Iraq [Archive] - Page 3

jerseydevil

11-09-2002, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
I couldn't agree with you more...it's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to someone as evil as Saddam. However, what comes later? No one seems to have a coherent policy for a new regime. I'd be much more likely to support a military strike if I knew that a transition plan was ready to put into place. Taking out the current regime will leave a vacuum, leading to the inevitable power struggle, leading to the likely scenario of years of bloodshed, guerrilla warfare, suicide bombers, etc. And unfortunate civilians will pay that price.:(

I don't think we have had a knee jerk reaction. If we did - we would have just have gone in there and said "to hell with the consequences". There is a lot going on behind closed doors as they plan out strategy. Does anyone really know exactly what negotiations were being done to get the US resolution passed - not mention to get it passed unanimously with even SYRIA accepting? I didn't think Syria would have accepted - I figured they would have abstained so as not to piss of their Arab neighbors or Iraq.

There has already been a lot concerning the rebuilding of Iraq. For instance - the US has been looking at the ramifications and desires of the countries around Iraq. They have been meeting with the "defector force" (can't remember who they actually are). I know that they have met several times with Bush at thew White House. We're not even close to war yet and it still may not come to it (although chances are that it will).

I seriously don't think the US will leave Iraq in a "vacuum". Afganistan has not been left in a vacuum. We'd probably be using UN troops and the international community to set up a new government.

It's going to be a while before a tranisition plan is completely ironed out and the government would be stupid to openly disclose all their plans at this time.

Hasty Ent

11-09-2002, 01:49 PM

Sorry, obviously my post was not clear. I never meant the US government acted with a knee jerk reaction. I merely meant to say that it would be 'easy' for 'anyone' to have that sort of response. As for any plan put into place, whether the UN or the US sets it in motion, does anyone truly believe the Iraqi people will accept it? Won't it be perceived as interference in their own, sovereign state? There is no winning here -- the situation is damned either way. :(

Radagast The Brown

11-09-2002, 04:30 PM

originally posted by HE
Sorry, obviously my post was not clear. I never meant the US government acted with a knee jerk reaction. I merely meant to say that it would be 'easy' for 'anyone' to have that sort of response. As for any plan put into place, whether the UN or the US sets it in motion, does anyone truly believe the Iraqi people will accept it? Won't it be perceived as interference in their own, sovereign state? There is no winning here -- the situation is damned either way. :( I agree. The iraqi don't want anyone to interfere their life, and they don't know how to live without this goverment. They will try to fight the American, even if Saddam would die. And I don't know if he's not dead yet, either. I can't believe The US will succeed to kill Saddam nor find him, and even if they will find him, Iraq would say that it was a double.

I support the US attack (if they will attack) and not afraid of Iraq. Some people just explained to me what could happen in case that someone would be hurt of a nurve gas, and more fatal gases/microbe, and that's disgusting. Like, that you can't control your nurves, and then - you can't stop crying, sweating, and the other liquids in your body get out, and you can't breath... stuff like this. I can't believe people make this things, to hurt people, innocent people.

The Lady of Ithilien

11-10-2002, 12:11 PM

I can't believe people make this things, to hurt people, innocent people.And even use them, as Saddam Hussein has, on their own people. You begin to see a little more clearly what all the idealists in all the antiwar demonstrations in all the world have yet to discover, as long as it hasn't affected them personally yet.

This stuff happens. And it's horrible.

And the world basically let Saddam Hussein get away with it when he gassed the Kurds. He has done it to other minorities in Iraq since. The longer he gets away with it, the bolder he will become, and already it has been 11 years and 16 UN resolutions. We will see how he handles the 17th.

The iraqi don't want anyone to interfere their life, and they don't know how to live without this goverment. Who knows what the Iraqi people want? It is a basic assumption in a democracy like that of the US or Israel that there will always be differences of opinion among people, and that a government needs to work in such a way as to handle such things in as rational and fair a way as possible for all concerned.

Certainly, just as in the US, Europe, Israel and elsewhere, there are differences of opinion among the Iraqi people; we see this from those dissidents who escape Iraq or who have lived in the West for years. But the people in Iraq who cannot get out must be silent or else 100% behind Big Brother Saddam or face the consequences, which are dreadful. That is not the way of Islam, if one reads the Koran. It is not human nature, either. Something has got to change here and soon.

My senator, who was just reelected, bless him, answered a query of mine on this very eloquently. To quote from his letter:...Of course, with power comes responsibility. We should never use military force in an unjustified way. To be justifiable, a policymaker must truly believe that the end result of military action will be good. I believe that the world will be safer with Saddam Hussein gone. Also, if a war were to result, it will not be an attack on Iraq but a liberation of Iraq [emphasis added]. A positive and progressive Iraq would be a wonderful thing for the world. Iraq is not so rural and tribal as Afghanistan. It has always had a functioning civil government, an educated population and a decent health system. While the money it obtains from the sale of its significant oil reserves has been a key factor in propelling its military strength and its production of weapons of mass destruction, that money can, if used properly, help the country and its people develop a growing and prosperous country. I strongly believe that not only will the world benefit from the elimination of the oppression of Saddam Hussein, but that the biggest beneficiaries will be the suffering people of Iraq.So do I.

Cirdan

11-10-2002, 02:34 PM

The sad part about the military solution is that most of the young men that are considered legitimate targets are conscripts with a gun to their backs. Any installed govvernment would most likely suffer years of terrorist reprisals. It would be best if the imminent invasion caused a coup before the bombs start falling. The aftermath of the invasion would be much less pleasant than the less than wonderful experience of the current Afgans. This is not aiding one side of a civil war but an all out attack against the whole country. I'm gald I don't have to make these decisions and I don't envy our leaders who do.

jerseydevil

11-10-2002, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Cirdan
It would be best if the imminent invasion caused a coup before the bombs start falling.

Well this is what was in the paper today...

According the the Washington Post, senior military officials say the war plan enivisions seizing most of the country quickly and encircling Baghdad, giving Iraqis the oppurtunity to overthrow Saddam, the country's dictator since 1979.

The US intelligence community has said that Saddam might even be ousted before an attack is launched, once it became clear in Iraq that such an attack was imminent.

That last part I have a hard time believing, considering how well protected Hussein is. If Hussein is cornered and holed up in an underground bunker - someone may take control of the Iraqi government however.

I also would hate to be having to make these decisions.

jerseydevil

11-13-2002, 04:32 PM

Iraq has accepted the UN Resolution. Of course they claim they have nothing to be afraid of because they don't have any weapons.

Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Al-Douri, delivered the acceptance of a resolution ordering the inspectors to return in a letter to the U.N. He said: "We try to explain our position saying Iraq will not have mass destruction weapons. So we are not worried about the inspectors when they will be back in the country. Iraq is clean."

I guess we'll just have to see how "clean" Iraq really is.

I am surprised that they agreed to it today. I figured they would have dragged it out until Friday.

Cirdan

11-13-2002, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I am surprised that they agreed to it today. I figured they would have dragged it out until Friday.

Yeah, after that performance by the Iraqi legislature combined with Bin Laden's little speech I was feeling a lot less... dovish than usual. *not surpressing urge to kill*

I guess we don't find out anything now until the first report which comes Dec. 26, unless they inhibit the inspectors right away. It will depend on how good the intelligence is and how fast it leads the inspectors to the WMD, if they are there.

From what I've read they probably had time to dismantle the small beginnings of any nuke program. They will probably accept the loss of chemical and biological weapons that are found since they can be made easier. The rockets aren't a terror threat and I'm guessing they don't have any more of those left than they had at the end of the war.

Coney

11-15-2002, 06:37 PM

Interesting little site which contains both the pros and cons of a direct attack on Iraq -

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_pro-con.htm

Sister Golden Hair

11-15-2002, 09:00 PM

Iraq fires on U.S. planes in the Nofly Zone two days after accepting the UN resolution. Go figure.

Coney

11-16-2002, 12:23 AM

I'm taking a rough guess at antaganonism;)

The Lady of Ithilien

11-17-2002, 11:15 AM

it's easy to have a knee jerk reaction to someone as evil as Saddam. However, what comes later?There's some serious discussion among those with the strongest personal interest in the region going on about that right now: http://aei.org/iraq/iraqfront.htm (see full transcript for the 10/3 conference on planning for a post-Saddam Iraq)

Am only just beginning to read through it, as I only found it Friday thanks to an AP online article about the generals' conference on Nov. 15 (transcript not yet online). Looks interesting so far: an Federation of Iraq. Interesting idea that could work. But those four conditions outlined by Kanan Makiya are big "if's":

"1. That the government of the United States actually proceeds with its stated policy of regime change in Iraq.

"2. That the unseating of the Saddam Husain regime does not take place at the cost of large scale civilian casualties (Iraqi or Israeli) which could introduce considerable volatility and unpredictability into the political situation.

"3. That these ideas, or some variation on them, are actually adopted at a large and representative conference of the Iraqi opposition.

"4. That the Government of the United States, as the partner of the Iraqi people in liberating Iraq, sees its role in Iraq as being for the long term, for democracy and reconstruction--i.e, for nation-building. "

Re the first point, it's happening. It will happen regardless of what the UN does or does not do. The second point is the biggest problem currently; it's a valid one, and among other things, probably is the reason underlying the change in tactics signalled by the massacre Friday night in Hebron: away from individual or small-team suicide tactics to regular military assaults. It also is likely the reason Saddam will once again locate his military equipment and personnel in the middle of civilian population centers in his own country. The third point can serve to pave the way to such a necessary conference after Saddam is gone. Point four: We certainly will. That is one big reason why we're hosting such conferences right now. Also reference what my senator said about Iraq's value to the world (above).

BeardofPants

01-17-2003, 02:44 AM

Eleven empty 122mm chemical warheads were discovered by the UN inspectors during an inspection of the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area. These bunkers were erected in the late 1990s.

http://www.dispatch.co.za/2003/01/17/foreign/MCHEM.HTM

Dunadan

01-17-2003, 04:59 AM

Did the warheads have "Made in the USA" on them?

BeardofPants

01-17-2003, 05:25 AM

LOL! :D

Coney

01-17-2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Dunadan
Did the warheads have "Made in the USA" on them?

hahaha:D

Hmm, "similar to those imported in the late '80's" and a very familiar green colour........very possibly Dunadan, very possibly..

Sween

01-17-2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Coney
hahaha:D

Hmm, "similar to those imported in the late '80's" and a very familiar green colour........very possibly Dunadan, very possibly..

Hate to say it but they are as likelt to say made in the UK. And if we do we should not fear we cannot get a train to run on time what the chanfces of getting a complicated wepon to be effective :p

Coney

01-17-2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Sween
Hate to say it but they are as likelt to say made in the UK. And if we do we should not fear we cannot get a train to run on time what the chanfces of getting a complicated wepon to be effective :p

Very true........that explains why the Americans keep blowing the shishkebab out of our troops with "friendly fire".........They think we are Iraqi' :eek:

*Sends memo to Blair - "make sure all UK troops wear flourescent blue uniforms, Americans have trouble distinguishing neutral colours on a battlefield.....perhaps painting the McDonalds Golden Arches on transport vehicles could be condsidered?"*

Draken

01-17-2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Sween
Hate to say it but they are as likelt to say made in the UK. And if we do we should not fear we cannot get a train to run on time what the chanfces of getting a complicated wepon to be effective :p

Nah the UK hasn't manufactured chem stuff for many a year. I think most of the British kit in the area is with the Saudis, though I think the Iranians might have a fair few Chieftains left. Maybe we should borrow them back, they seem to deal with the sand better than Challengers!

Sween

01-17-2003, 08:03 AM

Dunadan

01-17-2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Coney
Very true........that explains why the Americans keep blowing the shishkebab out of our troops with "friendly fire".........They think we are Iraqi' :eek:

*Sends memo to Blair - "make sure all UK troops wear flourescent blue uniforms, Americans have trouble distinguishing neutral colours on a battlefield.....perhaps painting the McDonalds Golden Arches on transport vehicles could be condsidered?"*
You can add to that: stop testing out dodgy vaccines on the troops which haven't even been shown to work on mice at Porton Down.

And yes, Sween, you're quite right. Churchill (our "Greatest Briton") was the first to decide that it would be a grand idea to gas the unruly "primitive tribes" in the arbitrarily drawn borders of what we (Brits) decided consituted Iraq in the 1920s. The only reason he didn't do it was because they couldn't get such a weapon to work.

I don't have any illusions about British innocence here. We gave the world concentration camps, divide and rule, ethnic cleansing, economic and cultural imperialism and mass censorship. Just because others have perfected these tools doesn't make us, as a nation, any better than anyone else.

And the propaganda our so-called free press is coming out with at the moment is totally sickening.

* barfs into filing cabinet *

no cheers

d.

BTW - Bush, Gore, Blair, Thatcher: it makes no difference. Human rights take second place to big business for all of them.

Sween

01-17-2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Dunadan
You can add to that: stop testing out dodgy vaccines on the troops which haven't even been shown to work on mice at Porton Down.

And yes, Sween, you're quite right. Churchill (our "Greatest Briton") was the first to decide that it would be a grand idea to gas the unruly "primitive tribes" in the arbitrarily drawn borders of what we (Brits) decided consituted Iraq in the 1920s. The only reason he didn't do it was because they couldn't get such a weapon to work.

I don't have any illusions about British innocence here. We gave the world concentration camps, divide and rule, ethnic cleansing, economic and cultural imperialism and mass censorship. Just because others have perfected these tools doesn't make us, as a nation, any better than anyone else.

And the propaganda our so-called free press is coming out with at the moment is totally sickening.

* barfs into filing cabinet *

no cheers

d.

BTW - Bush, Gore, Blair, Thatcher: it makes no difference. Human rights take second place to big business for all of them.

Very true very true im affraid. But at least Thatcher would make her own mind(if anything else she never was led by any other countries policies).

Now war now look certain. Its allready in motions and what the end will be. In theory we should win this war easily we are far better equiped and specilised than Iraq.

My whole problem of this and this is a english person speaking here is that we have been led by american policy not british. Mr Blair is comming out very unfavoriably in my eyes he just comes running to bush call.

I do not agree with this war for the simple reasons it is not US or british business to depoise a leader. Its our job to act responiably and support the correct channels (the UN).

Americans have voted Bush as there leader and therefore he is answeriable to them but i dont like the way an american is basically gonna send our boys (i have many friends in the army) in. Think of it as an unelcected official decideding what taxs you are gonna pay.

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Sween
I do not agree with this war for the simple reasons it is not US or british business to depoise a leader. Its our job to act responiably and support the correct channels (the UN).

American's never voted the UN in as the rulers of American foreign policy. As I've stated - I don't even think the US shold be in the UN.

Americans have voted Bush as there leader and therefore he is answeriable to them but i dont like the way an american is basically gonna send our boys (i have many friends in the army) in. Think of it as an unelcected official decideding what taxs you are gonna pay.
If your friends didn't consider going into war - why did they join the army? Did they think it was a drinking club or something and made a mistake? :rolleyes: There is only one reason to go into the armed forces and that is to go to war and defend your country. If you're not willing to fight in a war - then don't join the army.

I don't see Bush calling up your troops - Blair is. If you have a problem with it - you better continue to take it up with him. By the way if it was Thatcher (who I liked) - I don't really like Blair - you'd be calling her a lap dog if she supported the war and you didn't.

At least some of you have come to realise that your country isn't perfect. Some of the root causes of the problems in the Middle East all boil down to the crusades and Europe's colonialism.

I guess you guys just think we should just negotiate with Saddam Hussein even though Hans Blix is now saying that Iraq is NOT cooperating and that he is hiding things. Without the US's strong stance - Saddam Hussein would be continuing to ignore the UN resolutions. The US forced Hussein to accept the UN Inspections - do you think he would have done it if the UN just got on their hands and knees and begged? The UN only passes resolutions and then wipes it's hands and walks away. Look at the cannibalism that they declared is going on in Africa - are they doing anything about it? Congo rebels must halt massacres - U.N. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/01/16/un.congo.ap/index.html) or what? The UN is a joke - they can't do anything other than spew a lot of hot air and wag their finger in the air telling these rogue nations to behave. It's like the joke we have concerning cops not carrying guns in Britain. The cop is chasing a criminal "Stop........ or I'll yell stop again." :D

Sween

01-17-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
American's never voted the UN in as the rulers of American foreign policy. As I've stated - I don't even think the US shold be in the UN.

If your friends didn't consider going into war - why did they join the army? Did they think it was a drinking club or something and made a mistake? :rolleyes: There is only one reason to go into the armed forces and that is to go to war and defend your country. If you're not willing to fight in a war - then don't join the army.

I don't see Bush calling up your troops - Blair is. If you have a problem with it - you better continue to take it up with him. By the way if it was Thatcher (who I liked) - I don't really like Blair - you'd be calling her a lap dog if she supported the war and you didn't.

At least some of you have come to realise that your country isn't perfect. Some of the root causes of the problems in the Middle East all boil down to the crusades and Europe's colonialism.

In all truth a lot of my mates are a bit thick. Esspecially burty. God bless him he only joined the army to get out of cumbria and get women. I dont think it crossed his mind (the silly sod) that he may have to go shot people and be shot at.

Indeed blair is techincally but it seem under bushs sole comand you know bush says jump and blair says how high kinda job. Ive allready passed on a complaint to my MP (as one of my teacher wisely said one day you dont have the right to complain if you dont complain to the people that can make a difference) so im allowed to bitch a lot :D !

My country has made a lot of mistakes down the line i would just hate to see america do the same thing. We still are making a lot of mistakes we are the only western country i can think so that openly allows leaders of terrorist organisations into there governement why you have not bombed us is a mystery.

But this is a genral question that we asked down the pub last night (oh yes we can get quite topical down there) whom do you fear more sadam or Bush and we all came up with bush cos we sure as hell kow hes got nucular wepons and he doesnt seem totally against using them

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Sween
My country has made a lot of mistakes down the line i would just hate to see america do the same thing. We still are making a lot of mistakes we are the only western country i can think so that openly allows leaders of terrorist organisations into there governement why you have not bombed us is a mystery.

But this is a genral question that we asked down the pub last night (oh yes we can get quite topical down there) whom do you fear more sadam or Bush and we all came up with bush cos we sure as hell kow hes got nucular wepons and he doesnt seem totally against using them
i shoudl remind you that you have nukes too. if Blair is such a lapdog - maybe we would just have Blair shoot yours off. :D

I believe that everyone was also againt the US bomging of Lybia after the Pan Am bombing. But hey - we haven't had any problems from Gaddafi since then - and he's currently supporting the effort against terrorism. I just hope he's sincere on this support.

Admit it though - Europe secretly hopes that the US falls flat on our faces so you can regain world power status. During the Japan bubble market - everyone declared the end of the US and that the Yen was going to replace the dollar as the world's currency. We see how far that went. There will of course be a time when the US will desolve and be replaced - especially if we don't protect our freedoms.

Also - why do seem to distrust Bush so much - especially since there is so much proof that Saddam Hussein has been lying and so much to back up what Bush has been saying? It's been pointed out here - that Hans Blix is the same weapons inspector that declared North Korea clean and they've been working on nuclear weapon techonology since 1990's. Also he was quoted as saying that Iraq wasn't hiding anything during the previous inspections - now he's coming out and saying that they aren't cooperating and there are serious problems in Iraq.

Sween

01-17-2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
i shoudl remind you that you have nukes too. if Blair is such a lapdog - maybe we would just have Blair shoot yours off. :D

I believe that everyone was also againt the US bomging of Lybia after the Pan Am bombing. But hey - we haven't had any problems from Gaddafi since then - and he's currently supporting the effort against terrorism. I just hope he's sincere on this support.

Admit it though - Europe secretly hopes that the US falls flat on our faces so you can regain world power status. During the Japan bubble market - everyone declared the end of the US and that the Yen was going to replace the dollar as the world's currency. We see how far that went. There will of course be a time when the US will desolve and be replaced - especially if we don't protect our freedoms.

Also - why do seem to distrust Bush so much - especially since there is so much proof that Saddam Hussein has been lying and so much to back up what Bush has been saying? It's been pointed out here - that Hans Blix is the same weapons inspector that declared North Korea clean and they've been working on nuclear weapon techonology since 1990's. Also he was quoted as saying that Iraq wasn't hiding anything during the previous inspections - now he's coming out and saying that they aren't cooperating and there are serious problems in Iraq.

If we use our nukes i would seriously consider starting a civil war thats how strongly i feel they should not be used.

The thought has never crossed my mind to replace US as the number one i wasnt aware that you were the number one country or partiually care. This aint an economic thing is it? its a whats right and whats wrong and if we go down this road what will be the long term damage?

why do i distrust bush? Well everytime i have seen him on tele or been interview he seems to have this whole im right your wrong thing going on about him. He worries me hes like a wondeed dog its all ohh everyone wants to kill everyone ion the US sadam wants to kill us all. 9/11 this 9/11 that. Know what i mean all i have heard out of him the whole time hes been in office is how all these other people are comming to get him and if he can just find one grain of truth in this hes going in after them. Bush scares me cos Bush wants war. Plus theres the fact i dont think much of his much melinged intelegence (im sure hes not as dumb as people make out) but he does carry the air of a gun toteing hick from the byeue who shots trespassers on sight and marries his sister

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Sween
The thought has never crossed my mind to replace US as the number one i wasnt aware that you were the number one country or partiually care. This aint an economic thing is it? its a whats right and whats wrong and if we go down this road what will be the long term damage?

Once Iraq builds up it's weapons - which obviously Saddam Hussein is doing - what will the consequences be? Europe waited and conjoled Hitler for a long time without taking action. Today you don't have to have mass troop buildups that can be seen to wipe out a city - all you need is some chemical factories or biological laboratories. Biological agents can be developed anywhere. So if you want to deal with Iraq - once they have those things at their fingertips then be my guest.

why do i distrust bush? Well everytime i have seen him on tele or been interview he seems to have this whole im right your wrong thing going on about him. He worries me hes like a wondeed dog its all ohh everyone wants to kill everyone ion the US sadam wants to kill us all. 9/11 this 9/11 that. Know what i mean all i have heard out of him the whole time hes been in office is how all these other people are comming to get him and if he can just find one grain of truth in this hes going in after them. Bush scares me cos Bush wants war. Plus theres the fact i dont think much of his much melinged intelegence (im sure hes not as dumb as people make out) but he does carry the air of a gun toteing hick from the byeue who shots trespassers on sight and marries his sister
Well you haven't had an Al Qaeda attack with the whole middle east fighting for the destruction of your country. Yeah - they spout off about how they want the destruction of the western world - but you haven't had a serious terrorist attack yet, so you don't really get it. The IRA attacks are small potatoes of what occurred on 9/11. If you ever come out here - I'll show you the area of New York that was wiped off the face of the earth, I live 45 miles from where they once stood - or you can look at my Twin Towers Memorial Site (http://www.aboutnewjersey.com/TwinTowers/twintowers.htm). Just hope that Al Qaeda doesn't make it through and succeed on a chemical attack on the undergound or blow up Buckingham Palace or blow up Parliament. By the way - my mail processing center is still shut down from the Anthrax. The building is wrapped in plastic. The FBI hasn't discovered who did it, so it may or may not have Al Qaeda connections. But it doesn't mean that something like that can't happen.

Also - most of the terrorists lived in New Jersey, as a matter of fact the city where my mother grew up - Jersey City. When I go into the store or the mall - I question is the person in front of me in line a possible terrorist. Will I walk into a store that gets blown up, or with 500 people watching LotR - does one of them possibly have a bomb and plans to blow up the theater. We know that these are not impossibilities - look at what has been happening in Israel and the South Pacific. It's only a matter of time before another attack gets through. America has to be proactive in this war and that's what we're doing.

Sween

01-17-2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Once Iraq builds up it's weapons - which obviously Saddam Hussein is doing - what will the consequences be? Europe waited and conjoled Hitler for a long time without taking action. Today you don't have to have mass troop buildups that can be seen to wipe out a city - all you need is some chemical factories or biological laboratories. Biological agents can be developed anywhere. So if you want to deal with Iraq - once they have those things at their fingertips then be my guest.

Well you haven't had an Al Qaeda attack with the whole middle east fighting for the destruction of your country. Yeah - they spout off about how they want the destruction of the western world - but you haven't had a serious terrorist attack yet, so you don't really get it. The IRA attacks are small potatoes of what occurred on 9/11. If you ever come out here - I'll show you the area of New York that was wiped off the face of the earth, I live 45 miles from where they once stood - or you can look at my Twin Towers Memorial Site (http://www.aboutnewjersey.com/TwinTowers/twintowers.htm). Just hope that Al Qaeda doesn't make it through and succeed on a chemical attack on the undergound or blow up Buckingham Palace or blow up Parliament. By the way - my mail processing center is still shut down from the Anthrax. The building is wrapped in plastic. The FBI hasn't discovered who did it, so it may or may not have Al Qaeda connections. But it doesn't mean that something like that can't happen.

Also - most of the terrorists lived in New Jersey, as a matter of fact the city where my mother grew up - Jersey City. When I go into the store or the mall - I question is the person in front of me in line a possible terrorist. Will I walk into a store that gets blown up, or with 500 people watching LotR - does one of them possibly have a bomb and plans to blow up the theater. We know that these are not impossibilities - look at what has been happening in Israel and the South Pacific. It's only a matter of time before another attack gets through. America has to be proactive in this war and that's what we're doing.

9/11 wasnt the worst thing that ever happened in the world. I mean it was terriable but does it deserve to be talked about so long after it. 3,000 people died i know but more die of famine each day than that, more die of aids, more die in war.

would we still be talking about it if it had happened to a lesser nation.

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Sween
9/11 wasnt the worst thing that ever happened in the world. I mean it was terriable but does it deserve to be talked about so long after it. 3,000 people died i know but more die of famine each day than that, more die of aids, more die in war.

would we still be talking about it if it had happened to a lesser nation.

Maybe not - but face it - when something happens in your backyard you care about it more than if it happens to your neighbor. Sorry - but that's a fact and a fact for everyone. I'm sure you care more about your family and friends than some stranger in another city. You may empathize when something happens and you hear about it on the news - but then you go on with your life and put it behind you.

Bush is talking to Americans about 9/11 - not necessarily to the world - your news of course covers this. 9/11 was in OUR backyard so of course it's important to us. It especially important to the area I live in. We are constantly on edge here. Just yesterday there was a chemical truck stolen in Brooklyn - luckily it was found. On New Years there was that false alarm about those 5 terrorists sneaking into the US from Canada. When the ball dropped in Times Square people were expecting the news to come on and say that Wall Street was just bombed. New York Harbor was closed to all recreational vehicles and the bridges and tunnels were being patrolled.

Sween

01-17-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Maybe not - but face it - when something happens in your backyard you care about it more than if it happens to your neighbor. Sorry - but that's a fact and a fact for everyone. I'm sure you care more about your family and friends than some stranger in another city. You may empathize when something happens and you hear about it on the news - but then you go on with your life and put it behind you.

Bush is talking to Americans about 9/11 - not necessarily to the world - your news of course covers this. 9/11 was in OUR backyard so of course it's important to us. It especially important to the area I live in. We are constantly on edge here. Just yesterday there was a chemical truck stolen in Brooklyn - luckily it was found. On New Years there was that false alarm about those 5 terrorists sneaking into the US from Canada. When the ball dropped in Times Square people were expecting the news to come on and say that Wall Street was just bombed. New York Harbor was closed to all recreational vehicles and the bridges and tunnels were being patrolled.

Honestally how do you live like that? I am aware that there is a good cahnce if it all kicked off i would die early i live near a very tactical sire (sellefeild) which would be a prime target many of my mates work there.

Do you really think the threat is that great because i allways saw 9/11 as a one off

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Sween
Honestally how do you live like that? I am aware that there is a good cahnce if it all kicked off i would die early i live near a very tactical sire (sellefeild) which would be a prime target many of my mates work there.

I live with it - I'm not going to chane what I do. Everyone thought I was crazy for going to Liberty State Park in Jersey City for 4th of July. It's across the river from where the Twin Towers once stood and there were thousands of people there. Anything could have happened. I've also been to Ellis Island and the Statue fo Liberty 3 or 4 times since then. If something happens - something happens. I was in Times Square for the 2000 celebration and if I had someone to go with this year - I would have.

Do you really think the threat is that great because i allways saw 9/11 as a one off

You don't think they have plans for other things? You really can't be serious. The Eiffel Tower was also on their list opf targets - as were many other European landmarks. Tons of documents and diagrams of many US attractions and landmarks were found in the Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afganistan. Al Qaeda currently has terrorist camps in northern Iraq and are causing problems with the Kurds. Osama Bin Ladin has declared he wants to take down the west and America in particular. There are Islamic religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, Iran and all throughout the Middle East telling students that it is honorable to kill Americans and Jews and take up "Jihad" against the west and the "infidels".

Maybe once England gets attacked you'll see that it's not such an isolated thing. England will get attacked at one point - they're already planning on things as demonstrated by the Ricin incident. I'm not wishing that England or any other country gets attacked - but something is bound to get through at some point.

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 02:01 PM

I am aware that there is a good cahnce if it all kicked off i would die early i live near a very tactical sire (sellefeild) which would be a prime target many of my mates work there.

I was wondering in what resepect this is tactical. If it's military - then it's really not on their list (or at least very doubtful). That would be the old Cold War belief - but the rules are different now. They want civilian casualities and targets which will destroy the economy. They want soft targets - such as nightclubs, stores, theaters, malls - things that aren't heavily guarded. The Twin Towers was a symbol that they attacked. All indications say that the Pentagon wasn't even their initial target, the White House was. Luckily the White House is covered in trees. Flight controllers following the plane said that it was on a direct course for the White House - after the plane overflew the White House the terrorists must have realised they had passed by it, circled around and then started heading for the Pentagon instead. The flight that crashed in Pennsylvania is believed to have been targeted for the Capitol Building.

Comic Book Guy

01-17-2003, 03:14 PM

I wouldn't exactly call the deaths of 2000+ people small potatoes Jerseydevil, and thats not counting non-IRA terror attacks.

jerseydevil

01-17-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
I wouldn't exactly call the deaths of 2000+ people small potatoes Jerseydevil, and thats not counting non-IRA terror attacks.

Well there was never a terrorist attack that killed 3000, like 9/11 or even 2000 inside of 2 hours in the world. How long has the IRA fight be going on for the freedom of Ireland from England? I'm Irish - I don't necessarily care too much about whether Ireland is part of England or not - but why is Ireland so important to England. What financial or military benefits does it bring to England? Ireland never chose to become part of Great Britain - it was conquered and annexed.

The Lady of Ithilien

01-22-2003, 03:21 PM

The Israelis interviewed (http://www.debka.com) (you have to scroll down past the headlines to read the interview) an Iraqi man in Amman last week who claimed to have been one of Saddam's closest security guard, and he says the weapons are under the streets of Baghdad and in dunes near Tikrit. Now, it would be easy to discount that -- if it hadn't been published at a time when UN inspectors are in Iraq and Iraq is supposedly cooperating, and it could be easily confirmed or discounted very quickly.

I just checked the online news, and it's the same old, same old: the inspectors are determined to keep searching for months. Not one word about this remarkable story. Given what's at stake, how could anyone ignore it?

Why aren't the journalists asking about it?

Why are the UN inspectors still talking about looking for months, instead of addressing this potentially deadlock-breaking claim?

I just don't understand it.

jerseydevil

01-22-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
The Israelis interviewed (http://www.debka.com) (you have to scroll down past the headlines to read the interview) an Iraqi man in Amman last week who claimed to have been one of Saddam's closest security guard, and he says the weapons are under the streets of Baghdad and in dunes near Tikrit. Now, it would be easy to discount that -- if it hadn't been published at a time when UN inspectors are in Iraq and Iraq is supposedly cooperating, and it could be easily confirmed or discounted very quickly.

I just checked the online news, and it's the same old, same old: the inspectors are determined to keep searching for months. Not one word about this remarkable story. Given what's at stake, how could anyone ignore it?

Why aren't the journalists asking about it?

Why are the UN inspectors still talking about looking for months, instead of addressing this potentially deadlock-breaking claim?

I just don't understand it.
Because the rest of the world wants to say - "See nothing was found. We looked and looked." Then everyone can go about there business and Iraq will be happy - because then they can go on with their weapons program. France and Russia can go on with their relationship with Iraq. And everyone else in the world can bury their head in the sand and then when Iraq decides to hold the middle East hostage in the next 3 years - they can say, "Why didn't the US do something before it got to this point?".

Coney

01-22-2003, 04:49 PM

I think 'Lady is asking why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.

Three words - "popular" "opinion" "war".....fill in the gaps:)

jerseydevil

01-22-2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Coney
I think 'Lady is asking why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.

Three words - "popular" "opinion" "war".....fill in the gaps:)

The weapons inspectors don't even have to find anything for Iraq to be in material breach. All that needs to happen is for Iraq to not cooperate. People seem to think that they actually have to find something.

I wonder if the weapons inspectors really want to catch him in a lie. Blix has been taking a hard line lately - but only because the US has been putting on so much pressure. That's the only reason why the inspectors are in there and it's the only reason why Arab countries are now talking about offering Saddam Hussein exile. It's also the only reason why Iraq opened up talks today with Kuwait and Jordan regarding Kuwaiti and Jordanian prisoners that Iraq captured during the Gulf War (for some reason Iraq lost track of them).

But I think that the UN's goal is to avoid war - regardless of how Iraq acts. If they could turn their backs on the situation - they'd be more than happy to - just like they did for the past 4 years. Currently though the UN has the US breathing down it's neck - and they're just hoping that if they can stall till March - that we'll lay off after that. Then the UN can go back to being the same useless organisation it has been.

Coney

01-22-2003, 05:15 PM

Why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.?
;)

The weapons inspectors don't even have to find anything for Iraq to be in material breach.

Yes but direct evidence is the goal surely?.......indirect evidence (re JD's post) would cause even further justification for the anti-war protestors.

Arab countries are now talking about offering Saddam Hussein exile.

(not the whole quote I know). Something in the media worried me the other day.........why did America offer Iraqi' scientists sanctuary (amnesty) and not all the Iraqi' people, proffesional or not, that oppose Saddam's regime?:rolleyes: .

jerseydevil

01-22-2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Why aren't the weapons inspectors doing something when a man is providing (potential) direct evidence.?
;)

Yes but direct evidence is the goal surely?.......indirect evidence (re JD's post) would cause even further justification for the anti-war protestors.

The weapon's inspectors all along have been saying that finding a smoking gun is almost nill.

