|
Post by Johnmcd on Jan 25, 2005 6:04:41 GMT -3
Otto, So where do we stand? I’m quite clear where we stand. As I mentioned to you, quite accurately, that Saddam was armed primarily by the Soviet Union and France (Please understand that I was out on operations 3 times in the Gulf, so was well briefed on the threat presented) The US hardware (the 40 to 60 Heuys) were sold to Iraqi civilian companies but then taken over by the military, some would say – predictably.
We should not ignore uncomfortable realities while facts are slapping us in the face. Yours is an old story with the same old punchline!
Now let’s bring things up to date. Who’s going to cause the next crisis in the world – will it be that mad monster in the West Wing? or will it be that clique that of Islamist hardliners as they pursue their nuclear ambitions?
Where do you stand here?
Best wishes, John.
|
|
|
Post by Maquilishuat on Jan 25, 2005 7:22:44 GMT -3
Hello John:
You never stated that Iraq was armed "primarily" by anyone.
You wrote:
"Not true, not true at all. The weapons he had in his arsenal were either:
a. Soviet (T54's, T72's and air superiority aircraft b. French (Aircraft) and the odd nuclear reactor!) c. Chinese (surface to surface missiles)
All of the above countries were against coalition action - so please be more accurate in your postings!"
You ignored the biological and chemical weapons widely used, as they were not in your list not even in the list of the link you provided.
Now tell me who ignores uncomfortable realities!
About your interesting question, of who is going to cause the next crisis, this is quite obvious. You may already hear the drums of war against another country in the region, based on the same flawed reasons we witnessed before.
Then we will hear the same excuses, the world is better off someone, etc, etc. Now imagine how many will die on both sides, or carry their lives on a miserable way, marked forever by another needless war?
Nuclear ambitions. How can you see someone else's ambitions? You have to see real things in order to act, not just ambitions.
Another subject, forgotten by all media and by all analysts; does not anyone ever think about a peace treaty anymore? It worked in the past, perhaps could work again.
Saludos, Otto
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jan 25, 2005 10:29:31 GMT -3
Hi Otto, At least we can agree now that the Soviet Union, France and China were the prime armourers of Saddam’s arsenal. Though happy to admit; that I have not got a clue where Saddam got his bio/chem weapon from. (perhaps his own manufacture? After all, if a terrorist, here in London, can produce bio/chem’s in his own back room, what could Saddam produce with the wide array of resources and contacts he had! Perhaps this is why those weapons were not listed by the Stockholm institute for peace – who listed weapon imports only?) All I know that he unilaterally and aggressively used the conventional weapons from the above countries and most certainly slaughtered untold thousands with bio/chem weapons. But you know this already.
You say, “Not mentioning things” Then why do you leave bare the fact that Iraqi elections that are taking place next week? Do you too believe that it is blasphemy for a person to vote above the rule of God as prescribed by extremist Islamic groups? You Vote – You Die! This is their message. I don’t associate you with this view, though wonder that your lack of comment here is blindness of fact.
Drums of war. I think the US will be more restrained in their approach to Iran, for how long I don’t know – perhaps only in extremis. However, the ruling Iranian Mullahs are baying for ‘infidel’ blood at every opportunity as they try to hold together a country that has suffered the misery of fundamentalism brought about by the 25 year old Islamic revolution. Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are also well documented. Britain, France and Germany are taking the lead in ensuring that the UN’s policy of nuclear weapon proliferation is upheld in that country. So far the Mullahs have just simply got on with uranium enrichment and ‘tossed’ the UN off. How long this will go on will be determined by the few elite Mullahs who have no meaningful peaceful use for uranium other than to produce nuclear weapons. The US, in an ‘end game’, may see current negotiations as appeasement of oppressors and simply whack their nuclear production line and be done with a potential regional threat.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Jan 29, 2005 20:51:41 GMT -3
John,
You talk about "Mullahs".
Iran has a democratic elected government. It doesn't mean it exactly like in the USA. Please note that in their Parliament there are a certain number of places reserved exclusively to the representants of different religions, among them Jews. Do you know how many Muslim members are in the US Congress? NONE...
I know there is a strong religious weight in their government, but after all, you have a Chamber of the Lords and a Queen...
Anyway, it is THEIR country, not yours.
Your quote: "Tehran’s nuclear ambitions are also well documented. Britain, France and Germany are taking the lead in ensuring that the UN’s policy of nuclear weapon proliferation is upheld in that country."
Well, israel's are well documented too. Maybe you can explain me the difference...
By the way, what gives the UK the right to have nuclear weapons? Why has Iran not that right, keeping in mind that TWO nuclear powers (USA & UK) are talking openly of attacking it?
best - Javier
PD: How many times has Iran invaded Britain? How many times has Britain invaded Iran?
|
|
|
Post by Johnmcd on Jan 30, 2005 12:36:17 GMT -3
Javier, On this great day when Iraqis go to the polls across the border in Iran - they have no such thing and certainly no democracy to boast about. Your fact book analysis of Iranian politics is very naïve. But you are right, what they do in Iran is Iranian business and not ours. But please read on…<br> Last week (31/01) Iran’s interior minister warned that elections may not take place due to a row between reformers and hardliners. This only underlines the dictatorial position of the country’s president, the Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Appointed for life, and overrides all other authorities including those elected through suffrage. Power in Iran is held by him and kept for him by the Guardian Council, an un-elected body that actually chooses political candidates. So far they have dismissed some 3600 candidates, mostly reformist democrats from standing in the next election. Check this out yourself!
Essentially, Iran is a dictatorship.
Iran and nuclear weapons. It is the UN that is monitoring nuclear development in Iran. It is the UN that has highlighted the threat posed to the region by the hardliners if they start to enrich uranium. Britain, France and Germany are also monitoring events. Why should we be worried? Iran does not recognise Israel and has openly stated that its aim is to see the state destroyed. This was reiterated just days before the world remembered the 60 anniversary of the holocaust.
Like any other sane person I would like to see all weapons of mass destruction - no matter who holds them. Last thing we need is a religious hardliner with a trigger on such weapons.
Best wishes, John.
|
|
caton
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by caton on Jan 30, 2005 20:39:59 GMT -3
John,
I will try to reply you ASSAP.
meantime, I FULLY AGREEwith that " I would like to see all weapons of mass destruction - no matter who holds them. Last thing we need is a religious hardliner with a trigger on such weapons."
Javier
|
|