

[solotk]

How in the name of F**K did we get to Israel again?

The question is "Should we go to War" NOT

"Shall we have another pointless headbanging discussion about the Middle East, and Israel in particular"

All of us, who are likely to be involved in the sharp end of muscular US diplomacy, would like to know what our peers, colleagues and assorted camp followers think on this very very very important issue.

Bubbette, why don't you go and start a "Israeli election result, will it be good or bad for Israel and the future?" thread in JB, and try and discuss it , with well researched arguements and FACTS.

[Bubbette]

Hey--why are you blaming me--I didn't bring Israel into it--but if someone does, I'm not going to allow them to blaspheme the country!!!! :)

[ClearBlueWater]

Solotk, no we shouldn't go to war because it's nothing more than a US centric, political, oil and probably military-industrial complex stitch up.

The cant thrown in by SASless and Bubbette demonstrates just how far removed a large section of US population is from sharing any experience or knowledge of the rest of the world. These are the very people that will vote in a pillock like George W. Bush who of course shares their US centric and utterly warped world view.

The West is wild and full of cowboys looking for injuns.

[tug3]

BB

Having just checked out your website...

http://www.mrmurrayhill.com

I'm surprised you didn't throw homophobic, anti-'drag queen' and all round 'party-poopers' at the UN. It would be no more ridiculous than your existing list!

Rgds
T3

[BlueWolf]

Methinks there may be some sort of contest going on between Jews and Maori, to determine who can claim to be the most put-upon race in history.

I can claim bloodline of one and lifetime national experience of the other, and I would humbly suggest that both pull their heads out of their a$$es and smell the coffee.

This thread is entitled "Should We Go To War".

It is not entitled "Should Bubbette Hijack Every Thread Going In An Attempt To Win More Sympathy For The Israelis?"

I'm absolutely sure that Israel is more than capable of looking after itself without the dubious assistance of such distracting sycophants as appear hell-bent on perverting the course of debate without making any constructive or relevant contribution to it.

So, the Yids have had a bum deal these past few centuries. For crying out loud, get over it, harden up, and grow up. You want us to feel sorry for you, be apologetic, tug forelock, and spend the rest of eternity doing you favours and feeling guilty? Whiff the mocha, sunshine, it ain't gonna happen.

I would bet the farm on the average Israeli warrior reading posts on this forum of the type you seem to favour, cringing away in embarassment. These guys are hardass fighters, not sympathy-seeking pooftahs in need of mollycoddling.

"Ooh, I'm not going to let them blaspheme..." What are you?? For Fvucks sakes Bubbette, what a big girl you are.

My Danish uncles in the resistance during the war were actively and proudly involved in helping smuggle my Jewish family out of occupied Denmark and into neutral Sweden. Which side am I more proud of? Both of them, you moron. Neither side of me appreciates the gutless, sympathy-begging garbage you promulgate here.

For your information, the topic of this thread is a question as to whether "we" (meaning Britain in particular, and the USWEST in general) should go to war with Iraq, at this time, and for the stated purpose.

It has Jack Schidt to do with Israel or your weird philosophy concerning her, and maybe you could make a better contribution to the forum, and to the Jewish people, by bearing that in mind, and only making comments where they have relevance.

[ClearBlueWater]

On the off chance that the more gung ho may yet moderate their views in light of the likely human costs that will result from a war on Iraq the following is an offering from the Guardian newspaper today.


Counting the dead

In the event of war, how many Iraqi civilians will die? And how many will starve, or be displaced? In secret, the UN has been doing the sums

Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 29, 2003
The Guardian

With as much secrecy as the Pentagon, the United Nations has been busily counting the likely casualty toll of a war on Iraq. While the Pentagon focuses on its troops, the network of UN specialist agencies is trying to estimate what would happen to Iraqis.
The assessments are dramatic, though for reasons of internal diplomacy or because of American pressure the UN is unwilling to go public with the figures. But a newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could "require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries", according to the World Health Organisation.

WHO estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be wounded and another 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies.

