Attacking with Britain - GoFuckYourself.com

Libertine · 03-11-2003, 12:52 PM

Just heard on the news that Rumsfeld said that America would, if necessary, attack without support from England.
Now, obviously, the important part here is not England's military might they will be missing during the war, but rather the things indicated by this.

America does not give a crap about what the world wants, and will settle for nothing but war, <b>regardless of what even it's closest allies want</b>. What that means? America is a rogue nation. Nothing more, nothing less.

candyflip · 03-11-2003, 12:55 PM

I read in the paper today that Bush has already given the go-ahead to start the bidding process for large mulinational construction firms to rebuild Iraq. The one that stood out was Halliburton, which our VP was one CEO.

It gets more and more obvious as to what's going on everyday. Are people really that blind, that they don't see this going on?

Blu Solutions · 03-11-2003, 12:58 PM

Yes, I agree.

More I can say - North Korea says that it will attack USA once it attacks S.Korea..
And no Bush, no Ramsfeld, no Pauell comment it and none of them is going to bomb Korea.

You know the answer
Where's no OIL.

You know how much is the cost of the OIL in Iraq ?
$ 0.5 per barrel.
It's cost on the international market is $33 per barrel.

That's the answer.

America cannot develop itself with the cost of the OIL of $15 or more - so that's why Bush want's to take IRAQ

By the way. America's national debt is 6.7 trillion dollaz (!!!) And it grows 1.5 billion $ per day.

Check this out : US national debt clock : http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

MaxDent · 03-11-2003, 01:02 PM

Why should the United States submit to rules imposed by lesser nations? We provide the world with leadership, even when our actions are not popular with others including our own people.

Keep in mind that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

The primary reason that france and Germany are against the war isn't because of ideals, but because they want to covet their oil contracts/business relationships with Iraq.

Funny how everyone blames Bush's motivation on expanding our oil hegemony when it is really the french and Germans that are motivated by oil.

Furthermore, democracies and dictatorships/socialism/communism cannot exist in the same world because they are polar belief systems.

Bush could be voted out, dictators/self proclaimed presidents for life and the such need to be relieved via force.

Snapper · 03-11-2003, 01:13 PM

Hey Buddy

here's to your anti americanism

Libertine · 03-11-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapper
Hey Buddy

here's to your anti americanism

I thinking posting pictures of semi-nude trannies tells us more about you than it does about me.

Beastiepoo · 03-11-2003, 01:33 PM

The thing that finally confirmed my suspicions that Bush would seek a war regardless of what the UN inspectors find was a statement made last week by Tony Blair.

He said that they would not attack if Saddam would accept exile and leave Iraq for good. In other words the US and UK gov'ts want him out whether he's got weapons or not. If he won't leave, they are going to go in and kill him.

Sarah_Jayne · 03-11-2003, 01:40 PM

Tony Blair is so close to being overthrown by his own party over this he better atleast get something from it.

Beastiepoo · 03-11-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc
Tony Blair is so close to being overthrown by his own party over this he better atleast get something from it.

Funnily enough I was saying to my husband not even 6 months ago that Blair would have to do something really drastic to not be in power in 5 years time. Now with all this war shit I'd be surprised to see him last the year.

Juggernaut · 03-11-2003, 01:50 PM

http://www.geocities.com/bushwhacked2003/

Yes I realize it's only a geocities site, but it provides valid points, links and an accurate dehahahahahahaion of what's going on...

Fuck you and your pro-war movement. Wanting to stop a pointless war, is not anti-Americanism. We all benefit from one another, I for one do not hate America... I just disagree with your current Presidency.

BigFish · 03-11-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld
Just heard on the news that Rumsfeld said that America would, if necessary, attack without support from England.
Now, obviously, the important part here is not England's military might they will be missing during the war, but rather the things indicated by this.

America does not give a crap about what the world wants, and will settle for nothing but war, <b>regardless of what even it's closest allies want</b>. What that means? America is a rogue nation. Nothing more, nothing less.

U.N. and NATO are useless without American military power. If somebody attacked Germany right now, what the fuck can anybody in Europe do? Who's most likely to come rescue? America, who else. If some Country is being threatened by another Country, who they call to help? NATO which literally means America. Now when we decide to make a move, why do we need to have permission before we make it? This article just sums it all up:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-081013-9767r

Ross · 03-11-2003, 01:54 PM

America think they are indestructable and will go to war no matter what!

Thing is when they start attacking Iraq what will happen if North Korea starts attacking America? Your all fucked thats what. So thats why the UN ruling i sneeded to prevent North Korea from doing so when America are so vulnerable!!!

I think we should kick Iraq's ass but do it properly or else there will be mayhem!

woodman · 03-11-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ross
America think they are indestructable and will go to war no matter what!

Thing is when they start attacking Iraq what will happen if North Korea starts attacking America? Your all fucked thats what. So thats why the UN ruling i sneeded to prevent North Korea from doing so when America are so vulnerable!!!

I think we should kick Iraq's ass but do it properly or else there will be mayhem!

What would North Korea attack us with? One missle that has yet to be tested?

Sarah_Jayne · 03-11-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beastiepoo

Funnily enough I was saying to my husband not even 6 months ago that Blair would have to do something really drastic to not be in power in 5 years time. Now with all this war shit I'd be surprised to see him last the year.

i reckon he knew he was going to give up the leadership anyway (maybe because of the pact with Gordon Brown, who knows) and is going to do it in a blaze of moral driven glory.

ADL Colin · 03-11-2003, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by candyflip
I read in the paper today that Bush has already given the go-ahead to start the bidding process for large mulinational construction firms to rebuild Iraq. The one that stood out was Halliburton, which our VP was one CEO.

Halliburton, a company with 85, 000 employees in 100 countries that has extensive experiences in exactly that is going to bid on the contract? Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if they unfairly win the contract we can knowingly wink at each other. ;-)

Juggernaut · 03-11-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Halliburton, a company with 85, 000 employees in 100 countries that has extensive experiences in exactly that is going to bid on the contract? Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if they unfairly win the contract we can knowingly wink at each other. ;-)

"As CEO for Halliburton Energy Corporation, Cheney increased its government contracts by 91%, while earning himself $36 million in personal income during 2000 alone (though he did pay a 2 million fine for consistently overcharging the Pentagon). Back in government service, he drafted a federal Energy Plan that encouraged blackouts like the ones in California, but withheld from Congress 13,500 pages implicating his oil and electricity pals who may have dictated it."

Bling, bling.

Babaganoosh · 03-11-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blu Solutions
Yes, I agree.

More I can say - North Korea says that it will attack USA once it attacks S.Korea..
And no Bush, no Ramsfeld, no Pauell comment it and none of them is going to bomb Korea.

You know the answer
Where's no OIL.

You know how much is the cost of the OIL in Iraq ?
$ 0.5 per barrel.
It's cost on the international market is $33 per barrel.

That's the answer.

America cannot develop itself with the cost of the OIL of $15 or more - so that's why Bush want's to take IRAQ

By the way. America's national debt is 6.7 trillion dollaz (!!!) And it grows 1.5 billion $ per day.

Check this out : US national debt clock : http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

Too funny. You should do some reading before you run your mouth. First of all, oil has NOTHING to do with this. The oil will be placed in a UN controlled trust during and after the conflict. Their oil means nothing to us.

Second of all, N. Korea is NOT an immediate threat. Their leader is a nutcase. He wants attention so he can force the US to enter talks with N. Korea again. They have nothing to attack us with. They aren't even a threat to S. Korea, let alone the US.

Libertine · 03-11-2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFish

U.N. and NATO are useless without American military power. If somebody attacked Germany right now, what the fuck can anybody in Europe do? Who's most likely to come rescue? America, who else. If some Country is being threatened by another Country, who they call to help? NATO which literally means America. Now when we decide to make a move, why do we need to have permission before we make it? This article just sums it all up:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...0-081013-9767r

Apart from the obvious flaws in what you're saying, let's think about the implications for a bit:

"Now when we decide to make a move, why do we need to have permission before we make it?"

So, in other words, the army would be justified in taking over the power from the government?
The police would be justified in taking over the power in the cities?
What you apparently stand for is nothing short of military dictatorship. You say you're defending democracy, but at the same time, you believe all power should go to the guy with the biggest gun.

Mark · 03-11-2003, 03:26 PM

I know it will be tough for america to go to war without the brits but don't worry about it - israel's got your back!

Oh what a lovely war.. :

ChrisH · 03-11-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ross
America think they are indestructable and will go to war no matter what!

Thing is when they start attacking Iraq what will happen if North Korea starts attacking America? Your all fucked thats what. So thats why the UN ruling i sneeded to prevent North Korea from doing so when America are so vulnerable!!!

I think we should kick Iraq's ass but do it properly or else there will be mayhem!

Ross,
The US just sent 26 long range bombers to Japan just incase N Korea makes a foolish mistake.

I love all the people that are saying we should be unilateral with N Korea, but not with Iraq.

Oh the hypocracy.

Fuck the N Koreans, why does the US have to pay them to be nice? Let them eat there grass and tree bark and starve to death for all I care

Ross · 03-11-2003, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by woodman

What would North Korea attack us with? One missle that has yet to be tested?

If you think thats all they have then I suggest you go read some more my friend!

ChrisH · 03-11-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ross

If you think thats all they have then I suggest you go read some more my friend!

Ross,
Perhaps you should read a little, that missle that they set off while Powel was in S Korea exploded in mid flight. Hence it was a failure.

But again, Why should we pay them to behave?

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 03:49 PM

Ross: N.Korea can not invade US with its billions of soldiers

Only attack they can come up with is conventional missled - or atomic bomb. The first is hardly a danger to anyone BUT N.Korea and the latter is a danger regarless of wether US troops are in N.Korea border, Iraq or partying in honolulu. The only answer in such a case will be a total destruction of N.Korea with H, A or N bombs - for that you dont need the US troops.
Therefore your point is invalid. (if you think N.Korea has something hidden in their hat OR if as you say you read something of that - please educate us)

As to the Oil issuee. Not too valid as well. US has not much to gain oil-wise from attacking Iraq. It is not an option for them to "kidnapp" the oil fields so before anyone shouts OIL OIL OIL - please say what you think US will do regarding that - otherwise your remarks are not interesting and valueable.

