I think you might mean must not go MORE nuclear.........
Saddam lobs an illegal scud into Kuwait
- Thread starter The Ewok
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I think you might mean must not go MORE nuclear.........
YOu don't need to be conversant about anything to have an opinion.
But it helps if you want to be taken seriously.
Sunshine.
Noone's ignoring any "unpalatable facts" about American society (should be Western society but be racist if you want to!).
You are being asked to make a value judgement. Weigh up those unpalatable facts and then choose who you believe.
Be very careful when you make this decision. THe world you live in right now hinges upon it.
Such self-indulgent liberal drivel.
Only the product of a wealthy, educated, Liberal Democracy could be so insufferably pompous.
I know because I agree with it - violence does beget violence and I vote for the Labor party because I believe it serves to address these problems within Australian society..
However, when Global politics come to an impasse such as we are today it is time to set aside the handwringing we can afford because we are rich and deal with how the rest of the world lives.
THat's why Knuckles calls your argument irrelevant. Because, despite how violent Western culture is - IT'S A DARN SIGHT BETTER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD.
Got it?
How do you think Gun Control goes down in Africa? Mid-East?
Hate crime Legislation protecting the rights of Gays, Women, Jews, Blacks, Asians - massive in North Korea I hear!
Have you seen the surge of political correctness across south east asia?
Are you beginning to get the drift?
You need a mirror. Badly.
Hawforce:
Does that apply to myself?
Yeah, I think it probably does, if I'm honest with myself. I try not to be too rabid in my opinions, and I try to see the other side, but we're pretty much all locked in now.
On the rest of your reply, maybe I wasn't making my point clearly enough. Looked at from a world perspective, the disarmament of Iraq is important (no more important than a host of other issues, but important enough). But looked at from the viewpoint of Iraqi leadership, there's no reason for them to want to give them up.
So they have to be forced to do it. Threatening war is an option here. But the threat of war, if used alone, can only bring about one of two consequences - capitulation, or preparation to defend.
The likelihood of Iraq capitulating without a fight was always remote. It would almost certainly lead to the incarceration or death of Saddam, which can't look too palatable to him. Which leads me to believe that the threat of war was always going to lead to war. In any war, Iraq was going to need as many weapons as possible. Right?
So North Korea, or Iran, or any other potential enemy of the US, is looking on, thinking to themselves, "If the US come after us, they are likely to declare war on us unless we....
1. Capitulate.
2. Prepare to defend ourselves so strongly that war is too difficult for the US to win."
The lesson I draw from all this is that under the threat of war, Iraq had every reason to try to build its arsenal, which is kinda what we don't want them to do. And other countries may well do the same.
And whatever the US obligations might or might not be, they have it in their power to defuse the situation without resort to war. Continuing with the inspections, and giving Iraq the message that the progress must not be impeded, would send the message to other 'rogue states' that disarmament is possible without regime change. Which I think would make them more amenable to the idea of disarmament.
Does that apply to myself?
Yeah, I think it probably does, if I'm honest with myself. I try not to be too rabid in my opinions, and I try to see the other side, but we're pretty much all locked in now.
On the rest of your reply, maybe I wasn't making my point clearly enough. Looked at from a world perspective, the disarmament of Iraq is important (no more important than a host of other issues, but important enough). But looked at from the viewpoint of Iraqi leadership, there's no reason for them to want to give them up.
So they have to be forced to do it. Threatening war is an option here. But the threat of war, if used alone, can only bring about one of two consequences - capitulation, or preparation to defend.
The likelihood of Iraq capitulating without a fight was always remote. It would almost certainly lead to the incarceration or death of Saddam, which can't look too palatable to him. Which leads me to believe that the threat of war was always going to lead to war. In any war, Iraq was going to need as many weapons as possible. Right?
So North Korea, or Iran, or any other potential enemy of the US, is looking on, thinking to themselves, "If the US come after us, they are likely to declare war on us unless we....