"The nutritional status of some 3.03 million people will be dire and they will require therapeutic feeding," says the UN children's fund. About four-fifths of these victims will be children under five. The rest will be pregnant and lactating women.

Although Iraq's population at 26 million is almost the same as Afghanistan's, UN agencies say the effect of war in Iraq would be far worse. Afghanistan is largely rural so that people have long traditions of coping mechanisms.

By contrast, Iraq has "a relatively urbanised population, with the state providing the basic needs of the population". Some 16 million depend on the monthly "food basket" of basic goods such as rice, sugar, flour, and cooking oil, supplied for free by the Iraqi government.

The expected bombing of Iraq's infrastructure would disrupt these supplies and the UN would struggle to send in food from outside Iraq. The electricity network "will be seriously degraded", the UN says, leaving millions without proper drinking water because treatment plants will be unable to function. At the moment 70% of the urban population has access to water from treatment plants with standby generators, but if these are also hit, the numbers at risk would escalate. Only 10% of the sewage pumping stations have generators so bombing could quickly provoke cholera and dysentery.

The United Nations high commission for refugees estimates at least 900,000 Iraqi refugees will go to Iran. No figures have been given for those who may go to Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, or Turkey. Another 2 million could be displaced inside the country.

The UN report makes no estimate of likely Iraqi war deaths. In Afghanistan it is calculated that bombing killed about 5,000 civilians directly. Up to 20,000 other Afghans died through the disruption of drought relief and the bombing's other indirect effects, according to a Guardian investigation of death rates at camps for the internally displaced. Bombing in Iraq would probably produce similar proportions of direct and indirect fatalities.

The UN estimates that city dwellers who lose their homes will be able to move to partially destroyed buildings nearby but it foresees that hundreds of thousands will escape to the countryside and be forced to sleep in the open. It says 3.6 million will need "emergency shelter".

The UN report does not make any distinction on whether the war is authorised by the security council or not, since a bomb is just as lethal whoever orders it to drop. It is taken for granted that the United States will be in charge of the targeting, and the UN will not have any influence. The report was leaked to an American non-governmental organisation and posted on the website of the UK-based anti-war group, Campaign against Sanctions in Iraq. UN officials have not challenged its authenticity. Nathaniel Hurd, who obtained it, said yesterday: "The UN may have updated some assessments but this is only likely to affect estimates of refugee flows and not the figures on damage and destruction."

Other NGOs have been conducting their own assessments. Oxfam, which has sent water specialists to the region, says half of Iraq's sewage treatment plants already do not work because of shortages of spare parts caused by sanctions. "We are particularly concerned about water and sanitation and the problems of pumping. There is no normal economy because people rely on state food distribution on a massive scale", says Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's director.

Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates casualties could be five times higher than in the 1991 Gulf war. "The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim," it says in a report available on the first Gulf war, the UN calculated that between 3,500 and 15,000 civilians died during the war (plus between 100,000 and 120,000 Iraqi troops). A new war of the kind projected by the US could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 in Baghdad and between 1,200 and 30,000 on the southern and northern fronts in Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. If biological and chemical weapons were used, up to 33,000 more people could die.

Medact examines detailed recent analyses by other specialists on the various tactics the US may use. The wide range of figures comes from different estimates of the degree of Iraqi resistance and the length of the war.

The leaked UN report is at www.casi.org.uk

[steamchicken]

The Weekly Standard....

Once again, the president has come through, and rallied the nation.

Don Murphy explains the reasons he sees gold trading at $550 an ounce, and could go as high as $850! Find out why!


THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE is gone--or so it seems. Why does it seem reasonable to bet against the resurgence of a Russian Empire anytime soon?

Obviously the analogy between Poland and Israel is rough.

