Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 21, 2002, 08:25:20 AM
-
Good for the UK! Showing some backbone! Finger to those in the UK that whined about the treatment of the prisoners too. :)
BRITAIN would be ready to make a nuclear strike
against states such as Iraq if they used weapons of
mass destruction against British forces, Geoff Hoon,
the Defence Secretary, told MPs yesterday.
He issued his warning as officials in Washington and
London privately predicted that military action to try
to topple Saddam Hussein was likely to be launched
at the end of the year.
Mr Hoon was briefing the Commons defence select
committee on the threat posed by four countries
Britain had identified as "states of concern": Iraq,
Iran, Libya and North Korea.
He said that Saddam had already used chemical
weapons against his own people. The possibility
that rogue states would be prepared to use such
weapons again, possibly sacrificing their own
population, could not be ruled out.
He said that dictators such as Saddam "can be
absolutely confident that in the right conditions we
would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.
"What I cannot be absolutely confident about is
whether that would be sufficient to deter them from
using a weapon of mass destruction in the first
place."
Mr Hoon's willingness to confirm readiness to use
nuclear weapons in such circumstances was seen at
Westminster as a clear sign that the Government is
becoming more alarmed that Saddam is developing
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
A joint Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office paper
to the committee said it was a "serious cause for
concern" that states were developing a ballistic
missile capability at the same time as they were
seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Hoon said that Britain could come within range of
missiles fired from the Middle East within the "next
few years".
Although Mr Hoon later denied in the Commons that
any decision had been taken on military action
against Iraq, his comments about the nuclear
deterrent will add to Labour MPs' concern that such
preparations are being actively considered.
His forthrightness was unexpected, because many
Labour MPs are opposed to retaining nuclear
weapons.
In the 1980s Labour was unilateralist and Tony Blair
was briefly a member of the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament, although as party leader he has
backed the nuclear deterrent.
Mr Hoon's comments follow similar noises from
America. Two weeks ago a leaked Pentagon policy
document laid out the possibility of a "devastating
response" to the use of biological or chemical
weapons against American troops.
The Prime Minister intends to use the large
deployment of British fighting forces to Afghanistan
as a political lever to push President Bush into
seeking United Nations approval for any military
action against Iraq.
He supports Mr Bush in his campaign to remove
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and topple
Saddam, but wants to broaden the front.
Downing Street hopes the deployment to
Afghanistan of 1,700 British troops, led by 45
Commando the Royal Marines, a unit specialising in
Arctic warfare, will strengthen his position when he
meets Mr Bush at his Texas ranch after Easter.
"The speed and size of the deployment to
Afghanistan is a cheque that Blair will cash in," a
source said. "He will tell Bush that he needs to carry
the international community with him."
The Foreign Office, in particular, is deeply worried
about the impact that a war in Iraq would have on
the Middle East. But it appears to have been
overruled by Mr Blair.
"The Prime Minister thinks Saddam poses a threat
that has to be met with a strong response," a
source said. "He is feeling gung-ho."
Whitehall officials said that America first made its
request for commandos at the height of Operation
Anaconda this month in a "panicky" response to the
unexpectedly fierce resistance Taliban and al-Qa'eda
fighters put up in the mountains south of Kabul.
The United States suffered its biggest casualties of
the war on the opening day of Anaconda, when
eight Americans and at least three Afghan allies
were killed.
This week America said Anaconda had been
successful, but British officials privately spoke of "a
near disaster" and said many guerrillas appeared to
have slipped away despite American claims to have
killed hundreds of the enemy.
Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, headed
home yesterday after an 11-day tour of the Middle
East in which he received little support for an attack
on Iraq. Instead he was urged to do more to end
the fighting between Israel and the Palestinians.
As Iraq gloated about Mr Cheney's "bitter
disappointment", the Turkish prime minister, Bulent
Ecevit, said he felt greatly relieved that Washington
was not planning imminent action against Iraq.
"This does not mean an operation has been ruled
out," he said. "But I do not think there could be
military action in the coming few months."
-
Within the next 6-8months they will envoke the draft. Unless there is enough volunteers? It seems to me that we are spreading ourselves out quite a bit.
I Don't expect Saddam to run this time,I think he has learned from his past mistakes, and is fortifying his plans and defence. I also believe that he will attack first with chemical weapons.
-
Britain and Iraq have been facing off since WW2.
In 1964, I believe, the then ruler of Iraq deployed troops along the Kuwaiti border and made loud noises about the sovereignty of Kuwait. In response, 42 Commando Royal Marines, along with elements of the SBS and SAS were deployed immediately to Kuwait as a show of strength. The Iraqi's then withdrew.......only to return 27 years later.
They'll be back......and we'll be waiting for em.
(http://www.swoop.com/images/logo_small.jpg)
-
Actually, I believe UK planes are currently patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq at the moment.
-
This is very interesting to me. I think I recall the french making similar statements during the 91 gulf war. I had a professor who suggested that what might have kept Iraq from using Chem/Bio weapons was a suggestion by US diplomats that the US would not change the war aims to include regime change in Iraq, UNLESS they used WMD. Before the citation goblins come running, lets just call this hypothetical (since, after all, I have no citations to give). I remember some people thinking that Kim Il Sung might be zonkers enought to use WMD from his death bed (the again, we were in Japan at the time, and given to paranoia). But none the less, I do wonder if Iraq might use WMD if faced with imenent regime change? "take one for the team" as it were.
-Sikboy
-
Saddam will not hesitate to use all he`s got.He knows he will be going down this time ,no matter what,and we all know he doesn`t give a sh*t about anybody ,that includes he`s own people.
Off course Iraq will be nuked,and countless millions will die and suffer on both sides.
That dipshit should have been dealt and done away with in `91,now it will be a lot bloodier time.
Electric funeral.....what a shame on the human race to let all this happen.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
Saddam will not hesitate to use all he`s got.He knows he will be going down this time ,no matter what,and we all know he doesn`t give a sh*t about anybody ,that includes he`s own people.
Off course Iraq will be nuked,and countless millions will die and suffer on both sides.
That dipshit should have been dealt and done away with in `91,now it will be a lot bloodier time.
Electric funeral.....what a shame on the human race to let all this happen.
Look at the bright side, we always wanted that area for a nice big parking lot, but alas, we won't be able to "park" anything there for a few hundred years..
-
dang. I guess the gasoline i'll put into my car in a few years time will have a heavier isotope and glow in the dark yes?
Frankly, it would be much better to just snipe saddam's head off the face of the earth instead of "deposing" him.
-
I don't really see who taking him out in 1991 would have been any easier. His WMD capability was greater in 1991 (as far as we know anyhow) and if he were hell-bent on staying in power, his use of WMD would have been just as likely then as now. We might even have a better time of it now, since we've had Iraq as World Enemy #1 for the last 10 years, I firmly believe our intel is much more accurate at this point. I think it would have been a mistake to invade in 1991. If you're talking about regime change through covert means, well, that's a different story.
-Sikboy
-
Look at the bright side, we always wanted that area for a nice big parking lot, but alas, we won't be able to "park" anything there for a few hundred years..
I belive Iraq has much archeological treasure of the world wich will be destroyed as well.
The sad part is: Saddam will survive all that,he`s gonna kick it in he`s underground nuke-safe bunker,and western soldiers will have to wade trough radioactive ruins to smoke him out of he`s hole.
It all reminds me to Hitler and all the chance the west had to stop him,but waited untill it was too late.
Saddam will be a lot tougher opponent this time.