Discussion
For once we should stay out. Unless Buch & Blair can show the public hard evidence that S H & Iraq have fully operational or delivery methods WoMD then I am afraid we risk too much backlash from the Islamic states.
Negotiation, inspection first - war as a final resort.
BTW each tomahawk missle costs well over £400,000 each
I throw that in because I feel this money can be better spent on equiping our infantary with serviceable Radios, Machine Guns, Gp Rifles and making our Land Units Operationally capable.
Negotiation, inspection first - war as a final resort.
BTW each tomahawk missle costs well over £400,000 each
I throw that in because I feel this money can be better spent on equiping our infantary with serviceable Radios, Machine Guns, Gp Rifles and making our Land Units Operationally capable.
We have agreements with UN, NATO & EEC, lets walk their path and stand together.
There is no broad East West concensus at the moment and it is far too dangerous to try to go it alone, or us and US.
Meanwhile brigade and hone our resources so if (when) SH oversteps the mark we can all deal a joint and devistatingly decisive blow.
There is no broad East West concensus at the moment and it is far too dangerous to try to go it alone, or us and US.
Meanwhile brigade and hone our resources so if (when) SH oversteps the mark we can all deal a joint and devistatingly decisive blow.
im with america, as in sadam insain should be removed, but military action will be a MAJOR mistke if it happens, it will turn into nuclear war, which is extremely serious, why cant people in the world just get along, andamerica should carefully think about what to do, and do not use milatry force, but i do support america in getting rid of him cause he is one fcuked up b@stard
Problem is we all look like twats because Stormin norman said this would happen if we did not go into Baghdad and remove Sady.
And sure enough the Politicians screwed up - they should have let the allies march into Baghdad and come out with Sadams head on a plate just to send a message that the civilised world would not put up with those kind of actions.
And sure enough the Politicians screwed up - they should have let the allies march into Baghdad and come out with Sadams head on a plate just to send a message that the civilised world would not put up with those kind of actions.
I'm fully in support of the USA doing whatever's necessary to remove people like Saddam Hussein from power.Ever since '91 Saddam has been regrouping and redoubling his forces in preparation for a retaliation for the defeat he suffered in the gulf war. He has repeatedly threatened the US and aided many pro-muslim separatist groups in their terrorist acts. Saddam is the first and possibly biggest in a long line of terrorist leaders that need to be neutralised and removed from power, and the only way to do this is bloodshed.
Back america, dunno. if I had the power, I'd ban War, and shortly after, shaft saddam with a suitable v8 device and enlighten him on how recieving such a smallblock honour is worth it. That aside, He's not right realy is he? If he had the big bombs, He'd drop em and claim more 'glory' than 9/11. If you want to do something, do it well. If you want him out, get him out and dont stop cause he doesn't want to lose face by having american tanks in baghdad, AGAIN !
Having spoken to one or two ex-forces colleagues who still keep in touch with Mac and Skellern, as it were, it does seem that, as has been suggested above, WE are not that well equipped militarily.
I think a lot of people, me included, I guess, would probably back the US quite easily if our boys were fighting with arms that were up to scratch. Some of the crap they had/have to put up with (apparently) has staggered me, including basic cock ups, like unsuitable clothing, for God's sake.
Perhaps this is a case of reaping the rewards of massive under investment in our military systems for a generation?
But be in no doubt, Geezer Rumsfeld is bang on the money viz a vis the dangers of doing an ostrich over Saddam's capabilities. You can't judge this SOB by our own, western sensibilities; he doesn't play that way.
But the Islamic backlash does need to be considered and also the tinderbox that is Israel. You know things aren't tickety-boo when Mubarek isn't 'on side;' and he isn't.
Bloody tricky, if one is being serious. (Doesn't help when the bugger's doing big economic deals with Moscow, either.)
I think a lot of people, me included, I guess, would probably back the US quite easily if our boys were fighting with arms that were up to scratch. Some of the crap they had/have to put up with (apparently) has staggered me, including basic cock ups, like unsuitable clothing, for God's sake.
Perhaps this is a case of reaping the rewards of massive under investment in our military systems for a generation?
But be in no doubt, Geezer Rumsfeld is bang on the money viz a vis the dangers of doing an ostrich over Saddam's capabilities. You can't judge this SOB by our own, western sensibilities; he doesn't play that way.
But the Islamic backlash does need to be considered and also the tinderbox that is Israel. You know things aren't tickety-boo when Mubarek isn't 'on side;' and he isn't.
Bloody tricky, if one is being serious. (Doesn't help when the bugger's doing big economic deals with Moscow, either.)
viperman ,
would n't say that war is pointless , it's a terrible thing which no sane person should condone But sometimes it may be the only option to remove a mad dangerous regime that may be a threat to ever one on the planet
really Saddam is as mad as they come , completey barking and he would explode nuclear devices at anyone that has pissed him off
But full support of the septics military idea is not good , get the weapons inspectors back in first and make sure they are allowed mfull freedom to do there task , then if they find proof of weapons of m.d. then ltes get after the moustaced twat .
would n't say that war is pointless , it's a terrible thing which no sane person should condone But sometimes it may be the only option to remove a mad dangerous regime that may be a threat to ever one on the planet
really Saddam is as mad as they come , completey barking and he would explode nuclear devices at anyone that has pissed him off
But full support of the septics military idea is not good , get the weapons inspectors back in first and make sure they are allowed mfull freedom to do there task , then if they find proof of weapons of m.d. then ltes get after the moustaced twat .
Who are we to say what country should own what weapons. Does our ownership of nuclear weapons mean that other countries, to demonstrate their disapproval, are entitled to attack us?
Or is it the state of mind of the ruler that is the point in question? Again why not target us, we've had our fair share of nutty rulers.
Too much hypocrisy. To put it into context an attack on an independent state MERELY because it owns weapons is a bit like banning all TVR owners from driving as they have the potential to drive too fast for the conditions.
By all means have inspections, by all means make it more financially attractive for Iraq to be good boys and by all means make it clear that any transgression will be met by vasty excessive retribution but don't let fly the dogs of war just to satisfy a group of inflated egos.
>> Edited by gnomesmith on Sunday 1st September 15:48
Or is it the state of mind of the ruler that is the point in question? Again why not target us, we've had our fair share of nutty rulers.
Too much hypocrisy. To put it into context an attack on an independent state MERELY because it owns weapons is a bit like banning all TVR owners from driving as they have the potential to drive too fast for the conditions.
By all means have inspections, by all means make it more financially attractive for Iraq to be good boys and by all means make it clear that any transgression will be met by vasty excessive retribution but don't let fly the dogs of war just to satisfy a group of inflated egos.
>> Edited by gnomesmith on Sunday 1st September 15:48
Removing Saddam from power would be virtually impossible.
We still haven't got Bin Laden, and he was in a country with hardly any infrastructure.
The only way you have any chance of getting him is by putting in ground troops in very large numbers, and that would be very costly in terms of human lives.
Trying to remove him from power, when it is more difficult to justify to the outside world now than 10 years ago, would cause more problems in that region than we currently have.
By the way, the war in Afghanistan has gone quiet now hasn't it.
We still haven't got Bin Laden, and he was in a country with hardly any infrastructure.
The only way you have any chance of getting him is by putting in ground troops in very large numbers, and that would be very costly in terms of human lives.
Trying to remove him from power, when it is more difficult to justify to the outside world now than 10 years ago, would cause more problems in that region than we currently have.
By the way, the war in Afghanistan has gone quiet now hasn't it.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff