usausausausausausaor is it land ofthemightyweshouldntannoy

Could I ask you fine young gentleman to do me a favor?

Could someone find the full text of Tony Blair's speech, that Sheriff Fatman was referring to (Where Blair goes into Saddam's capabilities and answers Milo's question of "why now?")

I'd like to see it, as I missed the speech. If you find it, post the link, not the whole speech!

Thanks so much in advance if anyone can find this for me.

 

Sorry, Windmills, it isn't a speech, it is a 50 page dossier. So far, I've only been treated to the summary and commentary provided by UK news and politicians, rather than the document itself.

 

So I'm assuming, then, that this 50-page dossier is not available online? ;-) ..if there's a good, descriptive article, with a good amount of detail, somewhere online, could you (or whoever finds it) post a link?

Thanks!

 

cheese crackers

I got it at the BBC web site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi ... ossier.stm
i suggest downloading it as it's quite long but is very interesting 1












1 Some my not find it interesting

 

I live in South Dakota, USA, so if they decide to bomb the west coast, I am cinders!

 

Thanks carlstar!

 

Re: Nasty

Because China has not broken any peace treaties with our govenment. (Nor has it supported any terriost groups that attack US or our allies)

 

first, i want to say sorry, cuz i don't have time to read all 10 pages, but i might have the gist of it, or i might be repeating,
SO SORRY!

But anyway...

I am one of those "jingoistic Americans," but i do believe a war with Iraq is well justified.

Bush's theory of preemption is to save the lives of millions of civilians, worldwide, from Saddam's use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

We should have done something to Saddam when he refused to allow UN inspectors back in in 1998, but we didn't and now we must take action.

Depending on the source, we have from 6 months, to 3 years, or more until Iraq gets weapons of mass destruction. Due to his record of abuse of his own people, and others, he cannot be trusted with those weapons.

Throw in his blantant disregard for international law and sanctions, and his disregard for hte health and wellbeing of his own people, and it just makes sense for "regime change."

Add possible terrorist ties, or the common agenda he shares with terrorists, it is even a better idea to remove Saddam.

I, and most Americans, would love the permission and support of hte rest of the world first, but it won't happen, as much of hte world has old grudges against the US, or is jealous, or has too much to profit from trade with Saddam (France and Russia). And for whatever reason, Germany now hates America, and some germans compare Bush to Hitler! The Czechs know that Bush is not Hitler, and supports our action as stopping a WWII scenario of giving up to a dictator, like Czechoslovakia was 'given' to Hitler. (i don't remember what this is called, but Chamberlain did it)

 

As possibly your soul allie in this debate let me welcome you to our humble little group I hope you can take the heat cause there's a lot of fire to take if you are thought to be even remotely pro-American. But it's all in the spirit of honest debate :thumbup: , it's just that we are kinda out numbered but I think I have held my own although a little help is always welcome 3

PS
You should read the thread most do have some interesting points, at least start with page 3 that's when I get into it and the !@#$ really hits the fan

 

Dear Clothos_Vermillion,
First off Bush idear of Preemption strike is than bad idear as if can lead
to touble in the end. So America invase Iraq preempty than we claim than new right under International law that you can preempty invase than other nation because you think they are than threat. Useing the Bush Idiot polcy China can preempty invade Taiwan by saying Taiwan is than threat to China.
Russia can invade Finland saying Finland is than threat to Russia,Russia can invade Kazakhsstan say Kazakhsstan is than threat to Russia. Turkey can invade Greece saying Greece is than threat to Turkey. India can invade Pakistan saying Pakistan is than threat to India, China can invade India saying India is than threat to China. See how unstabiliity the world just became. How old are you as you sound like than young person who is than Hight School or starting college.

Kenndry reject the idear of preemption strike on the Soviet missiles base in Cuba in 1961 as it would have lead to than major globlal nuclear war. He read the book "The Guns of August" which explame how WW1 got start
when every major power in Europe try to preempty each other instead of
waiting than few month to allow thing to settle down. It all start because
than mad man murber the ArkDuke of Austia the Crown Prince and his wife.

 

Charles,

That sig of yours, as already pointed out, is rife with errors. I don't fault you for this, I read about your condition. Allow me to post below, a corrected version of your sig. Says the same thing, only more legibly:

By the end of the 21st century, Islam will have more than half of the world's population as followers. They already have 2 billion people as followers - 1/3 of the human population.

You can just cut and paste this into the signature area of your profile. Hope this helps! At the very least, it will ease the criticism.

 

Kosovo has gone from genocide to non-genocide, which I would say is a dramatic improvement.

Bosnia has gone from civil war to no war, although partisans remain. They've also gone from crazy dictator to democratic rule. Both marked improvements.

Afghanistan has gone from oppressive military regime to turmoil and a different regime. I don't know enough to say whether this is an improvement, but then neither do you, and it is only a matter of months since the war.

None of the above actions were USA only, so it is not helpful to talk about them as if they were.

Let me put it this way, you just recounted a fictitious scenario. It's not a lame example - it is a lame hyperthetical situation that might support your point, but has no actual basis in reality or bearing on the current situation.

Clothos, I agree with a lot of what you say. Despite DU's points about Israel and the rest, it seems apparent that Saddam's brutality and ruthlessness is far beyond that of any other country.

I actually don't think he would use the weapons, but I am by no means sure, since I suspect he is actually mad.