Something in the media worried me the other day.........why did America offer Iraqi' scientists sanctuary (amnesty) and not all the Iraqi' people, proffesional or not, that oppose Saddam's regime?:rolleyes: .
The UNITED NATIONS wanted us to give the scientists and their families amnesty if they are taken out of Iraq for questioning. For a long time we wouldn't agree to that. I actually haven't heard where we've changed our minds yet. I think we should give them amnesty though. If they're going to come out of Iraq, risk their lives and give us information - I don't think we should send them back where they're almost guaranteed of being executed.

Coney

01-22-2003, 06:08 PM

The weapon's inspectors all along have been saying that finding a smoking gun is almost nill.

So, if WMD are actually found it is considered not to be evidence?

That is news to me.........I thought that the weapons inspectors were looking for evidence of WMD along with co-operation, if not then why were the WI's sent there first?, let me emphasise this... there is a man on the world stage saying that he knows the whereabouts of weapons that contradict the past agreements and the inspectors are doing nothing to investigate this why not?.....or am I wrong?

The UNITED NATIONS wanted us to give the scientists and their families amnesty if they are taken out of Iraq for questioning.

Indeed housed in America.........(am I the only one getting shades of WW2 here?)

I don't think we should send them back where they're almost guaranteed of being executed.

Very honorable...and what is to become of the rest of the people that disagree with the current regime in Iraq?......cream off the top JD.......ignore the milk:rolleyes:

Draken

01-22-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Very honorable...and what is to become of the rest of the people that disagree with the current regime in Iraq?......cream off the top JD.......ignore the milk:rolleyes:

Coney, that is disgraceful. I know you've been posting on this board for quite a while, but that's no excuse for not spelling "honourable" properly!

;)

jerseydevil

01-22-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Coney
So, if WMD are actually found it is considered not to be evidence?

it would be considered evidence - I just said that the inspectors DON'T actually HAVE to find anything for Saddam Hussein to be in material breach.

That is news to me.........I thought that the weapons inspectors were looking for evidence of WMD along with co-operation, if not then why were the WI's sent there first?, let me emphasise this... there is a man on the world stage saying that he knows the whereabouts of weapons that contradict the past agreements and the inspectors are doing nothing to investigate this why not?.....or am I wrong?

Like I said above - I don't think the weapons inspectors OR the UN wants to find anything. They just want everything to go on the way it has for the past 4 years with their heads stuck in the ground. If they can stall till the end of March - it'll be less likely that we'll launch an attack.

Indeed housed in America.........(am I the only one getting shades of WW2 here?)

Hey - nothing really stopping the Britain housing them I supposed. Iniitially - as I said - we weren;t going to give them asylum - but the UNITED NATIONS has been requesting that we do. Talk to the UN if you don't like it.

Very honorable...and what is to become of the rest of the people that disagree with the current regime in Iraq?......cream off the top JD.......ignore the milk:rolleyes:
We're supposed to evacuate the whole country? Who is going to determine who is for Saddam and who is against? Anyway - according to Saddam Hussein 100% of IRAQIS love him. He did get 100% of the vote don't forget too.

Coney

01-22-2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Draken
Coney, that is disgraceful. I know you've been posting on this board for quite a while, but that's no excuse for not spelling "honourable" properly!

;)

Apologise..........honourable it is;)

JD......hahahahahahaha.............:rolleyes:

Answer 'Ladies quesion*sigh*

jerseydevil

01-22-2003, 08:30 PM

There was also this which I posted on the Iraq Poster thread. In 2001 there is proof that Iraq was illigally bringing in sanctioned equipment. The inspectors even know about it and that Iraw has at least used some of the supplies.

NEW DELHI - An obscure Indian trading company has provided the first clear evidence that Iraq obtained materials over the last four years to produce or deliver weapons of mass destruction.

The company, NEC Engineering Private Ltd., used phony customs declarations and other false documents, as well as front companies in three countries, to export 10 consignments of raw materials and equipment that Saddam Hussein's regime could use to produce chemical weapons and propellants for long-range missiles, according to Indian court records.

The shipments, valued at nearly $800,000, took place between September 1998 and February 2001. The exports - highly specialized supplies such as atomized aluminum powder and titanium centrifugal pumps - ostensibly went to Jordan and Dubai. But they subsequently were traced to Iraq's Fallujah II chlorine plant and a rocket fuel production facility at Al Mamoun, according to US and British intelligence reports.

The NEC case marks the illicit Iraqi procurement scheme traced to a specific company since December 1998, when UN inspectors were forced to leave Baghdad, the Iraqi capital. Iraq did not identify the Indian company as a supplier in the 12,000 page weapons declaracton it handed to the Security Council last month. The case may not provide the sort of definitive evidence the international community has said is needed to justify action against Iraq, but it bolsters White House claims that Saddam has covertly continued to attempts to build illegal weapons.

Washington has imposed sanctions against the former head of NEC, who allegedly led a technical team to Fallujah II in April 1999 to help install equipment that can be used to produce chemical agents. India has suspended NEC's export license, revoked passports of senior company officials and raided company offices and homes. NEC's general manager, who was jailed for four months last fall, has detailed the elaborate scheme to investigators. Further criminal charges are expected.

United Nations weapons inspectors have confirmed that Iraq has used at least some of the supplies.
Los Angeles Times - January 18, 2003

jerseydevil

01-22-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Apologise..........honourable it is;)

JD......hahahahahahaha.............:rolleyes:

Answer 'Ladies quesion*sigh*
I've answered it - you just don't like my answer.

Also - the journalists may not be reporting it in order to give them time to figure out how to confirm this without tipping off Hussein. If it is true - they had to get the weaponry under the streets without digging them up. So they probably have a way of getting them out if they need to.

Coney

01-22-2003, 08:42 PM

*still waiting a comprehensive answer*

katya

01-22-2003, 09:11 PM

a bunch of people from my area left today. For training I guess. Old guys too, like my friend's dad. That makes this seem a lot closer to home doesn't it? Heehee i got mad at Bush and threw my remote at the TV. I kind of thought I killed it but it's OK now. :) Good stress reliever.

Coney

01-22-2003, 09:14 PM

they had to get the weaponry under the streets without digging them up. So they probably have a way of getting them out if they need to.

The point is that there is a man publically saying that the WMD are there..........yet the US and the UN are doing NOTHING about it.....does nobody else read the news???

"why"

The Lady of Ithilien

01-22-2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because the rest of the world wants to say - "See nothing was found. We looked and looked." Then everyone can go about there business and Iraq will be happy - because then they can go on with their weapons program. France and Russia can go on with their relationship with Iraq. And everyone else in the world can bury their head in the sand and then when Iraq decides to hold the middle East hostage in the next 3 years - they can say, "Why didn't the US do something before it got to this point?". You know, the reality finally sunk in today. Sure, there's all this other self-interested stuff going on with Russia and the other countries who are kicking up a fuss, but you know, I think what it really boils down to is this:

-- On this occasion, the use of nuclear and other MD weapons is a real possibility. No inevitability, but a possibility.

-- Most of the "pacifists" in the West and elsewhere know Saddam's bad and has to be stopped, but for the above reason they don't want to be the first ones to draw, so to speak, just in case it escalates into a WMD exchange. It wouldn't be "moral." No, they want him to use WMD first (though for him it would not be the first time, at least as far as chemicals go -- just ask the Kurds), and then they'll turn into the most rabid "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" mouth-foamers the world has ever seen. But they just don't have the guts to do anything until more thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands or even more civilians are killed and maimed.

And, baby, that ain't moral. That's lower than Saddam, even. But that's why they're ignoring this guy instead of giving it the tough coverage that would, through public opinion, force the UN inspectors in Baghdad to take a look under the main streets, etc.

Dunadan

01-23-2003, 09:40 AM

Todays' Guardian reports on a meeting between US and Iraqi opposition leaders:At the meeting, on the future of a post-Saddam Iraq - details of which have been disclosed to the Guardian - the state department stressed that protection of the oilfields was "issue number one".

So, not tracking down and disposing of any hidden stashes of WMDs, or Al-Q'aida hideouts, then.

Asked whether US companies would operate the oil fields, Colin Powell said:
I don't have an answer to that question. If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Nice sentiment. Slightly tarnished by the fact that the Iraqi people will be made to pay for the invasion and occupation of their own country, however:
"There are two competing needs here: the budgetary need for forces which will be extraordinary, and the need to get it up and running and show the Iraqi people some real results and some real improvement in life," said Andrew Krepinevich, a Pentagon adviser

no cheers

d.

jerseydevil

01-23-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Dunadan
So, not tracking down and disposing of any hidden stashes of WMDs, or Al-Q'aida hideouts, then.

That has to be said that the oil fields will be protected because THAT is the main concern of Russia and FRANCE. That's the only reason why they are against aggresive action in Iraq - is because of the the oil fields.

Nice sentiment. Slightly tarnished by the fact that the Iraqi people will be made to pay for the invasion and occupation of their own country, however:
Yeah - I guess the Iraqi people living in fear and being executed becuase they said the wrong thing or Saddam Hussein didn't like the look in their eye is SO MUCH BETTER.

"Unless we see that kind of change in attitude on the part of Iraq, then how much longer should inspections go on? One month, two months, three months?" he (Colin Powell) asked. "What will be the difference if they are simply trying to get time in order to frustrate the purpose of the inspections?"

Powell also indicated the United States would be willing to forgo any prosecution of the Iraqi president or top members of his Baath Party if Saddam went into exile.

"I think we would be receptive to anything that would get him and his family and his cohorts, the immediate group around him, out of power," he said.

Sween

01-23-2003, 03:15 PM

Its all gonna end in tears esspecially all the other major nations pretty muchhave stated they are not in favor of any attack

samwiselvr2008

01-23-2003, 04:57 PM

I hope that there will be no war. I really don't want my brother to die. Just an update on my brother jouning the stupid army who only wants to kill him and others, he is now at Boot Camp, wating for them to pick him to joun a group and start. He wrote me a lette that I got last week, I'll post it sometime.

samwiselvr2008

01-23-2003, 05:19 PM

I'm gonna type in the letter from my brother, b/c I can't get it to scan in and work right, so here it is, (I love him SO much, please dont send him to war President Bush!) I'm using his spelling, and leaving all of his mistakes in:

Jennifer

how are you sis, believe it or not i'm writing this at 2:30 am, im bored to death, its my duity to walk around and make sure that every one is in bed, well what there training me almost kind of reminds me of Lord of the rings. there training us to in any and all possable ways & about stratigy in battle, wich for some reason reminds me of Lord of the rings. i gues its because you talked about it all the time, so how many times have you seen the movie now. it it over 10? i would say it probally is. well wright me some time & tell me how everything is love you
Richard

How can they send him to war? He's my brother, I'm scared that I may only have about 3 more chances to see him, at the most. I'll miss him so much. I overheard mommy saying that him doing what he is (being a medic) and because of everything else that I don't fill like explaining, that he would be one of the first to go. That means that he will be there through out the whole war. That means that he has a big chance of dieing. Then I won't be able to see him untill heaven
:(

jerseydevil

01-23-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
How can they send him to war? He's my brother, I'm scared that I may only have about 3 more chances to see him, at the most. I'll miss him so much. I overheard mommy saying that him doing what he is (being a medic) and because of everything else that I don't fill like explaining, that he would be one of the first to go. That means that he will be there through out the whole war. That means that he has a big chance of dieing. Then I won't be able to see him untill heaven
:(
Why did he join the army then? We don't have a draft and we don't have mandatory duty like other countries. Currently - and hopefully it will stay this way - we have an entirely VOLUNTARY military. Obviously your brother decided to join the army - just like my brother decided to join the navy. My cousin has talked about the army. I just told him to make sure he thinks about it before he does and make sure it's something he really wants to do. It's his choice, along with everyone else who joins the military.

The army isn't trying to kill your brother - but the military does go into armed conflict many times. You should have talked to your brother if your brother if you didn't want him to join. The military is not jet skiing through the Carribean or lounging on the beaches of Hawaii. My brother was stationed in Bahrain during 9/11.

samwiselvr2008

01-23-2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why did he join the army then? We don't have a draft and we don't have mandatory duty like other countries. Currently - and hopefully it will stay this way - we have an entirely VOLUNTARY military. Obviously your brother decided to join the army - just like my brother decided to join the navy. My cousin has talked about the army. I just told him to make sure he thinks about it before he does and make sure it's something he really wants to do. It's his choice, along with everyone else who joins the military.

The army isn't trying to kill your brother - but the military does go into armed conflict many times. You should have talked to your brother if your brother if you didn't want him to join. The military is not jet skiing through the Carribean or lounging on the beaches of Hawaii. My brother was stationed in Bahrain during 9/11.

I know that they arn't trying to kill him, I'm just really upset about the whole thing right now, okay? He did decide to joun, and he jounded it before I new. My mom tried to talk him out of it, but by that time had allready sighned up and couldn't change his mind. :( :mad:

Dunadan

01-23-2003, 06:31 PM

There's still hope that it won't come to war. If it does, your brother, being a medic, is likely to be behind the front line, I guess.

Thanks for sharing that. Getting a personal account in a discussion like this is a timely reminder of the consequences of what happens in war, with lots of zeros on the end.

Also worth bearing in mind is the fact that many of the lives lost will be civilian.

samwiselvr2008

01-23-2003, 06:37 PM

Ya, but my mom said that he would be on the front line, :( . How can they pute a medic on the front line?:confused:

The Lady of Ithilien

01-23-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Ya, but my mom said that he would be on the front line, :( . How can they pute a medic on the front line?:confused: Because that's where they're usually needed the most.

At least in traditional wars...in this new kind of war, the front lines can suddenly appear anywhere, as they did in New York, Washington and a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.

Your brother is very brave and very wonderful. My Web site (which I'm still working on) is about wars in Indochina, and I can tell you every soldier everywhere loves the medics and respects them very much.

samwiselvr2008

01-23-2003, 09:03 PM

That'll make his life alot better! he wanted to be a pilot or whatever you call the dudes that drive planes/helicopters, but he's color blind, so he can't.

wahine

01-23-2003, 09:46 PM

I heard this hilarious joke.

After getting nailed by a Daisy Cutter, Osama made his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington.

"How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" says Washington, slapping Osama in the face.

Patrick Henry comes up from behind. "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama on the nose.

James Madison comes up next, and says "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama's knee.

Osama is subject to similar beatings from James Monroe, and 65 other people who have the same love for liberty and America. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up to hurl him back toward the gate where he is to be judged.

As Osama awaits his journey to his final very hot destination, he screams - "this is not what I was promised!"

An angel replies "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you...
What the hell did you think I said? "

The Lady of Ithilien

01-23-2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
That'll make his life alot better! he wanted to be a pilot or whatever you call the dudes that drive planes/helicopters, but he's color blind, so he can't. Well, I've heard the ones who fly planes called "Zoomies." :) Don't know about the helicopters.

I read a poem online about medics a couple years ago, while I was working on the first draft of what became a Web site, and looked for it on the Web again tonight, but really couldn't remember the title and couldn't find it again. Too bad -- it was good.

Here is another one I found tonight -- note: not all medics are combat medics, as they also need people around behind the lines to take care of routine health things, and so not all of them will get this Combat Medic Badge (http://iwvpa.net/garrisonjs/the-1c.htm). But every soldier that ever was or will be would agree with him: "These men...are heroes to us all."

samwiselvr2008

01-23-2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by The Lady of Ithilien
Well, I've heard the ones who fly planes called "Zoomies." :) Don't know about the helicopters.

I read a poem online about medics a couple years ago, while I was working on the first draft of what became a Web site, and looked for it on the Web again tonight, but really couldn't remember the title and couldn't find it again. Too bad -- it was good.

Here is another one I found tonight -- note: not all medics are combat medics, as they also need people around behind the lines to take care of routine health things, and so not all of them will get this Combat Medic Badge (http://iwvpa.net/garrisonjs/the-1c.htm). But every soldier that ever was or will be would agree with him: "These men...are heroes to us all."

Thanks!

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 05:24 PM

This is too ridiculous for words.

'Human shields' bus it to Baghdad (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.irq.shields/index.html)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Fifty anti-war campaigners have set out from London to Iraq in three double-decker buses and a taxi saying they want to be "human shields."

Members of the Truth Justice Peace Human Shield Action group say the 3,000-mile journey to Baghdad will take two weeks and they hope others will join them along the route.

The campaigners have pledged to stay in Iraq if the country is attacked, forcing the U.S. and Britain to risk bombing their own citizens.

Former UK Labour MP Tony Benn is also making arrangements to travel to Baghdad, where he is hoping to meet Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

The veteran left-winger met Saddam in 1990 in an unsuccessful bid to avert the original Gulf War.

Benn, who hopes to go to Iraq next week, told the UK's Press Association: "The purpose is to explore the prospects for peace. That is why I went in 1990 and it is important now when you hear America speaking about weeks not months.

"We hear President Bush and Tony Blair every day but we don't hear from Saddam Hussein. It is a good sign that he may be willing to meet me."

Among those travelling on the peace buses are 60-year-old Sue Darling, a former British diplomat and Gordon Sloan, a contestant on the Australian TV show "Big Brother" who became known to millions of viewers as "Donkey Boy."

The group is being led by Ken Nichols O'Keefe, a former U.S. Marine and Gulf War veteran, who renounced his citizenship in 1999 as a protest against U.S. foreign policy.

Speaking at Tower Bridge in central London before the group left in three double-decker Routemaster vehicles, he said: "If we don't get 10,000 people, I think this is a world that will be hard to live in for all of us.

"This conflict will lead to World War Three. We need to stop this war first and foremost, if we don't, shame on us all and pity on us all."

Joe Letts, of Shaftesbury, Dorset, a bus operator who organised the transport and is also taking part in the project, said they expected thousands to join them as they travelled through Europe and he hoped the public would show their support.