Clearly sane and balanced. Frankly, Bubbette, I can't even begin to image how you read this stuff without laughing or cutting your throat. British tabloids are bad enough, but at least they don't have this combination of pseudo-seriousness and cashgrabbing share pusher ads. There is a Russian proverb about the difference between a summer fool and a winter fool. The summer fool goes staggering and yelling down the street, and everyone sees he's a fool. The winter fool knocks on the door, you let him in, he takes off his coat and boots, and only then do you see he's a fool. That is the difference between the Sun and - say - this Standard. But - credit where credit's due, at least it's not as bad as some of the nutter sites certain other PPRuNers reference.

At bottom, I suspect that most Americans don't realise that Palestine is a squalid poverty-stricken hellhole, under constant curfew and blockade. The situation has been so bad since last spring that any form of normal life is impossible. You can't fight urban terrorists by sending a full armoured battalion group with AH64 top cover into a slum, as the Israelis regularly do. You are very unlikely to catch anyone and you are certain to kill people who have no connection to terrorists. What you will do is waste ammunition and terrorise everyone in a wide radius. It is futile and deadly. Britain has fought by my reckoning 6 major anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency campaigns since 1945, (feel free to mention any more you can think of) and the lessons of each have been that success can only be achieved by offering a political solution which is better for the majority than whatever the extremists can promise, by maintaining the maximum degree of normality and security for all sections of the civil population, and by using an absolute minimum of force and maximum of intelligence. Before you start shouting about Bloody Sunday, you should consider that it proves the point - the killings set back the campaign in Northern Ireland more than anything the IRA could have done. 2 of those campaigns ended in absolute failure (Palestine and Aden), both because - you guessed it - the political track of policy broke down. In Aden, there was effectively no political answer; the solution offered to the people was unacceptable and they were told to like it. Then it was decided to get out, meaning that the Army had to suffer through a period of escalating violence until the evacuation date for nothing. In Palestine, though, the political solution on offer was offered to only some of the political leaders - i.e. the ones WE liked. This gave the extremists the ability to collapse the process simply by blowing up another policeman. Does that sound familiar?

To recap - you can only finally deal with terrorism by psycho-political means. It's necessary to keep the pressure on the terrorists, but with the proviso that the minimum force is used and the greatest possible normality for all sections of the population is maintained. You have to offer a better future than the terrorist, in order to separate the terrorists from popular support. And you must choose the negotiating partner who was chosen by the people - you cannot declare "We don't like your leader. We'll just appoint one."

[solotk]

Well said the Blue Fellah

I would have liked to steam in remorseless, unfortunately, ny current crop of warning points prohibits a weapons-free stance:D

Bubbette, do us a favour here, and try , for the love of God to either stay on topic, or deploy elsewhere smartly.

PS Blue, got the PM, ta muchly, but I shall still continue to cast an avaricious gaze over certain NZ assets. Unfortunately, I have been informed I'm not the only one -lol

[Jackonicko]

Steamchicken

Very well said. Yours are intelligent points well made.

By extension, since there is a terrorist threat from Pan Islamic forces which have nothing to do with Iraq, any solution should also not be something which will increase general Arab/Islamic hostility to the USA and the West, unless we're willing to accept that that threat will increase.

The unwillingness or inability of the US to see this is puzzling.

One interpretation could be that this is nothing to do with freedom for the oppressed Iraqi, nor even about dealing with a threat, and instead is all to do with US hegemony and economic, 'coca cola imperialism'. If the aim is to actually take over in Iraq, or to install a puppet regime and run the country in our interests coercively, then one might accept that Iraqi public acquiescence is unnecessary.

A more generous interpretation may be that the 'frontier spirit' and the resistance to 'big Government' and 'state interference' that goes with it is translated in international affairs into a national distaste and resistance to the UN, which represents the kind of prescriptive Government that the more right wing Americans cannot stomach. This interpretation of the US national psyche might also explain the appeal of a fairly gung-ho, fairly unintelligent, vigilanteeism in lieu of proper foreign policy and diplomatic relations, and might also account for the US Government's apparent distaste for due procedure and for 'pansy-assed' liberal concepts like justice and morality.