1. Capitulate.
2. Prepare to defend ourselves so strongly that war is too difficult for the US to win."
The lesson I draw from all this is that under the threat of war, Iraq had every reason to try to build its arsenal, which is kinda what we don't want them to do. And other countries may well do the same.
And whatever the US obligations might or might not be, they have it in their power to defuse the situation without resort to war. Continuing with the inspections, and giving Iraq the message that the progress must not be impeded, would send the message to other 'rogue states' that disarmament is possible without regime change. Which I think would make them more amenable to the idea of disarmament.
Fair enough. Just checking that you weren't pulling a Yianni type stunt!
I got your point Roger. I appreciate it. But you haven't addressed MY point.
THey were told to disarm 12 years ago. It's a process that should take weeks (ie: South Africa) but it didn't.
Threat of war happened a year ago (or two, if they were privy to Rumsfeld's desire to take Iraq straight after Sept 11 - even before Afghanistan).
It was threat of war that got the Inspectors back in.
All Blix had to say to avert this war (hypothetically now) was - "Iraq has fully complied".
He didn't.
And the Iraqi regime didn't.
And no matter how much they were inspired to re-arm by US threats, they would never be able to withstand the US army. The best they could hope for is going nuclear and threatening to hit Israel if attacked.
Well... I don't know about you, but that's a scenario that I'd prefer to avoid.
Hence NK's sudden desire to reveal that they have continued their nuclear program secretly since 94, and other brinkmanship.
Hence Iran's willingness to allow UN Inspectors into their Nuclear plants.
But the fact remains that those programs were in place decades before the "axis of evil" speech. Sure it might make them speed up - but US aggression is not the cause of proliferation. In fact, I would argue that it was a lack of US aggression that allowed these countries to continue their nuclear programs in secret.
THe lesson I draw is that, under threat of war, UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. THey were given 4 months to comply. THey didn't. I've no doubt that BLix genuinely believes he could have disarmed Iraq given enough time but the fact is that that's not, and never was, his remit.
Now NK and the Mullahs in Iran (we must be clear about this - Iran has moved inexorably towards Democracy over the last decade; %80 of the population voted for more democracy a couple of years ago; the Mullahs are the target - NOT the Iranian people or their elected Govt) know what is coming. THey can choose whether to fight or whether to disarm.
But whatever happens, they MUST NOT be allowed to go nuclear.
China must step up to the plate and sort out NK - or millions will die. THe West must sort out the Mullahs - cos there's no way the Israeli's will allow Iran to go nuclear; just like they didn't allow the Iraqi's to complete their (French built) nuclear plant back in the early 80's (and how important was that in retrospect!).
It's really not a good idea to have Israel deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions - Iran's fundamentalists are the biggest sponsor of anti-Israel terrorism and the Israeli's, particularly the present bloody Govt, would use any means to ensure Iran doesn't go nuclear.
By "any means" I mean they would Nuke Tehran if they thought it necessary.
And however terrible that sounds, it would be the right policy, because the Iranian Fundamentalists wouldn't hesitate to wipe Israel off the face of the planet, given the capability.
THis is the REAL world.
We've been here before Roger. 1991, remember?
Iraq never complied and, because Iraq was no real threat militarily any more, the US and UK allowed the UN to follow it's policy of being completely and utterly useless.
What message did THAT send?
Even worse - US goes into Somalia. Purely an altruistic exercise. They try to deal with the brutal warlords in an effective way (ie: targetting them personally) get caught up in a deadly firefight; the International Community excoriates US Imperialism, the US public excoriates the Admin for all the dead soldiers; the US pull out, leaving the job to the UN who proceed to fail AGAIN. Bush gets beaten by Clinton.
What message did THAT send?
It sent a message that allowed Bosnia to go on... and on... and on... UN peacekeepers watching as people are marched away to be killed.
It sent a message that allowed Kofi Anan to wring his hands while genocide on a level not seen since Pol Pot occurs in Rwanda.