He added: "What Bush and Blair are preparing to do in Iraq is totally unjustified. The Iraqi people have suffered enough already."

Do these idiots really think that it's the military's role to work around them when they have put their own lives at risk? They've willingly put their lives in danger - if they get in the way - they made the choice.

i also think they'll be hard pressed to get the 10,000 people they're looking for - except maybe when they get to the Middle East. They may be able to pick up some fellow idiots there.

I wish them the best of luck (sarcasm) I'm sure Saddam Hussein appreciates all the help that they're giving him in allowing him to go on with his lies and deceit. I hope they like supporting a person who kills and tortures his own people so easily.

Coney

01-25-2003, 06:11 PM

I saw a couple of representitives of this organisation interviewed on the news this afternoon..........they seemed a littel clueless to be honest:rolleyes:

I mean taking direct action for a cause you believe in.......whatever next?:confused:

Do these idiots really think that it's the military's role to work around them when they have put their own lives at risk?

Yes it is the military's role to act around them......for whatever reason they are there........they are there in a civilian capacity.........as are millions of Iraq' folks.

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Yes it is the military's role to act around them......for whatever reason they are there........they are there in a civilian capacity.........as are millions of Iraq' folks.
The military responisblity only extends so far. If you willing put yourselve out there in this kind of situation - you are no longer a non-combative.

Reporters are protected by the military when they do their war correspondence. But if a reporter repeatedly takes risks, puts themselves in the line of fire - then the military personnel - will and has told them that their life is in their hands and we can no longer be responsible for looking after them.

The military's responibility is first to fight and win the war. Of course they attempt to reduce human casualities - but not when people WILLINGLY put themselves in that position. The idiots going to Baghdad are not innocent bystanders that just happen to be caught there - they know what the situation is and the risks involved. If they get killed in the fighting - they made their choice.

Coney

01-25-2003, 06:33 PM

The military responisblity only extends so far. If you willing put yourselve out there in this kind of situation - you are no longer a non-combative.

Where on earth did you dig that fact from?

Were the chinese student demonstrators "combative" as the tanks rolled over them in Tiearnaman Square?

Is it then justified that every civilian who supports there country but does not bear arms is killed?.....including women and children?

Reporters are protected by the military when they do their war correspondence. But if a reporter repeatedly takes risks, puts themselves in the line of fire - then the military personnel - will and has told them that their life is in their hands and we can no longer be responsible for looking after them.

Yes it is their choice.....it is also the militaries choice whom to kill.

The idiots going to Baghdad are not innocent bystanders that just happen to be caught there -

Well, from the interview I saw today they state that they are going to be integrated with the civilian population.....they have had contacts in Bhagdad of several years.......were you under the impression that they would be stood at the gates of Bhagdad waving banners or something?:rolleyes:

If they get killed in the fighting - they made their choice.

As do the people who kill them......

More News-
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=79&art_id=iol1043433910575H350&set_id=1

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Where on earth did you dig that fact from?

Were the chinese student demonstrators "combative" as the tanks rolled over them in Tiearnaman Square?

How can you compare Tieneman square to the Iraq situation? There was no war - they were peacefully protesting. It's completely different. If people put themselves in the line of fire when a war is going on - there is no responsibilty for the military to protect them. The role of the military is to win the war. I also think that the military should work to reduce civilian casualties. Under the goal of zero civilian casualties though - we'd still be trying to invade Berlin.

Is it then justified that every civilian who supports there country but does not bear arms is killed?.....including women and children?

If they put themselves up as human sheilds - then they had made that choice. If they stand between the American forces and the Iraqi forces then they have made their choice.

Yes it is their choice.....it is also the militaries choice whom to kill.

It's the military's resposibilty to not shoot them if they put themselves in the line of fire.

Well, from the interview I saw today they state that they are going to be integrated with the civilian population.....they have had contacts in Bhagdad of several years.......were you under the impression that they would be stood at the gates of Bhagdad waving banners or something?:rolleyes:

I imagine that some of the more fanaticals will attempt to come between the Iragi and American armies and then scream that civilians are being targetted or killed.

As do the people who kill them......

Accidents happen - all they seem to want to do is to increase civilian casualties - namely by sacrifising themselves.

I say let them put themselves in harm way. They're adults - they've made their choice. The military's responsibility is not to protect their lives.

Nichols's planned human shield convoys are one of several such efforts around the world to mobilise activists in Iraq as a deterrent against military strikes on Baghdad.

The new human shield plans revive memories of the 1991 Gulf War when President Saddam Hussein forcibly held thousands of Western hostages after his invasion of Kuwait.

Many were put near sensitive sites in an attempt to stop attacks that proved futile, although there are not thought to have been any casualties among the Western hostages.

There, a campaign led by leftist parties and civic bodies is seeking 100 000 shield volunteers.

Baghdad has welcomed the plans.

But those forcibly used as human shields by Saddam in 1991 are stunned others are volunteering to do it.

"Putting yourself in danger is not going to help at all," said John Nicol, a British air force flyer shot down during the first strike against Saddam in 1991 and later paraded on Iraqi television.

He was moved around by the Iraqis to various potential targets and he experienced allied bombing nearby.

Coney

01-25-2003, 07:22 PM

*shakes head* JD your talking as though the invasion of Iraq is a fore-gone conclusion.......in fact your attitude seems to be that Iraq must be taken over whatever the odds.....

Accidents happen - all they seem to want to do is to increase civilian casualties - namely by sacrifising themselves.

I say let them put themselves in harm way. They're adults - they've made their choice. The military's responsibility is not to protect their lives.

That is just unbelievable.....I've never posted with anyone with so little compassion for other's beliefs.......however misguided those beliefs are.

If they put themselves up as human sheilds - then they had made that choice. If they stand between the American forces and the Iraqi forces then they have made their choice.

Even more unbelievable........these are human lives your talking about, not sheafs of wheat in a field.

How can you compare Tieneman square to the Iraq situation? There was no war - they were peacefully protesting.

These people are peacefully protesting, they carry no guns...

Ah well.....I'm seeing a whole new side of you JD......

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Coney
*shakes head* JD your talking as though the invasion of Iraq is a fore-gone conclusion.......in fact your attitude seems to be that Iraq must be taken over whatever the odds.....

Well as it stands right now - Iraq has not been cooperating. Even though the weapons inspectors gave them a "B" in their report - which is laughable.

That is just unbelievable.....I've never posted with anyone with so little compassion for other's beliefs.......however misguided those beliefs are.

Whatever. If people KNOWINGLY put themseleves in danger - not to mention a war situation - then that is their choice. If a person knowingly go into Iraq to protest against the uS bombing - and they are taken hostage by Iraq - how much responsibilty does the US or anyone else have to try getting them out.

I have compassion for others beliefs - but their lives as far as I'm concerned is in their own hands at this point. They are ADULTS who have WILLINGLY gone into a war situation. They are NOT innocent civilians who happen to just be caught in the middle.

I'm sorry - I have no simpathy for them if they get killed - I care more about the innocent Iraqi civilians who have no choice.

Even more unbelievable........these are human lives your talking about, not sheafs of wheat in a field.

They have chosen to be there. They are human - but they have a responsibilty to protect themselves. If they want to give up their lives - then let them. I didn't see them in Iraq putting themselves in between the civilians and Saddam Hussein when he executes them. If they did that - then that would be protesting.

These people are peacefully protesting, they carry no guns...

These people can peacefully protest in London or Washington - that is fine. They are PUTTING themselves in the middle of a battlefield - DARING the US military to shoot them. Accidents are going to happen. War isn't pretty, but sometimes it is necessary in order to prevent a bigger problem later.

Ah well.....I'm seeing a whole new side of you JD......
I guess your seeing the fact that I think that people who willingly put themselves in this kind of situation - are responsible for themselves. Sacrificing your life for a cause you believe in is great. But if they purposely put themselves around military installations and known targets around Iraq and get killed - they have only themselves to blame.

Coney

01-25-2003, 08:32 PM

Fair enough JD.....if that is the way you see the situation.

We're wandering into politcal and humanitarian ethics now.......not a subject(s) that wish to discuss with you *shrugs*

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Fair enough JD.....if that is the way you see the situation.

We're wandering into politcal and humanitarian ethics now.......not a subject(s) that wish to discuss with you *shrugs*
That's fine. I just feel that when people make a decision they have to take responsibilty for their actions.

Limiting the casualities of the innocent Iraqi civilian population should be an important goal of the engagements. These people that are willingly going to Baghdad, have purposely put themselves into this situation. They're responsible for their own lives.

Coney

01-25-2003, 09:31 PM

Limiting the casualities of the innocent Iraqi civilian population should be an important goal of the engagements.

I must presume that you the post where I said

Well, from the interview I saw today they state that they are going to be integrated with the civilian population.....they have had contacts in Bhagdad of several years.......were you under the impression that they would be stood at the gates of Bhagdad waving banners or something?

They are trying to ensure that no civilians are killed.......either Iraq' or western:rolleyes:

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Coney

They are trying to ensure that no civilians are killed.......either Iraq' or western:rolleyes:
That isn't their goal - if that was their goal they should have been in Baghdad while Saddam Hussein executes his own people. Ans if we don't attack - I hope they stay there and try keeping the Iraqi population safe from the madman.

The only reason they're going there is to try stopping the US from attacking.

And by the way - there is a good guy in this war. The west has a choice - either we allow Saddam Hussein to continue on the way he is going - or else we dismantle his regime and basically free the people of Iraq. He thinks nothing of putting his own people to death for them just looking at him wrong. He had his own two sons executed after luring them back into Iraq with promises that everything weas forgiven. His OWN two sons. Do you honestly think he cares about anyone?

By the way - the "peace" demonstrators aren't going to do anything to protect the Iraqi civilian populations - they're only going to be Hussein's pawns. I hope they get a first hand look at what it's like there. Hussein won't show them his jails though - they play the perfect propaganda tool for him by being on the outside.

Coney

01-25-2003, 10:02 PM

Dubya must be so proud of you JD!:rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing that up for me;)

The only reason they're going there is to try stopping the US from attacking.

Edit:.....oh and "The West" seems to be America and the UK v's Iraq at the moment....not exactly the greatest stand against "tyranny" and "oppresion" and the "threat of war" the world has ever known:rolleyes:

jerseydevil

01-25-2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Dubya must be so proud of you JD!:rolleyes:

Thanks for clearing that up for me;)
I'm not sure if George Bush is proud or not - I don't know him and I've never talked or met him. But I support the attack on Iraq because the future will be much worse if we just bury our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. I believe Europe tried doing this with Germany and then they tried doing it with Bosnia. There are some countries - that will not negotiate. Iraq has repeatedly thumbed it's nose at the UN - and the world community has just sat there and let him. In all actuality if we had a president in the white house for the eight years prior to George Bush who actually took care of international affairs instead of getting bjs in the oval office - we would not have a lot of these problems today. Al Qaeda attacked US interests several times during the Clinton administration, when Iraq basically THREW OUT the previous weapons inspectors we should have gone in there. The Clinton administration also ignored North Korea, even though theythe administration was sure that they were not adhering to their agreements.

How much negotiation are we supposed to do? How many lies can Iraq tell before the world community says this is enough?

Do you honestly believe that he'll collect weaponry and NOT use it in some form or another? And what happens to the Middle East if he is the most powerful country there?

Iraq has been getting weapons in the past 4 years - without the world doing anything about it. The UN is made up of a bunch of people who think that the only thing to do is talk and if that doesn't work then you just throw up your hands and say "Well we tried." They reprimand governments and issue proclamations which have absolutely no affect.

It is funny though. I don't see any of these "peace activists" taking buses into North Korea to protect the people there from their own government. Or into the many African countries where war lords rule. If they stood up for that stuff and took action against those counties - then I'd repsect them a little more. Basically it seems as if most of these people are just anti-west but they know that life sucks in the other counties and don't have the balls to actually stick their necks out when it comes to dealing with the real evil in this world (Iraq, Korea). They'd rather hide behind the freedoms we enjoy and criticise the west. Never see them demonstrating again suicide bombers who kill innocent woman and children. Who drove a bus to Bali?

wahine

01-26-2003, 06:16 PM

Most countries in the Middle East publicly oppose a unilateral US war on Iraq, but many are expected it ascuiece to one if it comes to that.

Turkey
Ankara is worried that postwar instability in Iraq would provoke Iraqi Kurds to assert their independence, thereby inciting Turkish Kurds to follow suit.
Still, Turkey has strong historical ties with the US and counts on Washingtons backionf for further IMF assistance.
The pro-islamic government would probably allow the US to use some air bases and would support special forces en route to Iraq.

Iran
Like Turkey, Iran is apprehensive about postwar restivness in its Kurdish population, it also dislikes the idea of postwar pro-American government acrossed its border.
But, Iran fought Iraq in a bitter war between '80 and '88, and would happily watch Saddam Hussein fall.
A defanged Irag would also make Iran the undisputed kingpin of the gulf.
Tehran would conceivable allow the launch of search and rescue missions as it did during the war against Afghanistan.

Israel
Israel is more than likely to be targeted by Iraq in the event of war, still the government firmly supports the US action against Iraq, whose missiles, potentially tipped with "weapons of mass destruction", threaten Israel.
Israel has already had scouts inside the western border of Iraq doind pre-war reconnaissence. Israeli intelligence forces woulf work closely with the US during the war.

*OOC: Don't you just love the sound of that? Weapons of Mass Destruction! KABOOM! I'm going to name my next dog that.*

Egypt
The government frets that a US strike against an Arab nation would incite unrest among a public already angry at the US for its support of Israel, but as other Arab countries, they loathe Saddam.
Because the US supplies Egypt with $2 billion in aid a year, it can probably be counted on the have overflight rights, and use of the Suez Canal for warships and supply boats.

Saudi Arabia
Riyadh fears that a war would anger citizens because of the royal families ties to the US. As first reported on time.com the Saudis are encouraging a coup against Saddam. If war comes they may still refuse to permit launch of US ground troops or Air Force combat missions, though both were permitted in '91.
The Saudis are likely, however, to allow US command and control functions special-op missions and refueling.

Kuwait
The Kuwaiti government is still seething over Saddams '90 invasion and occupation of it's lands it says it will not take part in "war drum beating".
Still it hosts a variety of US military installations and have given the US virtual carte blanche to use its territory.

Bahrain
The government is rather sensitive to a war against an Islamic country at this time while the king is trying the heal civil strife against to sets of Muslims which occupy the nation. Yet Bahrain fears Iraq.
As host to headquarters of the US naval Fifth Fleet, Bahrain is not expected to actively oppose the US action.

Qatar
This government is set on building strong ties to the US to protect the tine emirate from regional powers, specifically Iraq and Iran.
Qatar has agreed to let the US use its al-Udeud facility as a US air base, command and control center.

U.A.E
the UAE is concerned that instability in the gulf could slow its rapid economic development.
Yet, if war is emminent *imminent?* the UAE, who already extends military basing to the US and Britain aren't likely to put up a fuss.

Oman
Oman like most of the other nations fear public opinion, but like the UAE it plays host to both the US and Britain, and will likely give the permission for their use in a war with Iraq.

Jordan
Will do nothing actively to help the US, it seems, but privately wishes for the US to get on with the war.

Syria
Damascus, is again worried about Kurdish rebellions, in addition the government is reluctant for US influence to grow in their region.
Like Jordan it will not contribute troops to the US as it did in '91 but it isn't admantly opposing the war either.

Yemen
Yemen voted against the war in '91 and the US cut Yemens entire 70 million dollar aid program. Yemen has no intention of making a fuss with Washington and will likely allow US ships the refuel at ports and US planes to fly over terrain.

Kyrgyzstan *bless you*
Officially opposes the war.

Uzbekistan
This government has pledged support to the US's war.

Hope you enjoyed this because my fingers are killing me.

(For entire article, not paraphrased, and using bigger fancicer words see Time)

Coney

01-26-2003, 06:31 PM

Hope you enjoyed this

I did, very interesting .. thanks:)

because my fingers are killing me.

It was worth it:)

wahine

01-26-2003, 06:38 PM

Thanks.

Okay, you are from Britain Coney, and I really haven't read anything on British views of America's war against Iraq.

I also haven't read most of this thread! :D

So what, as far as you can tell, is the views of Parliament and the public on...the war...thing.

*Edit: mispellings.*

Coney

01-26-2003, 06:48 PM

So what, as far as you can tell, is the views of Parliament and the public on...the war...thing.

$64,000 dollar question there!

To give you the simplest answer....

Tony Blair wants to back America..........most of his own cabinet, never mind the opposition, don't. Blair is making nearly as many please to his own followers as Powell is making to the UN:rolleyes:

As regards to public opinion: Roughly 80% of the British public disagree with war against Iraq without clear, firm evidence that they own/are manufacturing WMD.

wahine

01-26-2003, 06:51 PM

I personally think we've gotten to be warmongers.

But to be frank, so is Insani (errrr...husseini...without the I)

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by wahine
I personally think we've gotten to be warmongers.

I disagree. We're finishing a job that should have been finished along time ago. The world community including the UN should not have just accepted Hussein kicking out the inspectors in the first place. That was the agrrement for the cease fire - so in all actuality - since he violated the cease fire terms - the Gulf War never actually ended.

The only reason he let the inspectors in now - is because the US massed troops. Before that he kept saying how there was no way he was going to let in the inspectors. The UN wasn't even going to force the issue on inspectors until the US made it clear to them that they're going to do something or we will.

