It's all kicked off

Moving towards the border. No fighting yet. Deadline 7:30 hours to go.

Let's hope it ends quickly

Tom

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.

no mention of fighting on CNN or BBCi. But there will be soon

Tom

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

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

According to BBCi 5 minutes ago, the Official briefing rooms have been designed by Holywood so that it all looks high tech

Also that the US is now arguing about the definition of surrendered combatants so that the army doesn't have to look after too many prisoners

Tom

anything for dessert:
http://iht.com/articles/90179.html

http://iht.com/articles/90183.html

regards

good morning!

...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

Greg, i thought it is supposedly beyond a doubt that Iraq has them, France and the US supplied them remember. TBlair was asked in parliament y'day by an MP about identifying who the (western) companies which originally supplied the stuff(starter stocks of the toxic/biological crap) were, and he just brushed it off. oh, and he has used it, for starters there are enough Iranian 80's gulf war vets in hospital with failed lungs.

good morning!

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

Also where are the independant observers in all this. 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

quote:

---

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:
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.

---

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

Tom

War is illegal

Oops. Meant to post the URL, not the quote.

Food for thought?

Alex

:::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

maybe it was an audit, time to call in Arthur Andersen. apparently there's 75,000 kilograms of anthrax or whatever and various other bits that's missing and therefore the books dont balance and therefore the HBlix can't confirm all exotic weapons ahve been destroyed?

good morning!

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

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

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.

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

Fifthly. What do they do in Porton Down?

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.

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.

I hope I'm wrong and unduly cynical. Maybe this time they will be upright, honest and play the game fairly. So far the indications aren't hopeful

Tom

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

Well it has started now.

Tom

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......

Mike

You ae of course right to a certain degree and I was being deliberately provocative to encourage debate. I am very cynical of the military of any army behaving honourably. They will do as much as they think they can get away with but I agree it would be extremely risky to use WoMD with out being found out.

A few points. I'm still not convinced that Iraq has many (if any) WoMD. We haven't found any and the we have been trying. so the response "A-ha, they must have them hidden 'cos we can't find them" is used. Yes I know the books don't balance but Blix doesn't seem to think there was a major problem.

Bloody Sunday is a valid example of our troops firing from behind to start an aggressive action which could be blamed on the enemy. The military have used this tactic before they might consider it again. But I agree if they got found out the consequences would be terrible.

Even if WoMD aren't used on the battle field our troops will have to find some after they've won. There will always be some conspiracy theory. Let's start now.

During the Cold War Britain tested the atom bomb on it's troops. Unfortunately it didn't bother to tell the troops and then watched to see what happened. The army is now being sued.

Porton Down. Again conspiracy theories are fun

Irangate the US sold weapons to Iran (a non-friendly state) to aid a covert terroist action (sponsored by the US) in Nicuragua.

Bosnia they bombed a refugee convoy and denied it vigorously until a British journalist found the bomb case fragments with US serial numbers at the scene.

Of course I don't agree with ethnic cleasing. Israel should be made to stop as well (ooh, provocative )

As for journalists, well I don't have a TV but I do listen to the Radio (NAT02) and BBCi on my PC. AS pointed out above things do get found out by the better investigative journos. Thank heavens for them. Just remember that stories fed to the press at the military briefings are propoganda with the aim of making good tv, making the war look justified and making it look justified. But fortunately that isn't the only source of information.

Tom