Well, those who prefer binary thinking--them/us, good Christians/Muslim fanatics, etc--pray go on simplifying, so French do this and think that.
I won't say "the Americans". They're not one kind, they come in many colours and flavours. Not even half of them voted for the current administration. Many can't still be silenced by threats of them being designated as traitors, and exception laws. Some still prove true humour.
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml
or
http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/12/aol10.shtml
OT: Something Stupid Happened In Your Country Today
-
Celtoid
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Brownville, New York
- Contact:
The french really don't have much to do with this. We were going to war anyway. All the French are doing is questioning the legitimacy of going to war right NOW when other tactics may also work. I think they are wrong but I honor their right to make their decision according to their lights, and I find it imperial and anti-democratic of us to threaten them for taking a position. My point we the list of vetoes above was to show our hypocricy when it comes to Israel. That ally has done some very evil things in the name of establishing Erets Israel, and we have often been the only veto on countless resolutions. Israel can sink an American ship, the Liberty intelligence gathering vessel, and attack the crew as they waited for rescue, even though an American flag was clearly displayed. They can virtually do no wrong, as they continue the slow process of home destructions in occupied territories. We know that they will never give these territories back; we know that at best the Palestinians can only hope to achieve some silly little bantustans under a quisling leadership only good for stamping work permits for Israel. Israel's water supply in under the West Bank and the Golan Hights, and from the Jordan River. None of these territories will be returned, and negotiations are only a hypocritical game. We understand this and are complicit in it and the Islamic world can see it too. When we make state ments like: war is our last resort, and we are planting the seeds of democracy, the world can see that we are not only the biggest superpower, but that we are the boldest liar as well. The BIG LIE is once again being used to manipulate populations and public opinion. Stalin and Hitler used the big lie as well, as I am sure that Saddam has used it in his little sandbox. Note Bush used the expression 9/11 many times in his last speech as a reason for us to attack Iraq in a well-crafted and successful attempt to justify invasion. The american people deserve the truth, as I believe us to be a people of character.
What is wrong with telling the truth: we are invading Iraq because we believe that at some future date, they pose a danger to our national security. We are practicing the first use of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war. Period. We would be respected more if we just told the truth about our reasons instead of hoisting the cross in some idiotic crusade of righteousness. If we feel we must do this for our self defense then just bloody well say so and get on with it. Israel will be thrilled with our victory, and then they can supply us with our next mission, because there will be others out there who will be a future threat to us as well. And all of them are enemies of Israel. We might take another look at North Korea before we lose San Francisco to some fit of pique from Kim Jung Il. Thats today's rant folks, now for my first cup of coffee.
(edited to correct pre-coffee typos)
What is wrong with telling the truth: we are invading Iraq because we believe that at some future date, they pose a danger to our national security. We are practicing the first use of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war. Period. We would be respected more if we just told the truth about our reasons instead of hoisting the cross in some idiotic crusade of righteousness. If we feel we must do this for our self defense then just bloody well say so and get on with it. Israel will be thrilled with our victory, and then they can supply us with our next mission, because there will be others out there who will be a future threat to us as well. And all of them are enemies of Israel. We might take another look at North Korea before we lose San Francisco to some fit of pique from Kim Jung Il. Thats today's rant folks, now for my first cup of coffee.
(edited to correct pre-coffee typos)
Last edited by Celtoid on Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Turner
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Derbyshire England, (Currently in Germany)
Bagfed, I dont think you do understand about Braveheart, its a nationalistic film from the Scots point of view, everyones heard about Bannock Burn, but few have heard of Northallerton, Neville's Cross or Flodden when Scotland invaded England or when the English beat larger Scottish armies. But this is not the place to discuss it so i will leave it there 
unless you want to PM me for a private history lesson Bagfed 
What are you by the way Bagfed, in one post you are Scottish, the next American
it confuses a little mind like mine 
Nobody can call the French or Germans cowards, Cowards do not stick with their decisions in the face of the world. That takes Moral courage. I have worked twice with the French Forgein legion on Brit/french joint exercises, and each time I found them to be proffessional, hard soldiers. Cowardice doesnt even come into it
Mr Jim Stone inyour thread you mention the word "WE" too many times (as in we the Americans). The British 1st Armoured Division were the only Battlegroup to push through the centre of the Iraq lines, other coalition forces (including America) faked a flanking attack, in order to fool the enemy. The highest loss on the British side, was when a US A10 destroyed a British Warrior APC killing 10 Soldiers!!!
