USA ready to fight 'without UK'

Discussion in 'Wasteland' started by peter2002, Mar 11, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502

    US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq - with or without Britain.

    He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq.

    But Downing Street has expressed shock and surprise at his remarks, insisting that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front.

    BBC correspondents have said the telephones are ringing "red hot" between Number 10 and Washington to find out exactly what Mr Rumsfeld meant.

    "There's no doubt that Tony Blair is in a very, very weak position indeed"


    I guess instead of the "coalition of the willing", it will be the coalition of the one.

    Pete :)
  2. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    I think a lot of these countries are scared that Saddam may do something to them since they are closer to this killer. Inaction is never a solution to known killer/tyrants. Like Hitler like Saddam you have to stand up to these guys. Inaction only plays into their schemes. War sucks and no one wants to see people die except those that dont value human life like Saddam and the Hitlers of history. Sometimes Freedom and Values must be defended and acted upon, if not tyrants are given free reign. we can never allow that to ever happen.
  3. macrumors 604







    *crack* Isreal was bombed 28 times today when the US went alone and attacked Iraq without U.N permission.
  4. macrumors newbie

    What a riot you conservatives are. Although you don't make much sense, at least you're good for a laugh.
  5. macrumors member

    Right- because today, Irael is an idyllic land that never suffers any sort of violence from its enemies. :confused:

    As for UN "permission"- the UN is a forum for countries to communicate diplomatically. It does not claim to give "permission" to any country to do anything.

    That's like saying you went out and bought a PC without the "permission" of the MacRumors message board posters!

    Finally, our enemies care not one whit for the UN, and do not recognize its legitimacy. UN sanction- or lack of it- for any US actions is not going to offset or trigger future terrorist actions.
  6. macrumors 604


    personally i think liberals like you are the ones who give people a good laugh. whats so wrong with what he said.

  7. macrumors G4


    O M F G, I almost pissed my pants when I saw that screen name with that post.
  8. macrumors 68000


    C'mon dude, no strong nation is scared of Iraq. Not even its next-door neighbor and mortal enemy Iran is scared. Keep in mind Iraq couldn't even defeat Iran when Iraq was, like, 5 times stronger than it is now. If Saddam can't even beat Iran how is he going to be any threat to a major industrial power like Britain, France, or Germany? The only people Saddam is a threat to are the defenseless (Kuwait, his own people, etc.).

    There are valid reasons to take out Saddam, but to say he's a huge threat or link him with terrorism is ludicrous. The Bush administration is incompetent. All Bush had to freakin' say was that The U.S. and Iraq were not completely at peace but rather under a conditional cease-fire since the Gulf War, and Iraq has flagrantly violated the terms of that cease-fire, therefore the U.S. is justified to pick up right where it left off and continue the war.

    But no, instead of acting intelligently and making coherent arguments, our president and his administration have chosen to make inane arguments that have turned world opinion against what should have been an easily justifiable action.

    I hate Bush :mad: :mad: :mad:

    I can't think of one good thing that this president has done. Everything he touches he messes up, just like he messed up just about every business venture or endeavor he's led. Hopefully things in the end things will turn out OK for the U.S. politically and economically, but it will be in spite of rather than because of our president.
  9. macrumors 604


    hold up, im confused. i never said anyone was scared of iraq. or where you saying "c'mon" to the liberal comment and then starting a whole sentence.

  10. macrumors 68000



    blessed be :D this is the first time i hear you say something sympathetic to the victims :D im not saying you havent in the past but i havent seen any previous posts like this one.

    i understand your desire to strike, i just wish we could do it in a more efficient manor. why cant we go into saddams palace, kill his guards and remove him? god i wish it was that easy.

    anyway, heres to a quick removal of saddam with no casualties. gotta hope for the best.

    oh and just incase BadintheSac reads this, yes i do realize this is most likely impossible, but have we tried? no, and why not?
  11. macrumors 68000


    i like your points. and your right, bush should have approached this with the facts that we are under a cease fire and if saddam continues to ignore the agreements of that cease fire then we will strike. i havent heard him bring this up once. or anyone else for that matter. even when he has been asked point blank, WHY are we doing this. he never brought up the fact that it was because of the cease fire agreement has been broken. i dont know why, i would of only helped his case.
  12. macrumors member

    Every time the president and others in the administration say that Saddam isn't disarming, they are saying that he isn't abiding by the terms of the cease-fire that compelled him to disarm. While they have spent a lot of time focused on the threat of Saddam handing off weapons to terrorists, they haven't ignored the fact that Saddam isn't complying with terms of the cease-fire. If you haven't heard them bring this up, you haven't been listening very closely!
  13. macrumors 68000


