Zimbabwe is one of the biggest international monkeys on Blair's back.

from World Press Review magazine

Margaret Thatcher's government made a decision that would be difficult for any British government to rescind, when it signed a top-secret memorandum of understanding in which it boosted its commitment to UKUSA. In order not to be overly subordinate to Washington, London made a commitment to contribute a further $830 million to the system, receiving in exchange the right to redirect one of the three NSA spy satellites on a target of its own choosing for no more than four months a year, with NSA's requirements taking precedence only in the event of a crisis.
****
From New Statesman

Somebody's listening and they don't give a damn about personal privacy or commercial confidence. Project 415 is a top-secret new global surveillance system. It can tap into a billion calls a year in the UK alone. Inside Duncan Campbell on how spying entered the 21st century . . .

A secret listening agreement, called UKUSA (UK-USA), assigns parts of the globe to each participating agency. GCHQ at Cheltenham(UK) is the co-ordinating centre for Europe, Africa and the Soviet Union (west of the Ural Mountains)With 15,000 staff and a budget of over £500 million a year (even without the planned new Zircon spy satellite), GCHQ is by far the largest part of British intelligence. Successive UK governments have placed high value on its eavesdropping capabilities, whether against Russian military signals or the easier commercial and private civilian targets.


The similar British spy base at ####, near ####, Cornwall, has been continuously expanded throughout the 1980s, including the provision of massive US analysis computers.

1. You will be surprised who visits GFY :winkwink:
2. You disregard my point. They dont build WoMD while sun-tanning.
3. What are you saying? That your press is fully controlled by Tony Blair? I guess you don't think so - so drop this point.
4. I have pointed out so many points that are known facts - if as I said they don't convince you, i suspect nothing will. So much evidence point not to the suspicion that he has WoMD - but it is so much well known fact the he USES them. If you feel better closing your eyes to that its a free country.
This is not a court of law and even if it was - it would have been a very good evidence. like it or not your government and the US government believes there are enough evidence and intelligence information that not only Iraq has and develops WoMD - it is by no means think twice before using it and wont do so in the future.
We (you and me - not Iraqis) live in a free countries. We are allowed our own opinion. But don't say there are no evidence or proof - say you don't believe the proof or evidence being presented to you by US/UK government and inteligence/security authorities.

As I set out from the start I think that we should attack, but I am explaining some of the reasons why others are not convinced, afterall even some of the un are not convinced.

1. Countries can use terror. And so they do - Iran, Iraq, Lybia, syria and others. So don't dismiss that. You DO need the help of the US for that - Iraq is a perfect example for that. you don't see it that way- I understand. but you still need them.
2. I ASSURE yoo - without ANY doubt.. Germany, France and UK will NOT use nuclear weapons if invaded (and not attacked with nuclear weapons - since its dumb to invade a radiation-full country :winkwink: ). Its easy to say you will - that called atomic deterrent - its not easy (and basically not an option) to use it in Europe. Trust me there or just think about it deep enough.
3. Samson option is not what you describe (unless I got you wrong..). Samson option is the theory about Israel's reaction in case of near defeat/annihilation scenario. The idea is that if Israel would be attacked by one or more of its neighboring countries (almost all are officially sworn enemies which state they want to annihilate it) ? it will release its (supposedly existing) full atomic arsenal and destroy all its enemies with it. The reason its called that is the biblical story of Samson and Delilah. I suggest you read it if you don?t know it ? it?s very interesting. http://www.virtualchurch.org/samson.htm

So you should also state that some people simply are against the war because they are pacifists and believe that war is NEVER an option - even thouh they are totally wrong and idealistic. But its nice and important to have some people like this in our world.

Personally I would like to see rid off all terror states over the coming years and more done to tackle word poverty, aids, birth control and much more. I was lucky enough to be amoungst a small group of around 200 people invited to President Clinton's last speach outside the US on the subject.

What has happened recently with the world leaders shows exactly why this will probarbly never happen.

I edited this because I missed the "s" off years, 1 year is more than optimistic.

well i was responding to germany being invaded and terrorists don't invade countries.

you don't need to nuke the invading forces, you nuke the attacking country's country. hence that argument doesn't stand up. look what happened with japan in the second world war. and there's not a chance in hell we would (uk) under the definate threat of invasion/defeat/occupation not threaten to use and ultimely use, if required.


oops sorry! (don't you hate it when that happens) i stand corrected, maybe wherever i read it they likened it to the sampson option or i'm just getting confused i dunno. but the fact remains that the threats have been made then and now. either tony blair or jack straw was asked outright on this issue recently in an interview (i can't remember who), and they said quite plainly they would be prepared to use them under those circumstances. whether this is just a bluff i don't know.

Tony Blair is a stand up guy!! I hope it goes well and he is vindicated in the UK :thumbsup

As I said - Easy to say - harder to do.
UK will not use nuclear weapons if invaded.
US will not use nuclear weapons if if US forces are attacked with bio/chem weapons

(why did I name this thread "attacking with britain"? that title makes no sense at all)

yes it would be very hard to do and would be a last resort, but it would happen. britain has had many wars right through history, thats one thing, but when was the last time it was invaded? We're no longer a superpower but the people here just wouldn't accept invasion and what seems totally unnacceptable now, would suddenly become acceptable at the threat of invasion. i'm not talking general warfare in some way off country i'm, talking an invasion of britain.

all the nuclear powers would use them under those circumstances (invasion) if pushed to it. You (the US) used nukes in japan and they weren't invading you or using chemical weapons. it may have been 50 years ago but not a lot has changed since then in that respect i doubt.

They have not ever tested an ICBM, but it is believed that they may have one in the works, that may or may not be able to reach Alaska, or possibly the west coast. It is not actually known if they have nuclear weapons, but our CIA believes that it is possible that they have 1-3 nukes. At the present they do not have the capability to reach out and touch the USA and the USA will never allow them to have that capability, period.

Naah...I have this friend "Joe's Acme Construction" he and his five employees should get the bid.

I don't know why.

It's all in how you tell the story ... For example, I could write;

Cheney left government service after Clinton won the White House. During Clinton's remarkable presidency, Cheney became the CEO of Halliburton. In 5 years as CEO, Halliburton increased it's governmental contracts by 91%. Some of this was the result of acquisitions of companies with existing government contracts. When he retired, he received a $34 million retirement package.

Do you have an invested interest in any Texas based oil companies apart from say; trying to save a few cents at the pump?

You seem like a logical thinker, why do you succumb to this nonsense that this war is anything but about black gold?