It's all kicked off

According to this source it has already started.
John

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Channing:
Fighting has started for the port of Bazra and the Southern oil fields. British and American troops have also entered the demilitarized zone in Southern Iraq. Let's hope for a swift conclusion.
John

---

...with as little civilian casualties as possible...

I greatly fear what Hussein would do to Baghdad once he realizes that loss of the city is imminent. Defiance rules his actions, not concern for the people.

Keith.

...CNN won't report a definitive "The War Has Begun" until after the countdown is over.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

...there is irrefutable evidence that Saddam uses chemical weapons on the battlefield? Would world sentiment at least soften, as the sentiment of the French President would?

The inspectors didn't find the stuff, but if it shows up on the battlefield, it would demonstrate that A) Saddam had it, B) Saddam lied about having it, and C) that the inspectors failed to find it.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

I don't doubt that the US and allied countries supplied stuff to Iraq and other countries. But I thought under the U.N. resolution that Iraq was not to have them. In response, Saddam has said, "Iraq has no chemical or biological weapons" implying he no longer had those that he had in the past.

I haven't been reading the news stories that closely, so if my info is off on this just let me know.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

You are rather missing the point -- there is no debate about whether Saddam has chemical & biological weapons its whether they pose an imminent threat and whether it justifies starting a war.

Matthew

PS On a related note: What's the point in having a free press if you don't use it? http://nypress.com/16/11/news&columns/cage.cfm

An interesting conundrum for Saddam Hussein.

a: he doesnt use his weapons of mass destruction to prove the point that he does not have them.
Then the us and uk forces after cessation of fighting find them.

b: He uses them and proves himself to be a liar and worthy of total world condemnation.

I hope that the fighting is over swiftly and Iraq is returned to all the Iraqi people and they are then able to have a stable geovernment that represents all its people.

Otherwise we in the west will confirm the Arab Worlds prejudices about our motives.

regards David

:::showing my ignorance:::

If there is no doubt that he has the weapons, then what was all of the U.N. inspections about? Missles - yes, nukes - yes...but I thought the inspectors were also looking for chemical and biological weapons and stockpiles.

This is text from the U.N. resolution:

quote:

---

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

---

Here is the full text:

U.N. Resolution

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Call me cynical but I can see our military using chemical weapons & then blaming the Iraqis. Who's there to say they're lying?

Tom

---

Tom

With the exception of riot control agents such as CS gas it has long been accepted that "our" miltary has not had chemical weapons for years. The UK has not had them since WW2 when I understand that the UK considered, and decided against, using chemical and biological agents.

These things are too nasty and too unpredictable - one example being, what happens if the wind changes direction or the other side has dropped big hints that they will use tactical nukes in response? Worked in Gulf War 1.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030319/wl_nm/iraq_law_dc_1

---

From the article (quoting the Sydney Morning Herald):

"It may be that international law will adapt after the event to provide a retrospective justification for war...

"However, to enter a war based on this expectation sees us revert to the 'just war' theory. In doing so, we fall into precisely the trap the United Nations was established to avoid.

"This decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious.

I cannot avoid seeing a contradiction in this argument. For, in essence, the principle seems to be: "It is wrong to favour your own subjective moral judgements over 'objective' laws" - which itself is nothing other than the writer's own subjective moral judgement. Within a nation, laws that are not in accord with the prevailing morality tend to fall into disrepute eventually. Why should it be any different in the international community?

Setting aside the question of whether the legality of this war actually is objective testable under existing international law [and I don’t claim to know the answer] I have to say that a law that can (as what we are told seems to suggest) be determined by an executive body such a the UN Security council seems a very strange kind of law to me.

More to the point, the UN has at its core a charter based on moral values - quite rightly. Promoting these values and promoting peace is the purpose of the UN. The moral values enshrined in the UN charter include, "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." It doesn’t take a deep knowledge of international affairs to name a few UN members that not only do not take this seriously but which actively oppose it. So why are such countries UN members? How can we expect UN bodies to make decisions that promote and are in acordance with these values if such countries are represented on them? How can we accept the legal authority of the Security Council - if indeed is has the legal authority that has been attributed to it - if its permanent members consist of an elite of states whose primary qualification is [or, so it seems] long term membership of the nuclear bomb club?

Quite frankly, given the current state of the UN, I am grateful that the USA pays any attention to it at all.

Far from fearing the consequences for the UN of the war, I have some hope that people will realise that the UN must either do less than it does (which would be a great shame) or become more democratic and be truer to the values enshrined in its charter - a thought that I suspect many would find more frigtening than war...

--J

[This message was edited by JeremyD on THURSDAY 20 March 2003 at 00:01.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Firstly I don't believe what the authorities have been telling us. They haved lied and told half truths through out the build up to this conflict.

Secondly they have been seriously suspected of using these tactics in lesser scenarios. Bloody Sunday comes to mind
[QUOTE]

Tom I assume you mean disinformation rather than chemical weapons? If so you are changing your argument. Dont try to drag Bloody Sunday into this, it is totally irrelevant.

[QUOTE]Thirdly they have to prove they were justified in attacking Iraq. One of the arguements was the WoMD so it would be convenient if they were used.[QUOTE]

This is of course near impossible to argue against. Even if chemical/biological weapons where used, you would say Ah ha! perfidiuods Uncle Sam! Very clever, Tom

{QUOTE]Fourthly the military have never shied away from testing or misusing weapons in the vicinity of their own troops. Atom testing in Australia in the 50s, Gulf War syndrome, Vietnam etc[QUOTE]

Atom testing - remember the Cold War? Real fear of Soviet aggression, therebwas a real need to train inrealistic environments. Sadly, our more enlightened attitude as to long term radiological effects was not around then. But as you say, in the 50s...

[QUOTE]Fifthly. What do they do in Porton Down? [QUOTE]

It is a Defence Research Agency. They design kit to protect against exactly the threats posed by Saddam.

[QUOTE]Sixthly why should we trust them. They can (and have) lied to us about their missions, remember Irangate or Bosnia or the last Gulf War. The nature of war and the military is to be devious & secretive. They deny their actions until irrefutable proof can be found.[QUOTE]

What about Irangate? What did the Allies do wrong in Bosnia - or do you agree with ethnic cleansing? "Deny their actions until irrefutable proof can be found" - bit of a sweeping statement, really, and somewhat inaccurate. Some things need to be kept secret unless you beleive that complete knowledge is worth lives. I dont.


[QUOTE]And finally they are the only people with access to the theatres of war and they are the ones supplying the information to our press (who are not noted for their balanced reporting). Who is to stop them from providing only the stories they want us to hear.[QUOTE]

This is simply wrong, Tom. The press do not just cobble together reports compiled from the Armed Forces. They get out there - watch TV and see. I can also recall a Radio 4 announcement during the Falklands war saying that 2(?) PARA are now outside Port Stanley ready to launch an attack. Hardly one from the Press Release.

Sorry to drone on but I do think some of your misconceptions, however well intentioned, need comment.

Mike

1) Even if I were hugely skeptical of our governments, I would not be inclined to think that they would ever use chemical or biological weapons against the enemy in battle (even though I probably think that we do posess them). Such use would be a political disaster. I don't know how they do it, but the Press has a good track record of uncovering such things. Retired Generals write books, blah blah blah. We desperately want to be seen as taking the moral high ground. using chemical weapons would do nothing to help that cause (and would not be needed from a military point of view).

2). If we don't use such weapons against the enemy, then the only way to introduce them into the battlefield would be to use them against our own troops and blaim it on the Iraqis. I cannot fathom our leadership thinking that they would be able to get away with this sort of scenario, even if they were considering it.

Still, I believe the failure to see a release of chemical weapons during this conflict will be a huge political disaster for the US (and maybe the UK). I don't think US military leadership would use chemical weapons in any of the scenarios listed above, but I DO think that there are many people in the administration who very much want to see a limited release in order to validate the concern. These are the sorts of calculations the beancounters in Washington have to make.

This is tough business.

judd

The first casualty of war is truth

this is of course no consolation to the first person to die or be maimed, nor to their family and friends......

War is working already, Brent crude prices are now falling and the yanks will now be spared the horific possibility of the 2$ gallon

Three cheers for Dubya....hip hip.....

Chaps

The stupid thing about this entire fiasco, is that if the bloody UN had just made a decision instead of faffing about, all of this might have been over by now.

Also, those bloody idiots who took part in anti war marches, can feel really proud of themselves. They have achieved nothing and possibly have allowed Saddam more time to torture and kill a few hundred of his inocent citizens.

Hopefully all this will be over in a couple of months.

Regards

Mick

But we all know Mick is right, he keeps telling us he is

Chaps

Public opinion is moving in my direction, Mori polls have shown this. Expect to be bombarded by them.I believe that a poll conducted yesterday shows that Blair now has the backing of 52% of the population. The UN has now show itself to be totally and utterly impotent, so Blair and Bush are now seen as the do-ers.

Also my views are completely in line with the Governments and the motion was passed a few days ago in Parliment. Of course I do not need to remind you that the MP's were democratically elected.

Basically the anti war lobby are a bunch of old women who want someone else to do the dirty work whilst they sit back and wallow in the moral highground. The Liberal Party are past masters at this.

Regards

Mick

"This is simply wrong, Tom. The press do not just cobble together reports compiled from the Armed Forces"

Actually they do. Since Vietnam war reporting has been massively censored and increasingly controlled by army Press Officers with the press forced to agree to censorship and a highly restrictive system of controlled pool reporting or else be shut out completely.

"I can also recall a Radio 4 announcement during the Falklands war saying that 2(?) PARA are now outside Port Stanley ready to launch an attack. Hardly one from the Press Release."

The Falklands war was entirely reported by a very small number of war correspondents who were pre-vetted by the military and were obliged to sign an agreement allowing all reports to be censored at source by MOD staff. It was essentially reported exactly how military wanted it to be.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/GWeekly/Story/0,3939,178736,00.html for details. And for specific details of how the last Gulf war was reported under Dick Cheney's control see http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,894708,00.html

On the use of chemical weapons I doubt very much the US would fake it as politically all it needs to do is find a warehouse full of anthrax after the war which is a) quite likely to happen and b) a lot easier to fake in the unlikely event of not finding it.

Generally speaking the US and the UK have both signed and ratified the relavent treaties banning their use and although both undoubtedly retain the capability in some sense they have almost certainly have no stockpiles of actual CBW munitions. Of much more concern are the non-signatories and signed but not ratified nations -- notably Egypt, Iraq, Israel and North Korea.

Matthew

Alan Ball

Please justify your "facts" about the UK having chemical/biological weapons. Discount riot control agents such as CS. I suspect that your "fact" line about other Nations is also wrong. No doubting Nukes, though.

And concerning WOMD, Iraq is a country the size of France. Can you imagine how easy it is to hide mobile kit even the size of a lorry in a country this big?

The FACT is that Iraq has gassed and killed 5000 of its own citizens in recent years. Halabja ring any bells? Wake up.

It's all lies. Surely Iraq doesn't have any long range missiles, they said that they don't!

Reuters

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

Public opinion is moving in my direction, Mori polls have shown this. Expect to be bombarded by them.I believe that a poll conducted yesterday shows that Blair now has the backing of 52% of the population. The UN has now show itself to be totally and utterly impotent, so Blair and Bush are now seen as the do-ers.

Also my views are completely in line with the Governments and the motion was passed a few days ago in Parliment. Of course I do not need to remind you that the MP's were democratically elected.

Basically the anti war lobby are a bunch of old women who want someone else to do the dirty work whilst they sit back and wallow in the moral highground. The Liberal Party are past masters at this.

---

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater
danger."

It seems to have worked on Mick.

Regards
Steve

Steve

The reason I support Blair is that like him I am a compassionate person who cares enough about peace to do something about it rather than waffling.

I will accept however, it is not me getting shot at, but then old men start wars and young men fight them.

Regards

mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Steve

The reason I support Blair is that like him I am a compassionate person who cares enough about peace to do something about it rather than waffling.

---

And what exactly are you doing about it? Quaffing back another whisky while goggling at the sound and light show on the tv perhaps? It's the lowest common denominator like yourself that allow egomaniac politicians to get away with abuses of power like Bush and Blairs own little war.

Personally I'm appalled that the UK is an initiator in a war of agression, something I'd never expected to see in my life time. In my opinion Tony Blair sees himself as a great statesman and this as his opportunity to prove it. Bush on the other hand is a total imbecile and probably has no real conception of what is going on. I wouldn't for a moment consider politicians to be a particularily bright bunch but rarely have I ever seen an example where the light of intelligence burns dimmer that behind GWB's eyes. God alone knows how bad American politicians must be if people actually vote for a cretin like that.

BTW I'm ex-forces so I'm hardly a pacifist.

Regards
Steve

Steve

"lowest common denominator like yourself"?

lets try to rise above the personal. The country got what it voted for. The lowest common denominator wins.

Mike

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
.

---

You forgot c: He doesn't have them, we can't find them and can't then justify this madness

Tom[/QUOTE]

Ah Tom, the 5000 dead at Halabja where killed by rhetoric, then? Thanks for pointing that out.



Mike