Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iraq A Bigger Threat To UK  
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith says he supports a pre-emptive US offensive against Iraq because he believes Britain is on Saddam Hussein's list of targets for a missile attack.
Mr Duncan Smith - in an article in the Sunday Times - accuses the prime minister of failing to explain why Iraq's missile programme represents a growing threat to the British people.


Tory leader has warned of missile threat before

The Tory leader believes the next generation of Iraqi missiles will be able to reach the whole of Europe and writes that "we can choose to act pre-emptively or we can prevaricate".

Meanwhile, Tony Blair said the world could not stand by while Iraq was in "flagrant breach" of United Nations resolutions, as he arrived in Mozambique ahead of an appearance at South Africa's World Development Summit.

The prime minister insisted no decisions on how to tackle Saddam Hussein's regime had been taken, but added: "Doing nothing about Iraq's breach of these UN resolutions is not an option."

It has been confirmed that Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will spend six days in the United States later this month and will be briefed by the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

'Right for British people'

Mr Hoon is regarded as one of the most hawkish ministers in the cabinet and after being told of America's plans he is expected to outline options for possible British military assistance.

Mr Duncan Smith has warned before of the danger to Britain posed by missiles being developed by rogue states like Iraq.


Blair said doing nothing was not an option

Eighteen months ago, when he was defence spokesman, he promised the Conservatives would support an American ballistic missile defence programme.

Now as party leader he has stepped up that warning, convinced Britain is on Saddam Hussein's list of ultimate targets.

Mr Duncan Smith accused Tony Blair of allowing the argument in favour of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq to drift over the summer.

He said: "It is now time for the prime minister to explain to the British people what he already knows - that Iraq is a clear and growing danger to Britain."

International law

"The next generation of Iraqi missiles will be able to reach the whole of Europe. Saddam is just as likely to use terrorists to deliver such weapons," he added.

Conservative chairman Theresa May has also urged Mr Blair to "clearly set out the case".

"He knows Iraq poses a clear and growing danger to Britain," she told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme.

The prime minister would have her party's support if he committed Britain to military action, she said.

As well as a lack of international support for action against Iraq, there has been growing opposition from British MPs.


Defiant: Iraq is trying to bolster support

Former deputy leader of the Labour Party Lord Healey went as far as warning that the prime minister risked losing the leadership of the party if he supported a US attack.

But Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said Parliament would be recalled if the cabinet made any decision about supporting US military action.

He added Britain would only get involved if the conflict did not breach international law.

European Union foreign ministers meeting in Denmark have agreed that Iraq must "immediately" allow UN weapons inspectors back into country to ascertain whether there are weapons of mass destruction or not.

Iraq 'not Afghanistan'

Iraq, meanwhile remains defiant, warning the US that its efforts to unite opposition forces and depose its president will fail.

Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan said on Friday that "Iraq is not Afghanistan" - an apparent reference to the successful US strategy of backing Afghan opposition forces to overthrow the Taleban.

The vice president was on a four day visit to Syria and Lebanon, where he was hoping to bolster opposition to US war threats against Iraq.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri also joined the diplomatic drive, winning strong backing on a visit to China, a permanent member of the UN Security Council.





"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1813 times:

"Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan"

Is that the conservative party that is so unpopular in Britain that they stay out of the Anti-Euro campaigns because with them involved people would probably vote or the Euro because they don't want to have anything to do with this party ?  Big grin


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13742 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Yes Racko, you are 100% Correct!


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

Considering Saddam's 'enhanced' Scuds were only just able to reach Tel Aviv, IDS thinks that Iraq has built up an ICBM capability from scratch, without being spotted by the RAF or USAF?

Yeah, right!  Yeah sure  Insane


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

They dont have to be launched from Iraq. but sticking to the post. As you can see there is some support from the UK for the USA.

but its good to see SS23 trying to bring Israel into this topic also.



"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineRyanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

Galaxy5 - don't believe the rubbish in the papers - when war on Iraq breaks out the UK WILL be involved alongside the US. Once the public is made aware of why it is so important to stop Saddam there will be no problem (bar the usual peaceniks - plus the French who are of course best mates with Saddam).

Nobody is attacking Iraq because we don't like sand - there are bigger issues at stake, and Saddam needs to go if he refuses to let in UN inspectors. Enough is enough.



I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1762 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am almost certain Blair will join the war, "doing nothing is an option" translates to "we are going to war". And stuff like "nothing has been decided" is a smokescreen to buy more time. While Ian Duncan Smith has hardly lit up the conservative party (infact a lot of the British people don't even know who he is) his comments will be another push for Blair to join the war.

One things for sure, Blair's rhetoric over the past few months have been pointing towards nothing but military action.

Iraq is not letting weapons inspectors back in, i wonder why?




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1741 times:

Iraq is not letting weapons inspectors back in, i wonder why?

Usuallly, Aresenal, if someone wants to hide something like this, they don't let weapons inspectors in to have free reign.

Again-I am adamantly against a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. It is not in the tradition of the US, nor the UK in modern times, to do such a thing. Such pre-emptive actions, even if they achieve a desired result-getting rid of Saddam Hussein-would do more harm than good. The US Congress is demanding it be consulted, as it should; the UN is demanding that it be included, as it should in this instance.

I'm personally beginning to think that all this rhetoric coming from the likes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld is a disinformation-misdirrected PR to make Saddam squirm. If the US does launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, I will, of course, back our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and women 100% in their task, but I would voice my opposition to the politicians who sent them into battle.


User currently offlineQatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Alpha 1,

I have seen the built up of American troops in Qatar and yesterday Americans with crew cuts filled the malls and other public places in Doha (being the weekend for them), I have never seen so many at one time.

There is a base called Al-Udeid Air Base which was originally build for the Qatar Air Force so that they could move out of the civilian Doha International Airport but after Clinton visited the facilities it has been dedicated to the US airforce.

In DOH there are about 15-20 USAF Cargo Aircraft + Civilian 747F from Evergreen and Polar in Camp Snoopy. Previously the average number was 2-3 aircraft. In Al-Udeid the US are moving in 10,000 personell and their families and positiong over 120 Fighters. Already there are about 30 with some tankers. The US Military assets that will be stationed here will outnumber ours.

Large trailers have been coming from Saudi Arabia to the US bases carrying equipment etc...

The official word is that these were for the support of Operation Enduring Freedom but I feel otherwise. This is because the build up started before the Sept. 11 attacks and the build up only became rapid in the past few months.

After the Gulf War II we only had a few US troops with some tanks and supplies in storage in Qatar. The only armed personell were the ones protecting the facilities and working in Camp Snoopy. But Last year US Personell numbers increased significantly.


User currently offlineRogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

I believe my point may have been touched upon in another thread, however...

In business negotiations we are taught to ask for somewhat more than we really want and substantially more than we at minimum can accept. What America really WANTS is the removal of Saddam. What American at minimum CAN ACCEPT is the assurance that Saddam is no threat to either itself or its allies.

So, through at least what I have learned, what America should do is ask for much more than it really wants or needs, it should ask for an invasion of Iraq. America has in fact asked for more that it really wants, it has threatened an invasion of Iraq. America has no desire to invade Iraq, it will be costly and controversial. However, by merely threatening an invasion, the USA has the rest of the world crapping in their pants over the prospect and racing for ways to prevent this from happening. It has many benefits and almost no costs to the United States. Its poker and the United States could be bluffing, but no one knows except the American leaders, and no one wants to risk it.

The biggest benefit is that the rest of the world will finally do what America wants it to do - preferably remove Saddam from power or at minimum force inspections or other guarantees that make him impotent. By arguing for the extremes, America brings its friends up a notch in their willingness to thwart Saddam. Even more, its possible that by forcing the doves to state the exact reasons when which they support invasion (namely: proof of weapons/terrorism and/or UN resolution) the US now merely has to satisfy these steps to earn a blanck check where Iraq is concerned.

