It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War by Christmas?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2002 @ 05:23 PM
link   
BRITAIN and the United States could be at war with Iraq by Christmas, a senior member of George Bushís administration warned yesterday.

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, raised the prospect of an early military strike, piling pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with international demands that he surrenders his weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations passed a new security council resolution on Iraq three days ago which called on Saddam to allow inspectors access to his stocks of weaponry.

The Iraqi parliament adjourned last night without decision during after an emergency session yesterday to discuss its response.

The White House believes that the resolution gives it the power to launch military action against Baghdad without having to seek fresh UN support should Saddam at any point fail to comply with it. He has until Friday to say whether he will allow the UN inspectors to return under the new mandate, and the next deadline comes on December 8 when he must supply a list of Iraqís weapons programmes. The US is making it clear it is ready to act then if Saddam fails at that hurdle.

The threat of an imminent strike against Iraq was underlined by Tony Blair in his annual speech to the Lord Mayorís banquet in London last night when he declared that "terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are linked dangers".




The Prime Minister also delivered the most chilling warning yet of the threat posed by al-Qaeda and international terror cells to the United Kingdom.

He said: "These are new and different dangers. These can strike at any time, across any national boundary and in pursuit of a cause with which there can be little or no rational negotiation."

On the prospect of an imminent military strike against Iraq, Mr Blair said: "There is no dispute with the Iraqi people. Iraqís territorial integrity will be absolute. The dispute is with Saddam. It is now up to him as to how it is resolved - by peace or by conflict."

The Prime Minister deliberately sought to ready the country for war and to urge vigilance in the face of a dramatically increased terrorism threat to the United Kingdom.

He said Britons should expect terrorist attacks and be alert to "present and real" dangers, especially when travelling.

Mr Blair added: "At the moment, barely a day goes by without some new piece of intelligence coming via our security services about a threat to UK interests."

He insisted the threat posed to the entire world by "failed states" which possess weapons of mass destruction was more serious than the Cold War.

In sharp contrast to Mr Blairís measured warnings yesterday, Mr Powell said on CNN: "Weíre not going to wait until February to see whether Iraq is co-operating or not.

"If I were Saddam Hussein, I would take it with a great deal of concern and seriousness and understand that this is not some idle threat that has been issued by the United States.

"This is not some resolution to be ignored, as heís ignored all previous resolutions."

President Bush, speaking at a veteransí day service in Washington yesterday, said: "The danger from Iraq is clear and its multiplied a thousand times over by the possibility of a chemical or biological or a nuclear attack. The time to confront this threat is before it arrives, not the day after."

The Iraqi parliament is expected to symbolically reject the UN resolution today and refer it to the Revolutionary Command Council, which is overseen by Saddam, for the ultimate decision on compliance.

President Bush is reported to have decided on a war plan that includes bombing strikes followed by up to 250,000 US and British soldiers if the UN resolution fails.

Military strikes had not been expected to start until February, after weapons inspectors are due to report back to the UN, and when weather conditions would be better suited to desert war.

Mr Blair said it was important to remember the threat from terrorist and weapons of mass destruction was as real today as it was on 11 September last year. He said: "Todayís breed of terrorist knows no bounds of geography, of inhumanity, or of scale. They are looking for ever more dramatic and devastating outrages to inflict upon the people they claim to be their enemy. There is an added dimension - it is not just that they care nothing for the lives of others, they care nothing for the loss of their own life."

Mr Blairís speech reinforced last weekís warning that Britain could be hit by a "dirty" nuclear bomb or by a nerve gas attack. He said: "The dilemma is reconciling warning people with alarming them; taking preventive measures without destroying normal life."

SOURCE: The Scotsman




posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I'm in two minds on this.We're getting alot of this sort of thing in the UK right now.Nothing specific just a general ratcheting up of public tension by the media at the behest of the government.

On the one hand these warnings could be legitemate.By that I mean that there has indeed been an increase in credable warnings and the Gov a)don't want to be accused of failing to warn the public,and b)want to help prevent any attack by extra public vigilance.

However,Part of me suspects that by issuing these warnings the Blair is hoping get a bit of momentum up for the war against Iraq.I still don't think that most Americans understand the problems Blair has yet to overcome in this country.Though I think we will be there with the Americans in the new year Blairs party will be split and unlike Bush,Blair needs his party if he wants to retain power.