Also muslim nations were kept out of the war when the British Special Air service were sent in to destroy the Scud missiles!! They spent the war in the Dessert, and even had a Sabre team near Bagdad ready for the order to kill Mr Saddam.
Now it doesnt matter what your stance on Iraq is, because we are going to war, doesnt matter what anyone else says. I have my call up papers to join my old Brigade the 16th Air Assault Brigade on the 16th April 2003, Iam not happy about leaving my wife and Daughter, but such is life, Iam not afraid, I will serve again with my old mates, and fight amongst people I know, and some great soldiers. I wont be fighting for freedom or liberty or any other crap which Mr Bush goes on about, just for the big fat paycheck which I will get, so that my family can enjoy it.
So when the war does begin, you (no names needed) arm chair warriors are out of a job, its a time when the real warriors have to make true the phrase "action speaks louder than words".
When i come back again maybe you people can thank me, for making you feel safe in your beds!!!
**one quick Edit!!** if the Americans are going to war because they are afraid of what might happen in the future with regards to attacks on the US by Iraq or muslim groups, then why didnt the UK take the same stance at the height of the conflict in Ireland?? after the bomb in Warrington, and in Omagh NI, surely we should have disarmed the Irish?? or isnt that ethical?? if it isnt Ethical, then why is it ok to disarm Iraq?? just a pause for thought**
unless you want to PM me for a private history lesson Bagfed What are you by the way Bagfed, in one post you are Scottish, the next American
it confuses a little mind like mine Nobody can call the French or Germans cowards, Cowards do not stick with their decisions in the face of the world. That takes Moral courage. I have worked twice with the French Forgein legion on Brit/french joint exercises, and each time I found them to be proffessional, hard soldiers. Cowardice doesnt even come into it
Mr Jim Stone inyour thread you mention the word "WE" too many times (as in we the Americans). The British 1st Armoured Division were the only Battlegroup to push through the centre of the Iraq lines, other coalition forces (including America) faked a flanking attack, in order to fool the enemy. The highest loss on the British side, was when a US A10 destroyed a British Warrior APC killing 10 Soldiers!!!
Also muslim nations were kept out of the war when the British Special Air service were sent in to destroy the Scud missiles!! They spent the war in the Dessert, and even had a Sabre team near Bagdad ready for the order to kill Mr Saddam.
Now it doesnt matter what your stance on Iraq is, because we are going to war, doesnt matter what anyone else says. I have my call up papers to join my old Brigade the 16th Air Assault Brigade on the 16th April 2003, Iam not happy about leaving my wife and Daughter, but such is life, Iam not afraid, I will serve again with my old mates, and fight amongst people I know, and some great soldiers. I wont be fighting for freedom or liberty or any other crap which Mr Bush goes on about, just for the big fat paycheck which I will get, so that my family can enjoy it.
So when the war does begin, you (no names needed) arm chair warriors are out of a job, its a time when the real warriors have to make true the phrase "action speaks louder than words".
When i come back again maybe you people can thank me, for making you feel safe in your beds!!!
**one quick Edit!!** if the Americans are going to war because they are afraid of what might happen in the future with regards to attacks on the US by Iraq or muslim groups, then why didnt the UK take the same stance at the height of the conflict in Ireland?? after the bomb in Warrington, and in Omagh NI, surely we should have disarmed the Irish?? or isnt that ethical?? if it isnt Ethical, then why is it ok to disarm Iraq?? just a pause for thought**
-
Celtoid
- Posts: 335
- Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Brownville, New York
- Contact:
I agree Turner that the Bush Doctrine opens a can of worms. I don't even want to go there as I've already had my rant for the day. As far as french soldiers go, some of my great memories of being assigned to Germany was often working with the French military in whose sectore we were assigned. They treated me just like a brother. Our ceremonies together at the war cemetaries back in France were heartfelt especially from the older Foreign Legionairs, and older French soldiers who remembered the sacrifice they made, and that the American made. By the way, my Great Grandfather, John Ellis, came from Derbyshire 
-
Tak_the_whistler
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Japan
.My apologies, Turner, if anything I said minimized the
important role that Brits have played in these affairs.
