kiltboy

I don't know if you've seen the program I'm referring to but I watched the "town meetings" and they pale in comparison. The guy that chairs the meeting will not let them dodge a difficult question. They have to defend themselves and it gets heatred. David

I don't like the idea of watching a train wreck. I don't know where you're from but one thing I really missed when I first came over to the states was Question Time They go round the UK to a different city each week and they have different MPs i.e. government, opposition, local MP etc. They get 100 people in the audience and they can ask any question they want. Watch the bastards squirm. I was really surprised that there was nothing like it in the run up to the Presidential election here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/question_time/ David

Yeah he's a trained Barrister. He does a regular press conference as well as Prime Ministers questions so he's been getting plenty of practice lately. David

Something of a political post so feel free to ignore it. I thought some would like to know that Tony Blair had a bit of a Rebellion in the House of Commons over Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2799377.stm Just trying to keep the information flowing. David

Ok, Just nobody mention the 6 nations. David

I hear you. I like the way he carries himself. I believe he understands better than most the responsibility of the position he holds. Not only that but he respects the position and the responsibility entrusted to him. I also don't see him as a guy looking for the limelight. David

I think I saw that argument on the History Channel. The other argument was that even if a group got hold of a missile and launched then there would be a return address for retribution. If say a rogue missile was launched then a shield could (maybe) stop that one. If, however a missile shield would lead to more missile proliferation (as i think it will) that would make the above scenario more likely. I hope the warning shot (Billvon?) idea never happens. I doubt anyone would take that kindly. David

The debate as described won't happen. Usually debates are in front of a body (committee or electorate) or persons (Judge or jury). With a final decision that is usually respected by both sides. The debate has been going on for a sustained period of time in front of the UN and world media and from what I see the principals advocating action haven't made a convincing case. I think there is one for upholding the will of the UN but it's been hidden by regime change etc. From what I saw of the presidential debates (remember how difficult they were to set up?) President Bush could find himself out of his depth and possibly emotional (read angry). I think the Whitehouse knows it to. I think Colin Powell would be a better choice as I believe he's a better diplomat. David

Tony's pretty much committed one way or another. There are 4 brigades of brit troops sitting in the sand and I don't think they'll stand up and wave the Americans off. Rather they'll go with them. I believe he's facing trouble at home because he has been repeating the US message when he should have been changing the language to suit the UK and european audiences. Subsequently there are plenty of people who don't support what he's doing as they've not been given clear reasons for it. John Prescott was asking people to trust Tony when Tony should be making the case to those with doubts, he's had more than enough experience with spin. As for what happens afterwards, I think Iraq will be a mess for a while so there'll be very little feel good factor and if you look back to GW1 Saddam is the only leader still in power. David

Morning I think we may agree to an extent on Bosnia. I think the UN is pretty good at the humanitarian rebuilding work which is welcomed by most. The fighting was a bloody mess but the declaration of safe havens didn't work (Srebrenica sp?) and I remember more than one story of UN vehicles being held up and looted by the folks fighting. I think the UN is sometimes lacking in the abilty to impose it's will through diplomatic means and that greater force is required. Maybe generate a UN Corps of troops that can be a touch more aggressive (I'm thinking that the Dutch troops really had no other option but to let that massacre happen as they had no support), or change the UN rules of engagement. My understanding is that the forces in Bosnia now don't wear the Blue Beret of the UN but are working as IFOR. They have different rules of engagement and so have less problems than the previous UN forces had (I'm basing my opinion on the guys I know that served under both berets so to speak). I also agree with what Nacmac says about working with world opinion. Bush and Blair may believe they have a good case but if they act without persuading the world then future problems will ensue. The two governments have made a piss poor job of selling this action. Telling the world that Saddam is Hitler isn't going to persuade a lot of the people with doubts. Focus on the issue that Saddam is in material breach. Unfortunately I think the US and UK have dug a hole for themselves. Axis of evil, regime change, freeing the Iraqi people are all comments that are hurting the case for action. It has made the case less about the UN breaches and makes it appear to be a case for taking out a country you just don't like. David

Cool! No more Newbie status either. David

I wouldn't use the phrase "aimed" and I'm sorry if you took the post as a shot at your viewpoint. Yes the UN is ineffective, we saw that in Bosnia and a few other places besides. I was adding to what I thought was the debate on the UN as a whole and the previous posts had mentioned Israel. I'll choose who's reply button with more care next time. David

I think the resolution in question is the one to retreat from Jerusalem. I think 181 stated that Jerusalem was an international city? when israel was created. Then I think 242 relates to retreating after the 6 day war and not trying to unify jerusalem. Basically there are a few about Jerusalem that Israel is ignoring. David

