[robotiks]

errm.. Im talking about George Bush
Thought I'd post my thought cos this is really, really doing my head in now.
Ok so USA & UK are going to war, I think thats fairly inevitable now, but what gives them the right ?
The UN have not given the go-ahead, France dont want it, Germany, Russia doesnt, China doesnt etc etc etc...
A lot of the USA doesnt and the majority of the UK doesnt but our prime minister ignores our wishes. I thought this was a democratic country but no one bloody listens so we might as well be in a dictatorship for all it matters.
How can this be ? How can the leader of our country go against the wishes so blatently ?

[marc]

welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism, where money truly reigns supreme.

[oli]

robotiks - I agree completely, that doesnt make me on Saddam's side either. The argument Bush & Blair use is that he is a tyrant who needs to be removed but Mugabe in zimbabwe is also a tyrant but I dont see the warships arriving over there. If they bang on about weapons of mass destruction, what about the other like Israel , North Korea, India, Pakistan and of course US & USA - are we allowed them, Who decided this - Us.
In years to come I see people looking back on this in disgust, I think all we can do is not vote next time for a PM who ignores our wishes but then again I dont think any of them will, so we're stuffed.
Hey Marc whats it like in Holland m8 ? can I move there

[SagaLout]

Im not pro war but you're massively over simplyfying the issues here.

War is a terrible, terrible thing, almost glorified in recent skirmishes by 24 hour news showing distant shots of smart bombs. Maybe if they had the cameras where the bombs fell people would find it a little more distasteful.

France (with their nice leader who invites dictators to tea and cakes) and Russia dont want war because Iraq owes them billions, and they dont want to lose the debt if the country goes up in smoke. Its got nothing to do with if war is right or not, they dont care for the people of iraq anymore than Bush or Saddam.

Like I said, I'm not pro war, and I'd feel more comfortable if it was any other president than Bush that was leading the world into it, but one thing worries me. Blair has been accused in the past of making u turns to retain popularity amongst the voters. Yet on this case he's willing to put his entire career and place in history on the line for this cause. That makes me wonder what he knows that he's not letting on. We will never learn even 20% of the intelligence that the CIA and MI6 have gathered, and thats actually the way it has to be, like it or not.

We need ot be able to trust that the people that do see the evidence do make the right choices and for the right reason, and thats what concerns me, more about bush than blair to be honest.

.....wish we had Senator Palmer from "24" as US President....he'd do the right thing

[oli]

Good points Sagalout, but surely if Blair knows things he isnt letting on then he should give us the full picture & then the public might back him.
I am for a war with UN backing, I just dont think we should go alone with the US.. it undermines the UN. If we went the UN route tried out every option & still Iraq doesnt budge then yeah go ahead, at least you can look back and say that every option was offered to Saddam to disarm.

[SagaLout]

As soon as the intelligence is revealed publically the source is compromised, leading to

a) a dead source or one that has to be pulled out pretty bloody quick
b) no further intelligence

Thats what I meant by you have to trust the people that do see the intelligence. Thats the dilemma. I think I do trust Blair to do the right thing, but I'm far from convinced of the US administration, and they're probably the ones passing the info to Blair.

