French opposition

[bamcgee]

Why are the French so strongly opposed to war against Iraq? Brushing aside the somewhat naive assumption that they are a peace-loving nation (huh?), they must have something significant at stake that they would lose if war occurred. I am not sure of specifics, but I could speculate:

1) they have traded illegally with Iraq and fear it being uncovered during an invasion to their embarrassment.
2) they have significant oil claims that would be lost if the US invaded. I'm not aware of the particulars, but I do know that both France and Russia have deals worked out as soon as sanctions are lifted. These contracts would likely be voided if the government fell.
3) they feel the US is getting too big for its britches, so they're going to use their disproportionately large influence as a permanent security council member to gain concessions and generally make things difficult before invasion.

Frankly (heh heh), does France really believe that Iraqi citizens would be worse off after the US removes Saddam? Whose interests are they really protecting? As much as their leaders say otherwise, does anyone believe that "because war is wrong" is a sufficient reason? Listening to Russia and Germany say things like that is borderline hilarity.

What bothers me the most is how come the media doesn't examine the angles, only reports the spins of the foreign ministers? Or am I just missing the good articles?

[Qwikshot]

The French are against the U.S., simply because it is the strongest world power as of now. They think that by opposing it, they are helping maintain a balance. At least that is what www.slate.com had about it...I got a kick, one French diplomat complained that the hostility against the U.S. was because they didn't support France during the Treaty of Versailles...Gotta the love the French.

[Fritz]

Here is the problem - the goddammed french are a bunch of liars!

For instance, I put a REAL frenchman in my blender. Did I get french sauce? No sir. All I got was a mess.

[Drake]

Ha!

[MizzouRah]

I'm going to stop eating french fries, french toast, and french pastries.



Todd

[bamcgee]

an unidentified source in the gov called France and Germany the "axis of weasels."

perhaps their flip flop helped push Powell, who staked his credibility on going through the UN, to a more hawklike stance.

[The Afoci]

I refused to reply to a thread that has a title "French opposition". It is too unrealistic, even for the internet.

[Tasan]

One thing I've read about France is that they use a substantial amount of Iraqi oil, and an Iraq controlled by a US puppet is something they are not really interested in because of it.

[Bee]

Originally posted by The Afoci
I refused to reply to a thread that has a title "French opposition". It is too unrealistic, even for the internet.

LOL.

Reads kind of like Military Intelligence doesn't it?

:D

[EagleFan]

You really have to change the title of this thread, I can't avoid the involuntary laugh reflex every time I read it. People think I'm crazy, well, maybe even more than normal. :D

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by bamcgee
an unidentified source in the gov called France and Germany the "axis of weasels."

That was actually made up as satire by a blogger on the internet....then was published in Europe as being true the next day.

[EagleFan]

I saw a great editorial cartoon about the situation. It shows a French diplomat standing in Paris. In the background is a mushroom cloud and other bombs falling from the sky. He is saying to a UN representative "Yeah, but do they have any MORE nukes."

[Qwikshot]

Gotta love the french...

[Buddy Grant]

Maybe they just are not as turned on by war as we all are, or maybe they just chicken, or maybe they don't have an election coming up. Could also be that their geographic proximity makes them less interested in a conflict unless there was a valid reason for one.

[tucker342]

I know it's a crazy thought, but maybe they don't want French citizens to die in an unnecessary war. Crazy isn't it, that there's a leader that isn't as trigger happy as Bush.

[Alf]

A little personnal comment by a frenchman.

We had 2 world war on our territory in a not so distant history (a lot of veterans are still alive, even from WWI). We also had a HUGE number of young soldiers die because of the war. So the basic idea of going to war always has the drawback of seeing your own people die. War is not clean, war is dirty !

Going to war should be the ultimate response (that's the first time I agree with President Chirac the thief/liar).

tucker342 and buddy Grant last comments do make a lot of sense too.

War is not a game ! War is about life and death !

[fantastic flying froggies]

Some more French input.

I don't think France is opposed to war against Iraq as such. France is more against the US becoming the self-appointed World Police and going to war on its own. Iraq now, who else tomorrow ? Do it thru the proper channels in the UN...

The economic aspect mentionned by Tasan is also undoubtedbly true, but hey, why do you think the US want to invade ? Are you so naive that you think it is for the good of the Iraqi people, or for the oil fields ?
And before you flame me, yes, personnaly I do believe they would be better off without Saddam. Unfortunately, today in the world maybe 75%, if not more, of all countries live in some kind of dictature, whether military, communist, islamist,... I don't like that one bit, but I also don't think the US should militarily take each such government down one by one...

[ACStrider]

I think there's one perspective that a lot of people aren't taking into account. One reason why Bush and his administration are so vehement about ousting Saddam and other regimes are because these terrorist states have declared war on us first. September 11th was the first (actually, the third of significance if you examine it closely) of a series of attacks against the United States and its symbols of power. In Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech he set forward a doctrine of eradicating terrorists AND THE GOVERNMENTS that support them. In the administrations eyes, they are one and the same. I don't know why this hasn't been emphasised, but there is very strong evidence that after the initial attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq provided medical services to fleeing Al-guida (I never spell that one correctly) operatives before they went on their way. We know that in the past Saddam has sponsered global terrorism and that for years he has given money to families of terrorist bombers who targeted Israel.

So where am I going with this? When the proposition of taking action (and probably going to war) is brought before the UN, it shouldn't be a surprise that the US and the UK are the primary supporters and that other nations (primarily France and Russia) are opposed. Consistantly throughout history the guiding force of international diplomacy is national interest. Why is the US and the UK so gung ho about war? Maybe the fact that they are the primary targets for these terrorists has something to do with it. You don't hear of many terrorist attacks going on in Libyian soil, or groups acting against French embasies around the world. What could possibly be behind French and Russian reluctance for war? Could the fact that economic trade deals between these nations and Iraq are in place might have something to do with it? Could it be that neither of these nations are threatened by international terrorism?

You can't really blame these nations opposed to war for being so opposed. After all, their national interests lay elsewhere. To expect nations to participate in global activity simply because it is the right thing to do is naive and hopelessly optimistic.

[Alf]

There is no proof that Al-Quaieda = Irak. Ben Laden comes from Yemen so why not bomb yemen either if you want to fight terrorism ?!

[Darkiller]

you have to understand one thing :

it's not war for what it is ...I mean, common, the United States versus tiny Irak is not a war...it's a blowout if it happens and everyone knows that. Where's the glory there ?

Why do you want that much to go there ?
for the "evil" Saddam ? for the sake of "saving the world from bad boy Saddam ??"
course not, he would have been killed by the CIA or the FBI long ago then...it's because of oil matters.

Why don't you go fight Afghanistan then ? why don't you go help us in Ivory Coast then ??
sure..no petroleum out there...no financial interest for the US.

Then again, Irak means something bigger to you.
For us, it is just a little country that has a moron as a leader, a guy that , I agree, should be killed right away.
but for that one guy do you need a SECOND WAR in ten years ???? involving ALL THE ALLIES of the US ???

that's ridiculous.
And what's more ridiculous is the need of shooting-friendly Bush to justify himself and his operations...

We're not idiots and we don't take your president's words seriously when he talks about IRAK.
Why can't he stop being an hypocryte and say clear and loud : "yes we go to fight IRAK because we need that oil" LOL...everyone out there knows it...so let's not pretend to send any human/social messages in this fight...if so, then again, why don't you join on the MANY OTHER FRONTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A DICTATOR IS IN PLACE AND WOULD NEED THE US AS WELL.

[fantastic flying froggies]

To ACSTrider : Just for info, a french oil tanker was attacked last october 6th. Action attributed to Al-Quaida.

In 95, a wave of terrosits attacks killed many people in Paris underground stations. Actions attributed to islamists
fundamentalists.

Last november or december in Russia, a band of Tchetchen (sp ?)terrorists took about 300 hostages in the Moscow Opera. Russian specials troops stormed the place, roughly 100 killed...

(and others I don't remember at the top of my head...)

Your point is actually quite valid, but slighty misinformed.

[Alf]

Some of our engineers in Pakistan were also attacked (read KILLED) last year, so we are aware of terrorism.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by fantastic flying froggies
Some more French input.

