Nukes??

[jonbuoy]

There is no proof whatsoever that the Saddam Hussein regime had any links to Al Qaeda. Like "WMD" this is a US lie.

We now know that even if Iraq had let the IAEA inspectors go where they wanted, they wouldn't have found any nuclear weapons or components thereof. Kind of shows a perverse sense of humour on Iraq's part!

And the UN did not "allow" the US to attack Iraq. The US and its axis partners decided to do it anyway.

I agree that $173 billion (I presume US$) would buy a lot of oil exploration. But why this amount? And there is no guarantee that this exploration investment would find any oil.

I still think you should read more.

173 Billion US is the estimated cost of the war so far - I'm surprised you haven't READ that already. Axis partners?? Partners that are prepared to risk their people, political and financial arses and careers so that we can all sit here and wank on about stuff we know nothing about. What would have happened if the Allied forces had made a preemptive strike against Hitler and Germany while they were still building up their war machine? Long before we all made a stand on Poland? You can't wait for that to happen when dealing with Nukes and other WOMD. Thats my view..

[Ixion]

,, What would have happened if the Allied forces had made a preemptive strike against Hitler and Germany while they were still building up their war machine? Long before we all made a stand on Poland? ,,.

The French did. Didn't help much. "Allied forces" could not, because they were not "allied" until after Poland .

[Hitcher]

173 Billion US is the estimated cost of the war so far - I'm surprised you haven't READ that already. Axis partners?? Partners that are prepared to risk their people, political and financial arses and careers so that we can all sit here and wank on about stuff we know nothing about. What would have happened if the Allied forces had made a preemptive strike against Hitler and Germany while they were still building up their war machine? Long before we all made a stand on Poland? You can't wait for that to happen when dealing with Nukes and other WOMD. Thats my view..

I agree with you about starting WWII earlier. But there is a world of difference between vassilating when confronted by a clear and present danger. But making shit up just to oust a regime that your daddy couldn't whip and to secure oil revenues is a completely different proposition.

I thought that the cost of the Iraq fiasco (it can't be defined as a war) would be better counted in death and human misery than dollars. But I suppose we're not allowed to talk about that.

[Ixion]

Mr Hitcher, Mr Hitcher , I am sad to see such a fall from grace. Don't vacillate , edit your egregious error ere others see it.

[Bet I make some stupid spelling mistake in this]

[Biff]

No I am simply reffering to the chats I have had with our soldiers who have served as peace keepers, who say effectively, they can't do anything. The only thing they are allowed to do is protect themselves, if they should be lucky enough to come under fire, and even then, they aren't allowed to chase down the antagonists...

Ahhh - ok. Now I see where your coming from. Soldiers obeying the UN charter. The attached PPT presentation may help you understand the UN's position with regards to rules of engagement. I've removed some of the slides and images in order to keep the file size down.

Bascially UN soldiers, unlike NATO or the armed forces of a sovereign state, are only a peace-keeping force. They are not allowed, by law, to open fire or chase down any enemy combatant unless their own safety, or the safety of their charges are at risk.

Iraq had links to the terrorist group involved, .

Simply not true. There snot a shread of evidence to support this claim. The initial claim to this effect was made by the Pentagon, pre war, that Saddam sanctioned the use of Iraqi soil for terrorist training was later watered down to something in the order of, "well, there were a couple of guys in Baghdad that once attended a terrorist camp."

No conspiracy theory, simply fact. Nice n solid one as well. Unless, that is, you know something the British and even the American govts now openly claim to be bullshit. Sorry - I mean a failure in intelligence.

[kickingzebra]

But if they can't respond to acts not conducive to peace, are they then rightly called peace keepers? more like violence observers I would have thought?!

Oh, and how does one quote more than one post in a reply?

[Biff]

Armed protection?

Oh, and how does one quote more than one post in a reply?

I open two or more screens (CTRL N) and cut n paste.

[kickingzebra]

Thanks for that!

Diplomatic protection squad, financed by the UN? I should be so lucky!!
Would have thought it cheap enough to buy a few monkeys, train them in the usage of firearms, and biting, then walk around like a king...

You see what I am getting at, the whole peace keeping thing is wearing thin, because there is no peace to be kept, and violations of the peace aren't allowed to be acted upon. Seems crazy to me!!

[Biff]

because there is no peace to be kept, and violations of the peace aren't allowed to be acted upon. Seems crazy to me!!

???
Kosovo, Congo, Ivory Coast etc etc. These places are heavily fortified with UN peacekeepers, and their presence has probably saved tens of thousands of lives. Seems logical to me.

[kickingzebra]

Ok, I hadn't accounted on the presence preventing violence aspect.

But what about those incidences, where they are present, and violence goes right ahead under their noses?
Isn't consequence only taken seriously when it actually has tangible results?
(not team america style nasty letters?)

[Hitcher]

Mr Hitcher, Mr Hitcher , I am sad to see such a fall from grace. Don't vacillate , edit your egregious error ere others see it.

[Bet I make some stupid spelling mistake in this]

I was talking about George W Bush. I bet he vassilates...