Ok i agree with Sagalout his points are very true.
as he said Iraq owe Russia Billions and quite frankly America and Great Britain aint going to compensate when Saddam is over thrown. - secondly the point about all for war going the U.N direction? - this has simply let us down Saddam is getting even more time to quite frankly plan attack we must overthrow him and we must overthrow him now! Its really that simple as you Know Saddam is a Tyrant! and kills his own people (civillians) thus if we were to go to war less civiillians would be killed than when he was in power! i would say its worth the risk! - Im not a fan of Bush i think hes just tryin to finish off wat his father started a whole 12 years ago! (gulf war *cough) and i would say blair seems to be the puppet and bush the puppeteer
Acording to the other point about banging on about Weapons of Mass Destruction in other countries Israel , North Korea, India, Pakistan and of course US & USA let me point out acording to my knowledge Israel dont have a Nuclear Programme - North Korea have shut there programme down however in recent times they want to regenarate the Nuclear plant for use with "energy" - India and Pakistan are only starting out in the Nuclear programme and have very small amounts of nuclear power thus not breaching any regulations u forgot to mention Russia - Russia have nuclear missles and again to my knowlege there aimed at the U.S.A however it would be chaos to launch on and in recent times the U.K /U.S.A and Russia have become allias! - U.S.A also have a nuclear programme and of course they have deadly amounts but they cant breach rules and regulations so there sitting in safe keeping plus the U.S.A have the Missile Protection Programme which is in space - hence why they are the Elite Super Power! and i think U.K has a small Nuclear Programme thats why were strong alias with USA!

Well thats my 2 cents on Iraq and war Let it be

Regards

Me

[oli]

How can we trust the US administration & Blair when they are as corrupt as it comes. Bush has strong ties with Oil companies , received money from corrupt Enron. Blairs wife tries to lie her way out of trouble. Im sorry I just cant place my faith in any of them.
We are manipulated by the media, take one example shots were fired day b4 yesterday in Iraq but I get the paper yesterday and there is no mention of it- all the front pages are taken up by news of a copper running off with some girl; I know this is important but surely not more important than Iraq.

sorry but what has blairs wife got to do with tony blair himself - dont listen to all that spin doctor shit! - secondly there have been many arguments that bush is only doing this for the oil fields in iraq but as he has said time and time again they will be givin to the iraqi ppl! - unless saddamm lights them before he is ousted out! the one thing im worried about is fighting a war on 2 many fronts - iraq - terrorism - north korea - and our own ppl if they dont start seeing the light!

[oli]

Are you trying to say that there is no corruption in the government ?
Its rotten to the core m8.
Who made us and usa the right & wrong enforcers ? This could turn out to be a vietnam; I see it happening without the backing of the public.
Also people think this will be a quick war with us firing intelligent missles from miles away etc after this they need to take baghdad which means dangerous & bloody urban warfare.
Yes the oil fields will be given to the Iraqi people, but they will be controlled by a government that Bush helps install - what happens if this one turns out to be another Saddam (who the UK and US gave power to )? Get rid of him as well years later. Do you seriously think that Bush will not profit from getting rid of Saddam.

[SagaLout]

Agree with you about the war Oli. This is'nt going to be won with smart bombs, unless the Iraqi army overthrows Saddam.

Its going to be down to street warfare, where allied forces dont have much of a technological advantage, only training and discipline, against the iraqi local knowledge.

Many young soldiers will die, many children will lose dads (and mums now), and many iraqi civilians will perish.

Is it worth it? Only Blair and Bush know for sure.

I still think that under all the spin Blair is a moral person...and had children of his own which DOES change your thinking. I dont think he'd do this, and risk political suicide if it wasn't for a very good reason.

.....and and Isreal have had nuclear weapons since the 60's or 70's. They're also, IMO, the most likely country to use them. They've certainly been close plenty of times.

[Bill Posters]

Originally posted by SagaLout
As soon as the intelligence is revealed publically the source is compromised, leading to

a) a dead source or one that has to be pulled out pretty bloody quick
b) no further intelligence

Thats what I meant by you have to trust the people that do see the intelligence. Thats the dilemma. I think I do trust Blair to do the right thing, but I'm far from convinced of the US administration, and they're probably the ones passing the info to Blair.

Given that the evidence of said intelligence agent will likely tip the balance in favour of war, why is there the need to think in terms of keeping them 'in place'?
Surely after a conflict the entire political landscape of Iraq is going to change, so intelligence agents in place now will be redundant post-war.

I can see no good reason to withold any decisive intelligence at this stage of the process.
Pull them out*, let them tell their story then have a war where the coalition and their countrymen are unified and clear about the idea that they're doing the right thing.