Good luck, and thanks!
Celtoid, I think you're spot on about our support of
Israel and what is likely in the offing for the
Palestinians. But I don't think you've yet covered
the strongest arguments we've given for giving Iraq an ultimatum.
Colin Powell has presented them,
I've tried to summarize them in this and
other threads (e.g. 'OT: Rolling Protest'),
they no longer include
the unfortunate doctrine of 'pre-emptive war.'
I agree that the Al Qaeda--Iraq link is unpersuasive,
but the best arguments don't rest on that.
Nobody has made any bones about the fact
that concern for our security is an important
part of our motivation for wishing to call Iraq
to account after 12 years of violating
its cease fire agreement concerning WMD.
That we've given some bad arguments for
an ultimatum doesn't mean that we haven't
given good ones too. That we are badly
mistaken about other issues in the middle east
doesn't prove we're wrong on this one.
I think it's a good idea
to focus on the best, not the worst, arguments
for a position I want to prove mistaken.
Jens, Tony Blair has put the matter about France,
Germany, and Russia this way: 'I have to say that
I really believe that had we given a strong message
some time ago, Saddam might have realized that
the games had to stop.'
The idea is that the
best hope of both peace and disarmament lay
in a united UN saying to Iraq: 'Its been 12 years
of non-compliance and we passed a resolution
in Nov saying that you had to disarm now or
face serious consequences. Well, enough's enough.
Here are the consequences.
You have three weeks, here are some benchmarks,
do it now or we will disarm you by force.'
Saddam, isolated and with a clear choice, might
have disarmed and war been averted.
By declaring its intention to veto any such
measure and insisting that avoiding war
is the most important issue, France has
encouraged Saddam to believe that he
can avoid disarming, divide
the world community, and continue
his old strategy of perpetual negotiations with
the UN. As the USA and Britain are (understandably)
determined that this will not happen, war
is now much closer.
In addition, it can be argued that
France is making the world more warlike
and less safe in the long term.
When 'serious consequences' =
still more inspections, it's unlikely that we will
effectively deal with murderous tyrants.
Other rogue nations considering
developing WMD are watching these proceedings
with interest. France's message isn't
lost on them: 'You won't have to worry
about being called to account by the UN
or the world community if you develop
WMD. Our chief concern will be to avoid
the risk of war.'' This is liable to
make the world a more dangerous and
violent place for us all.
A firmly unified UN this time
might have deterred such developments
and, if they happened anyway, given the world community
more leverage in forcing a peaceful solution.
France could still help avert war by accepting
the British compromise proposal, but Chirac
has said again yesterday that he is determined
to veto any proposal that involves an ultimatum. Best to all, Jim
important role that Brits have played in these affairs.
Good luck, and thanks!
Celtoid, I think you're spot on about our support of
Israel and what is likely in the offing for the
Palestinians. But I don't think you've yet covered
the strongest arguments we've given for giving Iraq an ultimatum.
Colin Powell has presented them,
I've tried to summarize them in this and
other threads (e.g. 'OT: Rolling Protest'),
they no longer include
the unfortunate doctrine of 'pre-emptive war.'
I agree that the Al Qaeda--Iraq link is unpersuasive,
but the best arguments don't rest on that.
Nobody has made any bones about the fact
that concern for our security is an important
part of our motivation for wishing to call Iraq
to account after 12 years of violating
its cease fire agreement concerning WMD.
That we've given some bad arguments for
an ultimatum doesn't mean that we haven't
given good ones too. That we are badly
mistaken about other issues in the middle east
doesn't prove we're wrong on this one.
I think it's a good idea
to focus on the best, not the worst, arguments
for a position I want to prove mistaken.
Jens, Tony Blair has put the matter about France,
Germany, and Russia this way: 'I have to say that
I really believe that had we given a strong message
some time ago, Saddam might have realized that
the games had to stop.'
The idea is that the
best hope of both peace and disarmament lay
in a united UN saying to Iraq: 'Its been 12 years
of non-compliance and we passed a resolution
in Nov saying that you had to disarm now or
face serious consequences. Well, enough's enough.
Here are the consequences.
You have three weeks, here are some benchmarks,
do it now or we will disarm you by force.'