ANd it sent a message to TOny Blair and Bill Clinton that NO LONGER would they leave World Policing in the hands of the friggen UN.
SO they went into Kosovo. SO Blair went into Sierra Leone. So Blair helped convince Bush to go into Afghanistan with a pledge to rebuild.
Meanwhile the two nations blocking Security Council approval over war in Iraq, France and Russia, oversee conflicts in the Ivory Coast and Chechnya. Neither seek Un approval. Neither have had ANY positive effect AT ALL.
So...
Forgive me if I am a little sceptical about your belief that Rogue States just needed a little more show of faith from the UN to willingly disarm and enter the International Community as prodigal sons.
If States choose to arm themselves against US (and UK!) aggression, all they'll achieve is US (And UK!) aggression.
And if it's a choice between the US/UK and ANY non Liberal Democratic nation - I will choose the US/UK every single time.
And anyone who lives in the West who disagrees is welcome to take their angst-ridden, pseudo-socialist, self-loathing (yet predominately middle-class, educated, and white) selves off to NK, Iran, Zimbabwe etc etc - and discover what NOT living in a Liberal Democracy is REALLY all about.
Cos those Iraqis and Afghanis on the Tampa were coming to Oz for a reason.
And there was a reason they bypassed every single non-Liberal Democracy and every Islamic nation on the way.
No-ones denying you the right to have an opinion. It's just when you slander the Americans yet not mention the far worse atrocities committed by governments in many other countries around the world, while at the same time decrying the action in Iraq comes across as highly hypocritical and anti American.
Bottom line:
Do you agree Saddam is a monster?
If yes, what should be done about it?
I don't have a problem with anyone maintaining opposition to the war, but burying your head in the sand at the same time by coming up with no plausible solution is just ideological garbage, and deserves to be ignored.
Obviously you couldn't ignore my comments.
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
Seems like someone lobbed a couple into Iran.
Now that could be interesing.
Now that could be interesing.
As well as violating their airspace...........
BBC News also reported that there is no evidence of Iraq using scud missiles to date. In a press conference with General Franks when questioned about scud missiles said there had been no official reports of them being used so far and that most missiles launched by Iraq were in fact surface to surface missiles.
Hawkforce,
Don't think I don't appreciate the history lesson. I do, and it's going to take a lot longer than I have right now to wade through all of it. But I get the gist of it.
I believe there is a fundamental difference between the threat of force (whether actually massed on the border or not), and actually sending the bombs in. Most people's gripe is over the question of why the invasion was so urgent now, when progress was being made toward disarmament.
I think the main point of your first bit is the following:
If that's their best hope, then that's what they're going to go for. And the more likely the chance of being attacked, the more urgently their race to become nuclear.
The solution, you and I both agree, is to stop them going nuclear. And that's where we part ways. I, probably over-optimistically, say containment - but with an actual commitment to containment; with the threat of force if required, and force as a last resort. You say (and I may not be paraphrasing you correctly, and if so sorry) that force is going to have to be used, and the sooner the better.
From your second bit:
Well, I was kinda arguing that we shouldn't be speeding it up. Once we recognised the problem, we want to deal with it in a way that doesn't escalate the issue. I'm not blaming US aggression for causing the problem - merely exacerbating it.
For the rest:
You'll have to explain that to me. And you'll have to explain why, given Blix believes he could have disarmed Iraq (whatever this remit was), letting him finishing that job is a bad thing.
Sorry I have no further time to address everything. I will try to, given time. But thanks for your reply. It keeps me thinking about the issue beyond simple sloganeering and gainsaying, and I appreciate it. Believe me, I'm learning as I go.
Don't think I don't appreciate the history lesson. I do, and it's going to take a lot longer than I have right now to wade through all of it. But I get the gist of it.
I believe there is a fundamental difference between the threat of force (whether actually massed on the border or not), and actually sending the bombs in. Most people's gripe is over the question of why the invasion was so urgent now, when progress was being made toward disarmament.