It is also a known fact that Al Qaeda is hiding out in northern Iraq - with Saddam Husseins blessing. They're making life difficult for the Kurds and have training camps. Hussein's not stupid though - he won't openly support them, but at the same time he is harboring them. Maybe you forgot about the great big hole in lower Manhattan.

Coney

01-26-2003, 07:24 PM

It is also a known fact that Al Qaeda is hiding out in northern Iraq - with Saddam Husseins blessing.

It is?.......I've never seen/read this in the news:confused:

Do you have a link to a news-site pls?:)

wahine

01-26-2003, 07:26 PM

Oh good lord, more 9-11 talk.

I am sick of hearing about it. It was terrible. Move On.

*laughs* anyway.

I know this is going to seem either simplistic or barbaric, but lets nuke them. NUKE 'EM ALL!

Coney

01-26-2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by wahine
I know this is going to seem either simplistic or barbaric, but lets nuke them. NUKE 'EM ALL!

LOL;)

America can't nuke Iraq!:eek:

It would destroy the oil fields:rolleyes:

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by wahine
Oh good lord, more 9-11 talk.

I am sick of hearing about it. It was terrible. Move On.

Where do you live? That might be why you're able to move on.

Kurds’ Foe May Have Al Qaeda Ties (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/iraq_kurds021110.html#ansar)

Nov. 23 — In the mountains that form the border between Kurdish territory and Iran, Kurdish soldiers are fighting a group they say is yet another American enemy — Ansar al-Islam, or "supporters of Islam," a radical militant fundamentalist organization the U.S. government suspects is directly linked to al Qaeda.

"These groups are mainly dangerous because many people from Afghanistan came to the area," said Jalal Talabani, president of a Kurdish Iraqi opposition group, Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. "More than 120 Arabs, Afghan Arabs, came from Afghanistan to the area. And they are supported by the al Qaeda all over the world. They are financed by them."

The group, also known as al-Ansar, is believed to be responsible for a rash of assassinations, kidnappings and guerrilla attacks on Kurds.

The only safe way to travel to the front lines where al-Ansar is active is by military convoy, Kurdish forces opposing them say. The same mountains that have protected Kurdish territories from invasion for centuries now protect al-Ansar. The Kurds jokingly call the area "little Tora Bora."

With little ammunition, the action has dwindled to a few daily potshots, with an occasional mortar shell coming uncomfortably close. So far, Ansar al-Islam has hung on tenaciously, trying to install Taliban-like rules in the villages it controls.

"The women should be fully veiled even at home," says Gen. Ramazan Dekhone of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, "and the men must wear beards."

The Kurdish soldiers say such extremism is new to their region and will not be tolerated.

Kurdish officials say they're close to ridding these mountains of the al-Ansar threat. They want to concentrate on preparing their soldiers for the almost inevitable war with Saddam Hussein, and don't want to be fighting on two fronts.

They say the connection with al Qaeda in their own back yard gives them one more thing in common with the United States. After last year's Sept. 11 attacks, they say, all Americans and Kurds are now related by blood.

There have been many articles, news casts, etc about Al Qaeda being in northern Iraq.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Coney
LOL;)

America can't nuke Iraq!:eek:

It would destroy the oil fields:rolleyes:
Hate to tell you this but Europe gets the majority of it's oil from the Middle East. The US only gets a fraction of our from there. So it would hurt you far more than it would hurt us. But in all actuality - it would hurt the world's economy greatly.

Coney

01-26-2003, 07:56 PM

U.S. government suspects is directly linked to al Qaeda.

uh huh

Spot the key-word there;)

If Al Qeada are actually being sheltered in northern Iraq......why are is North America waiting for justification for the invasion......didn't the US declare war on Al Qeada and it's allies already??:confused:

Coney

01-26-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Hate to tell you this but Europe gets the majority of it's oil from the Middle East. The US only gets a fraction of our from there. So it would hurt you far more than it would hurt us. But in all actuality - it would hurt the world's economy greatly.

Not as much as it would hurt France and Russia (BP british petrolium..can supply the UK with oil and gas for the next 60oddyrs, if needs be)......oh and of course that would directly effect NATO (did they ever answer the US' request for aid against Iraq?...I forget)

it would hurt the world's economy greatly.

I agree.......trade defecit's around the world are in a dreadful state......falling all the time......shocking and such a shame:( .

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Coney
If Al Qeada are actually being sheltered in northern Iraq......why are is North America waiting for justification for the invasion......didn't the US declare war on Al Qeada and it's allies already??:confused:

The problem is is that the rest of the world just wants to hide it's head in the sand. Even if we came out and said that they were there - you wouldn't believe it. I imagine that the only way you'd believe it is if the Iraqi's came and personally gave you a tour.

It seems amazing that your news media may be leaving this out.

If the US said that l Qaeda was now operating in Iraq and supported by Hussein - would you support military action?

There was also this ABC online article from September 27th.
Direct Links Detailed: Three Prisoners in N. Iraq Outline Links Between Al Qaeda and Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html)

The United States and the Kurdish government believe Ansar al-Islam is directly linked to al Qaeda, and is part of a larger relationship between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.

According to this prisoner, there are about 500 to 600 men in the group, whose goals and methods were similar to the Taliban and al Qaeda. They want to institute a fundamentalist Islamic society and eventually control the entire region. According to him, al Qaeda is in fact, closely linked to Ansar al-Islam.

"Al Qaeda is a main finance source for al Ansar," he said, "because al Qaeda now doesn't have a particular base and is scattered. They only can provide financing to al Ansar. Definitely they have the same principles and goals which the Taliban and al Qaeda have. Because [Ansar al-Islam] is in the early stage and they are small in size, they are not able to act against America as effectively as al Qaeda and Taliban did. But nevertheless, they don't hesitate to act against America. They do it, for example, they are trying to assassinate American journalists or kidnap them. Particularly those who come to Kurdistan."

There have been more recent news articles - that pretty much indicate that this is fact - not just suspicion.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Not as much as it would hurt France and Russia (BP british petrolium..can supply the UK with oil and gas for the next 60oddyrs, if needs be)......oh and of course that would directly effect NATO (did they ever answer the US' request for aid against Iraq?...I forget)

True and the Saudia Arabia has been "secretly" pumping additional oil into their reserves for use by the US in case oil is disrupted.

Draken

01-26-2003, 08:15 PM

Yes I think petroleum and petroleum-based products are one of the major UK exports to the US. In terms of immediate impact on the US, events in Venezuela might be more relevant.

But switching off a chunk of oil supply anywhere would I'm sure result in the oil companies hiking prices using the old supply-and-demand argument - BP included.

Coney

01-26-2003, 08:15 PM

The problem is is that the rest of the world just wants to hide it's head in the sand. Even if we came out and said that they were there - you wouldn't believe it. I imagine that the only way you'd believe it is if the Iraqi's came and personally gave you a tour.

It seems amazing that your news media may be leaving this out.

But you just stated that it was a fact....didn't you?

The United States and the Kurdish government believe Ansar al-Islam is directly linked to al Qaeda,

Spot the key-word again!.....good game this.....don't you think?

I imagine that the only way you'd believe it is if the Iraqi's came and personally gave you a tour.

No, I don't need a tour........I need evidence to believe it:rolleyes: ........ along with most of the world it appears.

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 08:15 PM

Hey JD, this question is coming from an American. Why dose the military seem to send out younger people? Ppl with young children are seen hugging them goodby, my teacher's brother was eather a teen or in his early 20's when he was sent to war- they never found his body, just to let you know. If always seems like the youngens are leaving. Why??? You never see any older folks going, do you? This coming from a 13 year old, by young, I mean men about the commen age to be married and have children of 7 and less.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Hey JD, this question is coming from an American. Why dose the military seem to send out younger people? Ppl with young children are seen hugging them goodby, my teacher's brother was eather a teen or in his early 20's when he was sent to war- they never found his body, just to let you know. If always seems like the youngens are leaving. Why??? You never see any older folks going, do you? This coming from a 13 year old, by young, I mean men about the commen age to be married and have children of 7 and less.
Because being in a war is very strenuous and you need people who are fit to do the fighting. The experienced older people lead the war and set up strategies. My brother is 21 - so you don't have to tell me that they pick younger people. My father was also 21 when he fought in Vietnam and supposedly my maternal grandfather fought in both world wars. This isn't provable - because supposedly he signed up for WWI when he was 14 and lied about his age. He was in WWII though.

Also - NO ONE is in the military who has not chosen to be - unlike during Vietnam. All those people seen hugging their children and everything - CHOSE to be there,

You should be happy you don't live in Iraq or other countries where they use children as young as 8 to fight in their wars.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 08:39 PM

My brother sent me this. He's in the navy- was stationed in Bahrain and is now in Japan the last I heard.

Subject: Washington times article
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 23:03:27+0000

I think this Airman's response to the Washington Times should be printed in all newspapers across America. Especially now when the President is calling up more Reserves and National Guardsman. Get this response out to everyone you know. It's time the Jane Fonda's & Shaun Penn's, and Cindy Williams' of this country wise up and support the troops that defend them.

Noel Pritzl
1st Vice President USDR

Military pay article

On 12 Nov, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times, denouncing the pay raise(s) coming servicemembers' way this year -- citing that the stated 13% wage was more than they deserve.

A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this!

"Ms Williams:

I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GIs earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest leave
and earnings statement (LES), I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.

I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 5,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, pecifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.

Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH
and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00.

Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER
had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN, I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX monthrotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."

As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone -- obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them.

Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are
perennial favorites.

And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night; and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.

Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece.

But, tomorrow from KABUL, I will defend to the death your right to
say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your
First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe.
continued...

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 08:42 PM

We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector
because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?

Rubbish!

A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC"

IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN.
THANK YOU.

THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL!

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Spot the key-word again!.....good game this.....don't you think?

There was also this -

U.S. considered hitting al Qaeda site in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/iraq.covertplan/index.html)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials Monday told CNN the Bush administration in recent weeks considered a covert CIA and military attack on a suspected al Qaeda chemical weapons test facility in northern Iraq -- an area not controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

But the officials said no mission is imminent, and another senior U.S. official said any possible attack had been called off.

U.S. intelligence sources said al Qaeda operatives have recently been in northern Iraq in an area under the control of radical Kurds and that the two groups have been working together, the sources said.

Sources said intelligence shows the site was a place where tests were conducted on barnyard animals and possibly one human.

U.S. officials stressed that because the area is under Kurdish control, they have no reason to believe Saddam would have been aware of the activity.

A senior administration official said President Bush was briefed by his national security team about the matter and that discussions included how to deal with the facility.

"We don't comment on military targeting or discussions about possible military targets," said National Security Council spokesman Michael Anton.

Another administration official noted that the facility is within the northern no-fly zone patrolled by U.S. warplanes since the end of the Persian Gulf War.

The official said it was the administration's view that even though the facility is not under Saddam's control, it is within Iraq's borders and covered by the cease-fire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War prohibiting such facilities within Iraq.

U.S. says Iran knowingly harboring al Qaeda (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/28/iran.alqaeda/index.html)
"We expect every government not to harbor terrorists who are in their country and not to provide them a safe haven, and that's what we call on the Iranian government to do as well," said Scott McClellan, White House deputy press secretary. "Our views are very clear and we want to be very clear to the Iranian government on that message."

For weeks, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there are al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and Iran, and it's known that the government in Iran recently expelled some of those terrorists to Saudi Arabia.

But an update from what's described as an "intelligence assessment" says there now are top-tier al Qaeda members in Iran, just over the border from Afghanistan.

This is what is so stupid in Europe -

France wants proof of Iraq guilt (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/26/sprj.irq.france/index.html)
PARIS, France -- France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them.

He's NOT supposed to have any of these weapons. They were supposed to have already been destroyed. Do these idiots really think that after being lied to for 12 years that he will all of a sudden say "Oh yeah - you caught me. I'll elimate them now."

As I said - they just want to bury their head in the sand until it's too late.

Coney

01-26-2003, 09:13 PM

"We don't comment on military targeting or discussions about possible military targets,"

Spotted it yet?

considered a covert CIA and military attack on a suspected al Qaeda chemical weapons test facility in northern Iraq --

and again:rolleyes:

For weeks, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said there are al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and Iran, and it's known that the government in Iran recently expelled some of those terrorists to Saudi Arabia.

hmm?....and still holding with the missile silo's?

PARIS, France -- France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them.

He's NOT supposed to have any of these weapons. They were supposed to have already been destroyed.

We know that Iraq are not supposed to have these weapons.....what the world is waiting for is evidence that Iraq has these weapons and has intention to use them before civilians are killed in an unjustified attack....

It's amazing......all those years of the cold war and you're still paranoid............

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Coney
We know that Iraq are not supposed to have these weapons.....what the world is waiting for is evidence that Iraq has these weapons and has intention to use them before civilians are killed in an unjustified attack....

Oh - so now you NEED proof that he'll actually use them. Let's ask Saddam Hussein if we can hook up to the new mind reading device that the US has just invented and let's see if he will actually use the illegal weapons. :rolleyes:

It's amazing......all those years of the cold war and you're still paranoid............
We're not paranoid. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated what kind of person he is. It isn't the same as the Soviet Union versus the US at all.

Maybe if you guys had treated Hitler the same way - there wouldn't have been World War II. or maybe if you didn't take vengence out on Germany AFTER WWI Hitler would never have come to power.

Saddam Hussein clearly demonstrated that we can either deal with him now - or deal with him later when he has more of the weapons that he is obviously producing.

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 09:32 PM

JD, do they forse you to enter if you HAD previosly been involved somewhere with the navy/army/military before? Like, say that I use to be in the army, gone through training and all of that stuff. So say that we go to war with Iraq, and they tell me to go. Can I say no? Or will they forse me to go, without saying "Jennifer, do you want to go to war???":confused:

Coney

01-26-2003, 09:44 PM

Oh - so now you NEED proof that he'll actually use them.

Noooo, we need proof that he actually has the weapons before there is any real threat that he will use them......or have the weapons inspectors been in Iraq for the last 8 weeks for no reason?

Let's ask Saddam Hussein if we can hook up to the new mind reading device that the US has just invented and let's see if he will actually use the illegal weapons.

Or we could just (and I'm obviously reaching into the realms of sci-fi here) ask the UN to actually find proof of WMD and act upon that......even better, they could use the facts you earlier claimed as justification:)

Saddam Hussein clearly demonstrated that we can either deal with him now - or deal with him later when he has more of the weapons that he is obviously producing.

He has? and he still got a grade "B" from the UN........yeesh standards of education are really slipping in this day and age:rolleyes:

Maybe if you guys had treated Hitler the same way - there wouldn't have been World War II. or maybe if you didn't take vengence out on Germany AFTER WWI Hitler would never have come to power.

Very true.........but if we had been wrong then we would have killed for no good reason*shrugs*.....then again if Bush jnr had carried on with Clintons original procedures (instead of ingnoring them) maybe N Korea would not be the most dangerous nuclear power/supplier the world has ever known *shrugs again*.......in fact Clinton seems to have been so neglective that it is a wonder why Bush jnr waited to long to patch up the gaps he left...?

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 09:49 PM

Coney, what's rong with Pres. Bush "jouner"? I personally think taht he is a very good president, and I berly have any patreisom (however that is spelled) towds my country!

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
JD, do they forse you to enter if you HAD previosly been involved somewhere with the navy/army/military before? Like, say that I use to be in the army, gone through training and all of that stuff. So say that we go to war with Iraq, and they tell me to go. Can I say no? Or will they forse me to go, without saying "Jennifer, do you want to go to war???":confused:
If you are out of the armed forces - then no they won't call you up. They're not going to call my father back up - because he left the navy after vietnam. He's not inactive or anything - he is no longer part of the armed forces at all period. He was actually part of the Navy Seals and worked for the CIA.

If you are currently in the armed forces - then no you can not say - I changed my mind. If you stay in the armed forces but are inactive - then again they can call you up and say we need you. Reservists are people who are technically in the armed forces but only get called up in times of national emergency or times of war. They have chosen to be on call - to go anywhere at anytime when the need arises.

The reason to join the armed forces is to fight for your country and protect it's interests.

You can always desert - in which case you will be taken to court, court martialed and thrown in jail.

Being in the armed is not being an individual - it is taking orders. It is not an army of one as the commercials state. You listen to the commader or supervising officer and don't question - unless asked. It's regimental. The people are there to perform a duty - a duty which requires discipline.

Coney

01-26-2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Coney, what's rong with Pres. Bush "jouner"? I personally think taht he is a very good president, and I berly have any patreisom (however that is spelled) towds my country!

Sam he is arguing that the UN (or that America will do it without UN backing) should launch hundreds of missiles and send thousands of troops into Iraq because Iraq evicted weapons inspectors because 2 of them were ex CIA operatives.......he is also claiming that Iraq has WMD without there being any proof.......*shrugs*

In my book.....this is not the way life should be in this millenium, there is enough war and conflict in the world already, without starting an unjustified one.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Very true.........but if we had been wrong then we would have killed for no good reason*shrugs*

Instead millions and millions of innocent men, women and children died in his concentration camps.
At least you guys made sure it was happening before you took action though

.....then again if Bush jnr had carried on with Clintons original procedures (instead of ingnoring them) maybe N Korea would not be the most dangerous nuclear power/supplier the world has ever known *shrugs again*.......in fact Clinton seems to have been so neglective that it is a wonder why Bush jnr waited to long to patch up the gaps he left...?
9/11 hit only 8 months after Bush took office. I don't think North Korea was on the top of the appenda then nor did he have time to act on North Korea before 9/11. Just like the week of 9/11 President Bush was scheduled to give his speech on the development of a Palestinian state.