The big winner in British politics will be the Liberal Democrats(traditionally the centre party in Britain)They can expect deserters from the Labour Party(to put things in perspective most of the Labour MP's were card carrying members of CND)Hence the big difference in language between US and UK.The UK will still need ideally to get further UN endorsement before an attack on Iraq.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 05:30 AM
link   
my problem is that there are two issues here, and they are being confused. one is al'quaeda and the other is iraq. all of the threat warnings i've seen for the uk have related to al'quaeda, and ratcheting up security is understandable. however, to the best of my knowledge there have been no such credible threats from saddam. its just not in his interest.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I totally agree that Saddam Hussein really shouldn't be first on our threat board. However, now that we've started, hadn't we better finish?



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 09:42 AM
link   
what sort of logic is that?

hang on, britian was at war with america. in fact, we were fighting against their independence and by golly they've got it. shouldn't we sort that out first?

my point was that saddam hasn't been making threats against the west. al'quaeda has, and i'm happy to see them pursued with military force where necessary. the media is just twisting the two together.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 09:49 AM
link   
yup. "terrorist" is the new black.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Actually, quiet one, Saddam Hussein is a very dangerous, strongly anti-Western (and therefore pro-terrorist) man. I think he needs to be taken out, but aren't there worse people to get first?

However, it's very foolish indeed to do what we have just done (angered a nation with Weapons of Mass Destruction) and then not follow through. By stopping now we would run the risk of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. No matter how you slice it, we have to go on.

If you favor a more pacifist policy, look at France! They were about the closest thing to a supporter that Iraq could find on the Security Council, and Al Quaeda still bombed one of their tankers. Pacifism will not protect us.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 10:21 AM
link   
No ,I think Illu2act has a good point there.
But I feel Bush has forced the agenda a bit with Iraq.Instead of consolodating his world support after Afghanistan he has almost imediately picked a new fight.I don't believe that fight had to fought until 6 months ago.Now I feel we've almost no choice.And it seems to me that the next fight has already been picked and the one after that.
Britain has helped bring other countries on board but there will come a time, and fairly soon,When Britain and the US will stand alone and the rest of the world against us.
As righteous as we might feel in our two countries the rest of the world will steadily see the US/UK as aggressors.Britain relations in the EU will deterorate and Britain in the long term will suffer.



posted on Nov, 13 2002 @ 09:29 PM
link   
i think we will attack in the next 3-5 days



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 04:09 AM
link   
That is all because they don't care about you, or your childeren. All they care about is their wallet. They are even stupid because attacking Iraq will bring you people in more danger. I don't think any of you folks understand what is going on and how it can be stopped.

I mean when IRA was big threat to London, why didn't england bombed northern Ireland ? Now there not even one threat from Saddam, and they want war.

It's against human rights. America is violating international law, by creating weapons of mass destruction, and no body care. Because US arrogance more and more countries are going to take measure to protect their self. They have the right to do so, just like we have the right to do so. Brazil is looking for Nuke's right now to protect it self. North Korea is doing the same.. SO many countries with nukes these days.

So please think for a min. about this whole stupid war on terror. It will only cause us more terror and danger.

[Edited on 14-11-2002 by TigeriS]



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Forgetting for an instant that there are "attacks" every day or thereabouts in the "no fly zones", I'd expect no attack in the very near future: even if logistically possible, the new UN resolution makes it diplomatically impossible -the US will not go against that one after the arguments about "War crimes".
Also, an attack during the fasting month would be very ill-advised diplomatically.
recent political events in Iran have muddied the water as have events in the internal politics of Israel.
Add to this America's having shot herself in the foot over North Korea -not helpfl domestically and to close to contested elections, corporate scandals and the like. GWB needs to attack the home market a little more forcefully before he attacks anybody else.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 04:35 AM
link   
The UN resolution is, in any case, a rum business and only well-discussed if one has bothered to read at least some of the text ñIím sure you have: itís easily accessible.
There are six immediate possibilities on the diplomatic front:
1 The US alone has scored a hit
2 The US and one or more allies have scored a hit
3 The US has missed but at least one ally has scored a hit
4 The US and its allies have all missed
5 At least one US ally isnít an ally at all
6 Saddam has scored another hit