I don't think France is opposed to war against Iraq as such. France is more against the US becoming the self-appointed World Police and going to war on its own. Iraq now, who else tomorrow ? Do it thru the proper channels in the UN...



How to read this:

France does not mind the US doing all the work, but they want to approve things. Makes 'em feel like they are still important.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Fritz
How to read this:

France does not mind the US doing all the work, but they want to approve things. Makes 'em feel like they are still important.

Which reminds me of that old rule of thumb about giving very short men guns & badges being a bad idea.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Cant believe I am defending the French. ;)

Yes or no. Did France take the same stance in 1991?

Did France offer military aid to the coalition in 1991?

One could make the case the UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important, but that would be stating the obvious.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Which reminds me of that old rule of thumb about giving very short men guns & badges being a bad idea.

There's another old rule of thumb too:

Never give a lackey a reason to think on their own.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
One could make the case the UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important, but that would be stating the obvious.

Ah yes, we created the permament member veto because it maximized our imortance in the international community.

Tell me, who was the last American Secretray General of the UN?

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by Alf
There is no proof that Al-Quaieda = Irak. Ben Laden comes from Yemen so why not bomb yemen either if you want to fight terrorism ?!

Bombing Yemen may very well be the next step if the Bush administration considers it a threat. It would certainly make their efforts consistant wouldn't it? Like I said, the administration has information which suggests that Iraq has supported Al-Quaieda...doesn't necessarily equate them, but according to the Bush doctrine, those who support terrorists are just as guilty as those who are.

[HornedFrog Purple]

None. Point?

Permanent member vetos go both ways, but again that would be stating the obvious.

Name the 5 permanent members of the Security Council and the reasons they were appointed.

[Fritz]

I am just saying that if the "UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important" we made some poor design and implementation choices.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by Darkiller
you have to understand one thing :

it's not war for what it is ...I mean, common, the United States versus tiny Irak is not a war...it's a blowout if it happens and everyone knows that. Where's the glory there ?

I don't think anyone is doing this for personal glory, but I can only speak for myself and what I understand of the Bush administration.

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why do you want that much to go there ?
for the "evil" Saddam ? for the sake of "saving the world from bad boy Saddam ??"
course not, he would have been killed by the CIA or the FBI long ago then...it's because of oil matters.

If the Bush administration is oil hungry, why is he proposing research into alternative fuels? Why is it that all of the proposals for aftermath of a potential war involve giving all oil rights to the replacement government?

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why don't you go fight Afghanistan then ? why don't you go help us in Ivory Coast then ??
sure..no petroleum out there...no financial interest for the US.

We've already fought in Afghanistan and utterly routed the Taliban. You raise a good point of assisting in the Ivory Coast...if there is terrorist forces in that area of the world. Maybe we should look that direction, but realistically we can only do so much. We've already activated nearly 100,000 reserves and that's just for Iraq.

Originally posted by Darkiller
Then again, Irak means something bigger to you.
For us, it is just a little country that has a moron as a leader, a guy that , I agree, should be killed right away.
but for that one guy do you need a SECOND WAR in ten years ???? involving ALL THE ALLIES of the US ???.

You're right, we shouldn't be even considering war right now. We should have taken care of it in the first place.

Originally posted by Darkiller
that's ridiculous.
And what's more ridiculous is the need of shooting-friendly Bush to justify himself and his operations...

Again, good point. If this affair is our business, then we probably shouldn't need to go to the UN. But if Bush is shooting friendly, why would he go to the other side of the world to pick a conflict for oil? Couldn't he find some excuse to intervene in the Venesulan conflict...plenty of oil there and it probably would be a lot easier.

Originally posted by Darkiller
We're not idiots and we don't take your president's words seriously when he talks about IRAK.
Why can't he stop being an hypocryte and say clear and loud : "yes we go to fight IRAK because we need that oil" LOL...everyone out there knows it...so let's not pretend to send any human/social messages in this fight...if so, then again, why don't you join on the MANY OTHER FRONTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A DICTATOR IS IN PLACE AND WOULD NEED THE US AS WELL. ...

I never said that you were idiots and actually tried to give the opposite impression in the first post. Each nation has their own legitimate national interest, and I don't expect them to deviate from it just because some other country says so. Notice that our anti-terrorism front hasn't been limited to just Iraq. We've been fighting in Afghanistan, and rooting out terror cells within our own country and around the world. Sadly, I'm sure this is the beginning of many conflicts. I really appreciate your comments, and like I said, no disrespect intended to yourself or France.

[HornedFrog Purple]

So why are you dissing the French for poor design? Maybe to give the rest of the world a voice? What a stupid idea...

The point is France took the same stance in 1991, meetings were held and France after deliberating on their own decided the coalition was the course of action. They also assisted militarily, your feelings about the French aside.

When the UN was formed, the permanent members were grossly in NATO's favor led by the United States. Now luckily the world has more of a voice, which is what you want in terms of world affairs since that is what this affair with Iraq is supposed to be.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by fantastic flying froggies
To ACSTrider : Just for info, a french oil tanker was attacked last october 6th. Action attributed to Al-Quaida.

In 95, a wave of terrosits attacks killed many people in Paris underground stations. Actions attributed to islamists
fundamentalists.

Last november or december in Russia, a band of Tchetchen (sp ?)terrorists took about 300 hostages in the Moscow Opera. Russian specials troops stormed the place, roughly 100 killed...

(and others I don't remember at the top of my head...)

Your point is actually quite valid, but slighty misinformed.

Sorry, I did forget about those incidents. I didn't know about the October 6th incident, though. I guess with all the activity going on, the attention surrounds the US and discussion surrounding our efforts. I'm getting the US media after all. :) Normally I'm on top of things like that, but on the fly nothing came to mind. Thanks for the note.

[ACStrider]

And may I also add in my "God bless the French" moment, I don't believe enough thanks was publicly given for your help in rescuing our citizens in the Ivory Coast. I think a big "Thank you" from myself is in order. ;)

[HornedFrog Purple]

All France has stated is to wait for the February 14th inspector reports and time to absorb the information presented by Powell. They also proposed increasing the number of inspectors to three times the amount they have now, although remember the speeches were already prepared and they did not have foreknowledge of the satellite photos Powell presented showing Iraq "cleaning up" potential weapon sites.

The Russian Federation also said they wanted time to deliberate this information. I dont see anything wrong with that.

[Fritz]

The point of yours that I am addressing is that "one could make the case the UN was formed in the first place to make the US feel important."

Please try to make that case.

----
FYI: The United Nations predates NATO by several years.

[HornedFrog Purple]

The case has been made, you're not seeing it. I cant help you see it.

You are also not addressing these direct questions:

Did France take the same stance in 1991?

Did France offer military aid to the coalition in 1991?

I appreciate the history lesson but it is unnecessary. Do you not see the stage of events here? Do you not see why one thing led to another?

[Fido]

Originally posted by Alf
We had 2 world war on our territory in a not so distant history (a lot of veterans are still alive, even from WWI). We also had a HUGE number of young soldiers die because of the war. So the basic idea of going to war always has the drawback of seeing your own people die. War is not clean, war is dirty !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

[Fritz]

You will excuse me if I don't see any case at all. Perhaps you can direct me to it.

I am ONLY addressing this.

----


Now I see where you are going with "did French help in 91."

Yes, they did send some forces. I should not have said "all."

[Fido]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why do you want that much to go there ?
for the "evil" Saddam ? for the sake of "saving the world from bad boy Saddam ??" course not, he would have been killed by the CIA or the FBI long ago then...it's because of oil matters.

Th FBI had no international connections or authority, and the CIA has been greatly limited in what it can and cannot do. In the 70s this woudl not have been an issue, the CIA would have simply killed him and been done with it if they chose, but things are different today.

Besides, eliminitaing Sadam would not accomplish anything as one of his underlings woudl simply assume power and theregime would continue. The entire regime needs to be displaced.

Originally posted by Darkiller
Why don't you go fight Afghanistan then ? why don't you go help us in Ivory Coast then ?? sure..no petroleum out there...no financial interest for the US.

