09-01-2003 19:48									#1
	Britain urges US to delay war until autumn Enter the AD-FREE zone

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...requestid=74494

quote: Britain urges US to delay war until autumn By Anton La Guardia and George Jones (Filed: 09/01/2003) Britain is pressing for war against Iraq to be delayed for several months, possibly until the autumn, to give weapons inspectors more time to provide clear evidence of new violations by Saddam Hussein. British officials know that the real decision will be taken by Bush Ministers and senior officials believe that there is no clear legal case for military action despite the build-up of American and British forces in the Gulf. Senior diplomats have told the Government that there is a good chance of securing United Nations Security Council approval for military action later in the year if Saddam can be shown unambiguously to be defying the disarmament conditions set out in resolution 1441. "The Prime Minister has made it clear that, unless there is a smoking gun, the inspectors have to be given time to keep searching," a senior Whitehall source said. The uncertainty at the heart of the Government has resulted in ministers blowing hot and cold over the prospects for early military action. The tensions were highlighted on Tuesday when Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, publicly rebuked Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, for playing down the chances of war. In the Commons yesterday Tony Blair denied that the Cabinet was split or that he was engaging in "dangerous brinkmanship" with Saddam over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But he was left in no doubt of growing opposition among Labour MPs to joining an American-led attack without convincing proof that Saddam had defied UN demands to dismantle his nuclear, chemical and biological programmes. The exchanges showed that the Prime Minister could face a major revolt if he went to war without UN backing. As the tempo of military preparations accelerates, British diplomats say they can win UN support for war only if the inspectors can corner Saddam, either by finding banned weapons and components or by forcing him to deny access to sites or to officials. "Nobody familiar with the inspections process expects them to come up with the goods in a matter of weeks," a senior British official said. "There is an assumption that there will be a campaign before the summer because of the heat. The autumn would be just as sensible a time and in the meanwhile Saddam would be thoroughly constrained by the inspectors." Although the Government has sent a powerful naval force to the region and called up reservists, there has been a significant softening of Whitehall's warlike rhetoric. Mr Straw said he thought the prospects of war were roughly 60:40 against. No 10 backed Mr Straw in downgrading the importance of the inspectors' first full report to the Security Council on Jan 27. Officials said the date was "not a deadline"; the inspectors should be given "time and space" to carry out their work. They also insisted that an indefinite game of "cat and mouse" was not acceptable. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, is expected to tell the Security Council that Iraq is co-operating in terms of procedure, but that he needs time to investigate the apparent omissions in the latest declaration of its weapons programmes. Hard-liners in Washington see Iraq's claim that it has no banned weapons as enough justification for action. British officials know that the real decision about the war will be taken by President George W Bush. Powerful voices in Washington argue that prevarication would risk allowing another crisis to divert the effort against Iraq and afford Saddam a symbolic victory. British officials hope that London's reservations and Mr Blair's growing problems in the Labour Party will help to tip the balance in the Bush administration in favour of delay. But they accept that Britain will go along with an American-led war in almost all circumstances, including a conflict in the spring if Washington is determined to launch an early campaign. The first Prime Minister's Questions of the year, held at noon instead of 3pm under Commons reforms, was dominated by Iraq. Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, highlighting the spat between Mr Hoon and Mr Straw, warned Mr Blair that he could not win public backing for a war if he could not convince his Cabinet and if troops were only "half-prepared for war".

OK... so the Brits are slowing down a bit, I wander what will happen after Jan 27. I doubt anyone thinks Saddam will use his WOMDS that he might not have before Autumn... when the allegation will be much clearer.

	09-01-2003 19:52									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Good ol' Brits eh?

It won't stop Bush though.. "kill them all lads! who needs a UN resolution when you have B2 bombers and napalm!"

	09-01-2003 22:55									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Support for the war on Iraw is pretty soft over here... roughly 39% of men and only 33% of women support military action.

	10-01-2003 05:03									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think this is basically because NK is being percieved as a greater threat.