All of this is a masterful political game. Threaten invasion - settle on inspectors. Next time it will be threaten invasion - settle on Saddam's removal. ....and so on. Everyone who spends their time arguing against invasion is in fact helping American desires by a. offering all sorts of compromises to invasion that America really wants, b. defining the exact terms by which even the doves will support invasion, and c. keeping the prospect of Saddam related violence high in the minds of the world.

kind regards,

RogueTrader



User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1710 times:

Colin Powell has come out against the hawks such as Donald Rumsfeld in favour of the UN inspector plan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/02/wirq02.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/09/02/ixnewstop.html

Incidentally, just because a country doesn't permit inspectors into their country does not necessarily mean that they have something to hide. Israel banned inspectors following the allegations of a massacre in Jenin ... and according to subsequent reports, there was no massacre carried out.

The Iraqi view is that the inspections would drag on unreasonably long, delaying an end to the UN sanctions. Of course, this view doesn't seem to take into view the fact that if they had done their job before they were booted out, then the sanctions would have been lifted many years ago now!  Insane


User currently offlineTs-ior From Tunisia, joined Oct 2001, 3468 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1679 times:


Iraq is a bigger threat to no country.You have better to think rational on this issue !!!


User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

SS23 can you manage to keep Israel out of any posts you place on here?


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another interesting article today:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020901/wl_nm/iraq_usa_aziz_dc_2

"It's a non-starter because it's not going to bring about a conclusion," Aziz said from South Africa where he is attending the Earth Summit.

"We do not trust that Mr. Blix and his group are going to bring a conclusion within a reasonable time so that the United States and everybody in the world should know that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Aziz said



Hmm...what does all this mean? he wants to show the world that Iraq does not have WMD's, yet he say's weapons inspectors are 'non-starters'. So how will the world know whether they have them or not? These words don't make much sense.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1677 times:

The Iraqi view is that the inspections would drag on unreasonably long,

Seems to me, SAS23, that Iraq is the one dragging things out here, by denying inspectiors access to their country, as was promised a decade ago.

Iraq is a bigger threat to no country.You have better to think rational on this issue !!!

Ts-ior, the rational behind basic views of Iraq under Saddam Hussein is this: he's started TWO major conflicts in the last 20 years; he's used weapons of mass destruction on his own people; he's been a supporter for international terrorism. It's easy to just say "Iraq is no threat", but if you look at the history of that country under it's present leader, you come to the opposite conclusion.

And, once again, SAS23 HAS to mentoin Israel. You prove once again, Neil, that it's the only thing you can think about.


User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Alpha 1 - that's exactly what I said!  Big grin

And the reason that I mentioned Israel is that it is the only other country in the world to do what Iraq is being castigated for ... ignoring UN Security Council resolutions and denying access to UN Inspectors; and of course it has been proven to already have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

If you can come up with any other countries matching all three criteria, I would be happy to use them.


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1662 times:

sas23,

colin powell was on newsnight on the bbc saying that weapons inspectors might not be enough as it wont stop saddam.

Furthermore, israel has no place in this discussion, its disrupting this thread. I will say this though, israel has never used a wMD on any one nor its own people unlike saddam. Israel also has said it will only use its weapons if someone else uses them first, this is the same policy as russia, the uk, usa and every other nuclear power.it is not the policy of saddam, if u think saddam is a peaceful man you are living in cloud cuckoo land



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

SAS23, you've got to be the most obsessed person on here with your nonstop critisizm, complaining, and pure hatred towards the Jews.

That granted, I understand how you feel you must bring Israel into every post you make, but it's really not necessary. So could you do us all a favor and quit?

----------------------------------------

Back to the topic,

Iraq is a bigger threat to no country.You have better to think rational on this issue !!!