Are you saying (in the same post) that we shoudl mind our own business and help you inthe Ivory Coast? How could we do both??? And to answer your question, we don't go there because those countries have not spent millions fo dollars researching and producing "weapons of mass destruction". Combine that with an open hatred of the US, and this is much bigger than oil.

Let's face it. The US will always have oil available to it. How long could the Arab nations go without the huge profits they make from selling us oil? Granted the richest men in the world are in that region, but what about the country?

Originally posted by Darkiller
Then again, Irak means something bigger to you. For us, it is just a little country that has a moron as a leader, a guy that , I agree, should be killed right away. but for that one guy do you need a SECOND WAR in ten years ???? involving ALL THE ALLIES of the US ???

The allies of the US need not get involved, but the UN does. What power does it have? Not alow. UN Peace keeping forces? Get real. The power in the UN is that it can maintain peace because its member natins will act if its decisions are not met. If nobody does anything about this then the UN might as well lock its doors and send everbody home.

Let's say you're a parent, and you tell your child not to do something. The child does it again. You tell the child not to do it again. The child does it again. Repeat this 20 or so times. At some point you need to punish the child. You've taken away its allowance, and grounded it, but nothing so far has worked. You need to come up with a bigger punishment.

Originally posted by Darkiller
We're not idiots and we don't take your president's words seriously when he talks about IRAK.
Why can't he stop being an hypocryte and say clear and loud : "yes we go to fight IRAK because we need that oil" LOL...everyone out there knows it...so let's not pretend to send any human/social messages in this fight...if so, then again, why don't you join on the MANY OTHER FRONTS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD WHERE A DICTATOR IS IN PLACE AND WOULD NEED THE US AS WELL.

Again, this is not about the oil. If it were, why target Iraq and not a big producer like Kuwait or Saudi (both of which have much smaller militaries). Its not about Sadam being a Dictator - there are FAR worse than him. Its about self preservation. If he were to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of Al Queda, and they were to get it into the country (not really that tough, put it on a boat and detonate it in a harbor). How many thousands if not millions of Americans woudl die? How about chemical or biological weapons? Are we to sit idly by and not do anything to protect ourselves?

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally posted by Fido
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

You're absolutely right and I can assure you that most Frenchmen have not forgotten that you were there to help us when needed, and are still thankful for that. But like you say, this does not mean we should blindly follow your lead.

[Easy Mac]

If someone actually believes this war has NOTHING to do with oil, you really have your head in the sand.

And the Chechen thing was roughly 600-700 hostages, nearly 1/3 of the hostages killed by the gas the Russians used to invade the theater. Then they wouldn't tell the doctors the kind of gas they used. The terrorists, they killed 1 person. Who is the terrorist there?
We should target Saudi Arabia. THere's as much evidence that they've aided terrorists as there are that Iraq aids them. The problem is, there are already deals for their oil, so fiscally it makes no sense for us to attack them.

[Alf]

Originally posted by Fido
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...

I totally agree with you that the American liberated France, and that's the main reason I'd hate to see a war happen because we would have young innocent soldiers killed again. Whether they are americans, english, frenchs or germans makes no difference to me.

ACStrider : no problem about the Ivory Coast and our soldiers saving US (and other countries) citizen. That should be obvious no one should let civilians in danger. Ivory Coast is a real mess right now and all french people are strongly discouraged to stay there.

I really hope that the Iraq (Irak) problem can be solved peacefully, but if there is sufficient proof that a war is the only way to go, don't worry, France will give his share of soldiers/weapons (and we know we are not as good as the US, but we can help).

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fido
Again, this is not about the oil. If it were, why target Iraq and not a big producer like Kuwait or Saudi (both of which have much smaller militaries). Its not about Sadam being a Dictator - there are FAR worse than him. Its about self preservation. If he were to get a nuclear weapon into the hands of Al Queda, and they were to get it into the country (not really that tough, put it on a boat and detonate it in a harbor). How many thousands if not millions of Americans woudl die? How about chemical or biological weapons? Are we to sit idly by and not do anything to protect ourselves?

There are a loty of if's there, but lets see the certainties.

North Korea has nukes and are probably porducing them faster than Saddam. NK is a rogue state. Isn't there just as big if not bigger chance they could aid Al-Qaeda easier than Saddam. Pakistan has nukes, there are Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, surely they could get nukes easier than from Saddam.

[Darkiller]

Originally posted by Fido
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a HUGE number of young American soldiers gave their lives in france too. Woudl there be a France today if not for our intervention? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think that our actions there deserve some consideration. I'm not saying tha France should blindy follow our lead, but that we deserve better than their open opposition to our goals.

And the French say Americans have no sense of history...


Fido, we're talking about this unique event that is occuring this year.
We're not saying Americans "did not give their support in 1939-45"...of course : sure they did !! and THANK YOU ! we probalby would't be here _I would speak German_ if you hadn't come...
that's not about this.

then again, we can go deeper in history and say that in the 18th century if Lafayette and the french army hadn't come to the rescue, the English would have kept for themselves the eastern american states and you _as well_ would not be "here" as an american 200 years later...

But that's not the point (that was just to show you that past actions_although they were immensely brave and successful and that we can't live without being thankful of them always) are not the point in this topic of a 2003 bombing of Saddam Hussein.

[Fido]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
There are a loty of if's there, but lets see the certainties.

North Korea has nukes and are probably porducing them faster than Saddam. NK is a rogue state. Isn't there just as big if not bigger chance they could aid Al-Qaeda easier than Saddam. Pakistan has nukes, there are Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, surely they could get nukes easier than from Saddam.

AND Nk stepped this activity up after our government had decided and started planning on action against Iraq. South East Asia is not an environment we're particularly well suited to fighting in, much less if we are also involved in a conflict in Iraq.

You also need to keep in mind that the tthreat of a nation state using a nuclear weapon is fairly insignificant, and I have no fear of Iraq attacking us directly. That is suicide, because it gives the victim a discernable target. If NK was to nuke us, we would not go to the UN, we woudl not seek permission/aid from our allies, we would make North Korea a glowing parking lot.

Iraq is a different matter. With the alleged (though I believe they exist) ties to Al Queida, Iraq has a way to deliver the weapon while remaining out of the cross hairs. Terrorist organizations are not nation states, they do not have a central area that you can retaliate against, and therefore do not have the same fear of reprecussions that countries would. Without concrete proof (which, given teh current state of affairs woudl amount to credit card receipts, video of the transaction, and sworn affadavits for all parties involved) that Iraq supplied the weapons to Al Queida, we woudl not be able to take action against them with UN approval.

[Easy Mac]

And they don't have those concrete facts to attack Iraq. They have circumstancial evidence of various things, but nothing thats says, hey they're helping kill americans.

[HornedFrog Purple]

You are taxing my brain but I believe the Yalta Conference (sometime in '45) had Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin draw up the charter.

When the veto came into being under pressure from the USSR and China there were cases of abstination equaling a veto vote. Now this is not the case. Abstination simply means nothing. This was reorganized and redrafted sometime in the late 90's. From 1945-1955, there were (I am guessing here) 80 or so vetos of which 75 or so coming from the USSR. They simply would abstain from voting.

The UN as it originally was drafted had the same flaws as the League of Nations. This was changed before the Korean War. So this led to the inclusion of the United States, France and Britian as permanent members opposed by China and Russia. The Cold War led to more abusive use of the veto or simply not voting.

At first there were only 6 other seats which later increased to 10. The original 6 were of a Western influence which I will dig up later if you are interested.

My point of all of this is as the UN was originally formed, it was heavily influenced by Western civilization, however as more nations became inducted the non-permanent seats increased to 10. Who led Western civilization? The United States.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And they don't have those concrete facts to attack Iraq. They have circumstancial evidence of various things, but nothing thats says, hey they're helping kill americans.

So ... you want dead American bodies with Iraqi fingerprints before this vermin is finally addressed.

Charming.

And yet people wonder why I support charging some of the most vocal opponents of U.S. action with treason?

Amazing.

