GameBanshee Forums

Well the second resolution no more. The meeting in Spain went well according to many sources. There is a fear the US will go to war. Can someone update this thread with Bush's speech. The main points etc?

Edit: Oh yeah if there is a war, what are the odds? I have Saddam 2 weeks max.

eta..

2 hours and 12 minutes before war.

The speech is in 2 hours? I dont want to read the newspapers tomorrow morning as they will be filled with alot fo Political BS. I just want to know if there will be a war or not and when.

The question is more 'when' than 'if'. The latest news say that Saddam will be given 48-72 hours to leave Iraq, or else...

Leave Iraq? He isnt going anywhere. If that is true, can the US making a rolling strike? Hit the ground running and all that?

Well, that is the big question, isn't it? I guess will see in the next few days/weeks/months...

Saddam is not going to leave Iraq, and he stated this some time ago. Bush will talk to the nation in one hour. It is expected that the US&UK will attack within a few days or so.

Great. And i am flying to Pakistan in April. There goes that. Life is really ****ed up. Why doesnt someone just get rid of Bush. Coup d'etat would make sense right now.

Originally posted by CM
Well the second resolution no more. The meeting in Spain went well according to many sources. There is a fear the US will go to war...

Fear the US will go to war? When there are 250,000 troops and billions of dollars worth of equipment gathered on Iraq's border, "fear of war" is a non-issue. Bush has just been waiting in the hope of getting explicit UN approval of his actions; that's all. Now, there's nothing holding him back.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2857637.stm

Biggest blow to Blair. Cook is out. Not good to lose such a high ranking player at such a stage.

Fable i had the naive thought that Bush wouldnt actually commit to an invasion without International Acceptance. Seems i was an idiot.

Originally posted by CM
Fable i had the naive thought that Bush wouldnt actually commit to an invasion without International Acceptance. Seems i was an idiot.

Not naive or an idiot, Fas. You just expected a statesman who played by the international rules of the game. And we have had that quite often: Bush Sr and Clinton, for example. But Dubya has previously shown a complete disregard for both previously signed treaties and treaties under negotiation. He has shown no qualms about unilaterally doing things his way since getting into office as "the president who always compromises with his opponents."

I am more puzzled by Blair. He genuinely has ethics, and has demonstrated this repeatedly, yet he has made some of the most outrageous, nonsensical statements, IMO, about the need to invade Iraq. I honestly can't understand why he's doing this.

Well, war or not, I just want this thing to end. I'm sick of hearing about it.

Robin Cook's resignation speech was really good (though I didn't hear all of them. I was in a pub! ). He received standing ovation, apparently.

Originally posted by CM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2857637.stm

Biggest blow to Blair. Cook is out. Not good to lose such a high ranking player at such a stage.

Fable i had the naive thought that Bush wouldnt actually commit to an invasion without International Acceptance. Seems i was an idiot.

Yep, saw that earlier today, made me a little bit happy at least.

I also believed that the US wouldn't actually go against the international consensus so totally...I still sort of refuse to believe they really are.

Like Fable, I am totally puzzled by Blairs behaviour...why is he doing this? He has put himself in a no-win situation and most certainly destroyed his formely secure future career in international politics. Very strange...

One problem of Blair is he has been surrounded by his spin doctors and yes-men (or women) for too long and lost contact with reality. He had too big majority in the Commons for 6 years now, and managed to "reform" the Lords by reducing hereditary peers and filled them with "Tony's Clonies" and believed he's popular and his position is safe for quite some time. So, when he realised the opposition to this particular war was actually majority, it was too late.

Originally posted by CM
Fable i had the naive thought that Bush wouldn't actually commit to an invasion without International Acceptance. Seems i was an idiot.

@CM: I did not believe it either. I guess I am suffering from denial, because I still cannot give up on the hope that this is not going to happen. I can't help but wonder, if I had been more cynical, would it have made a difference.

It's official... 48 hours for Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq, or the Us will march in there...


This is truly one of the most idiotic political moves I have ever seen a politician make in my life... One of the most...

Most views here seem to represent the emotional rather than facts (fair enough in times like these).

I think the French really encouraged war by their outrageous behaviour.

I know people dont want war but the argument is a little weak.

I think the problem with the anti-war movement was -
at the 'end of the day' the anti-war people were against going to war against a 'mass murderer' who violated the UN several times with a thing against the US and no amount of 'tortured logic' can seem otherwise .

Originally posted by Aegis
It's official... 48 hours for Saddam and his sons to leave Iraq, or the Us will march in there...

"He should go away from the presidency and let the Americans lead an ordinary life with other nations, not a life of aggression, a policy of aggression against other nations," [Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji] Sabri said. "This policy has brought about disasters to the U.S. So for the U.S. to live properly with the world and for the world nations to live in peace, this crazy man should go."

Bush, not Saddam, should quit

From the BBC News:

Robin Cook has won an unprecedented standing ovation in the House of Commons after telling MPs why he resigned from the government over the looming war with Iraq. Mr Cook said he could not back a march towards a war that did not have international and domestic support.

In a Commons statement that followed his resignation as leader of the House earlier on Monday, he went on to warn that international alliances of all kinds were under threat now that the diplomatic route had been abandoned. Mr Cook, who had been a Labour front-bencher for 17 years, added that despite his resignation he wanted Tony Blair to continue as leader of the Labour Party and as prime minister.

But he said that he would vote against the government's stance on Tuesday. "Neither the international community nor the British public are persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this action in Iraq," he said.

The resignation is seen as a blow to Mr Blair coming just hours before he is due to ask MPs to authorise the use of "all means necessary" to disarm Iraq. Mr Cook said that Iraq's military strength was less than half what it had been at the time of the last Gulf War. It was illogical to argue, therefore, that Iraq presented a threat and moreover that that threat justified war.

Furthermore, he said, Iraq probably had no weapons of mass destruction in the "commonly understood" sense of being a credible threat that could be delivered on "a city target." He drew a comparison over the impatience shown with Iraq over its failure to comply with the will of the UN and the situation in Palestine.

"It is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories," he reflected. The former foreign secretary went on to express alarm that the US administration seemed more interested in regime change that in Iraq's disarmament.

"What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected we would not now be about to commit British troops," he said.

The BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr, called Mr Cook's performance "without doubt one of the most effective brilliant resignation speeches in modern British politics".

He said MPs applauding one another was "simply not done" and there were "pretty sick faces" among the ministers on the front bench. "Its effect will be to rally the dissenters, the people who are going to vote against war tomorrow."