As to the issue of US works despite what the entire world thinks. Last time I checked the world was more than US,UK,France, Russia and Germany. Maybe things change since I last checked but couldn't be too much

...
Anyway - while I was checking that the last time I heard that UK still supports the US, so does many other countries but regardless... A short story..
A friend of mine has a kid in school. This kid was repeatedly beaten by another kid in his class but other kids in the class say than my friend's kid should not hit back.. What do you say. What can the kid do, since he does not want to act without the gree-light of the other kids at school?
After all - as you say - one should not act without the agreement of all the others..

I personally think that if you think something is right - it is right regardless of how popular it is.
But if you disagree - then maybe the sun still revolves around the earth

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 03:55 PM

Speaking as a Brit, many here know how evil Saddam is, but some feel the case for war has not been made, obviosly the U.N do too or there wouldn't be such a split. In my opinion France and Russia have only made war more certian by their lack of support.

War is so serious and many people could die, Saddam could use Bio Weapons on troops, I think some people just want to know that every other option has been explored for example....

Incresing intellegence to extremely high levels from now on

Constant Inspections

Blockades

even more sanctions

Unlike the US our Prime Minister can stay in power term after term and Tony Blair was our youngest PM so if he gets it right he will be re-elected again - so he has to play it carefully. He has been doing very well until this term and on a few home issues the shit hit the fan. A mistake now could mean the final nail in the coffin.

Opinion poles in the UK are indicating that the majority support the war with the backing of the UN, but not without. Everyone expects this to change if the time comes.

The PM said that if 1 nation blocked the UN go ahead to attack he would see that as unfair, if their was an overwhealming will of the UN to deal with Saddam by Military Action he would Attack.

I think he is waiting now for the vote before he announces that we will go with the US, he can't be seen to be making the decision without the vote, the public here would not be happy with that.

This doesn't alter the fact that the US are our stongest allies and I am sure we will be with you.

ChrisH · 03-11-2003, 03:59 PM

I also find it amusing that France has troops in Africa right now and I don't recall them going to the UN for approval either.

More hypocracy and double standards.

kelly · 03-11-2003, 04:09 PM

Tony Blair took a stance and he's probably going to lose his leadership over it - personaly, they knew they were going to attack long ago - why give them more time to prepare and defend?

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly
Tony Blair took a stance and he's probably going to lose his leadership over it - personaly, they knew they were going to attack long ago - why give them more time to prepare and defend?

He won't lose his leadership as long as it goes well, he has the majorty of the press behind him, and I think that people will respect strength in a leader, we have had useless governments that always go with public opinion rather that convincing people they are wrong for too many years,

Besides - who would he lose his leadership to? lol

Charles Kennedy? ummm no chance

and the Conservative party is in crisis with most of the party not behind the leader, besides even the Conservatives are with him and agree with the policy on war!

If war is a disaster tho it could spell the end for him.

roly · 03-11-2003, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFish

If somebody attacked Germany right now, what the fuck can anybody in Europe do? [/url]

i know the countries in europe have nowhere near the military power of the US (the second world war saw to that) but if germany was attacked by another country i wouild imagine that the european countries would be able to deal with an attack from most countries, and if they couldn't, remember france and england are nuclear powers, and therefore an attack would be very unlikely to come in mainland europe anyway. having said that i'm sure you're right about us asking for US support if it happened.

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 04:30 PM

Jimboc:
1. Incresing intellegence to extremely high levels from now on - UN has no intelligence. If you trust US to give UN the intelligence you should trust US to make the right decisions based on that. If you(not you personally necessarily) think US is fool of evil people who only want war - what good is the intelligence they will get from the US since such evil people will falsify facts. If US intelligence decided that Iraq is a threat that should be dealt with maybe they know what they are talking about?
2. Constant Inspections - Inspectors can not work - as we all see - without intelligence. Inspectors can not work in a hostile environment. Inspectors can not work if they are acting in suspicious ways - such as Blix hiding of the fact that they found an unmanned plane designed for spreading "something"

. Inspectors have NONE of the things I have suggested. Inspectors are not effective, not efficient and the little they do is slower than the arming process of Iraq. Inspectors can NOT find trucks which are mobile labs or unmarked ships which are weapons carriers or bunkers which are headquarters and weapons and weapon development labs.
3.Blockades - UN can not use blockades on a country the size of Iraq nor do they have the authority and the forces for that.
4. even more sanctions - would only starve more innocent Iraqis and will change nothing.

You all seem to ignore the fact that it?s NOT an issue of time. It?s an issue of will. Iraq and Saddam have no WILL at all to disarm. Inspectors and UN do not pretend to be forceful disarming force but ONLY an inspection force for the Iraqi self disarmament.
The silly rhetoric and diplomatic game should be taken as such ? just a game. UK opposition to the war without UN resolution is somewhat funny ? considering that they don?t object to the ?war? but to going ahead without consent from GOVERNMENT which all have their interests. UK citizens that object to the war, as so anyone else, should decide for themselves what is the right thing to do: ?WAR? or NOT. The UN issue is minor diplomacy ? especially considering its NOT a full UN agreement BUT a security council decision which contains only some of the counties in the UN including lovely Syrian government.