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Sam he is arguing that the UN (or that America will do it without UN backing) should launch hundreds of missiles and send thousands of troops into Iraq because Iraq evicted weapons inspectors because 2 of them were ex CIA operatives.......he is also claiming that Iraq has WMD without there being any proof.......*shrugs*

In my book.....this is not the way life should be in this millenium, there is enough war and conflict in the world already, without starting an unjustified one.

Do you'll get no news over where you are? How can you sit there and say that they don't have any weapons? I am personally not very up-to-date on this, so maybe I shouldn't be arguing with you, but for all I know, I think that it is clear that they do have weapons. JD, didn't they only let them inspect PART of there places? Or am I just with all of the old news?

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Sam he is arguing that the UN (or that America will do it without UN backing) should launch hundreds of missiles and send thousands of troops into Iraq because Iraq evicted weapons inspectors because 2 of them were ex CIA operatives.......he is also claiming that Iraq has WMD without there being any proof.......*shrugs*

This is what Suddam Hussein has said. Other inspectors from the passed have stated that there were no CIA agents - but I gues you'd rather believe a guy that has consistently lied to the world and continues to. He does continue to tell his own people that he won the Gulf War even.

He is again accusing the inspectors of containing US spies and CIA agents. So I guess again the inspections are null and void.

In my book.....this is not the way life should be in this millenium, there is enough war and conflict in the world already, without starting an unjustified one.
Yeah - just waiting until the problem develops into a real big mess is much better. That's also what everyone said about Osama bin Ladin too. He wasn't that much of a threat until he took down two 110 story buildings.

BeardofPants

01-26-2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Do you'll get no news over where you are? How can you sit there and say that they don't have any weapons?

He's not saying that Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he's saying there's simply no PROOF of this.

I can't believe that this is going again: haven't we covered this already? :rolleyes:

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 10:12 PM

The power of words! JD, you are doing a pritty good job, because I use to be stuck imbatween going or not, 50/50, and now there is only one thing holding me back. Brother.

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
He's not saying that Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he's saying there's simply no PROOF of this.

I can't believe that this is going again: haven't we covered this already? :rolleyes:

We probally have, but read JD's last post. At least it convinced me.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
Do you'll get no news over where you are? How can you sit there and say that they don't have any weapons? I am personally not very up-to-date on this, so maybe I shouldn't be arguing with you, but for all I know, I think that it is clear that they do have weapons. JD, didn't they only let them inspect PART of there places? Or am I just with all of the old news?
They gave them the run around on a lot of the palace inspections as well as other areas that they needed to inspect. I'll have to look up the exact episodes - but I feel there is enough that has been coming out for the US to be pushing for military action.

It seems as if European news is only giving so much about what is going on. That is one of the reasons why I guess it may never have been reported about the Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

After hearing that the weapons inspectors have given iraq a "B" in cooperation - I have even less confidence in the weapons inspectors and them actually working to find weapons. I think they're main goal is to attempt to stall the US long enough to prevent us from attacking. I think them, the UN and Europe is hoping that by draggin this out - that the situation will be dropped and everyone can go about their business and not deal with the hard reality of the situation.

Coney

01-26-2003, 10:17 PM

I can't believe that this is going again: haven't we covered this already?

Yup, but I'm determined to get JD's typing speed up to at least 80wpm before war is declared ;)

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
He's not saying that Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction -- he's saying there's simply no PROOF of this.
yeah and Hans Blinx was in charge of the weapons inspections in north Korea and declared them completely clean too. :rolleyes:

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
They gave them the run around on a lot of the palace inspections as well as other areas that they needed to inspect. I'll have to look up the exact episodes - but I feel there is enough that has been coming out for the US to be pushing for military action.

It seems as if European news is only giving so much about what is going on. That is one of the reasons why I guess it may never have been reported about the Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

After hearing that the weapons inspectors have given iraq a "B" in cooperation - I have even less confidence in the weapons inspectors and them actually working to find weapons. I think they're main goal is to attempt to stall the US long enough to prevent us from attacking. I think them, the UN and Europe is hoping that by draggin this out - that the situation will be dropped and everyone can go about their business and not deal with the hard reality of the situation.

A "B" in cooperation? Dose that word means what I think it dose?? I think that I have the rong meaning to this word, PLEASE tell me what it means again, because I HAVE to have the rong meaning to it if what you say is treu!

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Yup, but I'm determined to get JD's typing speed up to at least 80wpm before war is declared ;)
Well if I'm not up to 80wpm already then I guess I better work at so we can declare war. Although - it will most likely not be a declared war under US terms anyway. The US hasn't been in a declared war since World War II.

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
A "B" in cooperation? Dose that word means what I think it dose?? I think that I have the rong meaning to this word, PLEASE tell me what it means again, because I HAVE to have the rong meaning to it if what you say is treu!

It means that the Hans Blix and the weapons inpsectors feel that Iraq has given above average cooperation with the inspections.

Cooperate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cooperate) -
1. To work or act together toward a common end or purpose.
2. To acquiesce willingly; be compliant

samwiselvr2008

01-26-2003, 10:30 PM

JD, I'm speechless. A "B"???? How can that be? (Wow! that rymed! Go me!)

jerseydevil

01-26-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by samwiselvr2008
JD, I'm speechless. A "B"???? How can that be? (Wow! that rymed! Go me!)
Yeah - that was what CNN had reported on Friday. Blix has given Iraq a "B" on cooperation with weapon inspections. The official report comes out tomorrow and then Bush gives the State of the Union speech on Tuesday.

It seems strange because Blix keeps saying that the cooperation has been insufficient - but they said that they feel that overall Iraq has been cooperating.

It's is strange how a dictatorship can not get it's scienctists to speak with the weapons inspectors in private too. They seem to have no problem getting their citizens to do anything else they want.

Search for alliances, criticism of '12,200-page lie' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.tracker.update/index.html)
• WOLFOWITZ: SCIENTISTS TUTORED: U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has ordered that any scientists who cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors be killed along with their families. "Furthermore," Wolfowitz said in a speech, "we know that scientists are being tutored on what to say to the U.N. inspectors and that Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as scientists to be interviewed by the inspectors." Iraqi officials have said there are no orders to prevent Iraqi scientists from cooperating with inspectors.

This goes back to those people who are going to Baghdad as human shields...

'Human shields' being used - U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/26/sprj.irq.humanshields/index.html)
"I would rather die in defense of justice and peace than 'prosper' in complicity with mass murder and war," he said.

It would be nice if they could have been so heroic and put themselves out there like that while Iraqis killed their own citizens. I think they have been pretty "complicit" in that regard.

Dunadan

01-27-2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It would be nice if they could have been so heroic and put themselves out there like that while Iraqis killed their own citizens. I think they have been pretty "complicit" in that regard.
Not as complicit as those who tooled up Saddam in the first place so he could carry out his repression. Remind me, who was that again? :rolleyes:

But, hey, let's not kid ourselves that the US/UK could give a toss about repressed Iraqis. This war is NOT about alleviating repression.

cheers

d.

jerseydevil

01-27-2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Dunadan
Not as complicit as those who tooled up Saddam in the first place so he could carry out his repression. Remind me, who was that again? :rolleyes:

Can't deny the fact that we did - but you might also recall under what circumstances. Iran and Iraq were in a war - having either one of them win the war would have been disasterous. The US was also not the only one that was supporting Iraq.

But, hey, let's not kid ourselves that the US/UK could give a toss about repressed Iraqis. This war is NOT about alleviating repression.

No you're right - it's about protecting the interests of the US. But with that will be the freedom of the Iraqi citizens. It's not by simple luck that the Kurds have a much higher standard of living than the Iraqis do - even though they live in the same country. It's just the Kurds are protected by the US and Britain - and Saddam Hussein can't repress them currently

All governments by the way, as well as people, as I stated before in past threads, concern themselves with their self interest first. Why is it that France and Russia are against military action - it's because they currently have financial ties with Iraq and are concerned about losing that. Turkey is leary about military action because of possible Kurdish rebellion in their own country, same thing with Iran. The surrounding Middle Eastern countries have also stated that would like to see Saddam Hussein eliminated - but they have problems with public opinion. So - you see - everyone is looking after their own self interest.

Finmandos12

01-27-2003, 05:06 PM

All governments by the way, as well as people, as I stated before in past threads, concern themselves with their self interest first.

Thats absolutely right. And there is nothing wrong with that: after all, we pay taxes and elect our officials to govern ourselves, not to be police of the world. What I can't understand is that some people supported US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, and oppose a war with Iraq. According to this logic, we should only go to war if it won't help us at all. Military action in self-defense is bad, according to them.

Dunadan

01-28-2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Finmandos12
According to this logic, we should only go to war if it won't help us at all. Military action in self-defense is bad, according to them.
Of course, very few people (pacifists, maybe) would object to military action in self-defence. The point here is whether Iraq actually is the threat it's made out to be. In my view, it's not, and the arguments concerning WMDs, UN resolutions and terrorist connections are being made to cover up the real reasons.

Those real reasons are the state of the US economy, its increasing reliance on dodgy states for oil supplies, the desire to boost Bush's domestic political popularity, an excuse to pump government money into defence contracts, and maybe even revenge for the Gulf War.

Whether or not you agree with those views, a war in Iraq is a massive gamble. While many of the Arab states will secretly welcome Saddam's demise, what kind of situation will there be afterwards?

Whatever happens, thousands of innocent civilians will be killed. Saddam may torch the oil fields, like he did in Kuwait, causing an environmental disaster. He may provoke Israel into escalating the conflict. A US-led invasion will provide the perfect recruitment material for the likes of Al-Q'aida. Saudi Arabia, which already has a pretty precarious regime, will be destabilised. (How do you fancy having some fundamentalist Islamists controlling their oil reserves?)

Even if you agree with the principle of going to war, it's a hugely irresponsible gamble.

cheers

d.

jerseydevil

01-28-2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Dunadan
Of course, very few people (pacifists, maybe) would object to military action in self-defence. The point here is whether Iraq actually is the threat it's made out to be. In my view, it's not, and the arguments concerning WMDs, UN resolutions and terrorist connections are being made to cover up the real reasons.

Those real reasons are the state of the US economy, its increasing reliance on dodgy states for oil supplies, the desire to boost Bush's domestic political popularity, an excuse to pump government money into defence contracts, and maybe even revenge for the Gulf War.

Whether or not you agree with those views, a war in Iraq is a massive gamble. While many of the Arab states will secretly welcome Saddam's demise, what kind of situation will there be afterwards?

Whatever happens, thousands of innocent civilians will be killed. Saddam may torch the oil fields, like he did in Kuwait, causing an environmental disaster. He may provoke Israel into escalating the conflict. A US-led invasion will provide the perfect recruitment material for the likes of Al-Q'aida. Saudi Arabia, which already has a pretty precarious regime, will be destabilised. (How do you fancy having some fundamentalist Islamists controlling their oil reserves?)

Even if you agree with the principle of going to war, it's a hugely irresponsible gamble.

The fear of Al Qaeda is the worst argument for not going against Iraq. If we were going to base foreign policy on what they might do - then we might as well fold up our democracy and declare them the winners.

As for the US relying on middle eastern oil - it's EUROPE that gets most of it's oil form these "dodgy states". The US only gets a fraction of our oil from them. EUROPE however gets over 50% of it's oil from the Middle East and Japan gets 70%.

The question isn't whether we will go to war with Iraq - it's whether we'll be going in there and taking Hussein out now - or if we'll be going in there in a couple of years when Saddam Hussein has the Middle East held hostage with his biological and chemical weapons.

A country no longer needs large tanks and military to easily wipe out 100.000 or even a million people. All they need to do is just have bio labs - which are extremely small and can be well hidden.

Transcript of Blix's remarks (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/index.html)
The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed. Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tons, and that the quality was poor and the product unstable.

Consequently, it was said that the agent was never weaponized.

Iraq said that the small quantity of [the] agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponized. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.
-Hans Blix

When Iraq uses or supplies these undeclared and hidden weapons to terrorts and they are released in the London Underground - let me know if you still think Iraq is a danger. He kills his own people and his own sons - I don't think he'd have much problem with killing 10's of thousands of people innocently going to work.

Also - our econonmy is actually not that bad. The stock market has gone down - but the unemployement rate is still only around 6 - 7%. It's lower than what Europes has been for years and years. Most European countries have an unemployment rate around 9%. The economy feels so bad because we had over 10 years of economic growth.

So what kind of situation will the world be if we just stick our head in the sand and pretend that Iraq isn't doing anything or won't attempt to do any with it's biological and chemical weapons? Hitler was allowed by Europe to take the Rhine valley, Austria and part of Czechloslovakia (under agreement by Europe no less). Europe did not become outraged until he moved against Poland. I guess you guys just want to wait until he actually has the Middle East under his thumb or maybe kills 100,000 people.

Dunadan

01-28-2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The fear of Al Qaeda is the worst argument for not going against Iraq.
So you accept that one of the consequences of invading Iraq will be that it will strengthen the position of Bin Laden and his cronies?

jerseydevil

01-28-2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Dunadan
So you accept that one of the consequences of invading Iraq will be that it will strengthen the position of Bin Laden and his cronies?
No. Bin Ladin has already declared that he wants the destruction of the west - people refusing to acknowledge this fact does not make it go away. Believe me - being only 40 minutes from New York I am perfectly aware of what Osama Bin Ladin can do and is willing to do.

I think during the war that they may try something and they may even succeed. But they're going to continue doing stuff regardless of Iraq. Taking out Hussein will eliminate one of their areas of refuge. I think that taking out Iraq will actually weaken them in the long run.

Dunadan

01-28-2003, 12:35 PM

Run that by me again. How exactly does invading Iraq make it less likely that Islamic extremists will want to attack the West using terrorism?

Hasty Ent

01-28-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Dunadan
Those real reasons are the state of the US economy, its increasing reliance on dodgy states for oil supplies, the desire to boost Bush's domestic political popularity, an excuse to pump government money into defence contracts, and maybe even revenge for the Gulf War.

Must say, Dunadan, I agree with you 100%.

jerseydevil

01-28-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Dunadan
Run that by me again. How exactly does invading Iraq make it less likely that Islamic extremists will want to attack the West using terrorism?

I didn't say they would be less likely to want to - but they'd have one less powerful ally on their side. One less place to hide out. One less place to get supplies and a place to train. You said that it wil strengthen Bin Ladin's position - and I don't think it will, it'll weaken his position.

The Islamic Extremists will always want to attack the west. Unless woman in the west want to give up driving, be covered, not talk to strange men, and everyone is will to convert to islam - they will always want to destroy the west.

Dunadan

01-28-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The Islamic Extremists will always want to attack the west.
Quite possibly, but I think that these people are a very, very small minority. (Though, BTW, what most of them actually want is to kick "infidels" out of the Middle East. Pretty unlikely, for sure, so it boils down to the same thing.) They can hide anywhere (oh, and where's the evidence that they're hiding/getting trained/armed with anthrax in Iraq?)

This aspect of the issue is not decided by money, arms suppliers or safe havens; it is decided in people's minds. The more we are perceived to oppress the Arab world, the easier it is for such extremists to win over the minds of ordinary people. Invading Iraq, setting aside the question of whether or not it's justified, will contribute massively to their argument. That's why Bin Laden is sitting in some cave somewhere rubbing his hands together with glee right now.

cheers

d.

Coney

01-28-2003, 05:37 PM

Interesting site-

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/factsheets/nowariraq.htm

Dunadan

01-31-2003, 06:01 AM

Hey, guess what? The official Iraqi news agency web site is www.uruklink.net.

That's it, then. No more inpections required. Saddam's clearly an orc.;)

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 02:55 PM

I’ll highlight a passage from JD long post that I wish to comment (with another, longer post :) ):

(Excerpts from a CNN article)

“France says it will only join an attack on Iraq if U.N. experts prove that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and refuses to eliminate them.”

“France had asked the U.S. States for proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but Washington has failed to provide any, Alliot-Marie said.”

[i]“Alliot-Marie said she expected arms inspectors to ask for more time, and said it was "absolutely necessary" to agree to any such request, repeating France's stance that war was the last resort. “

Jerseydevil wrote:

“This is what is so stupid in Europe.

He's NOT supposed to have any of these weapons. They were supposed to have already been destroyed. Do these idiots really think that after being lied to for 12 years that he will all of a sudden say "Oh yeah - you caught me. I'll elimate them now."

As I said - they just want to bury their head in the sand until it's too late.

Frankly, stupidity doesn’t seem to be an appropriate word to describe the “pro-war” or the “anti- war” position. It sounds too much like the America- bashing (and Euro-bashing) we have seen in forums everywhere in recent times. (I know it wasn't your intention to do that, JD :)).

But it is obvious there is a clear difficulty to perceive each other motivations on this issue. Assuming that both parts have reasons for their positions, what they may be?

If I understood it right, the pro-war motivations may be described as follows:

Saddam, maintains an arsenal of mass destruction weapons. History proves that he is willing to use them. He already has used chemical weapons upon his own people and so it is probable he would use them again, even against the West.
During 13 years he failed to cooperate with the UN in dismantling those weapons, nothing indicates he would change his behaviour now.
Furthermore, he maintains relations with terrorist groups, including Al Qeada.

Under this light war is not only justifiable but also necessary to protect us from the insidious threat of bio and chemical terrorism. Those that oppose war are therefore ignorant or refuse to see the evidence that exists.

