Iraq-to war or not to war - Bush, Blair, the conservatives

[mentalbunny]

The world is in a pretty pickle again, due to Bush's stupidity, Blair's procastinating and the consevative's general nature.

Blair refuses to say where he stands, Bush is pushing for war, and the conservatives are telling Blair to announce his support for the war! Well they've just lost the next election...

Apparently Blair revealed to King someone of somewhere (Jordan I think) in a private convoersation that he had "reservations" about the war. This king handily told the world in general this, forcing Blair to make some kind of comment. So, Blair states that they haven't reached the "decision point".

It is all very interesting, many people are pushing for Blair to speak out against Bush's plans but some people are of the opinion that this won't ake a difference, Bush will go to the UN and they will say fine, he can attack.

I personally am a pacifist, war is not the answer, but some people obviously see differently...

[Pinko]

Blair's position is clear. He wants to stick his nose so far up Bush's arse that Bush gets a second Adam's Apple, he wants to do exactly what Bush tells him to. But he is unsure if he can get away with that in the face of rising opposition to the war, if nothing else, Blair can smell vote losing policies like a hound dog. He is waiting for some little titbit that will push public opinion in favour of the UK's involvement, until then he will umm and err.

Interesting that Tony Blair MP is an anagram of I'm Tory plan B. The man is a crypto-tory. I hate what he has done to tha labour party.

[Conghaileach]

Blair: Iraq Is Real And Unique Threat

Iraq 'Ready To Co-operate' (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1063119,00.html)

Prime Minister Tony Blair has strengthened his support for a possible attack on Iraq, saying the country "poses a real and unique threat".

Mr Blair made the pledge whilst facing journalists at an open forum in his Sedgefield constituency.



"I believe it is in the United Kingdom's national interest that the issue is addressed," he said.

The Prime Minister said "America should not face the issue alone" and promised "the fullest possible debate will take place in Parliament and elsewhere".


Full Story (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1063168,00.html)

[hawarameen]

for me personaly this topic has got me thinking the most.

the whole debate is full of what if's and maybe's

i dont want a war where innocent people are killed (again) by US imperialism, and that is what will happen. the same old excuses will be given that this person needs to be taken out no matter what the civilian cost.

so what happens if he is removed from power?

His son is twice the sadist he is and the same will happen in iraq as has happened in Afghanistan. the regime will be removed and the people will be left to sort it out themselves and make way for another dictator.

speaking as a former kurdish refugee from north iraq i sometimes think well what if there is a war? will that mean that the kurds in northern iraq at least will have some sort of freedom?

Finally, as long as there is oil left in iraq and kurdistan the west (esp america) will keep their noses well and truly stuck in.

[Pinko]

That is true hawarameen. There will be no peace for the major oil producing countries until they bend over backwards and do exactly what the US says. Why else does the US have a military base in Saudi Arabia?

[deimos]

Why else does the US have a military base in Saudi Arabia?
to ensure "peace" humanity and american values on the arabian peninsula ;)

[MJM]

Blair supoorts the war alright. Its poltics, you start as a sceptic- I'm not convinced- move on in a few weeks- there seems to be compelling evidence- a few weeks later- due to the latest evidence we recieved it's imperitive that we support the US action.
Small gradual steps and the public will think you're making an informed decision, it also buys time to convince the rest of Europe that they better do what the boss says.
The time will give other governments a chance to pretend to look deeply into the subject, when in reality the paliaments will still be arguing over who gave a political party money pre-election and now finds themselves with a nice government contract. Or whos been getting free gas from BP or Mobil for the last 4 years.
Very little time will be spent actually looking at any evidence other than that handed over by the prosection.

[Turnoviseous]

USA will attack Iraq. There is no question about it.

American economy needs a litle improvement at this moment, so they will spent a little of ammo, so they will be able to produce more later, what will be destroyed will later be repaired by Ameican companies,...

