The House of Commons

  1. Hello all,
    Just finished watching the Blair speech in the UK parliment over the new draft resolution in the UN..... very compelling.... talked about the principle issue over Iraq was not an issue of time but of willingness, without Iraqi willingness there was no way the inspectors would be able to find his WMD. This on the same day that SH has said he will NOT disarm his Al'Sahoud missiles as required by the UN.... I reckon ladies and gentlemen that this is the turning point...
    Finally SH has managed to cook his own goose..... as I thought he would.... finally we can see in the world as a whole his intention to play the international community like a fiddle.
    If America plus allies had'nt set up shop on the borders of Iraq so early then I reckon we'd already be at war and with far more support than is now present. Just because he'd have told the UN to go stuff itself, when there was no percieved threat.
    regards StuPer
  2. 10 Comments

  3. by   Mimi Wheeze
    You mean to say that SH isn't willing to cooperate with UN inspectors? SH is "playing us like a fiddle?" NOOOO... that just can't be right! I am truly shocked! WOW, who knew?

    Perhaps "America plus allies" set up shop on the Iraqi borders "so early" to put a little pressure on Sociopath Saddam to comply and cooperate. Nah, that couldn't be the case...that would imply that Bush was hoping to prevent war...and everybody knows THAT couldn't be true...
  4. by   eltrip
    Thanks for the update. The news isn't always accessible at work.

    We've been more concerned about the "wintry mix" that has descended upon our area...big surprise, eh?
  5. by   StuPer
    Thx u Mimi for stating to obvious as you see it.... but of course if you'd bothered to read most of the posts I have put up you'd have noticed that I have never stated that SH would'nt try and dodge and hide from the UN inspectors..... I and most people who care to use our brains instead of sarcasm expected it.
    But amazingly we figured that world class weapons inspectors backed up by 'good' intelligence would be able to do the job. However most of us made it plain that if he deliberately impeded the inspectors we would support war.
    And the idea that Bush had a grand plan to put 150,000 troops champing at the bit on Iraq's borders just to call his bluff, then go home is so laughable I'm not even going to construct a sane reply.... you don't spend 3-4 billion to shift men and machines for a bluff. Not unless your on my ward and are in dire need of Lithium.
    regards StuPer
  6. by   Mimi Wheeze
    From what I've seen, your posts all seem to be geared towards "there's no reason to go to war w/Iraq" like we're dealing with a sane leader that doesn't hate us. All of the "world class weapons inspectors" (?) in the world can't inspect what is being hidden and covered up and lied to the UN about. Time has expired for SH. He has been given more chances than he deserves.

    If for some reason, SH starts tomorrow with completely disclosing and telling the truth about his weapons, our troops won't have to go to war. Maybe they'd stay and help Iraq govn't re-structure, but not war. Did you expect Bush to wait until SH decided to start telling the truth before he started depolying our troops? Get real. We've known all along, because of SH's past actions, that we had to be ready for anything.

    Stuper, do you think that if SH hated Austrailia as much as he hates the U.S., you would feel differently? As an American, I feel he is a direct threat to me and my family. Do you feel directly threatened? Seriously, I'm curious.
  7. by   StuPer
    Well Mimi,
    Firstly, you've obviously bought into the Bush propaganda about SH in that he could in some way pose a direct threat to the US... no-one, nowhere, to anyone has been able to link that... they talk of potentials... instead of actuals.
    Secondly could you kindly direct me to any of my posts that have even remotely suggested I believe SH to be "a sane leader that does'nt hate us...." either I'd drunk to much aussie beer and posted something completely off the wall..... or far more likely you have either failed (as mentioned) to even read my posts.... or your putting your own sad interpretation on my words... take your pick.
    The only point you make that I do agree with is that, yes I did not think there was a need to go to war..... when I posted those replies..... As time has moved on and SH is (as I have said in 3-4 previous posts) now trying to play his games more openly, I believe that the international community will be forced to act.... not America on her own..... that was simple aggression.
    You believe somehow SH is a threat to your family... how exactly... what specific threats can you envisage... maybe hes going to drown you in because last month the US bought more oil of the person they're about to bomb than they have done in years.... funny that eh? No... they actual imediate threat to your family come from OBL and North Korea.... both of whom your government is pretending don't exist.... and North Korea CAN hit Australia... and that I AM worried about.
    If you want to worry about imaginary threats thats fine.... me I'll concentrate on the ones that are real and immediate.
    regards StuPer
  8. by   SharonH, RN
    You're right that SH has finally managed to cook his own goose so to speak....However, the issue for many was not whether or not he was/is a madman: that was never in doubt. The question was/is does he pose an immediate and direct threat as Bush claimed? Should the U.S. launch an unilateral attack against Iraq without the support of the rest of the world? The way Bush handled himself was clumsy and undiplomatic and you're right, if he had handled things better it might have been over by now and with a lot more world support. It takes a mighty poor leader to throw away all the sympathy and support that Bush and the U.S. had post-9/11 and make people as suspicious of him as they are of a madman like SH.

    P.S. I still don't think that removing SH will make us "safe" from terrorism, neither do I buy the extremely weak al-Quaida/Iraq link.
  9. by   maureeno
    Tony Blair is having a bit of trouble

    and SH continues to stall but entice

    we will see if he waits until Saturday to destroy the missiles
    but even if he destroys them
    he, and much of the world
    believe war is coming.
  10. by   StuPer
    To be honest Maureeno I think SH is now making the mistakes in his cat/mouse games that most of us thought he would, and that this will allow the US and UK to get the backing they need in the UN... Both countries leaders have shown they are capable of ignoring public opinion, and SH is now playing into their hands.
    I also believe that if SH refuses to destroy his missiles it will giove an indication to the rest of the world that it is'nt the US/UK that Sh is fighting (despite the rhetoric), but the UN and the notion that he has to give up his weapons. He despises having the UN inspectors in HIS country..... as I've said before if Bush had'nt been in such a hurry, then he would have almost certainly got his UN resolution by now and have public opinion on his side.
    regards StuPer
  11. by   maureeno
    No way do I agree or sympathize with SH, he is a rat
    whose games I detest
    my worry is for the untoward consequences of war
    more hatred, more terror,more violence
  12. by   donmurray
    Tony's bit of trouble ended with 121 of his own side voting against him. This is the biggest party revolt against its own leadership in the UK for more than 100 years. He won the vote because the opposition party voted with him! The vote was on the proposition that the case for war has not yet been made.
    One ex-cabinet minister made a telling point on the denigration of the UN that no-one has done more to do demean that organistion than GWB, in repeatedly announcing that should the UN not follow the US wishes, then the US would ignore it! The "Sheriff" requests/demands a warrant, and announces his intention to execute it before the "court" has written it!