It's only your opinion that Iraq is no threat to anyone. I'm not paranoid about the situation, it's not like I am scared of this or anything, but I do think Iraq is a potential threat.

Let's look at a few things Mr. Saddam has done:

1. He has started 2 major conflicts in the past 2 decades (Alpha 1)
2. He has used weapons on his own people
3. He has killed many of his own people
4. He supports any kind of terrorism in any way
5. Example of #4 is paying families of suicide bombers
6. He is trying to obtain, or has already obtained weapons of mass destruction, and we know America is #1 on his hit list.
7. He won't allow inspectors into his country, like he promised before, this means he's trying to hide something

I could go on, but most people with a hint of intelligence could figure out that with Saddam's history, he could definitely be a threat.



-NWA742


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13191 posts, RR: 77
Reply 18, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1642 times:

Hate to burst a few bubbles here, but the US already has a deterrent against any Iraqi attack, (and to claim that Iraq has anything that can reach Europe or the US is absurd).
Buried in the Midwest of the USA, or on Trident submarines, or delivered from bombers, are weapons designed to deter such an attack.
The UK and France also have sub-launched nukes.
In 1991 Saddam was warned that any use of WMD's against Allies forces or countries would invite retaliation.
It worked.
Not to mention Israel's weapons (I'll leave that to SAS23!).


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

Seems to me, SAS23, that Iraq is the one dragging things out here, by denying inspectiors access to their country, as was promised a decade ago.

A decade ago weapons inspectors were in his country, what are you actually saying here Alpha1?

.....and it is perfectly acceptable to mention another country when making comparisons. Mind you, Israel isn't the only one to use weapons of mass destruction on it's subjects. I can think of at least one other country that has done exactly that....



VH-ADG


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (11 years 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1613 times:

"Israel isn't the only one to use weapons of mass destruction on it's subjects"

prove it adg, prove it.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Go read what the Brits did at Maralinga.

User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

... and what the Yanks did at Bikini etc!  Big grin

User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (11 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

i was asking for proof on israel please.


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Oh oh ...

In my post above where I have written "Israel isn't the only one" that should actually read "Iraq isn't the only one" ...





VH-ADG


25 Boeing4ever : ... and what the Yanks did at Bikini etc! The French have done plenty of their own nuke testing in the Pacific. As usual, you are trying to throw dirt
26 Post contains images SAS23 : Boeing4ever - the big difference is that the French didn't use their servicemen as guinea pigs to find out what the effects of radiation would be like
27 Post contains images Go Canada! : so we never ever attack other users do we sas23?????
28 Galaxy5 : Originally quoted from SAS23: "Incidentally, just because a country doesn't permit inspectors into their country does not necessarily mean that they h
29 ADG : I agree with the 'pro-attack' side about the requirement to allow the UN weapons inspectors in, if the fail to do that without good reason then UN san
30 Galaxy5 : I agree with what Tony Blair said: "The UN should be the focus of dealing with Iraq, not with finding a way to ignore it". Or something like that. I d
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iran: A Bigger Threat Than Iraq Was Before War? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 20:48:57 by Virgin744
New Airborne Threat To The UK posted Wed May 14 2003 18:10:15 by GDB
Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK posted Sun Nov 12 2006 07:24:20 by Cosec59
Credit A Threat To National Security? posted Fri Oct 20 2006 21:23:14 by TedTAce
Iran's Threat To US Is Financial, Not Nuclear posted Wed May 17 2006 17:07:45 by Ilikeyyc
Trip To UK [LON/BHX/MAN]--Advice Needed posted Sun Apr 16 2006 22:17:15 by Karan69
Biggest Windows Threat To Date posted Tue Jan 3 2006 16:46:32 by 777DadandJr
Iraq War Veteran To Run For Congress posted Tue Dec 20 2005 03:39:12 by Tbar220
The Real Threat To The US.. posted Sun Aug 14 2005 18:24:42 by Soyuzavia
Applying To A UK University? posted Wed Feb 9 2005 23:11:57 by Venezuela747