[Fido]

Originally posted by Darkiller
Fido, we're talking about this unique event that is occuring this year.
We're not saying Americans "did not give their support in 1939-45"...of course : sure they did !! and THANK YOU ! we probalby would't be here _I would speak German_ if you hadn't come...
that's not about this.

then again, we can go deeper in history and say that in the 18th century if Lafayette and the french army hadn't come to the rescue, the English would have kept for themselves the eastern american states and you _as well_ would not be "here" as an american 200 years later...

But that's not the point (that was just to show you that past actions_although they were immensely brave and successful and that we can't live without being thankful of them always) are not the point in this topic of a 2003 bombing of Saddam Hussein.

You're completely right, and I'm sorry if my idead didn't come across as intended. France should NOT blindy follwo our lead. But I also don't think they shoudl openly oppose us, and hint that they would veto any authorizatin of force.

(from MSNBC.com:
France: Says inspections are starting to work and sees no justification for military action now. Paris has hinted it could use its veto to block council authorization for military action at this stage.)

That is what private channels are for. You support your friends openly in public, but try to talk sense to them in private. All I was saying is that, if France considers America a friend, then it should start treating us that way.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darkiller
then again, we can go deeper in history and say that in the 18th century if Lafayette and the french army hadn't come to the rescue, the English would have kept for themselves the eastern american states and you _as well_ would not be "here" as an american 200 years later...[/qoute]

I'll give you that, even though its a very tough argument to make. France was in no way helping America back then to help us. It was more of an FU to England. Would we have gained independance without your aid? Who knows? Woudl France have been liberated without our aid? Most likely, but it would have been from the East, and woudl that have been a good thing?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
So ... you want dead American bodies with Iraqi fingerprints before this vermin is finally addressed.

Charming.

And yet people wonder why I support charging some of the most vocal opponents of U.S. action with treason?

Amazing.

Edited to add additional.

Then I'd ask: how many American and/or allied bodies are enough to satisfy you?
1? 10? 50? 500? 4,000? 50,000?

How many will it take before you're willing to stop protecting Iraq & similar?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
So ... you want dead American bodies with Iraqi fingerprints before this vermin is finally addressed.

Charming.

And yet people wonder why I support charging some of the most vocal opponents of U.S. action with treason?

Amazing.

Did I say that. You haveto be the dumbest fucker in mankind. Just because your mind is too narrow to hear other kinds of arguments that might go beyond the little space in your mind doesn't mean they dont have validity.

I want the propogation of conservative lies to stop. FOr the misleading of Americans that they taking on some noble quest to end tyrrany, denying having anything alterior for attacking Iraq, to end. i want the implicatoin that Iraq was the impetus for 9/11 to stop. God forbid we have an informed Americans who is willing to question the acts of those in power, and want to make sure we're not being lead into something that may inedeed lead to worse things.

Is it too much to ask for people to try to be informed with correct inforamtion before we start a war that has the potential to kill thousands of people, both our own and other countries.

And how can some, as I've read in other threads, say at one time that Iraqi's are the victims of a reprressive regime, having no control over their outcome, only serving Saddam out of fear. Then on the other hand saying they don't care if they die b/c their animals. Which is it. Either its their fault or its not.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I want the propogation of conservative lies to stop.

Should we take it from this that you are OK with the propogation of other lies?

[Easy Mac]

Allow me to rephrase. I want all lies to stop. Edit, but I think certain lies that push a cause for war are quite damaging and the ones i am referring to. I'm not sure of the liberal lies, but I'm sure they exist.

[Fido]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
If someone actually believes this war has NOTHING to do with oil, you really have your head in the sand.


OPEC numbers of proven oil reserves in Millions of Barrels:

Saudi Arabia: 262,697
Iraq: 112,500
Iran: 99,080
UAE: 97,800
Kuwait: 96,500
Venezuela: 77,685
Libya: 36,000
Nigeria: 31,506
Quatar: 15,204
Algeria: 11,314
Indonesia: 5,123

There are plenty of countries on that list that would be far easier for us to invade than Iraq. If this was realy about the oil, don't you think we would be "fabricating" evidence against Saudi Arabia?

[Fido]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
And they don't have those concrete facts to attack Iraq. They have circumstancial evidence of various things, but nothing thats says, hey they're helping kill americans.

True, but there comes a point where the sheer amount of circumstantial evidence is enough to provide reasonable cause.

[Fido]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Edited to add additional.

Then I'd ask: how many American and/or allied bodies are enough to satisfy you?
1? 10? 50? 500? 4,000? 50,000?

How many will it take before you're willing to stop protecting Iraq & similar?

There isn't an answer to that. The real question is how many of your countries people do you want to see dead? I really don't think that foreign governments care that much about American citizens. We are generally despised throughout the world, which is understandable - we tend to try to impose our ideas on what's right and how government should be on other nations, and that is going to cause ill feelings.

What bothers me is that if (God forbid) there should be a major terrorist attack (major along the lines of 9-11 - 3,000+ dead) in Paris, or Berlin, or Moscow, then America will be chastized for not doing anything to prevent it.

[Easy Mac]

I agree there is cause, and based on that I would support the war if not for the feeling that the government has other motives. If they hadn't come out and say a week after 9/11 that there was an axis of evil with little to no proof of Iaqi assistance in the attacks, then it wouldn't be as bad.

The fact that some kind of vendetta or other goal just makes me feel we are being lead into a war not as much for our safety but for their personal gain.

Sorry, but thats what I feel has been going on.

As to Saudi Arabia, I think I said something about it in another post in the thread, I'll have to go back and look. Basically, we already have Saudi oil, why attack them, even though I find more reason to attack Saudi Arabia (they probably harbor as many terrorists) at THIS MOMENT, than Saddam, though I agree Saddam is far more evil.

I'm not defending Saddam, I'm defending the right to look at what I deem the facts, thats a complete difference.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I wonder why the Caspian Sea region never made the mainstream press.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/120502_caspian.html

What was once heralded as an oil bonanza in Central Asia -- and given life by ludicrous economic and political assertions insisting that demand always creates supply -- has proven itself to be an enormous bust. As Caspian reserve estimates have been continually revised lower -- from 200 billion barrels, to 100 billion barrels, to around 20 billion barrels -- the world has witnessed a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy toward belligerent and unilateral doctrines aimed at Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

[Fido]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I want the propogation of conservative lies to stop. FOr the misleading of Americans that they taking on some noble quest to end tyrrany, denying having anything alterior for attacking Iraq, to end. i want the implicatoin that Iraq was the impetus for 9/11 to stop. God forbid we have an informed Americans who is willing to question the acts of those in power, and want to make sure we're not being lead into something that may inedeed lead to worse things.

Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. I am confident about that. Not becaus ethey wouldn't have chosen to be. I'm sure Sadam was somewhat peeved that he wasn't invited to the party. But as evidence is brough forth pointing out that Iraq may now be at said party (http://www.msnbc.com/news/868836.asp) thigs get much more serious.

The facts are that Iraq had chemical and biological production facilities.
They have the knowledge necessary to produce more.
They have shown a willingness to use them.

I'm sorry, but if hundreds or even thousands of Iraqui soldiers have to die to protect millions of innocent civilians, then so be it.

[Fritz]

it ill advised to place the burdens of proof required in a US criminal court on the government when it comes to foreign policy.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fido
Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attack. I am confident about that. Not becaus ethey wouldn't have chosen to be. I'm sure Sadam was somewhat peeved that he wasn't invited to the party. But as evidence is brough forth pointing out that Iraq may now be at said party (http://www.msnbc.com/news/868836.asp) thigs get much more serious.

The facts are that Iraq had chemical and biological production facilities.
They have the knowledge necessary to produce more.
They have shown a willingness to use them.

I'm sorry, but if hundreds or even thousands of Iraqui soldiers have to die to protect millions of innocent civilians, then so be it.

From a USA Today/CNN Gallup Poll

"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks, or not?"

Yes Involved 53%
No, Not Involved 34
No Opinion 13

This is from implications the govenment has made, and I find it reprehensible that they would allow this to persuade Americans into war.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by Fritz
it ill advised to place the burdens of proof required in a US criminal court on the government when it comes to foreign policy.

Thats true, but its difficult to determine reasoning behind foreign policy when there is conflicting information.

