 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Can you imagine how important he feels being Witless's man in Europe? The US of A's de facto special envoy to Europe (with an honourable mention worldwide).
Yes I think friend Tony likes to feel important.  |
Mmmm. I hoped it might be something more than that. I don't know what, but something other than megalomania. We have the same problem here, of course, with Little Johnny Howard, who boasts of his phone chats with George Witless. There's a rapidly-building anti-invasion - without UN approval - sentiment here. If it happens, it will cost Little Johnny dearly. Not to mention the Iraqi civilians who have been criminally forgotten in this push to secure US oil supplies. 
quote:
For myself at the next General Election I have a hard search to find a Socialist party to vote for - "New" Labour are a disgrace to that worthy name of Labour Party to be honest. |
Same here. Simon Crean - Labour leader - has finally latched onto the anti-invasion (without UN approval) sentiment and is starting to push it. But it's purely expediency. Our Labour Party lost its way about 10 years ago.
quote:
I agree Sadam needs getting rid of in a way. Biut I am highly suspicious of a son who seems to be correcting his fathers career ending mistake (assuring Saudi and Jordan that Iraq would not be invaded in 91 essentially). If the US and UK are to wade in there it needs to be for solid reasons - not family obligations. |
'91 was about rescuing Kuwait to secure Kuwait's oil. This time it's about securing Iraq's oil because of the uncertainty over the future relationship with Saudi Arabia. Only the dates change.
quote:
Apologies to Tamerlin if he disagrees with my dislike of the French/German led rush to bring more freeloaders into the EC by the way. I'm struggling to see what economies like Poland give us to be honest? I can see what they will take - my cash!  |
I realise I'm a long way away from what's happening in Europe, and I'm opposed to anything that homogenises the place, particularly culturally; but, OTOH, anything that creates a power capable of and willing to oppose the US in its campaign to govern the world is fine by me. Yesterday's French and German combined opposition to the invasion of Iraq was most welcome. Cold War Dinosaur D. Rumsfeld's reponse was typically churlish - to the effect that France and Germany are living in the past, they're no longer powers in Europe, that the power has shifted to the East. Apart from its churlishness, I have no idea what he meant by "the East".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tamerlin
|
 |
Toulouse (South-western France)
Apr 2002
time: 06:24
|
|
In my own opinion, getting rid of Sadam should have been done in 1991. I have always thought it would be a problem in the future and this would have avoided the sufferings of innocent manipulated civilians.
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
I realise I'm a long way away from what's happening in Europe, and I'm opposed to anything that homogenises the place, particularly culturally... |
This is why I am in favour of a Federation and not of a Confederation.
quote:
...but, OTOH, anything that creates a power capable of and willing to oppose the US in its campaign to govern the world is fine by me. Yesterday's French and German combined opposition to the invasion of Iraq was most welcome. Cold War Dinosaur D. Rumsfeld's reponse was typically churlish - to the effect that France and Germany are living in the past, they're no longer powers in Europe, that the power has shifted to the East. Apart from its churlishness, I have no idea what he meant by "the East". |
This is a much needed balance of power. When Mr. Rumsfeld says the power has shifted to the East, he is certainly considering Russia as the new European Superpower which is very far from the truth. I think he is actually threatening the European nations to look for another ally instead of wasting its time with countries which are refusing to say amen everytime the witless shrub sneezes. Although Russia should not be underestimated this country has severe internal problems (social, economical, military and political) that will need several decades until they are solved. 
The reason why the Franco-German axis is accelerating the integration of the former communist countries can certainly be found here. Once this countries will be members of the EC, they will escape from the influence area of Russia and will thus contribute to a new balance of power. Of course this will have a cost but we citizens will pay for it, as usual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
In my own opinion, getting rid of Sadam should have been done in 1991. I have always thought it would be a problem in the future and this would have avoided the sufferings of innocent manipulated civilians. |
It won't be any easier this time than it would have been last time. Now - as would've been needed back then - it will mean US troops in the streets of Baghdad, massive US casualties ... which will, effectively, destroy the Bush administration in the eyes of the US voters.
quote:
When Mr. Rumsfeld says the power has shifted to the East, he is certainly considering Russia |
That's what I sort of assumed. It's based, of course, on Putin's now comfy relationship with Witless. But as you say, Russia has so many internal problems - not the least of which is in the South - that it's severely hamstrung in its capabilities. Russia also, of course, is playing hardball over the Iraq invasion matter because it has huge financial connections with Iraq. Which is what it all boils down to, unfortunately - bloody money!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
It won't be any easier this time than it would have been last time. Now - as would've been needed back then - it will mean US troops in the streets of Baghdad, massive US casualties ... which will, effectively, destroy the Bush administration in the eyes of the US voters.
|
I think you're assuming far too much here. This would only occur if the entire conflict went exactly according to the Iraqis script. ie: It wouldn't.
Bagdad certainly wouldn't be the first city on the list. Logically, those major centres between the staging points and the capital would be encircled and, if necessary, reduced (as callous as that sounds).
The Iraqis, however, aren't stupid. They know exactly how the last war went. They were sent out into the desert, cut off, and abandoned by their own government. Ergo the mass surrenders and retreats.
By placing themselves in the position of defending cities as strongpoints they're just asking for exactly the same treatment.
It might not happen in the first city, or the second, but at some point an encircled city will receive a proposal from an American intelligence-type, accompanied by a Turkish or Saudi General or somesuch for good measure, under a flag of truce, to declare itself an open city.
After this point there won't be any going back and future cities, seeing the alternatives, will fold up like a house of cards. Its one thing to have Saddams Guards' units and special police groups standing over you but quite another when you're surrounded and cut off from any form of help whatsoever.
Baghdad wouldn't be too different. Rhetoric and spouting propaganda about fighting to the death is fine and good but once encircled it turns into a very different story.
That'd be my take on it anyway...
[btw this thread seems to be a tad too serious. People may be in danger of being carded. ]
Last edited by ravagon on 24-01-2003 at 11:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
I think you're assuming far too much here. This would only occur if the entire conflict went exactly according to the Iraqis script. ie: It wouldn't.
Bagdad certainly wouldn't be the first city on the list. Logically, those major centres between the staging points and the capital would be encircled and, if necessary, reduced (as callous as that sounds).
The Iraqis, however, aren't stupid. They know exactly how the last war went. They were sent out into the desert, cut off, and abandoned by their own government. Ergo the mass surrenders and retreats.
By placing themselves in the position of defending cities as strongpoints they're just asking for exactly the same treatment.
It might not happen in the first city, or the second, but at some point an encircled city will receive a proposal from an American intelligence-type, accompanied by a Turkish or Saudi General or somesuch for good measure, under a flag of truce, to declare itself an open city.
After this point there won't be any going back and future cities, seeing the alternatives, will fold up like a house of cards. Its one thing to have Saddams Guards' units and special police groups standing over you but quite another when you're surrounded and cut off from any form of help whatsoever.
Baghdad wouldn't be too different. Rhetoric and spouting propaganda about fighting to the death is fine and good but once encircled it turns into a very different story.
That'd be my take on it anyway...
|
Why do you only post on Fridays? Special super-cheap internet deal or something? Connect for one day a week for 10 cents?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-01-2003 15:47
Great touch!
That was my lunch hour.
|