And while we prepare for an operation which will lead to increased hostility within the Arab and Islamic world, the failure to express even token disapproval for what is going on in Israel seems to be incredible. Action now on this would defuse much of the increase in hostility which will otherwise be inevitable. To act (ostensibly on the basis of non-compliance with UN resolutions) in Iraq, while ignoring non-compliance by Israel seems to be a short-sighted way of ensuring that we will be accused of self interest, double standards and rank hypocrisy.

Apart from that, it's fine.....

[Bubbette]

solotk, bluewolf, I was not the first to bring up Israel---where's your castigation against tug3, who did? I'm waiting. . .

In any case, when others do, I will not fail to point out the lies they invariably post.

jackonicko, again, Israel acts in its own self defense, and shall continue to do so. How much more hostility can the Arab and Islamic world have toward the west? Their official line seems to be hate and destroy the west, isn't it?

Er, blaspheme comment was a joke guys.

[tug3]

BB

Moi? No!

Senseless actually.

Rgds
T3

[Jackonicko]

Bubbette,

The concept of self defence assumes a proportionate response against the aggressor, not a disproportionate response against innocent civilians.

Most of the Arab and Islamic world isn't fundamentalist. Most of the Arab and Islamic world doesn't care that much about infidel forces in Saudi Arabia. Most of the Arab and Islamic world doesn't support Al Qaeda and didn't support 9/11.

Much of the Arab and Islamic World was 'with us' last time, during Operation Desert Storm. With us enough to contribute forces and money, and to provide basing without demur.

Most of the Arab World, and many in Europe are profoundly uncomfortable about the extent and brutality of the ongoing Israeli repression of the indigenous Arab population in Palestine. Stopping this does not have to mean denying Israel's right to security or existence. It does demand that Israel gives up its insistence on having carte blanche to do whatever it likes in the entire area of 'Biblical Israel' and to stay within its own legally agreed borders.

The Arabs have compromised. It's Israel's turn now, and if it won't do so without coercion, then the West should apply the necessary pressure, and win back its friends in the region, and take the opportunity to be seen as being even handed in its enforcement of UN resolutions.

[Bubbette]

Er, um, no that's not exactly how self defense works. For instance, Al Qaeda murdered 3000 here in the US. Whether it takes the killing of 3, or 30,000 to wipe out that terrorist group, it will be done---in self defense. Same with Israel. And please note---Israel doesn't murder civilians--the Palestinian terrorist scum do that--blowing up weddings, discos, and their latest--sending doped up teenagers to blow themselve up.

The Arabs have made absolutely no compromise--from not resettling the "refugees" who they created, to not giving Israel *anything* in return for its territorial concessions, Israel's given all, and the Arabs and its other Muslim enemies--nothing.

Enough is enough!

Check your mailbox.
Heliport

[ORAC]

Please, can you shut up about the "I" word. I'm sick to death of it, and you've both made you're views known elsewhere. It's nothing to do "Should we go to war". I see no reason why this thread should end up locked just because, yet again, you've hijacked it.

As to the point about why the U.S.A. feels differently, it's because it has a different track record to the U.K.

The defining points for the U.S.A. were the results they achieved in Germany and Japan after WWII, where they moved into what hostile defeated countries and imposed their rule. The result has been, as they see it, flourishing friendly democracies. They see no reason why they cannot achieve the same result in Iraq.

And, possibly, they may be right. The reconstruction of a conquered nation may be a more applicable guide than that of winning a "hearts and minds" campaign against a guerilla force. And if they managed it with the Japanese mind-set of 1945, I can't see any intrinsic reason they can't do it in Iraq now.

[A Civilian]

Question. Am I as annoying as Bubbette. He's really getting on my nerves and I like to think of myself as an easy going fella but he's seriously doing my head in. Do I do to you what Bubbete is doing to me?

[Bubbette]

Why is it that everyone but me is allowed to bring up that which you don't want to discuss? Is it because my views differ from yours? I'll take that memo in the morning, please.

[ORAC]

No, it's because you only have one view, on one subject no matter what the subject matter of the thread. Not only is it intensely annoying, but perfectly good threads are ending up locked because of it.