I am neither a conservative nor liberal, I consider myself a mutt. I think most people are actually mutts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Easy Mac Did I say that. You haveto be the dumbest fucker in mankind.

Actually, it was you who raised the relevance of American bodies, not me.

[quote]They have circumstancial evidence of various things, but nothing thats says, hey they're helping kill americans.

I can't wait to see how you try to spin that remark so that it doesn't strongly indicate that American bodies is what it would take to influence you.

From that, I can only qualify for being the second dumbest fucker in mankind. You're the dumb fucker who hung himself with his own words and didn't even realize it.

Is it too much to ask for people to try to be informed with correct inforamtion before we start a war that has the potential to kill thousands of people, both our own and other countries.

Is it too much to ask for people to try to be informed and accept the information that's out there instead of sailing along blindly with the farthest fringes of the left?

And how can some, as I've read in other threads, say at one time that Iraqi's are the victims of a reprressive regime, having no control over their outcome, only serving Saddam out of fear. Then on the other hand saying they don't care if they die b/c their animals. Which is it. Either its their fault or its not.

On that, I can only say it beats the hell out of me. That's not my gig at all, I can't imagine I've ever suggested anything of the sort. (Certainly others have, but they'll have to answer that one for themselves).

I knew when I first visited this thread I'd regret it. The temptation of the title proved to be too much for me to resist given my memories of the previous FOFC debate over France.

But it's threads like this one that have reduced my visits here considerably & will likely end them entirely sooner or later.
It's just stupid really. Bluntly, there's a number of people here that wouldn't really be welcome in my home IRL, I'm sure there's plenty here that'd rather host Saddam than me for dinner. I can handle that. But it just strikes me as incredibly stupid that I keep bringing some of those same people into my den through this f'n computer. Hell, maybe I'm the dumbest fucker alive after all.

[MIJB#19]

Would france have been liberated in WWII without the USA?
We'll never know...

The Bush goverment's tone is: We helped you when you were powerless, now we, more powerful then ever, are told that we need your vote of confidence, not that we care, or listen to it, but please, join us, or you'll have no chance to say, 20 years from now, we beat Saddamn!
The Clinton goverment would have asked for additional sigars, besides the bodies, rockets, bullets and transportation.

[MIJB#19]

Oh yeah, do'n be fooled by the oil statements, there's so much more oil out there, including nearby American ground.
The thing is, the Oil Companies want to keep it until the Middle Eastern oil is all gone.

I'm not going to proove this, as, obviously, 2 people talking about something make that proof...

Edited the post to drop the signature...

[BishopMVP]

For Frenchmen and Americans who claim to be well-versed in history, I find it interesting that you do not see any parallels here.

After World War I, the Allies passed sanctions and forced Germany to sign an agreement that forbid them from developing weapons and armies. Yet 20 years later, Hitler was astride the greatest army the world had ever seen because of a lack of enforcement of this treaty.

After the Gulf War, the UN passed sanctions and forced Iraq to sign an agreement that forbid them from developing weapons of mass destruction. Now 10 years later after multiple flagrant violations of this agreement (kicking the inspectors out, firing at US & British warplanes) some countries still want do not want to enforce the agreement Saddam signed. Appeasement does not work for both sides, it never has, and it never will. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. There will be a war with Iraq. The only questions are where and when.

[vtbub]

I find it funny that people who make the arguement that this is for oil and hold up the noble French and Russia as examples as doing the right thing. They seem to forget that the most likely opposition from France and Russia isn't because of wanting peace, but that they have major deals with Iraq that constitutes billions of dollars of loans and oil contracts that would potentially disappear if the current government disappears. Lets have all the facts on the table.

[Brillig]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I knew when I first visited this thread I'd regret it. The temptation of the title proved to be too much for me to resist given my memories of the previous FOFC debate over France.



Wasn't your thesis that France was irrelevant? Why the angst then?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Brillig
Wasn't your thesis that France was irrelevant? Why the angst then?

LOL, that was (and still is) pretty much my contention. That whole thread was so twisted though that I laughed when I saw this one & couldn't help seeing if it headed down the same road. Not really for the purpose of the same battle, just to satisfy my curiosity if it included the same jokes or if there were some new ones.

[bamcgee]

boy, leave a thread for a day and look what happens.

Personally, I think obtaining a stable source of oil is a very valid reason for attack. Or in France's case, to prevent an attack.

Let's face it: Iraq is a great candidate for invasion - not fanatically religious, existing under a despotic regime with lots of potential for development, 2nd most oil reserves in the world, decrepit military. Given how our relations with the Saudis (and most of OPEC) have soured, having a nice steady stream of low priced oil flowing out of Iraq fits very nicely into any national security plan. Remember, if there's no oil, no energy = no economy. Most of us might be too young to remember the OPEC embargo, but it was not pretty. Obtaining low cost energy should be the key to any national security policy, especially if you wanna get re-elected.

And hey, the bonus of it all is we'll be removing a real tyrant, replacing it with some sort of elected representative government. Can anyone argue that Afghanistan hasn't been a triumph of nation building to this point? A fair and just effort at representing all parties - the US rarely gets enough credit - Karzai is an impressive fellow too. Hope he lives. Wouldn't the methods and goals be similar in a reconstructed Iraq?

I know, I know, I have a giant case of Americanism. Huge national ego. Who the hell do we think we are? Thousands of Iraqis (and maybe some US troops) would die in the invasion, and that's no joke. But how many thousands will die if he remains in power, Americans or Iraqis? It's an unpleasant, uncertain equation. If we're really really snakeeyes lucky, perhaps the international pressure will force a coup on the inside, but that's doubtful given the protective measures taken by a man who's survived this long.

A key aspect of Americanism is that I'm assuming that Americanizing Iraq would be a good thing for the country - but let's face it, they should be so lucky. That's not very pc and so on. But think of the investment that would pour into that country if it had a stable (secular) elected government along with those huge oil reserves, not to mention the lifting of the sanctions. Wouldn't that be a boon to the Iraqi people? This is also an opportunity to convince the Muslims that the US is not out to destroy their culture or religion. We'd institute the rule of law, promote civil rights (maybe even for women too), freedom of speech and religion, and spend lots and lots of dough on infrastructure. Wait a second, perhaps some of that would conflict with parts of their culture. But I would contend that there are certain antiquated Islamic cultural aspects that are directly responsible for the Arab states lagging behind. Some of those are negotiable anyway.

So, let's do the right thing and get that rat bastard out of power and put in a democratic regime. Let's do it with as little civilian death and damage as possible. Let's get rid of their big weapons before they sell em to god knows whom. Let's earn a better Mid East reputation with some reconstruction and investment. And let's get some oil out of it too. This gamble has decent odds and an excellent payoff.

Then when all that's done, let's talk about those N. Koreans...

[Anthony]

french women don't shave their armpits/legs.

[qmpz]

I haven't read every post here, but I'd like to respond to some of what I retained while skimming through.
A cause for war is not 'suspected' terrorist links. In fact the terrorists that were supposedly 'healed' while in Iraq were in the Kurddish territory which is not controlled by Saddam. And if terrorist links is a cause I can only wonder why we haven't inveded Saudi Arabia considering 9/11 was committed by nearly all Saudi nationals and the World Trade Center I bombing was a Saudi. And why was the Bin Laden family (Saudi's) allowed to fly out of the US during the NO FLY period on 9/11?
And of course we must remember that our esteemed Vice-President was heading up (chairman and CEO) Halliburton did $73 million worth of contracts with Iraq through subsidiaries... through French affiliates no less; and this was during sanctions after the Gulf War, another example of corporations subverting US law, which is another topic all together.
Is anyone disturbed by the fact that our administration has threatened to use WMD in an effort to destroy WMD?
And by the way, it's reported that Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived. (Feb 5) So the day of Powell's presentation and the chief UN inspector has already challenged a portion of the "evidence".
And finally, for all those truly interested, following is section 10 from the much talked about UN resolution 1441:

10. Requests all member states to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programs or other aspects of their mandates; including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Does this mean that the US is in material breach also as intelligence continues to be witheld from the inspectors?