[Lefty]

i dunno...if we have proof that saddam is gonna chemical weapon us, and its real proof, i think that selected attacks might be ok, but so far the plan is "kill them before they kill us, but we dont know they if they are gonna kill us, but thats ok..."

[MJM]

Lefty: Sadaams missiles, if they exist, are incapable of reaching the US soil to my knowledge.
Enlighten me anyone if I'm wrong about this.

[Lefty]

really?
wow... i shall enlighten my history class to this. You see, we were debating on this fact. Is it still a viable reason to go in to protect our allies? I mean, will we still do it?

[Pinko]

That is correct MJM. Iraq's missiles have the capability to only strike targets in the middle east (SRBMs or short range balistic missiles). The head of the UN weapons inspection team has said that Iraq possesses no nuclear capability, no biological agents capable of efficient dispersal. He expressed doubts as to whether the chemical weapons Sadam stockpiled were within their use-by date.
Even if Iraq possessed the capability to launch weapons of mass destruction at the US, it would be stupid to. Their destruction would be assured as soon as they pressed the button. Similarly, even though Iraq had the capability to reach Israel with weapons of mass destruction, it wouldn't even think of trying it. Israel would nuke them into the stoneage in the blink of an eye. Sadam may be many things, but he is not stupid.
All this talk of weapons of mass destruction is hysteria inducing rhetoric, designed to justify an invasion. Notice that when Sadam said that Iraq was willing to allow UN weapons inspectors unfettered access a few weeks ago, the US changed its stance from full access of weapons inspectors to regime change. The US wants this war badly and it will let nothing get in its way.

(Edited by Pinko at 2:17 am on Sep. 4, 2002)

[MJM]

If the scud was the best and still is the best they have. here's some info:

Scud was first deployed by the Soviets in the mid-1960s. The missile was
originally designed to carry a 100-kiloton nuclear warhead or a 2,000 pound
conventional warhead, with ranges from 100 to 180 miles. Its principal threat
was its warhead potential to hold chemical or biological agents.

[MJM]

Here are the stats on Iraqs full capabilities in 1990.

The Iraqis had four versions: Scud itself (180-km range), longer-range Scud
(half warhead weight, extra range attained by burning all propellant immediately
rather than steadily through the flight of the missile), Al Hussein (650-km,
attained by reducing warhead weight to 250 kg and increasing the fuel load by 15
percent), and Al Abbas (800-km, achieved by reducing warhead weight to 125 kg,
with 30 percent more fuel). Al Abbas could be fired only from static launchers;
all of the others could be fired from mobile or static sites. Only the original
Scud and the minimally modified version were particularly succesful."

[vox]

Far from providing any credible evidence that Iraq is a threat, the Bush administration has presented no evidence at all. The administration is trying to turn Hussein into Hitler, but they have no case at all.

Even Kuwait is against this attack. That should tell us something.

Hussein is a thug, and everyone knows it. He is not, however, suicidal. There has been no indication that he is planning the attack the US or any other country, for that matter. However, when the US economy is in the toilet and the Vice President is under investigation for actions he took while the CEO of Haliburton, there's nothing like a little mayhem to draw the public's attention away from those things.

As for Blair, is he still facing a no-confidence vote? I thought I heard he was. A new poll (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0903-02.htm) shows that 71% of Britons are against the attack if it doesn't have UN approval. If Blair ignores this, I don't think it will bode well for his future in politics.

vox

[Pinko]

Something that has been conviniently forgotten, is that Iraq invaded Kuwait becaude Kuwait was tapping more than its fair share of an oil field that is 90% under Iraq. Kuwait was in breach of the oil sharing treaty the two countries had and refused to stop pumping. Iraq informed both the UN and the US of its intent to invade in the hope that they could persuade Kuwait to stop plundering Iraq's oil. No reaction was forthcomming so Iraq invaded. Much to its shock, the rest of the world was up in arms about it.

[Conghaileach]

The Labour Party in England seemed to be opposed to the war. The Conservatives are in favour of attacking Iraq, and Blair is meant to represent Labour. I guess I'm Tory Plan B is accurate.

