Has the war already started?

but, considering the war that we will be having very shortly, i think you can say 'no', the war has not started. or, if you consider it already started, its going to be a very different animal soon

this is gulf war XP

of course this could be TWAT V1 SP2

Oddly most of the people working there are naturalised British citizens.

(Lara, it's gallows humour. Did you never watch MASH?)

B-b-but....

Somebody should read Bush The Lion and Albert

well if he doesn't get this 2nd resolution through that could be the way forward.

The scheme could work like this: The guy flys in an area with anti-aircraft defenses. Iraq fires at him, he says "I'm hit" (whether he really is or not) and parachutes out. There is a rescue team on-hand to pick him up, and war starts ASAP after this happens. Just like in Gulf of Tonkin, who is gonna know what really happened until way after the fact? I am sure there are willing recruits - CIA guys do far worse things than this.

So why are we so worried that he will use WMD? Or is it that he will sell these to terrorists? Seems to me that we're going to war because we're scared Saddam might use these weapons, paradoxically giving him a reason to use them. In other words, we're creating the one situation in which he has nothing more to lose and would likely use WMD's.

Documents from 1962 obtained by the FOIA detail a plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff called Operation Northwoods that would use faked terrorist attacks among other things as a pretext to launch an invasion of Cuba. A quote from these papers:

"Remember, the Maine incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned vessel) anywhere in the Cuban waters…The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack…Casualty lists in the newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation"

Without quotes around 'Maine incident,' this sentence looks like a conspiracy theory from 1898! Woohoo!

obv i am being devil's advocate a little bit, but i am curious to see what others think.

2)I think its more of a liberal (US meaning) idea. I think 'humanitarian war' is a tortology.

2)I think its more of a liberal (US meaning) idea. I think 'humanitarian war' is a oxymoron.

3)probably

2) US suxor. But seriously, I am too young to remember, what was the attitude towards Bosnia in the UK and continental western europe?

At the risk of pissing people off, though that is NOT my intent, I would like to add that Britain initially planned to create a Kurdish state way back in the early 20th century but renegged.

Lastly, and mostly in reference to #1, those who saw my posts in January about Iraq know I am not a pro-war nor pro-dictatorship cheerleader, but I do have concerns about both what will happen if we do go to war, and what will happen if we don't.

in itself this might not be enough of a problem to cause all this hoo-ha but: our economy is stagnant and going nowhere fast: Bushco desperately needs a dose of excitement to distract everyone from how mind-numbingly uncreative and dull and ultimately anti-growth it is; but mainly it's a great opportunity to seize the reins of power firmly away from the UN (all it takes is a quick tug, really) and make NATO explicitly into our enforcement arm lackeys (oh okay, our RSA if you insist Sterling :) )

Fletrejet, if we wanted to provoke North Korea into war, we would've done it months ago before Yongbyon got fired up. None of your bullshit holds water in any practical sense. Have you ever, ever studied foreign policy outside of what you read on the web? We put 24 bombers on Guam bcz they decided it wz cool to testfire a cruise missile into the Sea of Japan and then intercept one of our regular overflights (which was not anywhere near their airspace) with a squad of MiGs. Provoke North Korea my ass.

Iraq is a threat inasmuch as any desperate person with a deadly weapon is a threat, except that this desperate person has the means to kill millions of people instead of just a few. You can make Saddam out as a pussycat all you want, and you can chatter about the plight of his people all you want - you can even come up with alternate motives for BushCo or Shrubya or whatever the kids are calling them nowadays until the cows come home. The point is that Iraq is a hideout for terrorists and a repository of nasty horrible shit that I doubt you want in your home.

Remind me how horrible war is, bcz I didn't know already.

Please propose another solution. The world is listening.

Oh great, I had a nice little flame written up but then checking the thread again, I am now assuming you meant to say Ed and not fletrejet.

For the record, I believe the fuck-up in North Korea was due to the incompetant diplomacy of the Bush administration , and, to them, NK is just an awful nightmare they wish would go away.

i read this story and thought of those who say democracy isn't for the middle east--

“A true story. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Segbwema, Sierra Leone, a smallish (6,000-person) town in the Eastern Province of that country. Apart from the two high schools, the most important institution in the town was a hospital founded decades before by English Methodist missionaries.

“Well, in the late 1970s the time had come for some necessary expansion and improvements to the buildings. One decision concerned the latrines: Should they be outhouses with holes in the ground or should they be modern ones?

“Two of the Westerners on staff suggested the holes-in-the-ground design, on the assumption that this was the technology that the local people were accustomed to. At this, the Sierra Leoneans on staff objected, ‘What, do you not think that we want to enjoy the hygiene and ease of the flush toilet? Do you think we want to sh*t in a hole in the ground forever?’

“Ah, human nature is the same all over.”

How fucking short is your memory?

T.L. Friedman actually takes this at face value, too. Very charitable of him. I guess the "democracy" justification/excuse is the one that works with him—if it didn't the Administration has offered several others that might have suited him better, but Friedman fancies himself a real idealist—but even he sees the ways in which the US would have actually prepared the world to help out with what, were it really their goal ("democratizing Iraq"), would be one of the hugest gambles of any Administration in living memory. The fact that they not only haven't sketched even the faintest picture for anyone, coupled with a seeming contempt for international back-scratching, indicates that they are either colossally stupid or they are as interested in Iraqi democracy about as much as Reagan was interested in a democratic El Salvador.

Or indeed what happens when an xtian zealot is elected to the white house? (not bush but a real tub thumping bible bashing zealot)

Algeria to thread! Prolly would cancel elections then.

ed i was about to type 1,000 words that basically said the same thing. i think being verbose should be a classed as a disease and i will be the first to sign up for the pills.

And does anyone really beleive that Bushco has suddenly got a motivated for 'nation building'?

So you're saying that Iraqis are already Al Qaeda terrorists?

I have faith that most iraqis would not listen to their blandishments but. If the Us starts to impose its will over the democratic will of the people then maybe they would.

I really don't know why I am being so sarcastic today.

Buah will give up the kurdish right to self-determination to get use of turkey for offensive operations.

-Final Statement - Meeting of the Coordination and Follow-Up Committee held in Salahaddin, 26 February – 1 March, 2003

http://www.krg.org/docs/opposition-meeting-feb03/opposition-meeting-salahaddin-mar03.pdf