The real tragedy is that when war is brought up here in the US those that seek to exhaust alternatives are suddenly traitors while the war-mongers beat their chests itching to pull the trigger and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything other than war. We're talking about humans on both sides, possibly your brother/sister/mother/father... the fact that people are still to lazy to actually research the facts of this situation is mind-boggling. I guess it's easier to make decisions on what "may" happen, or what "could" happen, and ignore anything that would require us to think.

[Abe Sargent]

The answer is simple for many countries.

1). The citizens do not want to fight "America's War"

2). By allying against America's effort to wage war on an Arab and Muslim nation, hopefully terrorists will bypass them with jucier targets like America and Britain available.

3). Many people lump Saddam in with other Arab states and they have sympathy for their plight. Ergo, no war against Iraq because those states do not want it. Get Sa'udi Arabia or Syria to join a war, and you can get everybody on board.

-Anxiety

[astralhaze]

I like France.

[ACStrider]

QMPZ, a coupld of points...
1. There is no question that Hussein has supported terrorism. Most of it has been against Israel, but since Al-Queida decided to target the US, there has been a drastic increase in terrorism directed towards our country. It isn't a far stretch to think that Hussein, who has given no indication that he has destroyed his previous supply of chemical and biological weapons as mandated by the UN, would readily give some of these agents to these terrorists (considering that he threatened to do so during the course of the first Gulf war).

2. As far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, I would agree with you. I think that they have a lot to answer for. If they don't turn from their pro-terrorist ways, I would definitely be in support of taking them out as well.

3. Regarding the VP and his contracts. I haven't heard enough to know about that. If what you say is correct, then the VP has some serious questions to answer. Even so, that doesn't change the present situation and what our attitude towards Iraq and other states supporting terror.

4. This is partly a wording issue, but it is impossible for the US to be in material breech because it is not the nation who contains the materials cited by 1441. You can argue that the US is guilty of witholding information. There is a danger of revealing information, and sometimes things should be handled on a need to know basis. I know that some information has in fact been turned over to the inspectors while some has been withheld. The inspectors are not an intelligence agency. Therefore, sensitive information carelessly used could endanger future efforts. While I think it is important to assist with the inspections process, it is imparitive to keep in mind that some information is very sensitive and jeopardizes the livelihood of inside sources and the like.

5. I find it very ironic that you take offense at being called a "traitor" but are quick to picutre those in support of war as "war-mongers [who] beat their chests itching ot pull the trigger and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything other then war." The implication with what you say later is that we are stupid and lazy. Hmm...I graduated college with a history minor (easily could have made it a major but took it out of pure interest...Psychology major) with honors. That was a result of a lot of hard work and serious study. I'd hate to think that I'm now stupid and lazy and don't know my current events. I've heard legitimate arguments against going to war, and I don't think anyone is a traitor for having those opinions, but what else do you call someone who calls Bush the next Hitler and gives Hussein all the acolades (not saying that's you, just some of the anti-war rhetoric I've heard). The fact (since we're talking about facts) is that war SHOULD be the last option, but it should be an option that we're not afraid to use if necessary. I've researched the facts available. I've done my homework. In a court of law, a person is guilty not when there is absolutely no possiblilty for the individual not to have committed the crime, but when he is found beyond REASONABLE doubt to be guilty. Even in law you are dealing with the possibilities. It should be clear by now. Hussein is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all of the 17 UN resolutions and now the UN must act.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by qmpz
The real tragedy is that when war is brought up here in the US those that seek to exhaust alternatives are suddenly traitors while the war-mongers beat their chests itching to pull the trigger and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything other than war.

Tell us an alternative that will work and has not been exhausted already. The sanctions and inspections have been going on for 12 years (except when kicked out by Saddam.) You may not want to admit it, but sometimes war is not only necessary, but also the right thing to do.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by qmpz
The real tragedy is that when war is brought up here in the US those that seek to exhaust alternatives are suddenly traitors while the war-mongers beat their chests itching to pull the trigger and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to anything other than war. We're talking about humans on both sides, possibly your brother/sister/mother/father... the fact that people are still to lazy to actually research the facts of this situation is mind-boggling. I guess it's easier to make decisions on what "may" happen, or what "could" happen, and ignore anything that would require us to think.

There are no other alternatives when dealing with terrorism or those that support it. I think the U.S. has been very patient, but they will deal with any threats to U.S./Europe security even when Europe sticks their head in the sand about it...will the world be a safer place, probably not, but one less threat will be gone...

[qmpz]

ACStrider,

I think we have a some common ground here. I have no doubt that Saddam is linked with terrorism, but I have yet to see the link between him and what happened on 9/11 which is what many people consider terrorism. But terrorism reaches far further than that, as I'm sure you know Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, <place any middle eastern nation here> all have terrorist groups/cells. The UN resolution is not about terrorism, it is about biological, chemical, and mass destruction weapons, if it were terrorism we should have a whole laundry list of nations.

Your point 3 in regards to the VP while at Halliburton. The reason this is important is because it shows the stance of at least part of our administration (the other part can be linked through Harkin Energy if you so desire to research that) towards this ruthless dictator... we are willing to do business with you even though publicly we will denounce your actions. It's hypocrisy at our highest levels of leadership.

Point 4 about intelligence will never be settled. I do not believe that the UN security council or the UN weapons inspectors are any less trustworthy than anyone in our own national security positions. The fact is weapons were found during the first weapons inspections and 'informants' were not slaughtered due to intelligence leaks, I'm not sure why now it is different. This also ties into point 3 I suppose, with an administration that seems to talk out of both sides of it's mouth how does one know what is factual, current, and real? I'm not sure how Powell saying Saddam has weapon X is suddenly transformed into fact.

Point 5, when I say people are lazy it is in reference to the desire to research what they are told. Again this ties into the above points. Just because a few people say something is so, say they have evidence, yet provide no proof at the same time a global body of inspectors do not come up with proof it is fact to many. I think there is a reason that the presence of media on 'battlefronts' has been reduced (almost eliminated). When the topic concerns the lives of tens (if not hundreds if one side uses WMD (Bush has declared he is willing to use them to prevent the use of them by Iraq, which in a sick way is ironic in itself)) of thousands of lives are at stake one should, I believe, a little more motivated to research every facet of the situation rather than pacively accept that we should 'bomb 'em' since we can 'kick their ass'. And the truth is that it is HARD to research certain things, especially concerning the current administration, which I understand doesn't motivate anyone to do it. It's frustrating that you can still find more news about Clinton/Lewinski than you can about Bush not serving the last year (possibly 2) of his National Guard duty, or his ties with Harkin Energy, or the fact that Cheney held closed energy meetings with oil companies with no other alternative fuel representation (for those of you claiming this administration supports alternative fuel research due to token funding), or even how or foreign ambassador to Iraq prior to the Gulf War states that she was told to convey to Saddam that our postion in concern to his impending action in Kuwait was that we were not going to invlove ourselves in middle eastern conflicts, or Bush Sr dealing with the Bin Laden family through Carlisle Group, and finally the fact that the US is the nation who primarily setup Saddam to be in the position he is in because we wanted him there to confront Iran.
I don't know if you were suggesting that I was calling Bush the next Hitler or not, I don't think I went that far. :) BUT, I do find it a little funny that you put that considering his grandfather Prescott Bush did business with the Nazi party during WWII... I'm not trying to imply anything here, simply noting. hehe

And those that asked my solution, here it is: give the inspectors sufficient time as decided by the inspectors themselves. The fact is Blix summarized Saddam's cooperation as good. The U2 spyplane issue is an issue because Saddam would only allow it if we (the US) agreed not to fly warplanes in with them, which we did not agree to and the BBC reported two days ago that 2 scientists a day were being interviewed by inspectors with no Iraqi presence. After the Gulf War more weapons were destroyed via inspections than were destroyed via the war... inspections work. And finally, we (the US) needs to be more proactive in providing intelligence, if we know where weapons are why do we not want them found and destroyed? I am not against war, I am against hasty war. If the inspectors say sufficient time has passed and Saddam is in material breech than I am totally behind military action (which will have the total support of the UN).