Saddam, isolated and with a clear choice, might
have disarmed and war been averted.
By declaring its intention to veto any such
measure and insisting that avoiding war
is the most important issue, France has
encouraged Saddam to believe that he
can avoid disarming, divide
the world community, and continue
his old strategy of perpetual negotiations with
the UN. As the USA and Britain are (understandably)
determined that this will not happen, war
is now much closer.
In addition, it can be argued that
France is making the world more warlike
and less safe in the long term.
When 'serious consequences' =
still more inspections, it's unlikely that we will
effectively deal with murderous tyrants.
Other rogue nations considering
developing WMD are watching these proceedings
with interest. France's message isn't
lost on them: 'You won't have to worry
about being called to account by the UN
or the world community if you develop
WMD. Our chief concern will be to avoid
the risk of war.'' This is liable to
make the world a more dangerous and
violent place for us all.
A firmly unified UN this time
might have deterred such developments
and, if they happened anyway, given the world community
more leverage in forcing a peaceful solution.
France could still help avert war by accepting
the British compromise proposal, but Chirac
has said again yesterday that he is determined
to veto any proposal that involves an ultimatum. Best to all, Jim
-
Andreas
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Uppsala,Sweden
Jim:
There is no immediate danger from Iraq. The weapon inspections are(were) making slow but steady progress. No one dies. Horray!
Why could not the US unite with the rest of the UN instead of the rest of UN unite with the US? It is always like this. The US NEVER stand together with the UN on anything that is the least unconfortable for them, or does not give them their way right away, but demands that the UN must stand behind them, "or else it is useless". You might have heard that argument. Also, the US owes the UN money, so they should be glad to be there at all.
Another problem is that the US has a very ugly record of trying to bomb people to happines in different ways (it is 19 different countries since WW2, none of them which as a direct result got a democratic government), with rather bad results. Perhaps there is a feeling that they will not succeed this time either, and that no more lives should be spent.
Of course, the above assumes that the US is in it because of fear for their own security or because they want to set the people of Iraq free. There are other theories. They involve oil. The plan to have an American government in Iraq after the disposal of Saddam might upset some other people who also wants that oil.
Oh, and the situation is NOT the same as with Germany; noone is allowing Saddam to rearm. It is all about howto disarm him.
Andreas
There is no immediate danger from Iraq. The weapon inspections are(were) making slow but steady progress. No one dies. Horray!
Why could not the US unite with the rest of the UN instead of the rest of UN unite with the US? It is always like this. The US NEVER stand together with the UN on anything that is the least unconfortable for them, or does not give them their way right away, but demands that the UN must stand behind them, "or else it is useless". You might have heard that argument. Also, the US owes the UN money, so they should be glad to be there at all.
Another problem is that the US has a very ugly record of trying to bomb people to happines in different ways (it is 19 different countries since WW2, none of them which as a direct result got a democratic government), with rather bad results. Perhaps there is a feeling that they will not succeed this time either, and that no more lives should be spent.
Of course, the above assumes that the US is in it because of fear for their own security or because they want to set the people of Iraq free. There are other theories. They involve oil. The plan to have an American government in Iraq after the disposal of Saddam might upset some other people who also wants that oil.
Oh, and the situation is NOT the same as with Germany; noone is allowing Saddam to rearm. It is all about howto disarm him.
Andreas
-
Ro3b
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Takoma Park, MD
- Contact:
Well, I'm sitting here trying to come up with words to describe my thoughts on the upcoming war, the government's use of 9/11 as an excuse to generally undermine everything good and right about my country, the sheer hypocrisy (considering how he came to power) of George W. talking about bringing democracy and the rule of law to Iraq, the utter mess he's made of international relations, and (not to put too fine a point on it) the frustrating logic-free sanctimony of that odious stupid inarticulate beetlebrowed little oil prince, and I just get too angry to keep up any appropriate level of discourse. So I've changed my avatar.