	10-01-2003 05:11									#5
	Suffering from ads?

shut up Blair! Do you want Britain to be next?

	10-01-2003 15:25									#6
	Got spare money?

I have an idea about that...
We join the USA!
I dont want to, but Bush can not attack a state in the US...can he?

	10-01-2003 17:36									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

Unless its Texas, all bets are off on that one.

	10-01-2003 22:06									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yeah - we'll wait.

Sure, just as long as I keep my per diem until then

	10-01-2003 23:07									#9
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Just another proof that more evidence is needed to have a good reason (which is WOMD presence and Iraq unwilling to disarm) to go in there and attack.

	11-01-2003 03:24									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If the Brits want to wait until Autumn, why are they loading their special forces now?

One of the best ways to screw up Saddam's timetable to to get him to believe that American allies are balking.

	17-01-2003 15:17									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

So, the inspectors found some old, empty chemical warhead shells, but 'old W still has'nt invaded? Perhaps they really dont want to go to war!

	17-01-2003 16:19									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

No smoking gun = no UN resolution.

W goes for it anyway = why have the UN?

UN abolished, diplomats sent home, rest of world saves small fortune, NY economy impoverished.

Go for it! (apologies to all the people in NY who make money out of the UN).

	17-01-2003 16:23									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

The real reason for this delay is, of course, that we're just a big bunch of wussie Eurocoms.

	17-01-2003 16:24									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Let's face it. Saddam buried all of his WOMD in the desert years ago. The U.N. can inspect until dooms day and they won't find one bit unless there's an informer.

	17-01-2003 19:57									#15
	Support Apolyton

Well the US seems to 'know' Saddam is lying. Why don't they inform? Oh wait, it will jeopardise their operatives.

	17-01-2003 21:23									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

first, it's not going to be a war. more a take over. 90% of iraq forces give up in the first days - maybe hours.

And other countries are saying what they have to to make the people happy. in the end they will all do as the US wishes.

Even worthless France will be at the victory party saying how all along they knew this would be best. Ha!

	17-01-2003 21:51									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Let's face it. Saddam buried all of his WOMD in the desert years ago.

You think that's a good way to store them?

	17-01-2003 21:56									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger You think that's a good way to store them?

seeing how everything else gets blown up... yes.

	17-01-2003 21:58									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Britain just sent out a 15 ship carrier battle group, including the largest amphibious force since the Falklands. The carrier is modified so it does not carry its usual compliment of Harriers but rather Seahawks and some other helicopters.

Now this taskforce is supposed to go for exercises near Malaysia in June I think, but they were going to make a stopover in the Gulf in February.

I wonder...

	06-02-2003 17:33									#20
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Ok

There are some serious problems about invading Iraq.

1) The Iraqui's will be fighting for their homeland. They WILL put up more of a fight than the 1st Gulf War.

2) Iraq is a large nation, with marshes, deserts, mountains and plains. Lots of places to hide.

3) The refugee crisis put apon Iraq's neighbours will be massive.

4) The 'Joe Public' of Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia will hate seeing the 'infidel' attacking a Muslim state. Bad for us, good for Al-Quaida.

5) No possible future leader for Iraq. They either have been out of Iraq too long, or don't have much support in Iraq.

6) We could be stuck there for years!

7) Isreal has stated that if Iraq attackes them, they will hit back. I do agree, if Iraq fired SCUDS into Isreal, she has the right to shoot them down, but if Isreali armed forces are seen to be attacking a Muslim state, we will get man at 4) spitting with anger.

8) If 7) happens, other Muslim nations may fall into civil war or an Fundamental Islamic State (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, perhaps even Turkey or Eqypt)

9) If 8) happens, the whole of of the Mid East may become one hornets nest!

10) Getting rid of Saddam may create a 'power vacum'. Here, religious fanaticism may florish without the Ba'ath party supressing it. It happened in post WW1-Germany, post- 1917 Russia, post 1912 China.

So we must deal with all of these problems before we even consider going to war. (And we can't just say 'we cross that bridge when we get to it', that is just being lazy!)