And a last note, this has become way to wordy... think of the implications of pre-emptive strikes. Terrorism WILL increase while our funding of Homeland Security has already been cut in the propsed budget. Nations with long-standing hatred like India and Pakistan (both nuclear) now have an open door to 'pre-emptively' strike one another. We are the leaders of the world and we are heading towards defining a very scary reality.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by qmpz
The fact is Blix summarized Saddam's cooperation as good.

Check your facts on that one.

[Anthony]

so where do we stand on the hair content of the legs of french females?

like it? disgusted?

conversate.

[qmpz]

BishopMVP,

You are right, Blix only stated that Iraq has cooperated "rather well" on the issue of assisting the inspectors in the process(es) of the inspection.

Blix then goes on to list good and bad things about the Iraqi declaration that they submitted and a couple other issues that are apparently worked out or to be worked out. He makes no overall rating in relation to how Iraq has cooperated in the task of actually disclosing information, rather he notes where they have lacked and where they have provided good cooperation.

Here's the link to the (edited) transcript of Blix's report:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html

And another link for Blix's clarification of his report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html

I don't think my statement was far from what is stated here, Blix's overall tone is that Iraq has been cooperative but needs to improve in areas and be more proactive. Do you read these differently?


PS - I will go on record as being anti-hair on french females' legs... now that is a cause I could get behind! hehe

[Dutch]

I am glad that French people don't want to go to war. I am glad that France doesn't want to base their feelings today on what happened in WWII. It's over, history, right?

In WWII there were French people who boldly claimed that by learning from history, the maginot line would stop any sized invading army. And they were right, the Germans never did make it through that Maginot line when it was fully armed and occupied.

The Germans on the other hand, used the same thinking the French did. They learned from history as well that building a huge defensive fortification like the Maginot Line would thwart any forward attack.

So what were the French to do? What else could they have done militarily than defend their borders? In 1939/1940? I suspect nothing.

So what were the Germans to do? What else could they do besides assault the French borders? In 1939/1940? The reality was that the sky was the limit. They were the agressors, they were the forward thinkers of the day.

Historical outcome: The Germans bypassed the French (and historical thinking) to take Paris in a month, route the Maginot line from behind, and force a massive retreat of all British land forces.

What the hell is the lesson in that? The agressors are the victors. You know the old saying, "You can't defend everything."

The one and only reason I support an aggressive stance against terrorism and nations that harbour them and those who would use nuclear/biological/chemical weapons is simple.

It's a new world. The rules have changed, as they have in history. We are at the beginning of a new era of thinking. And pre-emptively striking those who would do you irreversible harm is the only way to wage war in the nuclear age. We cannot fall back on our historical ties of waiting for the smoking gun.

Am I right in this line of thinking? I DON'T KNOW. But I truly believe it's worth a shot. The alternative is a reality, not a conjecture or a sales pitch. Iraq and Al Qaeda want to destroy the west. Be it as a union, or seperately, there goals are identical.

[qmpz]

Originally posted by Dutch

So what were the Germans to do? What else could they do besides assault the French borders? In 1939/1940? The reality was that the sky was the limit. They were the agressors, they were the forward thinkers of the day.

What the hell is the lesson in that? The agressors are the victors. You know the old saying, "You can't defend everything."


Are you seriously suggesting we should base our modern day strategic stance on Hitler's desire to conquer all of Eurasia and perform ethnic "cleansing"? People tend to compare the man we're debating attacking with Hitler while you are suggesting we follow Hitler's lead?
And actually, if memory serves me, Germany did fall in WWII, but I could be wrong. Or are you taking the single portion of WWII where Germany over-ran France (as it did other nations who did not have Maginot lines and probably would have done to Britain were it not an island) as proof that an aggressive, war-mongering (or is that not a fair charicature of Hitler) stance is beneficial, forward-thinking, and right?


The one and only reason I support an aggressive stance against terrorism and nations that harbour them and those who would use nuclear/biological/chemical weapons is simple.


You segue into this statement after commending Hitler's tactics vs France and the two have absolutely no connection. At least I do not recall France's terrorist activity in Nazi Germany prior to it's being invaded. Are you tying the aggressors of WWII to having roots in pre-emptive strikes for national security reasons?
I will say though, I agree with this. An aggressive, pro-active stance on terrorism is absolutley mandatory. I imagine we disagree what constitutes aggressive and pro-active though. :) I do not agree with hypocrisy at the leadership level (target Iraq, a nation who has no more ties, in fact less ties, to the 9/11 attack than Saudi Arabia yet all we ask Saudi Arabia to do is remove the teachings of Jihad and the killing of the infidels to be removed from grade school texts) and the misleading use of terrorism as an excuse for unilateral war.


It's a new world. The rules have changed, as they have in history. We are at the beginning of a new era of thinking. And pre-emptively striking those who would do you irreversible harm is the only way to wage war in the nuclear age. We cannot fall back on our historical ties of waiting for the smoking gun.


You just finished laying out historical "facts" about how great the pre-emptive strike is and now you say times are different, rules have changed... yet pre-emptive strikes are still the way to go?
I agree times have changed also, that's an obvious statement. What is apparent in the international community is that a nation cannot afford to seclude itself, to cut all beneficial ties to it's global partners, without paying a price economically and strategically.


Am I right in this line of thinking? I DON'T KNOW. But I truly believe it's worth a shot. The alternative is a reality, not a conjecture or a sales pitch. Iraq and Al Qaeda want to destroy the west. Be it as a union, or seperately, there goals are identical.

I also do not know if you are right... nobody does. But I truly think your line of reasoning is in stark contrast to common sense. When you want peace you do not fire missiles at everything that _may_ at some point try to hurt you. Is it scary to be vulnerable to attack? Absolutley. But your alternative, which is to pre-emptively strike essentially eveyone, because I'm not sure where you would draw the line at who has potential for attacking us, afterall even Mexicans have weapons, leaves the world in an us-against-them state... I for one do not want to be fighting the world. The UN was established for a reason, nations of this world realized that we need to co-exist, we need to cooperate, we need to promote peace and stability (not war and instability).
I think I understand where you are coming from, but I think if you take the next step of thinking, in other words what happens after we bomb nation X, you'll realize that the threat to our security increases exponentially as compared to attempting diplomatic resolutions, following international guidelines and seeking honest international support. People act as though France doesn't understand the threat of terrorism when they deal with it much more effectively than the US does and have dealt with it much longer.

Am I really the only person here who thinks inspectors should be given a legitimate chance to do their jobs? I'm not trying to argue that Saddam is baby Jesus here, he's an evil man, no question. Guess what, the rest of the world knows it too. They want him gone too. Why are we in such a rush to throw our men and women into battle against a foe who apperently has biological and chemical weapons to use against them? Why are we against allowing a process designed to eliminate these weapons proceeding until those experts tell the international community that they have done all they can do and either the job is done or it is not done? If it is done then we've averted a horrible confrontation, if it isn't done the international community is rallied and backs whole-heartedly (not just because they don't wanna be on the US's badside) and actively supports whatever actions (presumably military) are necessary to complete this job?

[Dutch]

Are you seriously suggesting we should base our modern day strategic stance on Hitler's desire to conquer all of Eurasia and perform ethnic "cleansing"? People tend to compare the man we're debating attacking with Hitler while you are suggesting we follow Hitler's lead?

You are suggesting I said that. But that would be a false accusation. I am not interested in "ethnic cleansing" nor did I ever bring it up. Argue what I said, not what you want me to say.

And actually, if memory serves me, Germany did fall in WWII, but I could be wrong. Or are you taking the single portion of WWII where Germany over-ran France (as it did other nations who did not have Maginot lines and probably would have done to Britain were it not an island) as proof that an aggressive, war-mongering (or is that not a fair charicature of Hitler) stance is beneficial, forward-thinking, and right?

As WWII showed, in 1939-1941 The Germans were the victors because they were on the move and aggressive. From 1942-1945, the Allies were the aggressors and used the exact same techniques of blitzkrieging in order to gain superiority over the German army once it was "out of gas" and could no longer advance.

Hitler also built cars and freeways, but I am fair enough to not suggest that you are thinking we should not build cars and freeways because Hitler did it.

You segue into this statement after commending Hitler's tactics vs France and the two have absolutely no connection. At least I do not recall France's terrorist activity in Nazi Germany prior to it's being invaded.