The question on my mind is "Will a war help the situation?" Will it actually serve a purpose that justifies the loss of human life and the escalation of international tensions and ill feeling?

I think DU has a point about all countries eventually having nukes and other scary weapons, so is it worth antagonising the world to delay things? Is there another way we might achieve the same thing, without recourse to war?

I don't have answers to these. If I had to make the decision, with the information I have now, I actually might come out in support of military action, but I think I would place more importance on international support.

The USA is concentrating on how IT feels about international opposition to military actions. I think more thought should be given to the way Saddam feels. While there is international division, he must feel the possibility that there is some kind of support for him. We need to make it clear that he has no broad base of international support.

 

:lol:
Pretty good. He read a book in 1961 that wasn't even released until 1962. But hey, when looking at conspiracy theories, why overlook time travel!

Not a historian are ya?

 

I think one thing that's being overlooked in this whole equation is this: The issue isn't Iraq with nukes. It's a despot with nothing to lose having nukes. China, Russia, the US, etc have weapons of mass destruction, but they aren't governed by men who have nothing to lose by using them. Getting rid of Saddam delays the inevitable (i.e. Iraq with nukes), but it at least removes Saddam's access and can hopefully install a more reasonable government.

Personally, I'm ambivalent on the subject of war with Iraq. I see both sides of the issue, and I see merit and flaws with both arguments. And, of course, my opinion will have absolutely no bearing on the actions, so....

 

Right, and the same way Osama bin Laden wasn't dumb enough to actually cause carnage within our own borders......

How do you know Saddam isn't "dumb enough to declare war on a country with nukes?

 

WWIII

Saddam wants to be the ruler of of the mid east. He's determined to get nukes. That is obvious and if the USA dont attack iraq isreal will, just like they did in the 80s to destroy there almost complete nuclear reactor.

I think for the region the best thing would be that USA attack because if the Israels do then, well that will end in all out war and that would be just what Saddam would want.

If i was in control of the USA military i would:
Attack Iraq as soon as possible with overwhelming force 200,000 or so and then start the axis of evil war by quickly stricking into Iran. While attacking Iran put a message out to the rest of the axis of evil that if they dont comply they are next.
Sure it may start a world war but the best way for a quick change is a world war.

 

Re: WWIII

World War I was supposed to be a quick war. Some of the European countries came in all-guns-blazing for a three month war, came out with hundreds of thousands dead five years later. Same deal, to a lesser extent, with World War II.

 

OK here I go again

The point here that many people seem to be missing is that there has been an internationally recognized treaty broken here. this is not just a preemptive strike it is a retaliation for breaking international laws. I am sure that even those of you who think that Saddam is the Pope and would never use weapons to hurt a fly would agree that it is wrong to break the law and one should not get away with breaking the law. For close to four years now Saddam has not only gotten away with breaking the law he has profited from it while his own people have suffered.

A peace treaty is exactly that a treaty for peace and if it is broken then there is war. Sorry to wake you up like this but that is a little ditty that we call reality. Many other countries have been mentioned here under crazy scenarios. I will point out to you yet again non of those countries have broken an international treaty (FOUR years ago, by law we could have totally taken out Iraq the second the inspection team was expelled.)

UN membership or not Iraq is a rouge state that has broken the law. What would the Doves have US do about that, we have tried sanctions for four years now and it has changed nothing for the better. His people are still starving and dieing of easily curable diseases and he is still building his stockpile. We have tried every peaceful means to get this criminal to obey the law, and he has shown US at every turn that he would rather watch his own people die before honoring his word and doing as he agreed to do when signing the treaty 11 years ago.

So we do nothing and hope that a known and proven liar and international criminal will keep his word and not use these weapons once he has finished spending billions of dollars (at the expense of his own people) to develop them?

Let me guess you also have a bridge in Brooklyn that you'd like to sell me for a good price too right? :thumbup:

 

Something else that I would like to point out. DU, I understand that you disagree with the US's position against Iraq. Let me ask this question. If Sadam makes a nuke or a biological weapon, and then uses it against another country "defending himself and country". Who gets the blame? Sadam? No. He is just another wacko militant who happens to run a country. It will be the US. "Why didn't you finish the job in 1991?" "Why did you allow this to happen?" "Why didn't you attack in 2002?"

The United Nations is very good at covering their own asses. The reason that we did not remove him in 1991 was that the "coalition" had achieved it's goal of removing the Iraqis from Kuwait. When G.H.W. Bush wanted to push on, the UN back out and said they were not going to support that. BUT, when Milosivich(sp?) pops up and starts whacking Muslims "He must be removed!" is the UN battle cry. And of course the US military bears the brunt of it. Notice I didn't say that we did it alone, we didn't. But the majority of the capital expenditure for that little excursion into the Balkans came from the American War Chest.

Jesus Christ! For years the US has been the UN's strong arm, with every crackpot leader of every shit-eating country that belongs to it using our military to further their political interests. The one time that the US says "Hey, we have something that we would like to do to give the majority of our people peace-of-mind and at the same time enforce a UN mandate. We would like your approval please. If, by the way, you don't give it, there is a good chance we will do it anyway," we are called "Uni-lateral War Mongers". What gives?

IMO, the first thing that we need to do is toss the UN right the fuck out of the US. Let them find somewhere else to spin their BS. Second, the only people who get military aid from the US are other NATO countries asking for help under the terms of the NATO agreement.