Surely we should all be sending some troops here...

[Attalus]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: And I was so resisting the urge to make comments about how this is the kind of thing troops should be doing instead of invading Iraq [img]smile.gif[/img]

And the difference between Saddam and the Sudanese government is????

[shamrock_uk]

Firstly, just an update on the situation from a BBC correspondent who was watching when it all happened:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4000705.stm

Secondly, I agree with everything you said John D, apart from the bit about butt-kicking Actually, I was for the war in Iraq originally. (watches everyone's jaw hit the floor ) Then with the complete lack of WMD or any kind of imminent threat I was much less enthusiastic, but still wouldn't really lose any sleep over getting rid of Saddam. The trouble is though, if human rights is your reason then there are much worse places in the world than Iraq was. The things I oppose about the Iraq war are the 'gung-ho' attitude, the feeling I can't shake that it was a son continuing his father's legacy, the fact that oil was a factor and the fact that the policy-makers have no clue about how to successfully nation-build and therefore the situation will be made ten times worse.

I agree with your comments about the Kosovo war, I think once again Britain did the lions share of the European work and you're quite correct about the American's shouldering the major burden. However, and it's a big however, the American's have done everything in their power to thwart attempts to create some kind of European Defence Force (which is, if we're honest, what's needed for Europe to ever become a successful military power). There's a lot of hypocrisy going on, where the administration complains on the one hand, and blocks and opposes on the other hand.

Stratos - I believe he had a brief stint there, although I've always been under the impression that Afghanistan was very much where he kept ending up. I suppose all the countries around Sudan are obvious choices - any poor country which is unable to secure its borders would be some kind of haven. If we can have terrorist cells in the US and Europe with the kind of anti-terrorism networks we have, it's small wonder that there are plenty over there I guess.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Attalus: quote: Originally posted by shamrock_uk: And I was so resisting the urge to make comments about how this is the kind of thing troops should be doing instead of invading Iraq [img]smile.gif[/img]

And the difference between Saddam and the Sudanese government is???? [/QUOTE]The Sudanese aren't as oily as the Iraqis?

One thing they have in common is that neither had WoMD.

[John D Harris]

Sham, I hate to hear the USA is put'n presure to stop a European Defense force, each country or allaince of countries should decide for themselves what they need and want. Which administration was putting presure? or have all of them of late?

Now I will say this about Mama (UK) the old woman ain't as tough as she once was, but she don't take crap from anybody., and you don't really want to mess with her. She doesn't have a problem turn'n somebody over her Knee and deliver'n a spank'n.

There maybe other places that need cleaning out also, but you have to start somewhere, and we had troops nearby, so Iraq was as good as any place to start open'n up the first can of woop'ass. Gung-ho-ness is part of the American animal, it may get bred out, but I for one hope it isn't. Motivation goes alongway in a scrap.

[shamrock_uk]

I think it's been consistent opposition from when it was first mentioned. The Pentagon hates the idea of having anything separate from NATO, the White House hates having anything run by the French or the Germans, the British public feel much the same way about Europe in general so there are a lot of things conspiring against it.

I'm probably being a little harsh on the US administration - it's probably the British government that's the largest factor in blocking it actually (largely because Europe would probably ignore the US on an issue like this, but they need Britain to make it work), but they cite US concerns as a reason.

Just found this on CNN:

Powell also strengthened U.S. opposition to European Union plans for its own defense force, saying: "The United States cannot accept independent EU structures that duplicate existing NATO capabilities." EU members forsee a defense wing with a permanent EU military planning and command cell based at NATO's military headquarters near the southern Belgian city of Mons. But Washington has been highly critical of the plans saying it risked undermining NATO unity and would waste scarce resources by duplicating existing alliance facilities. Britain, and some other EU nations, have echoed the American criticism, but UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has worked closely with France and Germany to find a compromise.

The last bit is rubbish I think, although it was originally Blair's brainchild along with France, I think he would prioritise not annoying the American's much more than trying to push something so politically controversial in Britain through parliament for only a limited thanks abroad from President Chirac et al.

I could be wrong and cynical...you never know. But they've been talking about it since 1999, so I'll be most surprised if it happens anytime soon.

[General Nosaj]

The Sudan does not produce scores of terrorists or threatens the security of the west so it will be one of the last in line to be dealt with.

[aleph_null1]

I'm afraid you're right, General Nosaj. As atrocious as these (and other) human rights violations are, Deep Thought has already set the priorities on force deployment for the foreseeable future ...