I agree though that it is a very poor situation that UK citizens do not realize Iraq's regime is a danger. That is a result of a poor UK/US government explanatory job.
A leader which has tried time and again to build WoMD (any intelligence agency of the world knows that), who HAD WoMD, who USED WoMD ? even on his people, which murders people who object him, rape, murder and execute people near their families, who finances terror, which attempted to assassinate other counties leaders, which harbors terror organization such but not limited to Ansar-El-Islam, which Attacked a neighboring country without clear provocation (or UN green-light

), a leader which uses the money he gets from the ?oil for food? UN plan to buy and develop WoMD etc?
I think it?s a good enough case for any citizen of the ?free? world. But maybe it?s just me

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 04:34 PM

UK

Military branches: Army, Royal Navy (including Royal Marines), Royal Air Force
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 14,632,418 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 12,151,734 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $31.7 billion (2002)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.32% (2002)

US

Military branches: Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (includes Marine Corps), Department of the Air Force
note: the Coast Guard is normally subordinate to the Department of Transportation, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.)
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: NA (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 2,053,179 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $276.7 billion (FY99 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY99 est.)

Germany

Military branches: Army, Navy (including naval air arm), Air Force, Medical Corps, Joint Support Service
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.)
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 20,854,329 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 17,734,977 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 482,318 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $38.8 billion (2002)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.38% (2002)

France

Military branches: Army (includes marines), Navy (includes naval air), Air Force (includes Air Defense), National Gendarmerie
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.)
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 14,534,480 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 12,092,938 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 390,064 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $46.5 billion (2000)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.57% (2002)

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by roly
...if germany was attacked by another country i wouild imagine that the european countries would be able to deal with an attack from most countries...

Not if its terror attacks which is many times countryless - OR a long range missile attack from lets say Iraq, Iran etc...

Quote:

Originally posted by roly
...and if they couldn't, remember France and England are nuclear powers, and therefore an attack would be very unlikely to come in mainland Europe anyway.

Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent against terror attacks and not against non nuclear attack. So no - you are wrong there.
As a matter of fact - its not even a too useful deterrent against non-conventional weapons ? especially with Europe being so weak with supporting power against aggression. The US won?t be using nuclear weapons against Iraq even if their forces are attacked with bio/chem weapons. It will not be useful and will kill too many civilians and create an after-war environment that will not be easy to deal with. So I have to disagree with you here.

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 04:48 PM

Why can our governments not make a stong case for war that would convince all of us and the UN, why with spy satellites that can view upto 18In.

We have a U.S miliaty base in the middle of the countyside fairly hidden about 50 miles from my house, with a double fence with a road in between, electric fences, guards, hundreds of cameras it's part of echelon. I should point out that it has about 30 giant spy satellites.

Why can they not convince us with just a bit of solid evidence that he still has these weopons and has been developing them.

If we had this it would be so easy to attack.

The humanitarian argument doesn't hold up because their are many other leaders murdering and doing nasty things to their people. If it were about that then we should be attacking Lybia Zimbabwe and so on......

Just so you know I am a supporter of sorting out Saddam but you would be very closed minded not to ponder these questions.

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 05:00 PM

IRAQ

Military branches: Army, Republican Guard, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, Border Guard Force, Fedayeen Saddam
Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.)
Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 6,135,847 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 274,035 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.3 billion (FY00)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA%

From the look of these figures most countries could go it alone!

Sarah_Jayne · 03-11-2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc

He won't lose his leadership as long as it goes well, he has the majorty of the press behind him, and I think that people will respect strength in a leader, we have had useless governments that always go with public opinion rather that convincing people they are wrong for too many years,

Besides - who would he lose his leadership to? lol

Charles Kennedy? ummm no chance

and the Conservative party is in crisis with most of the party not behind the leader, besides even the Conservatives are with him and agree with the policy on war!

If war is a disaster tho it could spell the end for him.

no...I don't think any of us are talking about the Labour party losing power. We are talking about Tony Blair facing a vote of confidence from his own party. Look at what has just happened in the last two days. Claire Short knew she was on the way out and was going down by making her point...she is speaking for a large portion of her party. Now, the Labour party may be having an emergency conference to debate Blair's actions.

I actually have a lot of respect for him..especially in comparision to other current leaders but he is in trouble.

btw...did anyone else here the unscheduled debated on radio 5 live between Ian Dunken Smith and George - flilppin - Micheal. If it is on their web archive it is worth it.

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 05:07 PM

The Labour Majorty is behind him, there are always going to be poeple why resign over things like this, it has happened before, he talks a good game and most in the Labour Party see him as the person who got them back into power and respect him. They are expecting more resignations before the months out, you take the rough with the smooth and after the war it will all be forgotten about.