[marxistdisciple]

If the UK join America's almost inevitable war, I and many other unionists will strike, just like Tony Benn suggested we do :) Grind the country to a halt until they pull us out :) hehe (after all, it's our taxes right?)

It'd be nice if the US did something like that too, organised transportation union strikes etc...they seem to work. Even better, air traffic control :)

[Pinko]

If Blair joins this neo-crusade than he will be flying in the face of his so-called democracy. In all reality, democracy in the UK is a total sham, more like a four year choice of our dictator.

Kill them all, live in a cave.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Pinko on 3:19 am on Sep. 5, 2002
If Blair joins this neo-crusade than he will be flying in the face of his so-called democracy. In all reality, democracy in the UK is a total sham, more like a four year choice of our dictator.

Kill them all, live in a cave.

I agree, Pinko. My uncle was on peace-keeping duties for the UN on the boder of Kuwait and Iraq a couple of years back. He said it wasn't much fun.

Does anyone know why Bush wants a war? I can kinda guess, i suppose it's just cos he's a total wanker! (I can think of better, more bush-like reasons,but i'm too lazy to try to put them into words).

[deimos]

he wants the war top boost his popularity(ofcousre in the us,not in the civilized world)
but what do you guys have against a war in iraq?The western world brought this monster to power,now they have to remove him.Otherwise it would be unfair to the iraqi people!

[Lefty]

i am against it cuz i am sure bushie boy would kill lots of innocent civilians in the process, all in the name of greed. And the fact that we have no proof that saddam wants to attack us...

[vox]

For an interesting view on why Bush and Blair are so keen on killing, read this piece from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,786332,00.html). I'm glad that I'm not the only one having these suspicions.

vox

[KickMcCann]

I am completely against the war.......

The war conducted by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government against the people of Iraq.

You so-called international communists are still seeing it as an issue of borders and nations. War exists even in peace between nations, its not this country-vs.-that country, it is the State vs. the people. More Iraqi people have died as the result of the beurocratic, oppressive system than have died from western bombs. When the people of Iraq rose up against their oppressors after the gulf war, did you support it, or did you say "Those people are war-mongers, they need to settle down and let their be peace". They were fighting a good fight, even though they lost, as a result of the west's ignorance to doing the right thing.
If Hitler had been successful in conquering all of Europe, there would have been no more war between nations in Europe, no war means peace. You would have supported it because the war would be over, right?
But we know better; the war between nations would have been over, but the Nazi government's war against the people of Europe would have gone in full motion. Jews, communists, christians, gypsies, homosexuals, and probably more would have been competely wiped out. This is what I mean by State vs. the people. Thankfully, the people rose up and fought a war, and it was a horrible war, so many innocent people died, but it was neccessary to fight it, because it was a war against oppression, a fight worth fighting. And all of this could have been adverted if the shallow, near-sighted appeasists had stood up against the dictator before he became nearly unstoppable.
And though I doubt Hussein is capable of matching Hitler in evil, the principle remains the same. Fighting a dictator is a fight worth fighting, regardless of if he is a threat to other nations.
And I know, the wealth prospectors will do everything they can to get rich off the war, to exploit a good thing, but if we fight saddam while resisting the exploitation of the corrupt rich, it will turn out well in the end.
This is a war against war; not against the people, but for the people. I wish peace to the people of Iraq, and to accomplish this peace, they must be free of despotism.

(Edited by KickMcCann at 8:03 am on Sep. 7, 2002)

[Wash Me]

Ok,
Now its Iraq. Whos their next target?
Is it going to be Iran???

[deimos]

why not?the iranian people hate their regime too.

[Frosty]

The fruits of american international politics are showing...
"When the people of Iraq rose up against their oppressors after the gulf war, did you support it, or did you say "Those people are war-mongers, they need to settle down and let their be peace". "

After the gulf war, the u.s. had the chance to help the opposition in the chaos. but they didn't.