[Bubbette]

er, um, no, as I said, others, who have one view on one subject bring it up first. I don't like to let lies go uncorrected. So why don't you direct your displeasure to those who bring it up, which hasn't been me, not recently anyway.

[Bubbette]

ORAC, I'm wait-ting. . .

And Jackocnicko, I absolutely hold the Arabs, and the UN responsible for the "Palestinian Refugees." All the other refugees from WWII, even the Jews, the lowest scum of the low from that era have been resettled; most of my friends are actually refugees or children of such WWII refugees. Funny how you don't hear them crying, or living in squalor, or sending their children to blow themselves and other children up. But I digress. The Arabs don't let the other "Palestinian Refugee" Arabs hold jobs, own property, get an education etc in their own countries. It's pure "ethnic" bigotry on the part of the Arab countries where these people live.

JN, Jordan doesn't want the West Bank back--remember, they signed a treaty. And Israel sure as heck doen't want Gaza--they tried to give it to Egypt a million times, but Egypt wouldn't take it. And you've stated an oxymoron--there is no such thing as a secure Israel based on the pre-67 borders---there wasn't pre-67, and there sure won't be one now.

[solotk]

For the love of God, and for our collective sanity

SHUT UP

Please, please shut up, we've had enough. You haven't won any discussion points with your relentless assaults, we really are sick and tired of you hijacking every bast8rd thread going, preaching the same tired old Pony bollox

This thread is not about Israel, it really isn't. Did they do Comprehension 101 where you were educated? Stop ruining threads Bubbette, really stop, before I use the balance of my warning points on making myself feel a lot better

When I see quite calm and reasoned posters like ORAC getting the hump, then I know you've overstepped the mark

solotk, bluewolf, I was not the first to bring up Israel---where's your castigation against tug3, who did? I'm waiting. .

No he didn't , it was Escapee, but we might have got away with it, if it wasn't for the usual Pony spouting cretins, seeking to foist their "YeeHarrr America and Israel v the world" bollox on us.
Anyway what does it matter, maybe you get off on winding up posters and killing threads. Is that what you do Bubbette? Get out more, and take your poisoned, narrow minded, blinkered, bigoted attitude with you.

[Bubbette]

And where's your criticism of tug3, or of jackonicko? You agree with them, so it's ok?

[solotk]

Shut up you tiresome little shrew

[Bubbette]

Is the truth so painful you can't come up with a coherent response and have to resort to personal attacks?

[solotk]

Is your level of comprehension so limited, that you can't understand that by your repeated headbanging, refusal to accept counter arguments, and general ignorance of other peoples viewpoints, that you do your cause more harm than good?

Bubbette, what you actually do, which is singularly annoying, and frankly makes us all collectively lose the will to live, is the way you metaphorically put your fingers in your ears, and sing La-la-la I'm not listening.

....and you are bloody tiresome as a result.

Maybe I should phone Sharon, and tell him his current course of action is a waste of time, and all he has to do, is drop you on the West bank for a fortnight. Christ on a bicycle, 2 weeks later, the Israelis would have all the territory they needed, as well as creating a clear area of territory all the way to Damascus.
I'd certainly prefer that, to seeing more IDF soldiers and civilians on both sides die over this madness.

[Bubbette]

I believe I respond to each with an appropriate response. Of course one must consider to what I am responding.

[Jackonicko]

Since you are incapable of reasoned argument and can only spout half-witted Israeli propaganda and outright lies, why should any of us dignify you with polite or even civil responses, as I am still trying to do?

Refugees don't need re-settling. They need to return to their own land, and to the land occupied by their forefathers for centuries. Their willingness to accept that this can't happen, and to accept instead a tiny portion of what was legally theirs until 1948 is quite remarkable, and a tribute to their humanity. Israel's unwillingness to grant them even that is disgraceful. The Palestinians belong in Palestine, not in Egypt, Syria, the Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Libya or Algeria.