The grasshopper thing threw me. David

I agree that it should have been taken care of the first time round. I remember my brother packing his NBC gear when they went to set up the first of the no fly zones. That was when they thought it would kick off again. I once gave a seminar on the analytical chemistry of UNSCOM during my grad studies. I read the stories from the inspectors and I saw the UN resolving to be kept aware of the situation. The situation was a mess yet sod all was done hell I could see that and I didn't have all the gen. I'm not about to point fingers at who's to blame for getting to where we are. A case can be made for military action I just think that those trying to make their case are doing a shite job of it. And so you know Saddams moustache is much more 70s porn star than Hitler's ever was. David

PULLING HAIR IN FRUSTRATION I'm all for not repeating the mistakes of the past. I understand history repeating itself etc. What I was tring to do was get away from the ww2 rants of a few posts ago. They get people angry and don't help the discussion. I'm also trying to say that while there are similarities between Saddam and Hitler. Saddam is not Hitler, Iraq isn't Germany and the world is different. There are now more informed people with mass communication, better weaponry, changes in the world order, different trade strengths and economy the list goes on. This is not 1939. Therefore saying that Saddam is another Hitler isn't an effective argument for taking him out as far as I am concerned. That he has told the UN to go and whistle is an effective argument. Saying that we've found VX he shouldn't have is an effective argument. Invading another country is an effective argument. Please can we keep it current. There are enough holes in the Iraq story that a veryu good case can be made but I think the main players are presenting it in a piss poor fashion. Tony Blair plaigarising a 12 year old thesis as his intelligence brief really hasn't helped his case. SIGH (takes hands from head) Oh crap now I'm going bald. David

I can see history repeating itself if you let certain actions stand. The point I tried to make (poorly) is that I've heard sound bites from Oliver North equating Saddam to Hitler. What I would like to hear is less of the comparison and more on the breaches of the UN resolutions. I don't disagree with the similarity but what will win the case for action in Iraq are the details of the current breaches. David

It would be nice to get away from the historical references. Adolf also annexed countries, same as Saddam tried with Kuwait. But there are a few other differences such as the population in Iraq is different to the population in germany at that time. More access to media. I would like it if the discussion stayed to the present. There are historical similarities but the world has moved on so I'd like to keep the discussion towards what is current. There remains plenty to debate on what has been discovered. David

Yes the Jews were from the middle east. Anyone regrardless of religion has the right to be there. I think the arab world is a touch upset about the generation of Israel as a country and the displacement of Palestinians when Israel was created. I'm not going to go into detail but I saw a link from the BBC web page that covered the lead up of events from late 1800 on. Extremists are hard to defend either way so I'm not going to bother as I don't like them. David

Love the bit in the movie when the Polish squadron spots the Germans for the first time. Repeat please. David

I'm extremely thankful that the US gave logistic support to the UK all through WW2 even before the US officially declared war on Germany. There were pilots from all nations, US, Canada, France, Poland, Norway to name but a few that fought and defended the UK during the Battle of Britain 1940. Russia decimated the Germans on the Eastern front but we needed the US to win in Europe. Lets not froget that the US also bore the brunt of the fighting in the Pacific. I think there's enough going on just now that we don't need to dwell on the past. That was a poor moment in European history. It's over, let's be grateful it's over and move on. David

And it's not over. There's another show next week. David

I accept that the French government needs a push and I know that Schroeder was elected on an antiwar footing. However, the point I was trying to make is that publicly leaking frustration of a less than flattering, possibly insulting nature at those governments opposed to your action is not going to win support in the broader sense. I remember the flurry of diplomacy that went on befroe GW1 and that wasn't as complicated as the current crisis. Hard edge diplomacy is one thing but wrap it up in diplomatic language. How does the rhetoric play with the populations of other wavering nations? Possibly those in the Arab league? The US is the weight behind NATO and some European countries see NATO as being more relevant than the UN. Failings in the Balkans have shown that teeth are needed behind the resolution or else the resolutions get ignored. NATO is trying to find a role for itself and the action in Kosovo has shown what it can do. I think a few people are worried that NATO may begin to charge around without the UN. And lets face it there's nobody that could challenge NATO if they did. David

Oh my this is getting ugly. Southern/northern no fly zones? Brits in Afghanistan? The Brits have 16 Air Assault Brigade, 3 Commando Brigade and 7 Armoured Brigade plus support units en route to a sandy location. They will share the same dangers as the US servicemen for similar reasons and they don't have decent gear. Please forgive me but some members of the US administration are not the best diplomats in the world and they are in front of the world press. Instead of attempting to persuade the world of the case for action on Iraq there is almost an effort to alienate some countries. If they'd done a better job maybe France and Germany wouldn't be so opposed. David

Yep I'll be watching it. the lady in my lfe dragged me into it. I think he'll pick Zora but I've heard nothing about what the twist at the end is. I subjected my room mates to Survivor last week and they nearly killed me. Talk about a bunch of stupid frat kids. It could be worth watching just to see the guys start fighting with each other. David