Be safe Brother:
[quote="Turner"] Nobody can call the French or Germans cowards, Cowards do not stick with their decisions in the face of the world. That takes Moral courage. I have worked twice with the French Forgein legion on Brit/french joint exercises, and each time I found them to be proffessional, hard soldiers. Cowardice doesnt even come into it
Now it doesnt matter what your stance on Iraq is, because we are going to war, doesnt matter what anyone else says. I have my call up papers to join my old Brigade the 16th Air Assault Brigade on the 16th April 2003, Iam not happy about leaving my wife and Daughter, but such is life, Iam not afraid, I will serve again with my old mates, and fight amongst people I know, and some great soldiers. I wont be fighting for freedom or liberty or any other crap which Mr Bush goes on about, just for the big fat paycheck which I will get, so that my family can enjoy it.
So when the war does begin, you (no names needed) arm chair warriors are out of a job, its a time when the real warriors have to make true the phrase "action speaks louder than words".
Be Safe Brother:
It would be nice if the inevitable would not involve anyone being hurt. Every life lost is a live wasted. Those clamoring for action fail to under stand that the men and women of both sides of this conflict will be fathers, brother, husband, or sons. That they are rightfully terrified of what is to come and that they bravely do their duty to their country. They do not necessary believe it for it merit but do their duty because they have sworn to serve. It would be nice if the arm chair warriors would make their way down to the recruiter office and sign up to place their lives on the line. This might and should change there perspective. When the death and destruction of war turns from being a video game to a stark reality it generally has a maturing effect on those living thru it.
I kind of liked Sadams idea of he and Bush dueling it out.
We know Bush does not have the Ball for it however.
Let us hope for a last minute resolution of this issue because with Korea and Iran as the next two dominos I fear you call up could be a quite long one. Many more may be pressed into service within the next two years
Now it doesnt matter what your stance on Iraq is, because we are going to war, doesnt matter what anyone else says. I have my call up papers to join my old Brigade the 16th Air Assault Brigade on the 16th April 2003, Iam not happy about leaving my wife and Daughter, but such is life, Iam not afraid, I will serve again with my old mates, and fight amongst people I know, and some great soldiers. I wont be fighting for freedom or liberty or any other crap which Mr Bush goes on about, just for the big fat paycheck which I will get, so that my family can enjoy it.
So when the war does begin, you (no names needed) arm chair warriors are out of a job, its a time when the real warriors have to make true the phrase "action speaks louder than words".
Be Safe Brother:
It would be nice if the inevitable would not involve anyone being hurt. Every life lost is a live wasted. Those clamoring for action fail to under stand that the men and women of both sides of this conflict will be fathers, brother, husband, or sons. That they are rightfully terrified of what is to come and that they bravely do their duty to their country. They do not necessary believe it for it merit but do their duty because they have sworn to serve. It would be nice if the arm chair warriors would make their way down to the recruiter office and sign up to place their lives on the line. This might and should change there perspective. When the death and destruction of war turns from being a video game to a stark reality it generally has a maturing effect on those living thru it.
I kind of liked Sadams idea of he and Bush dueling it out.
We know Bush does not have the Ball for it however.
Let us hope for a last minute resolution of this issue because with Korea and Iran as the next two dominos I fear you call up could be a quite long one. Many more may be pressed into service within the next two years
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.htmlAndreas wrote:Jim:
There is no immediate danger from Iraq. The weapon inspections are(were) making slow but steady progress. No one dies. Horray!
Andreas
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the lighter side...
(AP) Washington DC
Friday, March 14, 2003 9:30 AM
President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack
Iraq. The President has announced that as of today he is agreeing to
additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq.
We will be sending 100,000 additional inspectors into Iraq. The
additional inspectors will include:
24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division
5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their " M1-A1 all
terrain vehicles"
Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft
from the:
USS Constellation,
USS George Washington,
USS Abraham Lincoln,
USS Enterprise,
USS Theodore Roosevelt,
USS Harry S. Truman, and
USS Kitty-Hawk.
The President stated: "with these additional inspectors the inspections
should be completed in a few weeks."
______________________________________
LIBERATE IRAQ
TD
Thanks, Andreas, for your comment. Let me respond to
two parts of it.
You write: 'The situation is not the same as with Germany;
no one is allowing Saddam to rearm. It is all about
how to disarm him.'
I'm not sure I understand--this seems to be a distinction without
a difference. Germany was forbidden from rearming by
the Treaty of Versaille. When Germany violated the
Treaty, people said the same things critics of an
ultimatum for Iraq are saying today, and it led to WWII..
