The French and Iraq

[Mr T.]

"Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion - you just leave a lot of unnecessary, noisy baggage behind."

Rarely do observations come more accutely delivered.

[Gavin Yates]

PJ O'Rourke?

[Mr T.]

Surprisingly, no Gav; though definitely worthy of him. Alas, this one is from some backwoods-man Senator in the US; no doubt gleaned from one of his 'recently out of Harvard (where he picked it up) spin-goffers'.

[budgy]

The British armed forces exist to defend the nation.  I except their deployment as aid in restoring peace in another country.  The deployment of troops to the borders of Iraq and our threating behaviour is a crime.  

[MATTBIN]

Dont sit on the fence, say what you mean!
Matt
ps Agreed

[Hobby]

Budgy,I appreciate your point.However,the way Iraq has treated it's own people and neighbours is also a crime,who will help them?
Iraq,despite the misinformation campaign recently suggested by the Govt to gain support for this venture is in reality a threat,a threat to UK interests(besides oil)and other European countries by it's support and (?)harbouring of terrorist elements.
Threatening?Ask a Kurd who's threatened,I know and have worked with Kurds,Iraqis etc from this area and listened to their stories.
Hussein is a rogue dictator who threatens much,while I do not condone loss of life/war,it apparently does'nt cause him loss of sleep.
There have been others before him,ask the Jews if they think the Final Solution should have been stopped with lengthy diplomatic means for eg.He's had years,literally,and the whole lot's mixed up in fighting,terrorism and unrest that affects all the world.
It's a sad state of affairs but the man must be stopped,the world has turned the other cheek to him for long enough and compromised huamn life along the way.Sometimes with Bully's all they understand is greater force,sadly.
There will always be others like this too,sad fact of life,but how much slack do you give a regime like this,the man's ambition in his own words is to become sole ruler of the Arab world.
We could always wait a few more years and try to salvage something from the repurcussions of that project.
Regards,Hobby.

[Mr T.]

Hobby,

With respect mate, don't even rise to 'opinion by sound-byte' gash like this. If Budgy wants to sit with Chamberlain on this one (and look where that got us), then let him stew in his own 'peace at any cost' juices. We'll just have tell our kids that once men had the balls to stand up against oppressors - regardless of the consequences - so that other folks could live life without the knowledge that for no apparent reason they might get killed today. Oil or no oil, this guy needs taking out. End of.

Budgy sounds like the Uber-confused Tony Benn on this one. He's quite happy to cite that we're the criminals whilst alluding to some fantasy world where Saddam is really just a good egg and all round snappy-dresser and not really the tyrant we know him to be. His call mate.

And the UK armed forces - sorry to disavow Budgy of his misrepresentation of them - is not solely for the defence of the realm (although that is ONE of their primary roles). They are to be used in protecting the 'interests' ('politics by other means' ipso facto real politik) of the nation - whether you agree with or share those 'interests' Budgy, is another matter all together.

Count me in the 'Criminal Fraternity'.

[MATTBIN]

Hobby
if thats the justification for War then it should have been stated from the beginning and 'we' may have gone for it, but 'we' were told he has weapons of mass destruction, except there is no proof. So the argument put forward for this War falls down. You may be correct that he should be removed as he poses a threat to us and his neighbours but that was not the reason we were told he had to go. The US (and the UK) have made a complete farce of the reasons and now have to justify War based on nothing but 'gut-feelings' and 'sincerity'. In all truth Desert Storm should have got rid of him and then his own people would not have suffered by his own hands so much.
Matt

[Mr T.]

OK, time to wake up and smell that which we're shovelling!

France currently has &#3660 Billion of contracts (oil, military, construction etc.) with Saddam - and, not surprisingly, they want to get paid. Russia is owed &#369 Billion by Saddam, and they're in the same boat with the French.

So please don't go fooling yourself that the French, Germans and Russians are taking anything other than a 'what's in it for me' stance, where as, they'd have us believe that they are acting in a humanitarian manner! The German rate of unemployment went up by 400,00 in January alone (they now have over 10% unemployment in that country), so I guess Schroeder (hair dye aside) has other things to worry about - not that the Germans ever deploy anything other than cooks and bottle-washers (REMF's) to a scrap any way.

Oh and Matt, whether the world an his wife might have liked us to go in in 1991 and finish the job is irrelevant - guess what.....we didn't have the UN mandate to do it! Shocking that, innit? Playing by the rules...? As Saddam blithely set about blowing up every oil well in Kuwait on his hastey retreat out of there and causing what was, at the time, the world's biggest environmental disaster.....

But hey, what we're doing's a crime.....

[Lou]

Good god, why should we be involved now, when it suits us, when it suits the US?

We haven't given a stuff for the Iraqi or Kurds for the past twelve years despite knowing all we know now, then.

What I object most strongly to is Blair just following Bush-baby into war for no *new* reasons, and lying to us about why we are doing it!

*IF* there was a UN mandate then we would have far more justification in enforcing our will on another country.  Whether we think we are right or not we cannot just march into other countries that have NOT taken offensive action against another state.  Bush fancying finishing off what his daddy failed to do is not the compelling argument needed.

Meanwhile the US are sabre-rattling over North Korea too, should we join them there as well??  In fact, why don't we just make the US rulers of the universe - ultimate deciders of who should be in power and who shouldn't.  A nuclear power who refuses to disarm threatening violence against others who refuse to do the same.