I dismiss the last this time ñArab solidarity not maintained: in other than diplomatic terms, Saddam has gained time ñbut as itís the fasting month heíd have gained that time, anyway ñthe US would not have attacked then even if it were ready.
One and two seem possible ñdiplomacy is not Americaís forte when up amongst the UN boys. Three and five have appeal.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 04:38 AM
link   
The text shows plainly that the resolution is diplomatic madness on the USAís part: when China agrees, itís time to start digging; when Syria sides with the US expect miracles. The ìno fly zonesî; the ìhumanitarian aidî ñ not even mentioned. (ignoring the fact that the ìno fly zonesî have never been sanctioned) should they not ñat least temporarily-cease? Should not sanctions cease if Saddam ia (a) ìcleanî (b) fools the Inspectors.
And if everything worked, America would then be stuck with another diplomatic good hiding about the enormous list of UN resolutions that Israel has ignored. America cannot win ina UN context ñnever really ahs done and never will.
The 30-day figure absolutely impossible, especially as no ìcatalogueî is in place ñyou can perhaps target the obvious; but the ìdual-functionî sites would take forever ñjust about any chemical/industrial plant could be involved in weapons of mass destruction.
The text guarantees no exact next response.
The inspectors have no mandate or clear guidelines ñtheyíve already complained as much ñwhat is ìdelayî? Are they expected to announce a war?
As America has flouted ìwar criminalî legislation ñhow does this affect her troops and could we have a situation where British soldiers are ëwar criminalsî; but Americans arenít?
And if Saddam passes ñheís had two years to hide everything?
Itís either very deep or very stupid.
Iím going for ìdeepî and looking; but it may not be Americaís hands on the shovel.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I don't understand why people still say they think we should not worry about Hussein, but concern ourselves with the terrorists. When concerning yourself with Hussein you are doing just that.
Hussein has chemical and biological weapons that are extremely nasty and potent. He is close to developing nuclear weapons, and with his oil money, may have already purchased items off the black market.
Hussein is strongly tied with terrorist networks, he supports them financially as well as with training. Remember the airliners in the deserts he used to traing terrorists?
Furthermore, he has shown the willingness to use NBC weapons, hates the west, and could give weapons to terrorists to strike D.C., St. Louis or London.
His desire is also the destruction of Israel. With nuclear weapons at his disposal, he might be more inclined to see to it that Israel is destroyed, or at least hiy. This would certain destabilize the region alot worse than a couple of military powers such as the U.S. and Britain taking Hussein out, liberating those people and creating a little more stability there. It would also be an obvious strike at terrorism by hitting a terrorist supporter.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Hussein is buying time with this one. He will gain more time by doing this than by waiting for Rambadan to end. I just can't see the man voluntarily disarming. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but time will tell.

If you ask me, he wants to hit us first. Why? The only alternatives are to disarm or to wait for us to attack. He's not the type to disarm, and waiting for us to attack will virtually guarantee his destruction. The world is against him (look at France and Russia, his economic partners, supporting the UN resolution), but suppose he hit Israel first? If the US retalliated, wouldn't that be seen as Zionism? Wouldn't arab nations become more angry at us than they already are? It's a longshot, but it's all I can think of right now.

[Edited on 11-14-2002 by ~iluv2act~]



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I can well understand why recent postings may have driven you to the edge of psychosis; BUT look at your wholly unsupported or critically unjustified assertions there.
The "proof" as opposed to what might be "evidence" relates almost entirely to the days when the US was beefing him up to support discord in what was then the South of the USSR and to backing him against Iran.
I suspect everyone -the population of Iraq being foremost- is "against" Saddam; but then again, psephologically speaking, at least, few are "for" GWB ( around a quarter of the population?) - the mere citing of statistics does little to convince.
Again, join me in a jihad in R & S - more fruitful.

On the other hand, a wizard wheeze!!



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:05 AM
link   
No one is requiring that Saddam "disarm" - he could have trained 100 Panzer divisions, and passed the test - only that he has no "WMD".
You would care to define those?Estragon can't and he's in good company: the UN and the USA can't either.
And who sold him his arms? And whose geopolitical policy would want a defenceless Iraq next to Iran?
Buy an atlas, old egg.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I for one would like to see Iran as the world's next superpower. Why? The people of Iran voted 80% for the progressive party. The only thing holding them up is the conservative (theocratic) judiciary. With a little covert help from CIA, the progressivists should be able to force their western views through. A true democratic republic is much more desirable to US interests than is a dictatorship run by a madman.

So, yes, you could say that my geopolitical philosophy would like to see Iraq defenseless.



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Estragon:

There are six immediate possibilities on the diplomatic front:
1 The US alone has scored a hit
2 The US and one or more allies have scored a hit
3 The US has missed but at least one ally has scored a hit
4 The US and its allies have all missed
5 At least one US ally isnít an ally at all
6 Saddam has scored another hit

I am especially interested in point number five.
5 At least one US ally isnít an ally at all

Are you going to name names.Have you come over to the dark side Luke?



posted on Nov, 14 2002 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I hardly see how your assertions conflict with mine, Estragon, as they don't seem to cross topical paths.

My psychosis may stem from standing at a picketline for last month, suppressing the urge to pummel 8 scabs in the parking lot as the get out of their vehicles; two of which owe their employment with the company to me and will be more adversely effected by the lousy insurance package then I.

As far as R/S, I do go in the bad place from time to time but cannot stay in there long as I break out in hives and fits of violent rage after brief exposure.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join