(continue)

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 03:02 PM

Well, now for really long post: :D the other side.

As far as I se it, we have two main groups that oppose war, mainly the European and Muslin.

As it was to be expected, the reasons of one group are not coincident with the other.

I’ll speculate about the Europeans.

As it became clear recently, Europe is far from being a monolithic block (yes, I’m using the M word again BoP :D) the recent letter supporting the US several European leaders subscribed (including my own country PM) seems to indicate this. (Alf jokingly, some say that more then supporting the US, those leaders were opposing the unilateral stance of the Franco-German “alliance” in internal EU affairs, and their pretence to speak for all Europe in international affairs :rolleyes: ).

Despite the European leaders division, it is clear that most Europeans don’t favour war (including in those countries that signed the letter), so why is this?

The Soundness of Facts
The first problem is the facts that supposedly fundament war. To many, they cannot be called “facts”.
Usually, what is claimed to be “proof” is hearsay or speculation. After all, the supposed facts are presented (including by American press) as being based in someone’s accusations or in assumptions based on incomplete information. There is precious little evidence. Facts remain as illusive as they were in the first day inspectors went in 12 years ago.

Even to those that believe Saddam is guilty (and there are many among the “anti-war” group) there is a difference between suspicion and actual evidence. Without the last war is not legitimate.

The UN factor.
Many Europeans value much the UN (not surprisingly, if you consider the existence of another, more successful supra-national European organization, the EU). While few have any illusions about the UN, there is a clear belief that the road to follow in the international relations is that of Law prevailing over Might.

Frankly, going in without a clear sanctioning of the UN, based on concrete, undisputable evidence is tantamount to a regress to the pre-WWII world, with all it’s dark moments. The efficiency of the UN may be paper thin, but it is one of the few barriers that remain in a world progressively more chaotic. No one seems to be willing to abdicate from it, and some still arbour the hope of it regaining more prominence and efficiency.

Now, as we know, the Bush administration has been dubious at beast regarding the UN. His claims of willingness to go in without clear, undisputed proof and support from the UN is seen as a dangerous action, capable of putting the UN survival at risk.

The “what changed” factor
As we know this situation has been going for quite some time now. Saddam’s actions haven’t changed, really, at least not for the worst. In fact he now have demonstrated a willingness to comply with inspectors (of course this is motivated by his fear of war, but it worked nonetheless). So many ask themselves, why war now?

Well, what seemed to have changed is American perception of the world. Most Europeans believe that Americans, until the dreadful day of 9/11, felt confident in their security. No one would dare to strike at the US, they believed. Now Americans are suffering from a new sense of vulnerability, and desire to re-establish their security again eliminating all possible threats. This is perfectly understandable.

To many Europeans, this sense of vulnerability is an old companion. It was there during two World Wars, mainly fought on this continent, it was there during the Cold War, when Europe felt many times it’s survival was by a thread, it was there during the dark days of terrorist activity, (that didn’t quite disappeared yet), it is present in those that remember the many dictatorships that have plagued the continent and it is here now, when we realize we can became targets of the new fundamentalist fanatics.

Yes, Europeans have learned to live with insecurity, and most don’t believe wars like the one proposed against Iraq will change things, insecurity will remain.

(continues)

Yes, I told you it was really long ;)

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 03:06 PM

And finally, the last part :)

The Credibility/Image Factor

Let’s face it, it is not just what one says that make it believable or not. Is also who and how he say it.

In the game of international influence, the credibility and image of a leader makes the difference. Past US presidents spent much time cultivating their international image so that, when need comes, his words would be heeded. Apparently not the current one.

Repeated unilateral acts have undermined his credibility among his allies. They accuse Mr. Bush of not listening to their opinions, much less taking them into account. According to them, he takes a decision alone and then expects them to back him up. That’s not the way allies act, they say. Naturally, the allies then feel free to disagree publicly with him.

Had another president proposed the war, say Clinton, would opposition be different?
Probably. I don’t believe opposition would be inexistent, but it would be far less acute, since he was much more credible, as an international leader.

The consequences of war factor
Despite claims that this will be a war of liberation, not a war against the people of Iraq, there is a lot of pessimism about that. Many believe that, at best, what can be expected from the Iraqi are ambivalent feelings towards their liberators.

The possibility of establishing a democracy there also seems thin. There are no credible leaders, and apparently, no real desire of the people for a democracy.

Another factor is the consequence of an attack on Iraq to us. If Saddam has mass destruction weapons as claimed war makes it much more likely he will use them. The belief that he would use them against the West outside a situation of war remains unconvincing. He seems to be an immoral creature, but not a rather stupid one.

Finally we have the possible instability in the Middle East resulting from an intervention there. The possibility that fundamentalist demagogues will use the war to destabilize the zone is very real, and the consequences to the World economy, security and to the people of those countries may be very problematic in the long run. The only way to minimise this threat is by getting undisputable evidence of Saddam foul play.

End of ramble (thank goodness! :D).

[Posts were later edited to clarify a few passages]

jerseydevil

01-31-2003, 03:27 PM

Concerning certain aspects of your posts...

UN - the dictators don't listen to the UN - so basicallyu unless the UN uses force - it has no influence on them. It took the US's show of force in the region to get the UN to even sit down to talk about inspectors and it took further show of force for Saddam Hussein to accept them.

Concerning my comment with the French are dumb - personally that goes without saying. Their statement that US has to PROVE that Iraq plans to USE the weapons is ridiculous.

Soundness of facts - Colin Powell is meeting with the UN on February 5th to disclose facts. A lot of it has been top secret information. As has been pointed out in the US recently - the Soviet Union also denied repeatedly of having nuclear weapons in Cuba - until the US provided the spy plane photos. The problem I stated earlier though - is that there is NO way of telling if a particular building is a biological/chemical weapoins lab - or just a baby food manufacturing company that just happens to have a huge sign on the front written in ENGLISH.

So in other words - you have to use intelligence gathering means to obtain this information - this includes getting information from people on the inside. Of course no matter how much proof there is - not everyone is going ot be happy.

Concerning the US unilaterialism - the US does not NEED to get approval from ANYONE to protect us. We did not elect the UN - the only people the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA has to listen to is the people of the US. He will of course listen to the allies - but if their opinion differs from what is in OUR best interest - it does NOT mean that he or us are obligated to abide by the outside world's opinion. I know you all wish you could elect our president - but you can't. Therefore you have no say when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country or it's security.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat, maybe not now - but in the near future - we will have another North Korea situation on our hands. Saddam Hussein must be stopped now before he hijacks the Middle East and holds that part of the world hostage.

Oh - it was also resently reported that Saddam Hussein had been saving up dead babies - so he could have that show of mass funerals and act as if those babies had died all at once.

markedel

01-31-2003, 05:44 PM

As a Zionist I'd say the war is probably a good thing-in the long run Saddam is a threat to Israel and should be eliminated, and any weapons he does develop will eventually be used by terrorists-first in Israel and then in the West. (kind of like targed suicide bombings, but that's really another argument in itself). Also a truly democratic Iraq would raise the prospects of a democratic palestinian state being established, a good thing for Israel.

But in terms of realpolitic the invasion of Iraq opens up a can of worms-namely that Iraq is an artificial political unit held together only by fear of Saddam, without it splits up into 3 states, or just anarchy, a very bad and dangerous thing. Can the U.S set up a new stable Iraq-I think not.

Coney

01-31-2003, 05:57 PM

I watched a very interesting article on the channel 4 news today.....it was all about Iraqi football (soccer) teams:)

They were quite good, but played dirty.....and they were all Manchester United fans:eek: (David Beckham being the most popular poster sold in Iraq)......well if they support Man U. that settles it........'nuke 'em *nuff said*

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 05:59 PM

Well, as you may have noticed, I was pointing out the different points of view over the issue, and what is behind them (since I don’t really believe it just ignorance that motivates any of them). I see you haven’t disagreed with my “pro-war” analysis; that seems to indicate that you agree with it.

Now for your points.

UN - the dictators don't listen to the UN - so basically unless the UN uses force - it has no influence on them. It took the US's show of force in the region to get the UN to even sit down to talk about inspectors and it took further show of force for Saddam Hussein to accept them.

True, by they may listen to the threat of force, as opposed to actual use of force. It does seem to be working, for now at least. Since everybody (including the US) agreed with the “let’s give peace a last chance” thing, it seems reasonable to let this path advance instead of stopping the effort now.

And, if Saddam actually does it again and the inspector’s role is denied, then war is always a possibility, and this way it would have more legitimacy.

Concerning French- bashing

Well I confess I have been guilty of such a sport in the past. (It can be lots of fun. And don’t forget, they actually invaded us under Napoleon in the early XIX century. That was practically yesterday for a Portuguese! ;)) But I think France-bashing is really, really becoming as ridiculous as America-bashing is, so :P

Soundness of facts - Colin Powell is meeting with the UN on February 5th to disclose facts. A lot of it has been top secret information. As has been pointed out in the US recently - the Soviet Union also denied repeatedly of having nuclear weapons in Cuba - until the US provided the spy plane photos. The problem I stated earlier though - is that theree is NO way of telling if a particular building is a biological/chemical weapoins lab - or just a baby food manufacturing company that just happens to have a huge sign on the front written in ENGLISH.

So in other words - you have to use intelligence gathering means to obtain this information - this includes getting information from people on the inside. Of course no matter how much proof there is - not everyone is going ot be happy.

That goes without saying. But for now, we are asked to go on faith alone (that was what I pointed out), and faith doesn’t move mountains in international politics, nor the opinion of the common people, apparently.

While I personally admit the possibility of the existence of such proof (as I said, I was attempting to clarify both sides positions, not necessarily giving my own) I suspect it will be disappointingly inconclusive. Why?
Because with such opposition even among allies it would seem logical that Bush would have shared at least part of the information with the other allied world leaders. If such information were so damning they would have been much more careful in stating their opposition to war, to avoid becoming discredited because of it.

Since it favours the US to have an as wide coalition as possible wouldn’t be likely he would have showed part of it?

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 06:03 PM

Concerning the US unilaterialism - the US does not NEED to get approval from ANYONE to protect us. We did not elect the UN - the only people the President of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA has to listen to is the people of the US. He will of course listen to the allies - but if their opinion differs from what is in OUR best interest - it does NOT mean that he or us are obligated to abide by the outside world's opinion. I know you all wish you could elect our president - but you can't. Therefore you have no say when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country or it's security.

Nope, you clearly didn’t got the point here. Who says it needs to get outside approval? Who wants to elect your president? Frankly, it is enough to deal with my own country PM ;)

What I say is that unilateralism begets opposition and animosity, even among allies, when they are spurned. And despite what you say, there is a lot of bad feeling because many feel that they were spurned.

Now, whatever Mr. Bush qualities are, no one can claim that he is popular in the international community. He chose that path.
If one doesn’t care about this, fine. It is his option and I accept it (of course). Yet, then it seem odd why so many that supported unilateralism in the first place (including him, apparently) feel surprised and angered when “the others” seem to neglect to follow him.
Simply put, you can’t have both ways.

Finally don’t forget this little, tinny fact. When war finally comes it won’t be just America that goes to war. Other countries are likely to follow (included mine btw, even if in a limited way since our resources are scant), so it is natural that the people of those countries also feel entitled to have an opinion about it. (It is even likely that the French will join, despite their constant complains).
Sure, 90% (at least) of the troops will be American. But other countries will likely have their people involved (not to speak about logistical support, the US couldn’t ever dream of making such a distant war without it), so the locals (as I’m sure it happens in the US) wonder if all this will make them targets for retaliation, and if the cause is a worthy one. It seems natural, don’t you think?

When war finally comes, then there will be no more possibility for any serious dissention or the discussing of options. It will be a matter of supporting one’s allies and achieving victory. Anything else will be just pointless words, sound and wind, nothing more.

believe Saddam Hussein is a threat, maybe not now - but in the near future - we will have another North Korea situation on our hands. Saddam Hussein must be stopped now before he hijacks the Middle East and holds that part of the world hostage.

I disagree, I doubt he would become a threat (to the West, that is) unless attacked, but any analysis of this is, of course, subjective, since neither of us in inside his head (fortunately :D).

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 06:12 PM

Markedel, I’ve read interesting points about this recently. One pointed out that dealing with Saddam now is trading a contained, localized problem, with a wider, diffuse one.

It seems likely that fundamentalist demagogues in the Middle East and elsewhere will use an invasion to fuel their intents. Instead of dealing a blow to terrorism, it may actually help spread it. And make the local Arab countries more radical. Don’t you fear the possibility of another generalized war there?

Earniel

01-31-2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As has been pointed out in the US recently - the Soviet Union also denied repeatedly of having nuclear weapons in Cuba - until the US provided the spy plane photos.

And that case was resolved by talking if I remember correctly and NOT by sending troops to the other side of the globe to go and blow somebody else's land back to the middle ages in the name of justice. We narrowly escaped a full blown war then, I'm hoping that we can do the same here although I fear quite the opposite.

I'm not saying that no one wants to look at the evidence that America is supplying just because it's America that supplying it and just because we're all nastily anti-american. But you can't expect other nations to go and aid in an unprovoked war on shaky evidence. Too many countries have tasted the bitter results of war, I don't blame them for not calling lightly for war again.

I know you all wish you could elect our president- but you can't.
I seem to recall you didn't elect this particular president either.:)

Therefore you have no say when it comes to what is in the best interests of this country or it's security.
I think we do if it is something that concerns us all. Or is America the only country that may decide what can and what can't in this world?

Coney

01-31-2003, 06:39 PM

Soundness of facts - Colin Powell is meeting with the UN on February 5th to disclose facts. A lot of it has been top secret information.

This worries the wotsit out of me:mad:

America is withholing these top secret facts when the Kurdish people are in constant danger and Isreal is target no.1........wtf? If they have evidence why the hell is the USA witholding it?...this is not the Cuban Missile crisis, people are not going to be impressed by America throwing the equivalent of a "full house" on the gambling/negotiating table.......

Oh - it was also resently reported that Saddam Hussein had been saving up dead babies - so he could have that show of mass funerals and act as if those babies had died all at once.

Eh? Reorted where?......not like you not to provide a link to such an atrocity JD.

I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat, maybe not now - but in the near future - we will have another North Korea situation on our hands.

uh huh, the world now has a real problem with NK......yet it seems to be happy to deal with the problem via negotiation thanks to neglegence ......... yet America seems reluctant to let the weapons inspectors even finish their job re:Iraq........must be something to do with the current facts they are withholding from the rest of the world :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

01-31-2003, 07:32 PM

By the way - I know you were presenting both sides - I just wanted to comment on some of the points I disagree with.
Originally posted by Eärniel

And that case was resolved by talking if I remember correctly and NOT by sending troops to the other side of the globe to go and blow somebody else's land back to the middle ages in the name of justice. We narrowly escaped a full blown war then, I'm hoping that we can do the same here although I fear quite the opposite.

And the ships and everything blockading Cuba - that was nothing? By the way - recently many stuff was just declassified regarding the Cuban Missile crisis - there was A LOT no one knew about. There were shots fired to make the Russian Submarines surface.

I seem to recall you didn't elect this particular president either.:)

Actually we did vote for Bush - can't help it if half of Americans and the rest of the world never knew what the Electorial College is or how we elect a president. maybe if people read the Constition they would have known that popular vote doesn't matter at all - what matters is how each state votes.

I think we do if it is something that concerns us all. Or is America the only country that may decide what can and what can't in this world?
We're the only one's who have a decision in what determines our self interest. Whether you agree with it or not is your self interest showing.

Concerning unilatrialism again - if we didn't and don't take a hard line with Iraq - the rest of the world will just turn their backs on the situation like they did before. Europe would be VERY happy to lift sanctions - even though Iraq is not complying - nor has EVER complied with the UN resolutions. Most of Europe seems to want to just take the "cover their eyes and hope the problem goes away" stand.

Coney - it was on ABC the other night. I don't know if they have a link for the information. It was on World News Tonight.

The NK is a different situation anyway. We basically have a choice with Saddam Hussein - we can deal with Iraq now - or face ANOTHER Norh Korea situation with them. That would be great to have TWO sadistic regimes to deal with and worry about them selling nuclear as well as biological and chemical weapons to terrorists. Hans Blix also had said North Korea was clean - so we know how much they were fooled there.

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 07:54 PM

[quote]
Concerning unilatrialism again - if we didn't and don't take a hard line with Iraq - the rest of the world will just turn their backs on the situation like they did before. Europe would be VERY happy to lift sanctions - even though Iraq is not complying - nor has EVER complied with the UN resolutions. Most of Europe seems to want to just take the "cover their eyes and hope the problem goes away" stand.
[quote]

Actually, at this time, it is grudgingly allowing the inspectors to do their work.

The issue is not simply if he complies or not, but if it is worth a war. If his actions make a war justifiable.

And then there is what happens next, once the war is won.

Are the repercussions worth it?

jerseydevil

01-31-2003, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon

Actually, at this time, it is grudgingly allowing the inspectors to do their work.

The issue is not simply if he complies or not, but if it is worth a war. If his actions make a war justifiable.

And then there is what happens next, once the war is won.

Are the repercussions worth it?
So yo'll be happy with Iraq having these weapons? Holding the Middle East hostage? Of supplying them to terrorists? Anyone who thinks he won't go after his neighbors once he has them are naive. If he has enough weapons - the only choice the US will have to take him out - is to go nuclear. His stated goal has always been to rule the Middle East and the elimination of Israel.

Elvellon

01-31-2003, 08:21 PM

Put it this way.