I think the main point of your first bit is the following:
If that's their best hope, then that's what they're going to go for. And the more likely the chance of being attacked, the more urgently their race to become nuclear.
The solution, you and I both agree, is to stop them going nuclear. And that's where we part ways. I, probably over-optimistically, say containment - but with an actual commitment to containment; with the threat of force if required, and force as a last resort. You say (and I may not be paraphrasing you correctly, and if so sorry) that force is going to have to be used, and the sooner the better.
From your second bit:
Well, I was kinda arguing that we shouldn't be speeding it up. Once we recognised the problem, we want to deal with it in a way that doesn't escalate the issue. I'm not blaming US aggression for causing the problem - merely exacerbating it.
For the rest:
You'll have to explain that to me. And you'll have to explain why, given Blix believes he could have disarmed Iraq (whatever this remit was), letting him finishing that job is a bad thing.
Sorry I have no further time to address everything. I will try to, given time. But thanks for your reply. It keeps me thinking about the issue beyond simple sloganeering and gainsaying, and I appreciate it. Believe me, I'm learning as I go.
a4brianp
Club Legend
General Franks has just stated that there has been no sign of any weapons of mass destruction if this is right what is this war about.
Portia
#DrewBlood
30k Posts
10k Posts
TheBrownDog
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
Podcaster
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
- Oct 7, 2001
- 50,502
- 24,862
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Muckbuckle Dolmens
I was always led to believe that evidence obtained in an illegal manner is inadmissable as evidence.
Yes, i'm sure that if Iraq had any, they would just be lying in the middle of the desert, and they would have definitely been spotted by now.
Pretty obvious to me that they clearly don't have any.
Nope. Not at all.
The accuracy continues.........it now looks like we now have a RAF plane shot down by a US Patriot missile battery......
RAF plane hit by US: report
By Ed Johnson AAP news.com.au 23 March 2003
A MISSING Royal Air Force aircraft returning from an operation in the Gulf may have been shot shown by a US Patriot missile battery, a British military official said.
"I can confirm that the British plane was hit by a Patriot," an official with the US Central Command said here.
"The crew is missing."
The official, who asked not to be named, provided no further details.
Group Captain Al Lockwood, a spokesman for British forces in the Gulf, said evidence suggested the aircraft may have been shot down over Kuwait.
"One of our aircraft recovering from operations over Kuwait, evidence is beginning to come to light that suggests it was engaged by a US Patriot missile battery," Lockwood told the BBC.
Asked whether "engaged" meant "shot down", Lockwood said: "Evidence is pointing in that direction."
A US official confirmed that a Patriot missile battery "may have engaged" the aircraft near the Kuwaiti border.
The official said that was all the information available at this point.
He said it was not yet possible to say what sort of plane was involved or how many crew it contained as no families had been contacted.
He also declined to say what mission the aircraft had been carrying out when it went missing.
The incident was the latest to hit the estimated 45,000 British forces in the Gulf.
Yesterday, two British Royal Navy helicopters collided over the Persian Gulf, killing the six British and one American crewmen on board, military officials said.
The two Sea King helicopters were not struck by enemy fire, said Lockwood.
On Friday, eight British Royal Marines and four US Marines died when their CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crashed before dawn in Kuwait.
RAF plane hit by US: report
By Ed Johnson AAP news.com.au 23 March 2003
A MISSING Royal Air Force aircraft returning from an operation in the Gulf may have been shot shown by a US Patriot missile battery, a British military official said.
"I can confirm that the British plane was hit by a Patriot," an official with the US Central Command said here.
"The crew is missing."
The official, who asked not to be named, provided no further details.
Group Captain Al Lockwood, a spokesman for British forces in the Gulf, said evidence suggested the aircraft may have been shot down over Kuwait.
"One of our aircraft recovering from operations over Kuwait, evidence is beginning to come to light that suggests it was engaged by a US Patriot missile battery," Lockwood told the BBC.
Asked whether "engaged" meant "shot down", Lockwood said: "Evidence is pointing in that direction."
A US official confirmed that a Patriot missile battery "may have engaged" the aircraft near the Kuwaiti border.
The official said that was all the information available at this point.
He said it was not yet possible to say what sort of plane was involved or how many crew it contained as no families had been contacted.
He also declined to say what mission the aircraft had been carrying out when it went missing.
The incident was the latest to hit the estimated 45,000 British forces in the Gulf.
Yesterday, two British Royal Navy helicopters collided over the Persian Gulf, killing the six British and one American crewmen on board, military officials said.
The two Sea King helicopters were not struck by enemy fire, said Lockwood.
On Friday, eight British Royal Marines and four US Marines died when their CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter crashed before dawn in Kuwait.
According to Al Jazeera, another one down over Baghdad ... two Coalition pilots have parachuted into the Tigris ...
I think those two chaps are in a bit of strife, though unconfirmed by coalition forces.
There's quite a rowdy mob on the banks of the river searching for them. Or the war has coincided with the Baghdad Moomba Masters ?!
I think those two chaps are in a bit of strife, though unconfirmed by coalition forces.
There's quite a rowdy mob on the banks of the river searching for them. Or the war has coincided with the Baghdad Moomba Masters ?!
You could only imagine the numbers dead on the Iraq side. Each, "the Allies have seized....", should be interpreted as, another few hundred Iraqi 'soldiers' dead.
Had some Iraq govt knob on the tube this AM with his "the resistance from Iraq has slowed the Allies!!" drivel. No, jabroni. It is because the Allied forces are making a conscious effort to avoid civilians, and leave somethimg behind for the civis, that it will take a while. Want to finish it early. Drop a number of MOABs into the key cities. Maybe a few chemicals. Game over. Tomorrow.
That seems to be the crux of it, knuckles. Trying to keep things from getting too messed up civilian-wise appears to be a priority.
There's two different kinds of war being fought over there.
Agree, one side using WMD & one not.
Sorry, have I missed something ?!
So why don't you, given his penchant for killing people, and your supposed opposition to this?
And you still haven't addressed the issue. Your too hard basket must be getting pretty full.
Notice the Stolli boys are stirring the pot by still supplying Iraq with toys. Interesting. Wonder if there'll be any "its all about the weapons business" cries.
A "Weapons for Oil" program ... I bet that put food on the table of many an Iraqi.
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
Go Iraq, kill as many of these mothers as possible. What have you got to lose? After all, don't we Australians pride ourselves on our support for the underdog?
Just don't expect them to learn a lesson. A future riven with constant conflict, because the Yanks think they have a right to be as big ****holes as they like, because they have the power.
If I ever meet an Australian who was involved in this stupid conflict, I will tell them how manipulated they were. They will want to hit me. This is the mindset which puts people into the armed forces. They enlist because they are unable to get a real job. However, I will be the first to reccomend that these deluded people get the psychiatric assistance they need.
That should complete the job on their psyches. Just what we need - another generation of nuff-nuffs, as a result of war.
Aren't we mad enough already? I would lay a bet that the people who are most in favour of this war are the same people who decry the perceived violence which makes them so paranoid in our so-called society.
Just don't expect them to learn a lesson. A future riven with constant conflict, because the Yanks think they have a right to be as big ****holes as they like, because they have the power.
If I ever meet an Australian who was involved in this stupid conflict, I will tell them how manipulated they were. They will want to hit me. This is the mindset which puts people into the armed forces. They enlist because they are unable to get a real job. However, I will be the first to reccomend that these deluded people get the psychiatric assistance they need.
That should complete the job on their psyches. Just what we need - another generation of nuff-nuffs, as a result of war.
Aren't we mad enough already? I would lay a bet that the people who are most in favour of this war are the same people who decry the perceived violence which makes them so paranoid in our so-called society.