Quote:

Originally posted by sarah_webinc

no...I don't think any of us are talking about the Labour party losing power. We are talking about Tony Blair facing a vote of confidence from his own party. Look at what has just happened in the last two days. Claire Short knew she was on the way out and was going down by making her point...she is speaking for a large portion of her party. Now, the Labour party may be having an emergency conference to debate Blair's actions.

I actually have a lot of respect for him..especially in comparision to other current leaders but he is in trouble.

btw...did anyone else here the unscheduled debated on radio 5 live between Ian Dunken Smith and George - flilppin - Micheal. If it is on their web archive it is worth it.

Sarah_Jayne · 03-11-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc

Zimbabwe and so on......

i heard something this week about Bush freezing Zimbabwe assests held in the States. It did cross my mind that that was the start of Blair's payback for being so supportive of Bush's war.

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
1. Why can our governments not make a stong case for war that would convince all of us and the UN
2. why with spy satellites that can view upto 18In.
3. ...I should point out that it has about 30 giant spy satellites.
4. Why can they not convince us with just a bit of solid evidence that he still has these weopons and has been developing them.
5. If it were about that then we should be attacking Lybia Zimbabwe and so on......

1. I don't fully know. but maybe these 2 factors should be considered: A. your government does not fully control your media. B. Colin Powell gave a convincing enough (imho) case in the UN security council about 2-3 weeks ago.
But then again - read my previous post...

Quote:

A leader which has tried time and again to build WoMD (any intelligence agency of the world knows that), who HAD WoMD, who USED WoMD ? even on his people, which murders people who object him, rape, murder and execute people near their families, who finances terror, which attempted to assassinate other counties leaders, which harbors terror organization such but not limited to Ansar-El-Islam, which Attacked a neighboring country without clear provocation (or UN green-light ), a leader which uses the money he gets from the ?oil for food? UN plan to buy and develop WoMD etc?

2. This sattelite is in the movies ;) Anyway - the WoMD are not developed while sun-tanning. If its in close doors you can't see it from the sky - can you?
3. I'm sure your enemies would love to hear more details from you

4. The main problem is that most people don't want to be convinced and do not care enough to learn the deatails to form an opinion. Most of them watch the news and feed from the TV mainly which is not the best intelligence fact distribution media.
But - keep in mind that Israel for example supposedly has Atomic weapons - but there is not much evidence for that. Its not easy to come with evidence to things that are so well guarded and hidden.
If people defecting from Iraq that admit they worked in developing such weapons are not enough for you?
If shipements of parts that have no other uses but for atomic weapons are not enough for you...
If Iraqs OWN DOCUMENTS admitting they were developing nuclear materials and trying unsuccessfully so far (so they say) to do so is not enough for you...
If the fact the ALREADY USED such weapons of Kurds is not enough for you...
Etc...
I dont know what will be enough to convince you.

5. Easy boy

One at a time

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 05:09 PM

How would Bush doing that affect Blair?

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 05:22 PM

XXX reply

"2. This sattelite is in the movies ;) Anyway - the WoMD are not developed while sun-tanning. If its in close doors you can't see it from the sky - can you?
3. I'm sure your enemies would love to hear more details from you "

Well I have seen the sattelites they are mainly used for interception of telephone calls, if Saddam has access to the internet he can plot the excact grid reference on multimap's aerial photo views!

I know he is meant to be a fan of certain western products but I shouldn't think he visits GFY.

Anyway this stuff is'nt in the movies they sell pictures from sat's to companies or any individual who wants them, and the latest resolution on the latest sat's is 18 In

"your government does not fully control your media"

Tony Blair has done on average 3 live / recorded tv debates a week for the last couple of months

"If people defecting from Iraq that admit they worked in developing such weapons are not enough for you? "

That evidence wouldn't stand up in a court of law in a theft charge! they could have been made to say that or encouraged for money / other political reasons, where's the PROOF!

roly · 03-11-2003, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XXXManager

Nuclear weapons are not a deterrent against terror attacks and not against non nuclear attack. So no - you are wrong there.
As a matter of fact - its not even a too useful deterrent against non-conventional weapons ? especially with Europe being so weak with supporting power against aggression.

First off, i was refering to actual countries attacking not terrorists, and if it was terrorist attacks you were talking about why would we need US help, except for sharing intelligence? also there's a MASSIVE difference between a war in iraq and someone trying to invade europe, lol.

If germany was invaded france and britain would feel very threatened and i can assure you if a country was going to invade and likely beat the UK we would use nuclear weapons, without a doubt, and no doubt the same would go for france. (and the same would go for the US, russia, china)

Quote:

Originally posted by XXXManager

The US won?t be using nuclear weapons against Iraq even if their forces are attacked with bio/chem weapons. It will not be useful and will kill too many civilians and create an after-war environment that will not be easy to deal with. So I have to disagree with you there.

i agree with what you say to
a certain extent, you say that the us/uk wouldn't use nuclear weapons against iraq if they let loose chem/bio weapons, well iraq was threatened in 1991 and apparently has been threatened again this time. i think they call it the sampson option or something. if he did use those weapons and called us/uk bluff then i dunno what would happen, but it's certainly a possibilty. isn't your congress just about to authorise the restarting of tatical nuclear weapon r&d?