You've missed my point. You are suggesting that the reason I use the WWII philosophy is because it's identical to today's situation. I only use history for it's anlogies and lessons learned, not a mirror situation. As I stated, it's a new era.

Are you tying the aggressors of WWII to having roots in pre-emptive strikes for national security reasons?
I will say though, I agree with this. An aggressive, pro-active stance on terrorism is absolutley mandatory. I imagine we disagree what constitutes aggressive and pro-active though. I do not agree with hypocrisy at the leadership level (target Iraq, a nation who has no more ties, in fact less ties, to the 9/11 attack than Saudi Arabia yet all we ask Saudi Arabia to do is remove the teachings of Jihad and the killing of the infidels to be removed from grade school texts) and the misleading use of terrorism as an excuse for unilateral war.

What you are suggesting is not hypocracy is total war against all violators right now? Is that correct? I prefer one step at a time. Show the middle east our strength vs. their strongest nation and the rest will likely attempt to police their own areas better for fear of US military might destroying their dictatorships.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a new world. The rules have changed, as they have in history. We are at the beginning of a new era of thinking. And pre-emptively striking those who would do you irreversible harm is the only way to wage war in the nuclear age. We cannot fall back on our historical ties of waiting for the smoking gun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You just finished laying out historical "facts" about how great the pre-emptive strike is and now you say times are different, rules have changed... yet pre-emptive strikes are still the way to go?
I agree times have changed also, that's an obvious statement. What is apparent in the international community is that a nation cannot afford to seclude itself, to cut all beneficial ties to it's global partners, without paying a price economically and strategically.

Pre-emptive strikes are still the way to go? Where did I say that? I thought I made it clear that it's time now to use the tactic to our advantage instead of waiting for the bad guy to use it first all the damn time and we have to fight our way back to square one before we can progress.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I right in this line of thinking? I DON'T KNOW. But I truly believe it's worth a shot. The alternative is a reality, not a conjecture or a sales pitch. Iraq and Al Qaeda want to destroy the west. Be it as a union, or seperately, there goals are identical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But your alternative, which is to pre-emptively strike essentially eveyone, because I'm not sure where you would draw the line at who has potential for attacking us, afterall even Mexicans have weapons, leaves the world in an us-against-them state... I for one do not want to be fighting the world. The UN was established for a reason, nations of this world realized that we need to co-exist, we need to cooperate, we need to promote peace and stability (not war and instability).

I did not say we need to pre-emptively strike everyone. When did I say that? Where did I say we need to destroy Mexico because it has guns? You're argument is not better served with lies and BS.

The UN was created for a reason. To promote peace and stability and not war and instability. I agree. Yet, Iraq is clearly in violation of this basic premise and refused to cooperate in the least until the USA threatened them with war. Where was the UN the last 12 years? Were they doing anything but sending a brochure to Iraq on the benefits of "peace and stability"? Iraq has laughted at the UN and anybody else who has any agenda's for disobeying the notion of "peace and stability" are encouraged by this bickering of European nations and the USA. Is North Korea right at this moment thumbing their noses at the UN for it's weakness in dealing with an inferior rogue state like Iraq? In 6 months time North Korea will be outputing 1 to 2 nuclear bomb every 30 days. And history has shown they are willing to sell anything to anyone for the right price.

Am I really the only person here who thinks inspectors should be given a legitimate chance to do their jobs?

Did you watch or read about Powell's presentation to the UN? Who is not giving the inspectors a legitimate chance? You blame the USA for that? I've got news for you, it's not the USA holding the inspectors back from having a legitimate chance.

[qmpz]

Dutch,

Rather qouting I will respond to each point in paragraph (or at least try to).

I was not suggesting that you were implying ethnic 'cleansing', I was suggesting you implied we follow Hitler's lead of aggressive military tactics including invasion/conquer of other sovereign nations. I should have made that more clear, but I thought we were all following the same line. I only mentioned those aspects of Hitler to provide a more clear picture of the 'forward-thinker' being discussed.

You want to view WWII in two parts and I want to view it as a whole... I suggest the ending of a war is as important (if not more than) as the beginning, but maybe you do not have that same view. And I never said I was against technology or industry (freeways & cars), my position is against pre-emptive wars, especially those that still offer peaceful means to achieve the same goals. Not really sure how you tie technology/industry with a military/foreign policy to begin with, but ok.

It's a different era, we've established that. We both agree (I think) that the tactics of WWII do not apply to a war on terrorism. If you were arguing the fact that after WWI the world let Germany rebuild it's military and expand it's borders unchecked this would make more sense... I agree that we have begun to walk down the same path over the last decade with Iraq. The difference here is that Iraq has yet to expand it's borders and we have taken the initiative and have inspectors on the ground doing their jobs. I think I have to point out again that the inspections following the Gulf War destroyed more WMD than the Gulf War did... inspections DO work.

I did say that we would probably disagree with what pro-active means. I do not propose war against all terrorist harboring/supporting nations. I support diplomatic solutions; sanctions, UN resolutions, etc. If time shows no improvement than I think that yes, the world as a whole (via the UN) should escalate all forms of pressures on nations that continue to support terrorism, if this includes force then so be it. Personally I would be MORE concerned with nations like Saudi Arabia for their role in terrorism (directly linked to 9/11) as I would be with Iraq. Somehow the issue of disarming Iraq has shifted to an issue of terrorism, which it isn't, it's an issue of removing WMD, biological and chemical weapons. If we want to address the terrorist issue then we should be starting in the right places but this is a whole other issue). I'm not sure the rest of the world's reaction to the US enforcing a "do as we say" policy with military might is going to be joining in lockstep... the use of force to make other nations comply is essentially a form of what Saddam does to his own people, it's tyranny.

Ummm... so you are still saying pre-emptive strikes are the way to go... that's what attacking before someone does something to you is. And by the way, Iraq is not nuclear, Powelll clearly stated that. And by the way, Iraq cannot strike the US. And by the way North Korea can. Another regime-ruled, extreme conservatist Islamic, terrorist nation that is nuclear would be Pakistan, but I don't think we're lining up military personnel on their borders.

What I said was I was not sure where you draw the line with pre-emptively striking POSSIBLE ENEMIES. Where do you draw the line? Is Pakistan ok? Is Mexico ok? How do you define a threat if simply HAVING weapons is apparently enough for Iraq to be a threat (even though his weapons cannot even reach outside the middle east let alone the US) why aren't these other examples also threats? My sarcastic statement was an attempt at trying to have you think about the precedence set by a pre-emptive strike against an enemy due to the fact the nation has weapons... still wondering how you define a threat other than that single criterion.

You ask where the UN was the last 12 years and I ask you where the US was the last 12 years, or where were all the people clamoring to send in the troops today for the last 12 years? We were all sitting around ignoring him because we had no worries in the world. But now inspectors are in, he is cooperating according to Blix (yes he needs to improve some areas and hopefully he will, in fact he's submitted to allowing spy planes now) and yet war is still the answer? As for North Korea why are you not clamoring for war there rather than Iraq if they are the immediate threat? Why are not concerned that the Bush administration refuses to talk to NK directly? Why are you not concerned that the Bush administration cancelled a deal to send two light water reactors to NK for energy production as the second half of a deal that had NK mothball it's nuclear program? Why are you not concerned that while SK and NK where working on the "Sunshine" policy to reunite the peninsula the Bush administration names NK as one of the "Axis of Evil"? Everyone wants a disarmed Saddam, we have UN inspectors there doing there jobs with conditions continually improving for them to do their jobs. We have intelligence of what weapons Saddam has and where they are yet we do not supply it for what reason? Why is that not an issue for you? Why is immediate war the only solution to a problem that has proven to be remedied more effectively through UN backed AND supported inspections than war?

I listened to parts of it. I wasn't, as I imagine many people were not, able to sit in front of the tv for 3 hours in the middle of the day. He presents an iron-clad case if you accept what he says as gospel, as you accept what Bush says as gospel, and you are convinced by the words "possibly" and "we think". I ask you if you've read Blix's report? How do you view his assessment of Saddam's cooperation? How do you view the support of inspections by the US?