It's all kicked off

'investigative journos' get my vote for this mornings SNAPPY

good morning!

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.....

It's 82p per litre at the local petrol station.

Alex

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

Amazing. The vast majority of the world feels this war is wrong and unjustified yet Mick still thinks he's right. LoL

Tom

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

Public opinion in Britain & the US maybe moving towards acceptance of the situation. The rest of the world is still firmly against the act of aggression.

As for 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". Tosh. They don't want the Americans to do ANY dirty work. They rather the US stopped

Tom

FACT : The US has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.

FACT : The UK has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.

FACT : Russia has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.

FACT : China has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.

FACT : France has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.

FACT : Israel has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons.

And who gets attacked ? Iraq.. And that was after the UN Inspectors couldn't actually find any WoMD. It's all about oil and getting a strong US-controlled Arab foothold in the Middle East.

And you know it is.. !

-A-

Well as long as it increases my share prices then it must be ok

Tom

alan, maybe it's more about getting the price of oil down, by getting iraqi oil pumping at full-production rate again....which it wasn't able to do under UN "sanctions"? capitalist economies are wheezing and lower oil prices can only help the wheezers.

who's to say it isnt? especially since 'rebuilding Iraq' contracts are already being offered to US companies only, if one can believe the press. nothing even for their british satraps.

recently read from the wall st. journal europe of march 17, 2003, "Out of the Public View, Vice President Keeps Bush on Track Over Iraq", Jeanne Cummings and Greg Hitt:

....one day during a visit to the pentagon: "Someone asked Mr. Cheney if there was anything he regretted from his time as defense secretary. Before Mr. Cheney could answer, Mr. Rumsfeld, lingering in the background, chimed in by saying "Not going to Baghdad?" The whole room burst into laughter- and Cheney responded with an amused "Yeah."

on candidates for future leader of post-invasion Iraq: "State Department and CIA officials mistrust the refined, British educated Mr. Chalabi, who is under indictment in Jordan for fraud. But Mr Cheney and his senior staff have remained stubbord advocates."

sorry to hijack the thread.

good morning!

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike lacey: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?

---

we can't find them therefore they must have hidden them. Hmm that sounds as paranoid as

quote:

---

[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

---

Of course using gas against terroists is much worse than just bulldozing their refugee camps in the middle of the night.

On another note I hear that the cowardly Iraqis have their command centres in a city. Shocking. Our lords & masters in Washington & Westminster would never do that. No there aren't any military barracks in London. And in event of war in the UK I hear our government will happily go out to a field in the country. Or will that be seen as running away.

You can imply anything using propoganda and it doesn't have to be logical or true.

Tom

Oh Mike. Don't be so naive. You want facts.. Let's have a few then.

1. The US supplies Israel with chemicals to make Sarin nerve gas.

2. US in danger of treaty violation for biological weapons production.

3. Reports of Israel using chemical nerve gas against Palestinian civilians.

4. Russia uses BZ nerve agent to end Moscow theatre seige.

While most of these countries claim not to have actual biological and/or chemical weapons the fact remains that they have production facilities for the agents which borders on and in most cases violates internationally recognised treaties. Whether these are used for 'defense' purposes is irrelevant and is merely word play. Could Iraq say that their biological weapons production was for defense purposes and that be ok ? Israel on the other hand seems to operate outside any UN sanctions/inpections whatsoever and pretty much does as it pleases.

This link shows a fairly rounded picture of who is doing what. Where is mentions 'Former Program' I believe this is the 'official' declared weapons programs and does not cover what is termed 'defensive research'.

WoMD - Who has what ? What are countries working on ?


-A-

Interesting that in Alan's link to WoMD -who has what ? America seems to have the most biological programs on the go.

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

Reuters

Matthew

As my father in law says

quote:

---

Shoot the lot of them, there all as bad as each other

---

Tom

What's the big deal about the US violating international treaties on anything?

The US refuses to recognise the International Court (and now the authority of the UN) and will do as it damn well pleases. No-one can stop them, accept it, get over it.

Alex

Guys

Most of you seem to forget the fact that hussein and his cronies (chemical ali!) have previously released chemical weapons on his own people. As for long range missiles, I can assure you, having been in range of Scud-2 missiles in Dhahran in '91, he has them and will use them.
I'm not a protaginist of war, having been in thr falklands in '81 also gives a perspective on that issue, but if the UN are not to decompose into a talking house, then something should have been done before this calamity happened. Bush is obvioulsy deranged, but no-one else has come up with an alternative that would work. Perhaps western governments do lie, but they can be changed, ref thatcher getting the boot, whilst it is difficult for anyone in places like iraq to get a change of government without external influence. I've spent many years in the middle-east, and democracy is not a word recognised there.

As for finding equipment that hussein doesn't want finding, do you have any idea of the size of Iraq? This septic isle would fit in there many times over, and not many people here have a clue what is sat next to them, never mind what is in Porton Down.

I only hope that post this idiocy the politicians/statesmen/whatever get their backsides into gear and provide a forum that can allow such issues to be worked out properly, and that international law has teeth - it always has to be with concensus so it inevitably gets watered down so much to get universal acceptance that it ends up meaningless. In the end, the USA has to be involved or nothing will happen. Lets just hope that Al Gore will get in next time (as he should 2 years ago) and common sense prevail.

Andfy

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