Sarah_Jayne · 03-11-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
How would Bush doing that affect Blair?

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

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 05:42 PM

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.

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
1.I know he is meant to be a fan of certain western products but I shouldn't think he visits GFY.
2. Anyway this stuff is'nt in the movies they sell pictures from sat's to companies or any individual who wants them, and the latest resolution on the latest sat's is 18 In
3. Tony Blair has done on average 3 live / recorded tv debates a week for the last couple of months
4. That evidence wouldn't stand up in a court of law in a theft charge! they could have been made to say that or encouraged for money / other political reasons, where's the PROOF!

1. You will be surprised who visits GFY

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.

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 05:57 PM

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.

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by roly
1. First off, i was refering to actual countries attacking not terrorists, and if it was terrorist attacks you were talking about why would we need US help, except for sharing intelligence?
2. If germany was invaded france and britain would feel very threatened and i can assure you if a country was going to invade and likely beat the UK we would use nuclear weapons, without a doubt, and no doubt the same would go for france...
3. ...i think they call it the sampson option or something.
4. isn't your congress just about to authorise the restarting of tatical nuclear weapon r&d?

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

). 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

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimboc
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.

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.

jimboc · 03-11-2003, 06:15 PM

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.

roly · 03-11-2003, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XXXManager

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.
[/url]

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

Quote:

Originally posted by XXXManager

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 ). 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.
[/url]

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by XXXManager

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

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.

ChrisH · 03-11-2003, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly
Tony Blair took a stance and he's probably going to lose his leadership over it - personaly, they knew they were going to attack long ago - why give them more time to prepare and defend?

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

XXXManager · 03-11-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by roly

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....
...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.

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

03-11-2003, 12:52 PM	#1
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	Attacking with Britain Just heard on the news that Rumsfeld said that America would, if necessary, attack without support from England. Now, obviously, the important part here is not England's military might they will be missing during the war, but rather the things indicated by this. America does not give a crap about what the world wants, and will settle for nothing but war, <b>regardless of what even it's closest allies want</b>. What that means? America is a rogue nation. Nothing more, nothing less. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

03-11-2003, 12:55 PM	#2
candyflip Carpe Visio Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: New York Posts: 43,064	I read in the paper today that Bush has already given the go-ahead to start the bidding process for large mulinational construction firms to rebuild Iraq. The one that stood out was Halliburton, which our VP was one CEO. It gets more and more obvious as to what's going on everyday. Are people really that blind, that they don't see this going on? __________________ Spend you some brain. Email Me

03-11-2003, 12:58 PM	#3
Blu Solutions Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 183	Yes, I agree. More I can say - North Korea says that it will attack USA once it attacks S.Korea.. And no Bush, no Ramsfeld, no Pauell comment it and none of them is going to bomb Korea. You know the answer Where's no OIL. You know how much is the cost of the OIL in Iraq ? $ 0.5 per barrel. It's cost on the international market is $33 per barrel. That's the answer. America cannot develop itself with the cost of the OIL of $15 or more - so that's why Bush want's to take IRAQ By the way. America's national debt is 6.7 trillion dollaz (!!!) And it grows 1.5 billion $ per day. Check this out : US national debt clock : http://brillig.com/debt_clock/ __________________ Blu Solutions

03-11-2003, 01:13 PM	#5
Snapper Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 409	Hey Buddy here's to your anti americanism __________________ Cormorant Consulting Group, INC. You make it, we make em buy it www.cormoinc.com

03-11-2003, 01:33 PM	#7
Beastiepoo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In a clog shop thinking about tulips Posts: 1,971	The thing that finally confirmed my suspicions that Bush would seek a war regardless of what the UN inspectors find was a statement made last week by Tony Blair. He said that they would not attack if Saddam would accept exile and leave Iraq for good. In other words the US and UK gov'ts want him out whether he's got weapons or not. If he won't leave, they are going to go in and kill him. __________________ Dammit! My timing SUCKS! Hot body piercing jewellery at discounted prices - Click here! Got Goth traffic?? Make money with it at DarkPassions - Click Here!

03-11-2003, 01:02 PM	#4
MaxDent Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 851	Why should the United States submit to rules imposed by lesser nations? We provide the world with leadership, even when our actions are not popular with others including our own people. Keep in mind that just because something is popular doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. The primary reason that france and Germany are against the war isn't because of ideals, but because they want to covet their oil contracts/business relationships with Iraq. Funny how everyone blames Bush's motivation on expanding our oil hegemony when it is really the french and Germans that are motivated by oil. Furthermore, democracies and dictatorships/socialism/communism cannot exist in the same world because they are polar belief systems. Bush could be voted out, dictators/self proclaimed presidents for life and the such need to be relieved via force.

03-11-2003, 01:40 PM	#8
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	Tony Blair is so close to being overthrown by his own party over this he better atleast get something from it.

03-11-2003, 01:50 PM	#10
Juggernaut Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 753	http://www.geocities.com/bushwhacked2003/ Yes I realize it's only a geocities site, but it provides valid points, links and an accurate dehahahahahahaion of what's going on... Fuck you and your pro-war movement. Wanting to stop a pointless war, is not anti-Americanism. We all benefit from one another, I for one do not hate America... I just disagree with your current Presidency.