And as for secure borders, Israel must learn to compromise enough to live with its neighbours, or face eventual disaster. Israel is in direct contravention of a whole bagload of UN resolutions, remember. The difference between you and I is that I'm not personally or emotionally involved in this debate and can see a balance of right and wrong on each side. You don't seem to have the emotional maturity, intelligence or honesty to see anything but black and white. We know that you think that Israel is entirely in the right, the very personification of tolerance and compromise, and that the Jews are god's chosen people, and that Arabs are evil 'scum' whose blood is worthless and who have no right to their hostoric homelands. You don't need to keep telling us what you think. We know. (And by ranting on in this extremist fashion, insisting on unconditional support for Israel and denying the excesses and wrongs occasionally committed by the IDF and Israeli government, you only serve to undermine the general sympathy and support which Israel deserves, and which most of us generally feel).

[Bubbette]

er, um, no, I don't think all the millions of refugees from WWII are going to be resettled back to their homelands--just not practical nor desired at this point. Do you really think all the American and Western European, and Argentinean resettled refugees should return to their European homes? Intersting thought.

Seeing as Jordan occupies most of "Palestine," that seems to be the logical place since the Arab countries, unlike Western Europe and North and South America, refuse to accept these "refugees," (since they left of their own accord, I don't really see how "refugee" fits). Course no Arab lives freely, except for the Israeli Arabs, so why should Palestinian Arabs live any differently--don't you think?

Um, re the UN, seeing as Libya is chair of the Human Rights Commission, Iraq is about to be chair of the Disarmament Commission, and Syria is on the Security Council, I don't think it pulls any moral wait. And the UN has shown its true Jew-hatred starting with the "Zionism is Racism" debacle and ending with the Durban conference.

Don't tell me what I think, as you don't know, and I certainly didn't say all Arabs are scum--only the terrorists. Are you saying all Arabs are terrorists? And re the Arabs homeland, well, what do you call those 22 countries from Morocco to Iraq? Looks like the Arabs have plenty of homeland, don't you think?

R

[ORAC]

They might as well shut this thread now, it's gone the way of the rest.

In this case, it's Bubbette and Jacko. On the Finsbury Park mosque thread it was Bubbette and Chuck K. Note the common link?

Bubbette, whenever anyone posts something which, to the slightest degree, offends your sensibility, you go completely over the top. You have no sense of proportion, you turn molehills into mountains, you pour petrol on flames. You provoke a instinctive, antagonistic response and totally divert the thread towards what was a total irrelevancy. It then escalates till the thread is closed.

Now, most of use can suffer someone posting things we don't agree with and ignore it, if it's not germaine to the discussion, so that the thread can move forward. If possible, we steer the thread back to the original theme. All we ask is you do the same.

If you can't do that, please, just leave us in peace.

[Jackonicko]

"Do you really think all the American and Western European, and Argentinian resettled refugees should return to their European homes?"

No, but those who want to should be given that option. They should not be banned from returning.

"Seeing as Jordan occupies most of "Palestine,"

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect, as you should know from previous posts on this subject. Transjordan and Palestine were separated (not least because of the different cultural and ethnic background of their peoples).

You "don't think the UN pulls any moral wait" (weight, presumably?).

No, well you wouldn't acknowledge the legal or moral authority of anything or anybody who dares criticise your precious, perfect Israel, would you? Except when the UN condemns Israel's enemies.

"And re the Arabs homeland, well, what do you call those 22 countries from Morocco to Iraq? Looks like the Arabs have plenty of homeland, don't you think?"

Well only if you're so dim, or so callous as to lump all Arabs together. Why do the Irish need their own state? Haven't you Europeans got enough land. Arab nations are separate entities, just as European nations are, and the Palestinians need their own homeland as they were promised, and as they fought for. And that homeland must be shared with the Jews, who deserve and need their own homeland in Palestine, too. The Palestinians have accepted Israel's right to exist. When will Israel extend the same recognition to the Palestinians?

[ORAC]

Jacko, you're as bad as Bubbette.

You've both said all this before, you know you're not listening to each other, and you know nobody else is listening to what you say. You've trashed the thread, and to what purpose?

So why bother?

[solotk]

.....Trying to get back on topic....

Blair announces - North Korea is next - Oh Chr*st, will someone please give this guy a copy of "History of the 20th century"?

www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1078081,00.html

[ORAC]

Well, we're consistent,

We were in Gulf War I, we'll be in Gulf War II.
We were in the Korean war........................

At least no one will be able to say we after their oil. :(

[Stan Bydike]

Even Judith Chalmers is saying that Vietnam is a good place for a vacation these days:D

[BlueWolf]

Good point, ORAC; I hadn't considered the possibility of creating a genuinely friendly regime to replace Saddam. I figured the administration put in place afterwards would be a puppet only.
However, it makes perfect sense, particularly now that the Saudis appear to be drifting away.
Iraq is, after all, a moderate secular nation, despite the behaviour of its psychotic genocidal leader; perversely enough, maybe even because of him. Presumably the West would find a good degree of willingness to accept such a regime amongst the general population.

I remain unconvinced, however, that this in itself is justification enough to invade Iraq at this time. The legal case can and has been made. The moral case is a different matter. It rests on often-made, but yet to be proven, claims that Saddam possesses WMD capable of threatening his neighbours.

We know he had chemical weapons in the past. We know he gassed the Kurds. No-one is disputing this. We know he had, or was very close to having, nuclear weapons in the past. Israel knew this when they bombed his reactor, and that is why they bombed it. They knew the threat was there, they knew he had a mind to use it, and they knew they were at risk. So they took out the source of the threat.
Legally, Israel would struggle to make a case for this blatantly unlawful action; but morally, they were perfectly well justified, and I don't think anyone would question the wisdom of their actions at that time.

This time, however, we don't know that he has any such weapons. If we do, then we should front up with the proof. We claim we have such proof; OK, where is it? I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, and to shut up and go away, if someone can offer me some sort of evidence that Iraq is currently in possession of anything which contravenes international law. If that is the case, then whether they intend to use them or not is irrelevant.

But we are not doing that. Why not? Do we actually have any proof, or are we lying?

If we are lying, why?

Have we made a best guess, based on our suspicions, and are we trying to justify that? If so, why? Why not be upfront? Why not just say, "well, we think he does, and we're not taking the chance, so we're going to take him out."
That at least would be honest, and a position one could respect. But if we do actually have proof, and the justification for our intended action rests on that proof, why in the name of common sense are we hiding it?

Or maybe the truth is a little different. Maybe we don't have any proof, maybe we don't have any evidence, maybe we don't even have any suspicions, and maybe we haven't needed to guess.

Maybe we're really only after Iraq's oil, and maybe we have no moral justification for taking this action, and maybe we know that but we're going to do it anyway.

That makes us no better than we claim Saddam to be.

Iraq doesn't have links to al-Qaeda. Iraq doesn't support fundamentalist Muslim expansionism; it fought an eight-year war with Iran in order to prevent it. If we dare remember, it was the insistence of Kuwait that Iraq repay $20 billion loaned to finance this war which lead to the invasion and sparked GW1. After eight years and a million dead protecting their privileged a$$es, Saddam figured he didn't owe the Kuwaitis squat, and quite frankly I agree with him on that one.

Saddam Hussein is a Very Bad Man. He should not be in any position of power, and he needs to be removed. But there are other, more constructive ways of achieving this than by invasion.

Whether this thing, which I believe is inevitable, comes back to bite us, remains to be seen.

But we are not being honest about our motives, and that being the case, it is my humble submitted opinion, Gentlemen and Ladies, that the answer to the question "should we go to war?" must be no.

[Jackonicko]

Orac,

You absolute ba$tard! Comparing me with Bubette. Below the belt, old chap! While I'll admit to a degree of passion on this one, I am open to argument, and I do see right and wrong on both sides of the argument. You may be right. Maybe no-one's listening, but anyone who thinks that the whole Palestine/Israel argument isn't relevant to the likely Arab/Islamic reaction to Dubya's latest folly is kidding himself.