(Edited by Frosty at 1:09 pm on Sep. 7, 2002)

[deimos]

thats right.i have no clue why they didn't.

[guerrillaradio]

I'm utterly devastated. It's the end of civilisation. Fuck it, we're all gonna die in a mess of nukes...

[mentalbunny]

well i wish people could just get some sense. If someone could come forward who could lead Iraq in a decent way then the West (as much as I hate nthe WEst's involvment in anything) could support them, destroy Saddam in some way, and then hopefully keep out of the way.

but we all know that isn't going to happen. the end is nigh...

[hawarameen]

stupidity runs in the family,
Bush snr called on the people of iraq to revolt with the promise of help.

once they did bush snr revealed he was only joking.

[Pinko]

[hawarameen]
"Bush snr called on the people of iraq to revolt with the promise of help.
Once they did bush snr revealed he was only joking."

As a result the Kurds suffered terribly at the hands of the Iraqis. The US (and the UK) is as much to blame as Saddam.
I wouldn't mind this war if it was sanctioned and executed by the UN, but the fact that the US is going to do it on its own (with a little help from the UK) with nothing but its own selfish interests at heart, removes any validity or legality of the action.

[deadpool 52]

A compalition of all my posts on the subject:

Amazingly, Iraq provides the U$ with almost an insignifigant amount of oil compared to such countries of Libya.

Welcome to another pointless war.

"Iraq poses no thread to its neighbors.
Iraq poses no threat to its inhabitants.
Iraq poses no threat to the US.
Iraq poses no threat to the world.

Rumsfeld speaks of underground weapons facilities or on the back of trucks, but this talk is merely speculative. I have been in Iraq for five years and have seen no such evidence."
- Scot Rider, before Congress, US weapons inspector.

Oh yeah, that reminds me who is against the war:

NATO coallition
Russia
And a small group of citizens now becoming a larger group of citizens.

The only reason the U$ is taking down the regime (and putting in a new one ) is because politicians have already spent money that they need to see actions from.

You see? It is all about money.

The U$ gets more oil from Venezuala than Iraq.

The only thing that would prevent another war is another weapons inspection.

Nuclear and biological facilities cannot be made in a cave, they require huge buildings, which are easy to spot out.

You know how powerfull Israel is, right? They keep tabs on ALL of their neighbors, wherein they give the information to the U$.

So there is more proof.

And they certainly cannot have many underground, because of the expense and logistics.

[marxistdisciple]

Iraq has the second largest Oil reserves in the world.
The war on terrorism is a pointless farce which was also inherrantly inpossible. It's almost as as stupid as declaring a war on french literature, it is never going to be wiped out or beaten, because it is not a 'human' or 'humans' to be killed. It is physically impossible to do. The only way to remove something that is generated by anger, is to remove the cause of that anger.

The war on Iraq will get lots of Oil and help the US economy, that's about it. The ideas of regime change will be dwarfed by some new story once the war is over (just like they were in Afghanistan.) Once the UK have paid thier (sic) blood price, we will get some lovely treat from the US and kiss their ass some more. Good doggy.

[Pinko]

I doubt the UK will even get a pat on the head, let alone a treat. The US has a record of breaking agreements with Britain, it is always shitting on us and we love it.

More reasons not to war. The lies, coverups and more lies:
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/19182

(Edited by Pinko at 4:39 am on Sep. 8, 2002)

[mentalbunny]

By the way Blaier says that Iraq is now a nuclear threat to the people in the UK!! Why do I not believe him!!

[Pinko]

Maybe because there is no evidence for it and he has prooved in the past that he is a lying bastard.

[hawarameen]

interestingly iraq is still selling its oil and always has been. hundreds and hundreds of lorries go in and out of iraq through turkey supposedly trading in other goods. they dont carry anything in the truck but the space in between the front and back wheels of the lorry has been filled with a huge tank, supposedly for the drivers own use. this is one of the many ways that saddam has got around the sanctions.

[deimos]

ive seen this many times.......the only probblem is that the conservative barzani-dpk cowards benefit most from it