03-11-2003, 01:54 PM	#12
Ross Ik ben een aap Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Traffic Force Towers, Canada! Posts: 18,874	America think they are indestructable and will go to war no matter what! Thing is when they start attacking Iraq what will happen if North Korea starts attacking America? Your all fucked thats what. So thats why the UN ruling i sneeded to prevent North Korea from doing so when America are so vulnerable!!! I think we should kick Iraq's ass but do it properly or else there will be mayhem!

03-11-2003, 03:26 PM	#19
Mark Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 600	I know it will be tough for america to go to war without the brits but don't worry about it - israel's got your back! Oh what a lovely war.. :

03-11-2003, 03:49 PM	#23
XXXManager So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy Posts: 893	Ross: N.Korea can not invade US with its billions of soldiers Only attack they can come up with is conventional missled - or atomic bomb. The first is hardly a danger to anyone BUT N.Korea and the latter is a danger regarless of wether US troops are in N.Korea border, Iraq or partying in honolulu. The only answer in such a case will be a total destruction of N.Korea with H, A or N bombs - for that you dont need the US troops. Therefore your point is invalid. (if you think N.Korea has something hidden in their hat OR if as you say you read something of that - please educate us) As to the Oil issuee. Not too valid as well. US has not much to gain oil-wise from attacking Iraq. It is not an option for them to "kidnapp" the oil fields so before anyone shouts OIL OIL OIL - please say what you think US will do regarding that - otherwise your remarks are not interesting and valueable. As to the issue of US works despite what the entire world thinks. Last time I checked the world was more than US,UK,France, Russia and Germany. Maybe things change since I last checked but couldn't be too much ... Anyway - while I was checking that the last time I heard that UK still supports the US, so does many other countries but regardless... A short story.. A friend of mine has a kid in school. This kid was repeatedly beaten by another kid in his class but other kids in the class say than my friend's kid should not hit back.. What do you say. What can the kid do, since he does not want to act without the gree-light of the other kids at school? After all - as you say - one should not act without the agreement of all the others.. I personally think that if you think something is right - it is right regardless of how popular it is. But if you disagree - then maybe the sun still revolves around the earth

03-11-2003, 03:55 PM	#24
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	Speaking as a Brit, many here know how evil Saddam is, but some feel the case for war has not been made, obviosly the U.N do too or there wouldn't be such a split. In my opinion France and Russia have only made war more certian by their lack of support. War is so serious and many people could die, Saddam could use Bio Weapons on troops, I think some people just want to know that every other option has been explored for example.... Incresing intellegence to extremely high levels from now on Constant Inspections Blockades even more sanctions Unlike the US our Prime Minister can stay in power term after term and Tony Blair was our youngest PM so if he gets it right he will be re-elected again - so he has to play it carefully. He has been doing very well until this term and on a few home issues the shit hit the fan. A mistake now could mean the final nail in the coffin. Opinion poles in the UK are indicating that the majority support the war with the backing of the UN, but not without. Everyone expects this to change if the time comes. The PM said that if 1 nation blocked the UN go ahead to attack he would see that as unfair, if their was an overwhealming will of the UN to deal with Saddam by Military Action he would Attack. I think he is waiting now for the vote before he announces that we will go with the US, he can't be seen to be making the decision without the vote, the public here would not be happy with that. This doesn't alter the fact that the US are our stongest allies and I am sure we will be with you.

03-11-2003, 03:59 PM	#25
ChrisH Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: New York Posts: 1,355	I also find it amusing that France has troops in Africa right now and I don't recall them going to the UN for approval either. More hypocracy and double standards.

03-11-2003, 04:09 PM	#26
kelly Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK Posts: 901	Tony Blair took a stance and he's probably going to lose his leadership over it - personaly, they knew they were going to attack long ago - why give them more time to prepare and defend? __________________ http://www.thehungersite.com