Blue,

We seldom agree, but that is a nicely written statement of the anti-war case.

I'm not sure, however, that imposed regime change ever works (for all the reasons elaborated by steam chicken a couple of pages back) except when a people is completely traumatised by outright defeat and by an extraordinary degree of fear. I'm certain that it's not morally right where the threat posed by a nation is posed only by the leadership/government, and not by the entire society (as was arguably the case in Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan).

It's certainly not the USA's place to try and impose its choice of regime on Iraq.

[ClearBlueWater]

I'm listening and I doubt I'm alone.

I listen to BlueWolf, ORAC, Jackonicko and solotk because they usually offer fair and good quality arguments for their respective positions. Keep it up.

I must say ORAC in defence of Jackonicko he's nothing like Bubbette. I cringe and fear for the safety of the world when I read Bubbette's pathetic propaganda. Meanwhile I think we've got half a chance of not stepping over the mark even on the firing line when the chips are down if Jackonicko's behind the trigger. Unfortunately Bubbette's probably got more hardware packing a bigger punch than does Jackonicko.

[Danny]

Well, thanks to a small bunch of inconsiderate people who are unable to keep a thread on track I now have to spend the next few hours, going through this and removing all the irrelevant and petty arguing.

Bubbette & Jackonicko, you are the main culprits and poor old Solotk is about to reach his quota of points and be banned!

I can understand where bubbette is coming from but I don't agree to the thread being diverted in this way. Jackonocko is an arab propagandist and the impression I get is that he is very easily led into an argument with bubbette. At least Bubbette has the conviction to admit openly her beliefs and ideology.

Anyway, this thread is about "Should we go to war?". The distracting debate about the Israel/Palestinian issue is not appropriate here even if there are quite a few individuals who have, in my opinion, views tempered by distorted propaganda, the likes of which Jackonicko tends to purvey. So, I'm clocing this thread for the time being and will reinstate it when I have edited it enough to get it more or less back on track.:*

PS. Second thoughts... just started to read the whole thread and to be perfectly honest I can't be bothered to waste my time doing all that editing. I'll just leave the post closed.

I really don't want to get a moderator in this forum but if you lot are unable to sort yourselves out without descending into flame wars and petty insults then you are going to get one and that will lead to a lot more lock-outs for threads AND individuals.

Once again... Bubbette will always jump in and try and defend the Israeli point of view (from American eyes) but she does not descend into personal insults. Jackonicko will always jump in and stir up the flames with his arab perspective on the issue, also without insults. Solotk and a few others will ruin it all and take it beyond recovery by attacking the individual instead of the argument. I don't see why I should ban someone for making a point, without using personal insult. I will ban someone if they persistently divert the course of threads and in this case Bubbette and Jackonicko are testing me on that issue. True, Bubbette didn't introduce the topic of Israel and the Palestinians but she did latch on to the mention of that topic and thereby caused the thread to drift dramatically off course. Jackonicko just latched on blindly and accellerated it and then Solotk stirred it all up with personal insults. :mad:

There are others involved also, but I'll stick to the main protagonists in this case. Whilst there is no way of keeping the Israel/Palestinian issue out of any debate when it comes to Middle East affairs, the Iraq issue in particular, I do expect most of you to have the maturity and intelligence to keep the debate more or less on track. Obviously my expectations are aimed too high and I am disappointed that I have to get involved. I am going to leave this thread closed and you will just have to deal with it.

There are many websites out there with propaganda for both sides of the Israel/Palestine debate. Go find one of those that suits your purposes and have your idealogical fights there. I have lived in the region and my views are well known on this website. Whilst I am pro Israel I am not anti Palestine. I am not pro Sharon but I am anti Arafat. Politics in Israel regarding the Palestinians are a very hot issue and for those of you only educated by a diet of distorted media 'packages' I suggest you either stay out of the debate or else go to your local library and do a bit of research for yourselves before engaging brain/digit/keyboard (in that order and in the appropriate thread). :rolleyes: