It's all kicked off
Posted by: John Channing on 19 March 2003
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
John
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Alan Ball
nearly impressive set of links. Note frequent use of words "speculate", "possible", "in danger of" etc etc.
These are not facts, they are generally opinions. It is know acknowledged that the Moscow police used an anaesthetic on the terrorists, not a nerve agent. Good on them.
Even you dramatically headed "Reports of Israel using chemical nerve agents", (linked to the Palestine Chronicle - possibly not totally impartial? ) refers to a powerful type of tear gas.
You have still not answered my only request - to justify your "fact" that of the UK having chemical/biological weapons.
Over to you.
Mike
nearly impressive set of links. Note frequent use of words "speculate", "possible", "in danger of" etc etc.
These are not facts, they are generally opinions. It is know acknowledged that the Moscow police used an anaesthetic on the terrorists, not a nerve agent. Good on them.
Even you dramatically headed "Reports of Israel using chemical nerve agents", (linked to the Palestine Chronicle - possibly not totally impartial? ) refers to a powerful type of tear gas.
You have still not answered my only request - to justify your "fact" that of the UK having chemical/biological weapons.
Over to you.
Mike
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Justin
I envy you your Prime Minister. Aside from my feelings on the war (which I happen to support), I think that Tony Blair is 3 times the man Bush is. I saw him speaking Parlament the other day, and he is a brilliant man with a flair for public speaking. He has that sort of charisma and oratory skills not seen in the United States since JFK.
Bush sounds like a wet sock when he speaks. You get the impression that he talks slowly so he doesn't lose his train of thought. I don't think that Bush makes war policy for the United States (and so, I'm heartened by the fact that smarter people do his thinking for him), but as a leader, he sucks ass!!!!
Judd
Bush sounds like a wet sock when he speaks. You get the impression that he talks slowly so he doesn't lose his train of thought. I don't think that Bush makes war policy for the United States (and so, I'm heartened by the fact that smarter people do his thinking for him), but as a leader, he sucks ass!!!!
Judd
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by matthewr
"He has that sort of charisma and oratory skills not seen in the United States since JFK"
Well not since Clinton.
From a UK perspective the parliamentary debate on the war was something to be very proud of as it showed our Parliament working in the way its meant to with a excellent debate and a honest vote. If only they would do it more often. Also it was very significant that for the first time ever we had a parliamentary vote before starting a war -- unlike the US Constitution whcih requires a vote for war, the Primeminister can start a war whenever he likes.
Watching Bush through this a weakness in the American system rather struck me. The President can if he wants basically avoid all direct scrutiny and accountability during his term in office until the next election. And this is why you can end up with the most powerful man in the world being something of a idiot.
Matthew
Well not since Clinton.
From a UK perspective the parliamentary debate on the war was something to be very proud of as it showed our Parliament working in the way its meant to with a excellent debate and a honest vote. If only they would do it more often. Also it was very significant that for the first time ever we had a parliamentary vote before starting a war -- unlike the US Constitution whcih requires a vote for war, the Primeminister can start a war whenever he likes.
Watching Bush through this a weakness in the American system rather struck me. The President can if he wants basically avoid all direct scrutiny and accountability during his term in office until the next election. And this is why you can end up with the most powerful man in the world being something of a idiot.
Matthew
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Tim Jones
Right. I've just struggled home through the pissed up 16 years olds around Westminster who are bunking off school and I'm a tad grumpy.
They clearly are of the same mind as Tom - that the West is out to kill Iraqi children (and they're very good at reminding us that this is a bad thing), that the US and UK Governments do nothing but lie (in what interest incidentally?) and that Saddam Hussein should just be left to get on with murdering his own civilians.
This is all very interesting. It does seem, though, that the anti-war protests have shifted decisively from well-informed argument to the usual anti-Western, vaguely leftist (but, uh, liberal) hotch potch. At the same time their moral targets have shifted to the usual barn-door sizes. The protests today seemed to consist of screaming 'scum!' at the police and drinking cider.
Incidentally Tom have you suggested a solution to the Iraqi conundrum? Perhaps I've overlooked it.
Tim
They clearly are of the same mind as Tom - that the West is out to kill Iraqi children (and they're very good at reminding us that this is a bad thing), that the US and UK Governments do nothing but lie (in what interest incidentally?) and that Saddam Hussein should just be left to get on with murdering his own civilians.
This is all very interesting. It does seem, though, that the anti-war protests have shifted decisively from well-informed argument to the usual anti-Western, vaguely leftist (but, uh, liberal) hotch potch. At the same time their moral targets have shifted to the usual barn-door sizes. The protests today seemed to consist of screaming 'scum!' at the police and drinking cider.
Incidentally Tom have you suggested a solution to the Iraqi conundrum? Perhaps I've overlooked it.
Tim
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by oldie
Well said Tom, I could not have put it better.
I'm afraid that to many of our colleagues have their heads buried in the sand and only hear what they wish to hear .What about Phony TONY'S
promises of a couple of weeks ago that he would NEVER take us into a war situation without a second UN vote !
What do these people think has been going on at Porton down all these years.They don't make air freshner there.
Not only have we trained nearly all the worlds despots, but we have armed them as well. So how come we find it supprising when they use them.
you don't buy Arms and chemicals to use as paper weights Come one people wake up, this is about Americas definition of democracy, that is their right to interfere with and dominate any other country they like, just to ensure that their life style is protected and to hell with the rest of the planet
Sorry Tom you have it "DEAD" right.To miss quote an old saying.
From a "old" disillusioned socialist
I'm afraid that to many of our colleagues have their heads buried in the sand and only hear what they wish to hear .What about Phony TONY'S
promises of a couple of weeks ago that he would NEVER take us into a war situation without a second UN vote !
What do these people think has been going on at Porton down all these years.They don't make air freshner there.
Not only have we trained nearly all the worlds despots, but we have armed them as well. So how come we find it supprising when they use them.
you don't buy Arms and chemicals to use as paper weights Come one people wake up, this is about Americas definition of democracy, that is their right to interfere with and dominate any other country they like, just to ensure that their life style is protected and to hell with the rest of the planet
Sorry Tom you have it "DEAD" right.To miss quote an old saying.
From a "old" disillusioned socialist
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Tim Jones
Mr oldie -
In a way I share your worries about the US.
Unfortunately, your post sums up perfectly the mix of hazy paranoia (Porton has not manufactured any offensive agents for decades, incidentally) and utter absence of solutions that now seem to dominate the anti-war movement.
The fact that 'tony' rhymes with 'phony' is a fantastic piece of political rhetoric. I've certainly never heard it before. Well done.
Tim
In a way I share your worries about the US.
Unfortunately, your post sums up perfectly the mix of hazy paranoia (Porton has not manufactured any offensive agents for decades, incidentally) and utter absence of solutions that now seem to dominate the anti-war movement.
The fact that 'tony' rhymes with 'phony' is a fantastic piece of political rhetoric. I've certainly never heard it before. Well done.
Tim
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Also it was very significant that for the first time ever we had a parliamentary vote before starting a war -- unlike the US Constitution whcih requires a vote for war, the Primeminister can start a war whenever he likes.
Matthew
I hate to quibble, but that section of the US constitution that says that only Congress can declare war has been interpreted out of existence for 40 years or more. A review of military history since WWII shows very clearly that the President alone dictates (in an essentially unrevieable nature) (1) when the interests of the US demand military power and (2) to commit troops without any legislative authority.
For all intents and purposes, the President has the sole power to wage war, at least initially.
Judd
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Bob Edwards
Tom--
You said: "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."
Have you ever been in a war? Or a firefight?
Best Regards,
Bob Edwards
You said: "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."
Have you ever been in a war? Or a firefight?
Best Regards,
Bob Edwards
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by oldie:
What do these people think has been going on at Porton down all these years.They don't make air freshner there.
Well actually, in a very real sense they do. Or at least, they design air fresheners.
Mike.
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
"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.
Matthew
Matthew
I would suspect that the military would not want the Argentinians to know that 2 PARA where about to attck. I know 2 PARA didn't.
Mike
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
[I]t was very significant that for the first time ever we had a parliamentary vote before starting a war -- unlike the US Constitution whcih requires a vote for war, the Primeminister can start a war whenever he likes.
Watching Bush through this a weakness in the American system rather struck me. The President can if he wants basically avoid all direct scrutiny and accountability during his term in office until the next election.
Matthew, you have an incomplete understanding of the war powers granted the President. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does grant Congress the power to declare war, but only the most conservative adherent of strict interpretation - or politicians trying to make a name for themselves, like Jesse Jackson, Jr - actually believes or says that was the intent or is how that provision should be interpreted today. The US now has a 200 year history of military action overseas without official declarations of war - Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli in 1803 without one.
The prevailing statute at the current time, as I understand it, is the War Powers Act of 1973 (see http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html for more info), which grants the President the ability to wage war while only consulting and informing Congress. That is what Bush has done. I'm not convinced that Bush is necessarily an idiot, though I'm not convinced that he's the sharpest guy around, either, but his advisers certainly know the law and how to exploit it. Bush is within his power to do what he has done, at least from a domestic law standpoint. I'm not so sure about from an international standpoint.
I'm not necessarily trying to rationalize the war, but I certainly think it beneficial for people to know what governs military actions.
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by matthewr
Mike
A quote from the previous link:
"The turning point in the battle [between the military and the media] was the Falklands. The nature of the campaign - a seaborne task force sailing to invade a group of islands 13,000km from Britain and 650km from the nearest land mass - meant that correspondents could not get to the war unless the MoD took them. In return for access to the action the correspondents had to accept the MoD rules. These were crippling. British correspondents only; no impartial neutrals. The British applicants were vetted - no room, for example, for veteran photographer Don McCullin, because his photographs tended to be too realistic.
The 17 correspondents eventually accredited had to sign forms agreeing to accept censorship at source by six MoD "public relations officers". The result was that the war was reported exactly how the military wanted it to be"
This is all a matter of easily verified public record and is fully explained in Phillip Knightly's book "The First Casualty".
Matthew
A quote from the previous link:
"The turning point in the battle [between the military and the media] was the Falklands. The nature of the campaign - a seaborne task force sailing to invade a group of islands 13,000km from Britain and 650km from the nearest land mass - meant that correspondents could not get to the war unless the MoD took them. In return for access to the action the correspondents had to accept the MoD rules. These were crippling. British correspondents only; no impartial neutrals. The British applicants were vetted - no room, for example, for veteran photographer Don McCullin, because his photographs tended to be too realistic.
The 17 correspondents eventually accredited had to sign forms agreeing to accept censorship at source by six MoD "public relations officers". The result was that the war was reported exactly how the military wanted it to be"
This is all a matter of easily verified public record and is fully explained in Phillip Knightly's book "The First Casualty".
Matthew
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by matthewr
I don't pretend to be anything like an expert on the US Constitution and am obviously a bit out of date. I do note however that your Founding Fathers got most things right (they were English after all 
) and its not usually a good idea to go aginst them.
Its interesting though that becuase of this vote (which sets a very strong precedent) we now effectively enjoy a stronger protection against war mad leaders than America. And as I said earlier I was oddly proud of our democracy even at the point when we decide to illegally attack another nation and kill 1000s of innocent people.
Matthew
) and its not usually a good idea to go aginst them.Its interesting though that becuase of this vote (which sets a very strong precedent) we now effectively enjoy a stronger protection against war mad leaders than America. And as I said earlier I was oddly proud of our democracy even at the point when we decide to illegally attack another nation and kill 1000s of innocent people.
Matthew
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by matthewr
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by paul atkinson:
When you go to bed tonight spare a thought for the guy in Baghdad who does exactly the same job as you. He's no different from you: he has the same hopes for a good life for himself and his kids, he eats too much and doesn't exercise enough, he spends as much of the day laughing as he possibly can. Probably doesn't give a shit about politics and certainly doesn't support Saddam. Tonight he and his family could be murdered by remote control. Try to imagine this happening in your town. Would the deaths of tens of thousands of people in your county be justified to get rid of Saddam? Then why is it justifiable elsewhere? Unless you're willing to see the slaughter occur at home how can you justify it elsewhere? This must rank as the most cowardly war in history,
very saddened, Paul
This argument is ridiculous. No war could be justified under this calculation. Why not just say "no war, ever, is ever justified, ever."
It's ok if you feel this way, but back it up with something logically defensible.
Judd
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Keith Mattox
quote:Although this makes for a juicy story, I can't seem to find evidence of this. From this website:
Originally posted by where's vuk?:
some talking heads show with william hague etc on tv. one member of the audience just asked point blank why did the US veto in 1986 a UN resolution against saddam's use of exotic weapons, during iran-iraq war?
whoa!!
good morning!
- Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
- Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
- Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
- Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
- Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
- Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
Cheers
Keith.
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by JeremyD
quote:If I were an Iraqi in Baghdad then, right now, I would be terrified out of my mind. I would also welcome the war as my best hope of liberation - so it's no surprise to me that all available evidence suggests that the majority of Iraqis support the war. If the anti war movement finds their views inconvenient it's just too bad...
Originally posted by paul atkinson:
When you go to bed tonight spare a thought for the guy in Baghdad who does exactly the same job as you. He's no different from you: he has the same hopes for a good life for himself and his kids, he eats too much and doesn't exercise enough, he spends as much of the day laughing as he possibly can. Probably doesn't give a shit about politics and certainly doesn't support Saddam. Tonight he and his family could be murdered by remote control. Try to imagine this happening in your town. Would the deaths of tens of thousands of people in your county be justified to get rid of Saddam? Then why is it justifiable elsewhere? Unless you're willing to see the slaughter occur at home how can you justify it elsewhere? This must rank as the most cowardly war in history,
very saddened, Paul
--J
Posted on: 20 March 2003 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by JeremyD:
If I were an Iraqi in Baghdad then, right now, I would be terrified out of my mind. I would also welcome the war as my best hope of liberation - so it's no surprise to me that all available evidence suggests that the majority of Iraqis support the war. If the anti war movement finds their views inconvenient it's just too bad...
--J
Is this true? I have no idea if it is. BUT, if it IS true, would all those against this war still be against it? I'm serious. I'd like to know if this changes any position if this is true.
Judd
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by oldie
Quote,If i were an Iraqi from JeremyD .
I for one would be very interested to know were you get this extremely dubious information from.
It sounds to be very familiar to me and probably taken from the much used book of aggressors quotes of justification, that is usualy brought out and waved at us at times like these. The few Iraqis that I know, whilst not supporting Saddam, DO NOT wish thier sovereign state to be flattened by the same people that have used the same justification to
force their will on other countrys whose internal politics they do not like.After all it does seem to be the case that Bush's election to the position of President had one or two flaws to it, but if this is ok to the American people it does not justify the rest of the UN attacking the USA to change their [dubiously] elected leader.
Justin
As I do not believe this information regarding the Iraqi people ,It makes no differance to my beliefs, and also those of the UN that it is illegal to attack a sovereign state ,and it is also illegal to try to dispose
of its leader.Try telling the kurd's that we are doing this to free them,after we told them the same thing the last time, and when they rose up against Saddam where were the Americans and our selves,we had all Buggered off home and left them to it thats where !! and how meny kurdish lives did that cost ? we seem to have conveniently forgotten about that
I for one would be very interested to know were you get this extremely dubious information from.
It sounds to be very familiar to me and probably taken from the much used book of aggressors quotes of justification, that is usualy brought out and waved at us at times like these. The few Iraqis that I know, whilst not supporting Saddam, DO NOT wish thier sovereign state to be flattened by the same people that have used the same justification to
force their will on other countrys whose internal politics they do not like.After all it does seem to be the case that Bush's election to the position of President had one or two flaws to it, but if this is ok to the American people it does not justify the rest of the UN attacking the USA to change their [dubiously] elected leader.
Justin
As I do not believe this information regarding the Iraqi people ,It makes no differance to my beliefs, and also those of the UN that it is illegal to attack a sovereign state ,and it is also illegal to try to dispose
of its leader.Try telling the kurd's that we are doing this to free them,after we told them the same thing the last time, and when they rose up against Saddam where were the Americans and our selves,we had all Buggered off home and left them to it thats where !! and how meny kurdish lives did that cost ? we seem to have conveniently forgotten about that
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Matthew T
quote:
Originally posted by where's vuk?:
some talking heads show with william hague etc on tv. one member of the audience just asked point blank why did the US veto in 1986 a UN resolution against saddam's use of exotic weapons, during iran-iraq war?
whoa!!
good morning!
Yes very interesting, let's hope the general public's opinions are based on something a little more accurate.
UN resolution
Here's hoping!
Matthew
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Mick P
Chaps
I am not complaining.........price of oil is dropping like a stone....$24 ...lovely.
Once this lot is over, the good times will roll, low oil prices and low interest rates, everyone benifits.
The people of Iraq will have freedom for the first time in years.
Hopefully in a couple of weeks time we can quote Maggie
Rejoice Rejoice Rejoice
Regards
Mick
I am not complaining.........price of oil is dropping like a stone....$24 ...lovely.
Once this lot is over, the good times will roll, low oil prices and low interest rates, everyone benifits.
The people of Iraq will have freedom for the first time in years.
Hopefully in a couple of weeks time we can quote Maggie
Rejoice Rejoice Rejoice
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Cheese
Liberty according to George W.
Cheese
Cheese
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by JeremyD
Oldie,
Setting aside your snide little remark, in the absence of any means of conducting valid polls in Iraq, all evidence - including the views of your Iraqi friends - is necessarily anecdotal. Consequently, whether or not one agrees that majority of Iraqis support the invasion is a matter of judgement, not of fact.
But in my judgement the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that the majority do support invasion, and that many others who oppose it do so only because they mistrust the USA's motives - not because they believe that the price in lives of freedom is too high, as some would have us believe.
I have formed my opinion as a result of:
1) Knowing how inhibited even Iraqis in exile can be about expressing their views in public. The Iraqis I met in the late 1980s, who were campaigning for action [not necessarily military] to be taken against Saddam were wary of giving their names, fearing not only that their families might be punished by Saddam but that even here in England their own lives might be in danger from Iraqi agents. This is hardly surprising given the reputed number of Iraqi informants.
2) Seeing on TV at regular intervals, over the past few months, Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam arguing passionately in favour of military intervention, and claiming that these views were widely held in Iraq. Those who have not favoured intervention have tended not offer an opinion on what views are held in Iraq. What this means, if anything, I cannot say.
3) Articles on the Internet by or about people linked to Iraqi opposition groups.
4) Recent [i.e. in the last day or two] reports from journalists in Baghdad, saying Iraqis are now daring to express (at least in private) their support the invasion. Even so, they are not in a postion to assess how many are for or against - but at least it is the judgement of people who are in Iraq right now.
What I have not been able to find is scientifically valid polls.
I did find a reference to a poll that supposedly showed that 90% of Iraqi Kurds supported the invasion [which seems a little unlikely, given the ambivalence of at least one Kurdish opposition group] but I was unable to find any information about the poll, so cannot give it much credence.
I also found a mention of the results of an informal Internet poll in which, it was claimed, ~1700 out of ~2700 Iraqi exiles who responded were pro invasion. Again, it's scientifically meaningless but it adds to the anecdotal evidence.
--J
[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 21 March 2003 at 15:18.]
Setting aside your snide little remark, in the absence of any means of conducting valid polls in Iraq, all evidence - including the views of your Iraqi friends - is necessarily anecdotal. Consequently, whether or not one agrees that majority of Iraqis support the invasion is a matter of judgement, not of fact.
But in my judgement the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that the majority do support invasion, and that many others who oppose it do so only because they mistrust the USA's motives - not because they believe that the price in lives of freedom is too high, as some would have us believe.
I have formed my opinion as a result of:
1) Knowing how inhibited even Iraqis in exile can be about expressing their views in public. The Iraqis I met in the late 1980s, who were campaigning for action [not necessarily military] to be taken against Saddam were wary of giving their names, fearing not only that their families might be punished by Saddam but that even here in England their own lives might be in danger from Iraqi agents. This is hardly surprising given the reputed number of Iraqi informants.
2) Seeing on TV at regular intervals, over the past few months, Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam arguing passionately in favour of military intervention, and claiming that these views were widely held in Iraq. Those who have not favoured intervention have tended not offer an opinion on what views are held in Iraq. What this means, if anything, I cannot say.
3) Articles on the Internet by or about people linked to Iraqi opposition groups.
4) Recent [i.e. in the last day or two] reports from journalists in Baghdad, saying Iraqis are now daring to express (at least in private) their support the invasion. Even so, they are not in a postion to assess how many are for or against - but at least it is the judgement of people who are in Iraq right now.
What I have not been able to find is scientifically valid polls.
I did find a reference to a poll that supposedly showed that 90% of Iraqi Kurds supported the invasion [which seems a little unlikely, given the ambivalence of at least one Kurdish opposition group] but I was unable to find any information about the poll, so cannot give it much credence.
I also found a mention of the results of an informal Internet poll in which, it was claimed, ~1700 out of ~2700 Iraqi exiles who responded were pro invasion. Again, it's scientifically meaningless but it adds to the anecdotal evidence.
--J
[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 21 March 2003 at 15:18.]
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Matthew T
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Ball:
Mick -
Oil prices dropping ! Great.. More profits for the big oil companies. Perhaps I should mention this to Shell and get my rates up ?
-A-
Oil companies produce oil.
Oil companies sell oil/oil derivatives
Oil prices go down/oil derivative prices go down
Oil companies get lower revenues from oil and oil derivaitves
Oil companies make less money
Maybe you should offer Shell to reduces your rates
Matthew
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by oldie
Dear JermemyD
Quote:- Setting aside your snide little remarks
There is nothing snide about my remarks, it's just your interpretation of them. My assesment
is based on facts and not unsubstantiated hypothesis, I'm afraid that your argument supporting this unjust war leaves you hoisted on your own petard.
Quote:- Setting aside your snide little remarks
There is nothing snide about my remarks, it's just your interpretation of them. My assesment
is based on facts and not unsubstantiated hypothesis, I'm afraid that your argument supporting this unjust war leaves you hoisted on your own petard.