03-11-2003, 04:30 PM	#29
XXXManager So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy Posts: 893	Jimboc: 1. Incresing intellegence to extremely high levels from now on - UN has no intelligence. If you trust US to give UN the intelligence you should trust US to make the right decisions based on that. If you(not you personally necessarily) think US is fool of evil people who only want war - what good is the intelligence they will get from the US since such evil people will falsify facts. If US intelligence decided that Iraq is a threat that should be dealt with maybe they know what they are talking about? 2. Constant Inspections - Inspectors can not work - as we all see - without intelligence. Inspectors can not work in a hostile environment. Inspectors can not work if they are acting in suspicious ways - such as Blix hiding of the fact that they found an unmanned plane designed for spreading "something" . Inspectors have NONE of the things I have suggested. Inspectors are not effective, not efficient and the little they do is slower than the arming process of Iraq. Inspectors can NOT find trucks which are mobile labs or unmarked ships which are weapons carriers or bunkers which are headquarters and weapons and weapon development labs. 3.Blockades - UN can not use blockades on a country the size of Iraq nor do they have the authority and the forces for that. 4. even more sanctions - would only starve more innocent Iraqis and will change nothing. You all seem to ignore the fact that it?s NOT an issue of time. It?s an issue of will. Iraq and Saddam have no WILL at all to disarm. Inspectors and UN do not pretend to be forceful disarming force but ONLY an inspection force for the Iraqi self disarmament. The silly rhetoric and diplomatic game should be taken as such ? just a game. UK opposition to the war without UN resolution is somewhat funny ? considering that they don?t object to the ?war? but to going ahead without consent from GOVERNMENT which all have their interests. UK citizens that object to the war, as so anyone else, should decide for themselves what is the right thing to do: ?WAR? or NOT. The UN issue is minor diplomacy ? especially considering its NOT a full UN agreement BUT a security council decision which contains only some of the counties in the UN including lovely Syrian government. I agree though that it is a very poor situation that UK citizens do not realize Iraq's regime is a danger. That is a result of a poor UK/US government explanatory job. A leader which has tried time and again to build WoMD (any intelligence agency of the world knows that), who HAD WoMD, who USED WoMD ? even on his people, which murders people who object him, rape, murder and execute people near their families, who finances terror, which attempted to assassinate other counties leaders, which harbors terror organization such but not limited to Ansar-El-Islam, which Attacked a neighboring country without clear provocation (or UN green-light ), a leader which uses the money he gets from the ?oil for food? UN plan to buy and develop WoMD etc? I think it?s a good enough case for any citizen of the ?free? world. But maybe it?s just me

03-11-2003, 04:34 PM	#30
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	UK Military branches: Army, Royal Navy (including Royal Marines), Royal Air Force Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 14,632,418 (2002 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 12,151,734 (2002 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $31.7 billion (2002) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.32% (2002) US Military branches: Department of the Army, Department of the Navy (includes Marine Corps), Department of the Air Force note: the Coast Guard is normally subordinate to the Department of Transportation, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.) Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: NA (2002 est.) Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 2,053,179 (2002 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $276.7 billion (FY99 est.) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.2% (FY99 est.) Germany Military branches: Army, Navy (including naval air arm), Air Force, Medical Corps, Joint Support Service Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.) Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 20,854,329 (2002 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 17,734,977 (2002 est.) Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 482,318 (2002 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $38.8 billion (2002) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 1.38% (2002) France Military branches: Army (includes marines), Navy (includes naval air), Air Force (includes Air Defense), National Gendarmerie Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.) Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 14,534,480 (2002 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 12,092,938 (2002 est.) Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 390,064 (2002 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $46.5 billion (2000) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 2.57% (2002)

03-11-2003, 04:48 PM	#32
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	Why can our governments not make a stong case for war that would convince all of us and the UN, why with spy satellites that can view upto 18In. We have a U.S miliaty base in the middle of the countyside fairly hidden about 50 miles from my house, with a double fence with a road in between, electric fences, guards, hundreds of cameras it's part of echelon. I should point out that it has about 30 giant spy satellites. Why can they not convince us with just a bit of solid evidence that he still has these weopons and has been developing them. If we had this it would be so easy to attack. The humanitarian argument doesn't hold up because their are many other leaders murdering and doing nasty things to their people. If it were about that then we should be attacking Lybia Zimbabwe and so on...... Just so you know I am a supporter of sorting out Saddam but you would be very closed minded not to ponder these questions.

03-11-2003, 05:00 PM	#33
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	IRAQ Military branches: Army, Republican Guard, Navy, Air Force, Air Defense Force, Border Guard Force, Fedayeen Saddam Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age (2002 est.) Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 6,135,847 (2002 est.) Military manpower - fit for military service: males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.) Military manpower - reaching military age annually: males: 274,035 (2002 est.) Military expenditures - dollar figure: $1.3 billion (FY00) Military expenditures - percent of GDP: NA% From the look of these figures most countries could go it alone!

03-11-2003, 05:09 PM	#38
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	How would Bush doing that affect Blair?

03-11-2003, 05:22 PM	#39
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	XXX reply "2. This sattelite is in the movies ;) Anyway - the WoMD are not developed while sun-tanning. If its in close doors you can't see it from the sky - can you? 3. I'm sure your enemies would love to hear more details from you " Well I have seen the sattelites they are mainly used for interception of telephone calls, if Saddam has access to the internet he can plot the excact grid reference on multimap's aerial photo views! I know he is meant to be a fan of certain western products but I shouldn't think he visits GFY. Anyway this stuff is'nt in the movies they sell pictures from sat's to companies or any individual who wants them, and the latest resolution on the latest sat's is 18 In "your government does not fully control your media" Tony Blair has done on average 3 live / recorded tv debates a week for the last couple of months "If people defecting from Iraq that admit they worked in developing such weapons are not enough for you? " That evidence wouldn't stand up in a court of law in a theft charge! they could have been made to say that or encouraged for money / other political reasons, where's the PROOF!

03-11-2003, 05:42 PM	#42
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	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. Last edited by jimboc; 03-11-2003 at 05:52 PM..

03-11-2003, 05:57 PM	#44
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	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.

03-11-2003, 06:15 PM	#47
jimboc Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Internet of course Posts: 1,614	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. Last edited by jimboc; 03-11-2003 at 06:19 PM..