Given that the above idea is so bleedin' obvious, I can easily assume that none such intelligence exists.

* Pull them out, leave them in, let them die. It's all the same to me.
If one informant/intelligence agent dies in the name of providing clear and irrefutable evidence that war is justified (which means we can conduct the war effort efficiently and effectively thus reducing the greater bloodshed) then so be it.

[oli]

very good point Bill.

welcome to the forum btw

[Bill Posters]

Originally posted by Marko1888
sorry but what has blairs wife got to do with tony blair himself - dont listen to all that spin doctor shit! - secondly there have been many arguments that bush is only doing this for the oil fields in iraq but as he has said time and time again they will be givin to the iraqi ppl!!

Fwiw, I've never heard Bush comment on the allocation of oil post-conflict.

I did however read and see all about how US and other western members of OPEC are currently in discussions (at OPEC HQ in Zurich) with those most likely to form Iraq's 'next' government. Discussion have been focussing on securing oil sinking, refinement and distribution contracts.

There's no way on earth US companies would pass up the opportunity to get in on the act given the oil resources in the country.

Fwiw, the US oil companies weren't alone in their attempts to woo the government in waiting.

[herbcrawler]

i too am against war if poss (who isn't) but what gets me is the double standards involved, someone mentioned Israel, they have broken three times as many UN resolutions as Iraq (OS Sunday) and nothing is said.

Also there are worse weapons than the Iraqi Sud missisles (i am right in thinking they are illegal cause they can travel over 250 miles) in the hands of other regimes and very little is done.

Plus the news coming out that the US are planning to stay there for many years after the seemingly inevitable war, it seems they are as much wanting to get a presence in the middle east as they are worried that Saddam is gonna assist terrorists in attacking the US.

I wonder what Saddam thinks he can achieve by taking on the US and UK, does he really think he can win or is he goping for the martyr vote.

i just hope that loses are at a minimum.

shame

[SagaLout]

I agree with you Bill about the oil, although I'm not sure if thats thr driving force or a secondary "benefit".

As for the intelligence, if its highly placed, which it obviously will be if it exists, its going to be immensely valuable during the invasion, and therefore they will want to keep it in place as long as possible.

If you've got someone in Saddams inner circle wouldn't you want to keep him there whilst you wage war against Iraq?

[Stickman]

If they have had someone in Saddam's inner circle I would have hoped that they would have been able to go about this in a less clumsy fashion.

Remember they copied some "evidence" from an old student website.

[oli]

Remember they copied some "evidence" from an old student website.

- exactly, doesnt inspire me with confidence!

[Bill Posters]

Originally posted by herbcrawler
Plus the news coming out that the US are planning to stay there for many years after the seemingly inevitable war

In the OPEC meeting I mentioned, one high-ranking official who was interviewed between sittings let slip that the period that was passing the lips of some US gov officials regarding their preferred/planned length of 'stay' was 8 years.

It's good to see that the UN are planning to 'relieve' control of Iraq from the US military after only months (from the end of the conflict).
It will(?) be interesting to see just how much control the US is 'visibly willing' to give up once they have their feet under the table.

The UN have also publically declared that they seek no direct control over Iraq's oil resources.
When Annan/UN says it, I believe it.
It's a shame that messrs Bush and Blair don't have the same level of credibility.
But then those two shonky dealers have no-one to blame for their lack of credibility but themselves.

Btw, Marko, do you have any online sources where Bush dismisses an interest in the oil?
I'm not doubting you, just interested to see the comments he's made in context.

---

I also of the opinion that oil is not the driving force behind events.
Given that Isreal is becoming increasingly marginalised by its steadfast allegiance to the US, the US desparately needs another foothold in the region in order to dliute the opposition building against them in that part of the world.

While oil is probably less urgent to the US than (pro-US) stability in the region at this point in time, the opportunity to secure some of Iraq's vast oil resources for US companies goes along way to guilding the lily.

[robotiks]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2821871.stm - nice one kids .