    Right, but a coherent argument depends on not bringing in irrelevant points. Otherwise you can appear to have lost the argument because people will pounce on your weak points, which is exactly what has happened to the Bush administration.
  14. macrumors member

    You and I are not the only audience to whom the administration is directing their arguments. Many people don't care if Iraq is in violation of a cease-fire, but the potential for terrorists getting weapons is more persuasive to them. Some are persuaded by the human rights angle, and some are persuaded by the idea that the UN should be a relevant body in international relations. This is why you see a fractured rhetoric from the administration. Based on the polls in the United States, it's working quite well.
  15. macrumors 68000


    Well Dont Hurt Me's first sentence and main argument was:
    "I think a lot of these countries are scared that Saddam may do something to them since they are closer to this killer."

    And you said:
    "whats so wrong with what he said"

    So I was just answering your question and pointing out that it's ludicrous to suggest that the countries opposing the war are doing so out of fear of Iraq.

    And I also very much disagree with people who keep comparing Saddam to Hitler. Saddam is not and can never be as powerful as Hitler, who was dictator of an industrial powerhouse second in military and economic power only to the U.S. (even surpassing a Britain and France that were still at the twilight of their empires). I think to compare Saddam to Hitler is an insult to the millions of brave and resolute people that had to fight with every ounce of their strength for years to defeat a true monster, not a two-bit dicator like Saddam.

    I'm not against deposing Saddam, but Saddam is not a threat to his neighbors the way Hitler was. Hitler defeated France in 6 weeks and devastated Britain and Russia before finally losing. Saddam couldn't even get more than a few miles into Iran. Sure, he took over Kuwait, but that's like Germany taking over Luxembourg or Lichtenstein (ok, maybe more like Belgium or the Netherlands).
  16. macrumors 604


    ah isee, completly miss that. i doubt very few if not anybody is scared of saddam. thanks for the clear up.

  17. macrumors regular

    Hate to say it but Bush is the worst president the US has everhad...IMO...our prime minister is a close second...(dumb)
  18. macrumors 68000


    Yeah, man. Bring back freakin' Gerald Ford! Anything's better than this guy :(
  19. macrumors 68000



    sorry, i only heard him say that saddam isnt responding to the requests of the un stating that he must rid himself of WMD. i'll keep it in mind next time he speaks.

    p.s. did bush really dodge the draft? anyone, anyone?
  20. macrumors 604





    As for the isreali comment, that was unnecessary since I am jewish and i had 2 close friends living there. We are gonna be directly crushing both iraqi's and Isrealies. By attacking iraq they hamas is gonna go after isreal.
    I'll make a Picture if you need to see it clearer.

    What with you and quoting "permission" did i spell it right? I think permission is spelled right...

    The UN resolutions say that no country should attack iraq without going
    A) Through proper channels (security members of UN)
    B) Being an ass and going along against U.N resolutions.

    Whatever, have a fun and happy war. While your over there say hi to the economy. You might need to dig because we are currently ignoring it.

    Based on Military records whenever the Military was having a drug test he missed it or was suddenly transfered to another military base.
    Whoops. :rolleyes: People think that rumors of that and a possible cocaine addiction add to the military movement.
  21. macrumors 68000


  22. macrumors member

    The only thing irrelevant at this point is the United Nations. I believe that the UN has no authority to dictate US foreign policy. Clearly Hans Blix is under a lot of pressure from all members of the security council. But it was totally IMPROPER of him to leave out the discovery of DUAL-USE bomblets and a drone in last week's report to the UN.

    I would hate to have his job.
  23. macrumors member

    Did Clinton really cheat on his wife and get a blow job in the oval office from an intern? Who cares!!!!

    I think that at this point no one really cares about Bush's past history because he's doing a damn good job. Few presidents have had to deal with the challenges that we face today.
  24. macrumors 601


    No more than Clinton, or any other politician. Look, you are not anit-war, you are anti-Bush. Educate yourself, and you will find that Dr. Rice has been saying for months that this a violation of the cease fire. So has Bush.

    Oh, and keep up your personal attacks on me, and you are going to find yourself in next year before you know it.
  25. macrumors 68000


    PERSONAL ATTACK ON YOU oh man. hey do any compare to this " you are going to find yourself in next year before you know it. "

    So, how far are you willing to go with that statement? please, tell me.

Share This Page