Iraq is required by the cease fire to disarm and also
to stop arming--it has been violating the cease fire
for 12 years and there is good reason to think that
Iraq was trying to rearm (nuclear) in the last four years.
The difference between rearming, on the one
hand, and not disarming, on the other, doesn't seem
morally or practically relevant. In both cases you
end up with an aggressive dictator with dangerous
weapons.
Also you write: 'There is no immediate danger from Iraq.'
Nor was there an immediate danger from Germany
at the point that it became plain that Germany was
violating the Treaty. The point is that its better
to confront these things while they're small--if you
wait for an immediate danger, you've waited too long.
Of course the fact that there was no immediate
danger from Germany was used to argue that there
should be no ultimatum--let's give Germany more time, etc.
This arguement, and others like it, prevailed and
led to catastrophe.
You write: 'The weapons inspectors are making slow
but steady progress. No one dies. Hooray.'
Iraq went through 8 years of inspections and consideralbe
'slow but steady progress' without disarming. Saddam is
good at hiding things, playing cat and mouse, offering
timely tidbits, and not disarming. That's surely his game plan now.
He is especially good at manipulating the UN. In the late
90s, he actually got the UN to agree not to inspect 28 square miles
of Iraq. The UN was also considering ending sanctions.
Time is very much on Saddam's side now. If he can stall through
April, the threat of war is gone till maybe November.
Without that threat, he will have little incentive to
cooperate. He's had four years to hide things.
The USA and Britain cannot keep half
a million troops in place for six months. Once the troops
are withdrawn it's politically and economically
unlikely that they will be redeployed.
So if Saddam can stall a while longer, there is the real
prospect that there will no longer be a threat of war.
Then he can kick out the inspectors or whatever,
and go back to work on nukes. That's his plan,
and if we join the rest of the UN, it's likely
to work.
And then many, many people may die.
In addition it is hardly unreasonable to expect
a country to finally cooperate straightforwardly
with its treaty obligations, especially concerning
disarmement--wiithout our playing detective
indefinitely. That way the risk of war
is minimized. Sending the message to
nuclear wannabes that a treaty prohibiting
developing WMDs means very little,
tht they will never be expected to
actually do what they said they would, is
extraordinarily dangerous--especially now.
Thanks and best wishes, Jim
two parts of it.
You write: 'The situation is not the same as with Germany;
no one is allowing Saddam to rearm. It is all about
how to disarm him.'
I'm not sure I understand--this seems to be a distinction without
a difference. Germany was forbidden from rearming by
the Treaty of Versaille. When Germany violated the
Treaty, people said the same things critics of an
ultimatum for Iraq are saying today, and it led to WWII..
Iraq is required by the cease fire to disarm and also
to stop arming--it has been violating the cease fire
for 12 years and there is good reason to think that
Iraq was trying to rearm (nuclear) in the last four years.
The difference between rearming, on the one
hand, and not disarming, on the other, doesn't seem
morally or practically relevant. In both cases you
end up with an aggressive dictator with dangerous
weapons.
Also you write: 'There is no immediate danger from Iraq.'
Nor was there an immediate danger from Germany
at the point that it became plain that Germany was
violating the Treaty. The point is that its better
to confront these things while they're small--if you
wait for an immediate danger, you've waited too long.
Of course the fact that there was no immediate
danger from Germany was used to argue that there
should be no ultimatum--let's give Germany more time, etc.
This arguement, and others like it, prevailed and
led to catastrophe.
You write: 'The weapons inspectors are making slow
but steady progress. No one dies. Hooray.'
Iraq went through 8 years of inspections and consideralbe
'slow but steady progress' without disarming. Saddam is
good at hiding things, playing cat and mouse, offering
timely tidbits, and not disarming. That's surely his game plan now.
He is especially good at manipulating the UN. In the late
90s, he actually got the UN to agree not to inspect 28 square miles
of Iraq. The UN was also considering ending sanctions.
Time is very much on Saddam's side now. If he can stall through
April, the threat of war is gone till maybe November.
Without that threat, he will have little incentive to
cooperate. He's had four years to hide things.
The USA and Britain cannot keep half
a million troops in place for six months. Once the troops
are withdrawn it's politically and economically
unlikely that they will be redeployed.
So if Saddam can stall a while longer, there is the real
prospect that there will no longer be a threat of war.
Then he can kick out the inspectors or whatever,
and go back to work on nukes. That's his plan,
and if we join the rest of the UN, it's likely
to work.
And then many, many people may die.
In addition it is hardly unreasonable to expect
a country to finally cooperate straightforwardly
with its treaty obligations, especially concerning
disarmement--wiithout our playing detective
indefinitely. That way the risk of war
is minimized. Sending the message to
nuclear wannabes that a treaty prohibiting
developing WMDs means very little,
tht they will never be expected to
actually do what they said they would, is
extraordinarily dangerous--especially now.
Thanks and best wishes, Jim
-
Andreas
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Uppsala,Sweden
Tube Dude:
Sorry, I was being sloppy. I meant: No more people die. Although that probably was clear if one read the sentence "No one dies." as to mean in the context of the rest of that discussion, but now it is more clear I hope.
Jim:
The difference is this:
Germany was allowed to rearm until they had an army that actually was big enough to be a threat. Iraq really has no way to in any way bomb the US, other of course than suicide bombers/ lone rangers and although I think that some disarming of that kind of weapons is imminent, it is nothing to do anything about.
Otherwise I would say that Iraq is pretty well under close watch. Concerning how close Saddam is to building nuclear weapons, your guess is as good as mine, and all are guesses. The only source of information there is the relative to Saddam who the US has been very eager to cite, since he said that there were some attempts to build such weapons and that they had chemical/biological weapons. What has not been cited is the fact that he also said that they were all destroyed before he quit.
After that, the weapon inspections have never had any reason to believe that there was any attempts to build nuclear weapons again. And the "proofs" that has been shown by the US (look, a truck) has no credibility at all.
Hence, while it was pretty apparent that Germany really was building/had an army that could be a threat to many nations/the whole world, one could hardly say the same thing about Iraq in the present situation, could one?
That is why I think that there is no parallel between Germany and Iraq.
Sorry, I was being sloppy. I meant: No more people die. Although that probably was clear if one read the sentence "No one dies." as to mean in the context of the rest of that discussion, but now it is more clear I hope.
Jim:
The difference is this:
Germany was allowed to rearm until they had an army that actually was big enough to be a threat. Iraq really has no way to in any way bomb the US, other of course than suicide bombers/ lone rangers and although I think that some disarming of that kind of weapons is imminent, it is nothing to do anything about.
Otherwise I would say that Iraq is pretty well under close watch. Concerning how close Saddam is to building nuclear weapons, your guess is as good as mine, and all are guesses. The only source of information there is the relative to Saddam who the US has been very eager to cite, since he said that there were some attempts to build such weapons and that they had chemical/biological weapons. What has not been cited is the fact that he also said that they were all destroyed before he quit.
After that, the weapon inspections have never had any reason to believe that there was any attempts to build nuclear weapons again. And the "proofs" that has been shown by the US (look, a truck) has no credibility at all.
Hence, while it was pretty apparent that Germany really was building/had an army that could be a threat to many nations/the whole world, one could hardly say the same thing about Iraq in the present situation, could one?
That is why I think that there is no parallel between Germany and Iraq.
-
Zubivka
- Posts: 3308
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Sol-3, .fr/bzh/mesquer
Happy St-Patrick's, Iraq.
The ball is open.
And not only in Iraq. The recent declaration by S. Hussein mean that now he'll be an ally of terrorists, or rather an actor as such. Americans can ALL agree now that he is a threat to the US. Now there will be a very objectrive reason to feel paranoid.
I regret no member of the SC supported the only reasonable compromise within UN, the one suggested by Kofi Annan. What was the difference between his proposal and the present situation? The bombings, which will first glaze the way to Bagdad, and destroy whatever was still alive in the Iraqi economy, as the already scarce water supply.
The ball is open.
And not only in Iraq. The recent declaration by S. Hussein mean that now he'll be an ally of terrorists, or rather an actor as such. Americans can ALL agree now that he is a threat to the US. Now there will be a very objectrive reason to feel paranoid.
I regret no member of the SC supported the only reasonable compromise within UN, the one suggested by Kofi Annan. What was the difference between his proposal and the present situation? The bombings, which will first glaze the way to Bagdad, and destroy whatever was still alive in the Iraqi economy, as the already scarce water supply.