Are we going after North Korea next? Byelorussia? Iran?

What about Saudi Arabia? From were I stand it looks like a powder keg. Not to speak all that covert funding of Al Qeada…

If not, why not?

You seem to think that simply putting him out of business will make the zone more stable. That is a possibility, but is it the most likely one?

What if Iraq collapses becoming a leaderless state, with warring factions spreading chaos there, and exporting that very same terrorism we all want to stop?

What if the attack actually triggers a wave of fundamentalism in the region, destabilizing local countries and sending them into the clutches of the Fundamentalists?

Doesn’t this worry you?

jerseydevil

01-31-2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon

Doesn’t this worry you?
yes it does worry me - but i think it would be much worse to just let the status quo be.

I think that we can keep Iraq together and help the people there form a thriving society. The Kurds live in much better conditions than the majority of Iraqis do - and that's because we have kept Saddam Hussein at bay in the no-fly zones.

it will be difficult to help them form a conhesive new government - but I believe it can be done. We have to work within the frame work of the current Iraq - even if it was artificially created by England.

The key to bring stability to the Middle East and combat terrorism is to bring the standard of living up for all the people in the Middle East. This is not going to be done by just giving them money - the governments need to change. Saudia Arabia is a problem too. Mainly because they have, just like all the middle east - no industry other than oil. If you want to cause more terrorism - stop buying oil, because it'll bring down the middle Eastern economies even further.

Basically - the economies will have to become more diversified, unemployment needs to be lowered, allow people to have a greater say in their government, etc.

Coney

01-31-2003, 09:41 PM

We have to work within the frame work of the current Iraq - even if it was artificially created by England.

Eh?........The state may have been created by the UK government in the past...but it has very little to do with the tin-pot dictator that the USA installed in Iraq:rolleyes:

jerseydevil

01-31-2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Eh?........The state may have been created by the UK government in the past...but it has very little to do with the tin-pot dictator that the USA installed in Iraq:rolleyes:

I was not talking about Saddam Hussein - which everyone had a part in putting into place. I was referring to the different "tribes" that are expected to exist together in Iraq. Europe arbitrarily drew up borders for the various middle eastern countries - ignoring the different peoples. That is why everyone is afraid of Iraq disentagrating if we remove their "tin-pot dictator" from power. Without a repressive regime in place to control by violence - then the people may seperate and Iraq may dissolve. Turkey, Iran, Jordan are all afraid of this - because they all have Kurds living in their countries and the Kurdish "terrority" (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Slides/kurds_popoff990216/index.html) extends into all these countries.

Coney

01-31-2003, 10:27 PM

I was not talking about Saddam Hussein - which everyone had a part in putting into place.

We all did? uh huh:rolleyes:

Europe arbitrarily drew up borders for the various middle eastern countries - ignoring the different peoples.

I'm presuming by this you mean the splitting of the Palestinian state to produce Isreal (sorry Zionists).

That is why everyone is afraid of Iraq disentagrating if we remove their "tin-pot dictator" from power.

Nope, everyone is worried that the Ayhotolah (sp?) in Iran will re-awaken and resume control of the Iraqi people.....sure he is complacent now but just because USA may enforce a democratic government does not mean that they will keep the country in such a state:rolleyes: ....blood is thicker than water..........but faith pales even the thickest ties..........The UN cannot even inflict its whims on the Afaghans..........they have no chance in the ME.

wahine

01-31-2003, 10:31 PM

Just want you to know that you guys are a riot.

Bye

markedel

02-01-2003, 02:31 PM

Hate to say this Coney but when France and Britain carved up the Ottoman Empire Iraq was an artificial creation-unsustainible without a workable federal system (highly unlikely in the ME where the only truly multicultural country in the region is none other then that evil racist state Israel). That's why invading it is stupid-the mess involved in deposing Saddam, as dangerous as he is would be very great. I don't like the U.S's ability to create a controlled demolition.

As to carving up a palestinina state-this is unrealted, but as a Zionist I'm commited to defending against such obvious ignorance of the situation. The British handed over present day Israel and Jordan to the Zionists as a homeland with explicitly protected minority rights. Most palestinians were pushing for pan-Syrian nationalism at the time. WInston Churchill gave Jordan over to the Hashemites, and closed it to Jewish settlement (i.e 2/3 of palestine was made arab in 1922,). The rest was settled by Jews and arabs from around the Middle East. In 1937 and 1947 there were plans to partion the remains of the mandate between Jews and Arabs-and both partitions were accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, resulting in a war that rages on to this day.

How does this relate to Iraq? Iraq should really be partitioned-but it won't because someone won't accept the idea.

jerseydevil

02-01-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by markedel
...only truly multicultural country in the region is none other then that evil racist state Israel

[I've edited out my comments because after reading this several times I feel that you were being sarcastic with this statement]

jerseydevil

02-01-2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Coney
I'm presuming by this you mean the splitting of the Palestinian state to produce Isreal (sorry Zionists).

Maybe you should read your English history more - then you'd know that England had a hand, as well as ALL of Europe in forming the arbitrary countries that exist today from South Africa to the Middle East - this includes Saudia Arabia. They disregarded the ethnic make up of the people or the in fighting between the tribes. They gave the countries to the people who helped them during World War I and established the boundaries.

Coney

02-01-2003, 04:05 PM

I must have been drunker than I thought last night....I can't even remember posting in this thread:o ......sorry about that hehehe;)

jerseydevil

02-01-2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Coney
I must have been drunker than I thought last night....I can't even remember posting in this thread:o ......sorry about that hehehe;)

Okay - so how are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even remember posting. :D

Coney

02-01-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Okay - so how are we supposed to take you seriously when you can't even remember posting. :D

If I'm posting on a Friday night/early hours of Saturday morning 'tis probably best to be a bit skeptical ;):D

jerseydevil

02-01-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Coney
If I'm posting on a Friday night/early hours of Saturday morning 'tis probably best to be a bit skeptical ;):D

I'll make sure I remember that and let you just ramble. :D

Tar-Elendil

02-01-2003, 06:00 PM

Ive been gone from the forums for quite a while now, and this thread is too long to have read all the posts; sorry if I repeat something someone had already said.

The war on iraq would have nothing to do with morals or "making the world a safer place." It would be a war completely driven for economic purposes, oil especially. America tries too hard to police the globe, and thats why many countries hate America. the U.S. has chose conflicts in Europe and the Middle East to benefit the economy. An example of this is the Armenian Genocide, but i do not want to stir up any problems, so, ill leave it at that.
If America could stop interfering as much as it does in foreign affairs, there would be more peace throughout the world. Sometimes fighting is necesarry and is inevitable. If we had not gone to war in World War II, the globe would probably be dominated by fascism. This isnt like that at all. If the United States is sincerely worried about Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, then they would let the war be led by the UN, not America. That,I think, will not happen, for bush is a war economy fanatic.

Many religious ideas, such as the Bible and Indian folklore, point to the destruction of the world: famine, war, uncontrollable fire, etc. At this point in time we should focus in the preservation of the human race, not the destruction of it; we shall have to strive for peace.

If my post has sounded in any way "anti-American," I would just like to say I am in no way so. I love my country and I am proud to live in a place where I can govern my own life and not be persecuted for such things as religion or race.

Dúnedain

02-13-2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
The war on iraq would have nothing to do with morals or "making the world a safer place." It would be a war completely driven for economic purposes, oil especially. America tries too hard to police the globe, and thats why many countries hate America. the U.S. has chose conflicts in Europe and the Middle East to benefit the economy. An example of this is the Armenian Genocide, but i do not want to stir up any problems, so, ill leave it at that.

That is total bs, look at the crap Iraq has hidden from the world, and against the treaty they signed to DISARM after the Gulf War. I don't understand how you can call it a political and economic purpose for trying to protect life from someone who has blatant disregard for his own people let alone neighboring and worldly countries...

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
If America could stop interfering as much as it does in foreign affairs, there would be more peace throughout the world. Sometimes fighting is necesarry and is inevitable. If we had not gone to war in World War II, the globe would probably be dominated by fascism. This isnt like that at all. If the United States is sincerely worried about Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, then they would let the war be led by the UN, not America. That,I think, will not happen, for bush is a war economy fanatic.

More peace? You mean how France, Belgium, Poland, and countless many other countries would now be Germany if the US didn't intervene some 50 years ago? Also, the US is supposed to sit back after we had planes flown into two of the most treasured US landmarks, killing countless amounts of people. So we should allow finatical (sp?) regimes to arm themselves with weapons, be it biological, chemical or nuclear?

And are you kidding me about the UN? The UN is about the weakest organization out there, I don't think you can get any weaker.

Also, I did not vote for bush, nor am I a republican, but I feel very strongly about going to war against Iraq and I think more importantly we need to watch North Korea more intently than we have been. And about the whole France/Germany crap and them wanting more inspectors. First of all, inspectors are only scientists, not weapons experts, there is 1 yes 1 weapons expert out of the entire lot of inspectors now in Iraq. Countless inspectors have said Iraq is hiding weapons and they are constantly moving them. The US has also provided proof, yes PROOF, that Iraq is doing everything in their power to deceive the world and to also build weapons in violation of their disarmament agreement, that the UN made them sign, yes the UN...

It is laughable also about the countries wanting peace. What do you think we want? If we allow Iraq to build up, then what do you think they will do? They will attack those that are keeping to themselves, and most likely he will invade a country for land again, as he did to Iran and Kuwait. And yes, oil is important, it is just as important to America as it is any other country, if we have some madman at the helm of the biggest worlds resource then we are all in trouble, especially if he decides to let off one of his bombs and then we all are out of oil plus our lives in general will be in danger.

To say the US are warmongers is ridiculous also. If that were the case, do you really think we would have waited this long to fight? We have put this war off for almost a year now just to appease the world and to give Iraq a second and third and fourth and so on and so on chance. Open your eyes....

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
Many religious ideas, such as the Bible and Indian folklore, point to the destruction of the world: famine, war, uncontrollable fire, etc. At this point in time we should focus in the preservation of the human race, not the destruction of it; we shall have to strive for peace.

Ummmm, what do you think bringing down a tyrant is the point of? We are not sending troops over and fighting a war for fun. It is to acheive a sense of stability and peace in the world and to avoid another September 11th from happening in America or around the world again....

jerseydevil

02-13-2003, 11:06 PM

I agree Dúnedain. I wrote these two e-mails to the BBC yesterday in regards to two questions they asked. Not that they'd post them though.

France, EU and Iraq....
France has always been arrogant and condescending. The opinions of the US which are being stated today are no different than they have been for DECADES. They're just being voiced openly now. It's no secret that France has had contempt for America, the American people and our culture. So why is it so surprising that we feel the same about them and their arrogant attitude?

France's problem is that it can't accept that it's not a world power and that it's so called "culture" they're so proud is all in the past. But now - riding on the waves of "Anti-Americanism" which is flooding all of Europe and the world - they want to cash in on that.

Europe seems to be fracturing. France and Germany are trying to gain control over the European continent by pushing the "Anti-Americanism". The tiny country of Belgium seems to have sided with the two who it thinks will make the rules in the New Europe. Any European who can't see this - I feel sorry for. If they succeed - I'm sure you'll be wishing for the good old days when you worried about the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic - instead of the two arrogant countries at your front door.

In terms of Iraq - the world has a choice - we can either stop Hussein now, or risk having another Hitler or North Korea. Hitler was allowed to capture part of France, take over Austria, part of Czechoslovakia. All of this while Europe stood by and said "Let's try to negotiate" - it wasn't until he broke his agreement and invaded Poland that Europe said "Okay - you've gone too far now."

When the US took retaliatory strikes against Osama Bin Ladin after he blew up our Embassies - people were outraged we were taking such action against him. Everyone, even in America, said that he wasn't really that much of a threat. Today - after he managed to take down TWO 110 story buildings, killing 3,000 innocent people - we know better. Yet worldwide there was outrage when the US attempted to take military action against him before he officially declared his religious war against the West on 9/11/2001.

North Korea has been developing it's nuclear weapons program ever since it agreed to abandon it. We now know that North Korea just moved it underground from prying eyes. UN inspectors had even said they were clean and didn't have a nuclear program. Today we know better and they now hold that region hostage. When it comes to Iraq - I guess we can take similar UN inaction and just sit back - let Hussein continue to develop his weapons. Of course during this time the world will slowly lose interest in Iraq, as it always does, and turn it's back on Hussein. Then before you know it - we'll have another Hitler and North Korea on our hands. After Saddam develops his chemical and biological agents, and has fully functioning nuclear bombs -after he has obtained his ultimate goal of holding the Middle East hostage - I think we should make France be the front line in the assault. Maybe America will just sit this one out while we see how the great "old world powers" solve the problems of the world. The problems that THEY created when they arbitrarily carved up the Middle East into their respective countries during their colonial OCCUPATION.

The whole of the Middle East has a problem, it's not just related to Osama bin Ladin. In order to combat the threat of terrorism we have to bring down these regimes that will and do support terrorism. Unless there are free peoples and democracy in the Middle East there WILL always be terror in the world and the West will always live in fear. We need to create a Middle East we can trade with - where we have economic ties with - and I don't mean oil. Currently oil is the only thing they have - that is why there is 30% unemployment rate in Middle Eastern countries. Something needs to be done in order to make sure that the next generation of Arabs have a future - or else they won't have jobs, and if they don't have jobs - they will be bored, and if they're bored - they're going to need someone to blame for their situation. That someone is going to be the west - because their governments and religious leaders would much rather have them throw their anger at the West than look at the real problems. They're real problems are with their government and religious leaders who want to keep them chained - but they can't do anything to stand up to them.

continued...

jerseydevil

02-13-2003, 11:08 PM

20 years ago no one could have foreseen the relationship which Russia and the US now share. Now that democracy has taken root in the old Soviet Empire - the people are enjoying freedom, able to leave their country, people aren't risking their life to cross the Berlin wall in Germany, there aren't reports of defection from Russia, Warsaw Pact members are now full-fledged members of NATO. Sometimes in order to bring about this type of change - hard action needs to be taken. These types of regimes need to be taken down or else the west will never be free from terrorism.

I'm, tired of hearing that iraq isn't an imminent thread. Are we supposed to wait agin until some massive attack come about? Do we have to wait until it's another North Korea situation? The only reason why France wants to wait is because they have billions of dollars in deals with Iraq and it's the same for Germany.

Why I won't be march for peace....
So where are these so called "peace marchers" when Iraq is torturing and executing it's own people? Or North Koreans are starving at the hands of it's government? Where are they while cannibalism goes on in Africa? I see the marches against the US's death penalty in Europe - but amazingly the demonstrations are silent as thousands are put to death for just speaking out against their government in the Middle East.

I'll give you a reason why I WON'T be marching. I'm for the FREEDOM of the Iraqi people - not the continued torture and enslavement of them. The whole of the Middle East has a problem, it's not just related to Osama bin Ladin. In order to combat the threat of terrorism we have to bring down these regimes that will and do support terrorism. Unless there are free peoples and democracy in the Middle East there WILL always be terror in the world and the West will always live in fear. We need to create a Middle East we can trade with - where we have economic ties with - and I don't mean oil. Currently oil is the only thing they have - that is why there is 30% unemployment rate in Middle Eastern countries. Something needs to be done in order to make sure that the next generation of Arabs have a future - or else they won't have jobs, and if they don't have jobs - they will be bored, and if they're bored - they're going to need someone to blame for their situation. That someone is going to be the west - because their governments and religious leaders would much rather have them throw their anger at the West than look at the real problems. They're real problems are with their government and religious leaders who want to keep them chained - but they can't do anything to stand up to them.

If you want to truly save the lives of the Iraqis and encourage democracy to take root in the Middle East - then you wouldn't be marching. Or at the very least you'd be marching for the TRUE atrocities in the world - instead of always looking for the evil in the countries which actually ALLOW you to speak out.

Dúnedain

02-13-2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
North Korea has been developing it's nuclear weapons program ever since it agreed to abandon it. We now know that North Korea just moved it underground from prying eyes. UN inspectors had even said they were clean and didn't have a nuclear program. Today we know better and they now hold that region hostage. When it comes to Iraq - I guess we can take similar UN inaction and just sit back - let Hussein continue to develop his weapons. Of course during this time the world will slowly lose interest in Iraq, as it always does, and turn it's back on Hussein. Then before you know it - we'll have another Hitler and North Korea on our hands. After Saddam develops his chemical and biological agents, and has fully functioning nuclear bombs -after he has obtained his ultimate goal of holding the Middle East hostage - I think we should make France be the front line in the assault. Maybe America will just sit this one out while we see how the great "old world powers" solve the problems of the world. The problems that THEY created when they arbitrarily carved up the Middle East into their respective countries during their colonial OCCUPATION.

I could not have said it any better. I agree with what you have said. The above quote is the exact reason why we are stuck in the current position we are in and backs up my statement about the UN being the weakest worldy organization next to NATO. It is truly laughable that the world is feigning to factual proof and yet they still want to sit back. It is funny how history repeats itself and you are right, Iraq is just another Nazi Germany in the making, except with less resources currently at their disposal, thanks to the US if I may add....

Dúnedain

02-13-2003, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm, tired of hearing that iraq isn't an imminent thread. Are we supposed to wait agin until some massive attack come about? Do we have to wait until it's another North Korea situation? The only reason why France wants to wait is because they have billions of dollars in deals with Iraq and it's the same for Germany.

So where are these so called "peace marchers" when Iraq is torturing and executing it's own people? Or North Koreans are starving at the hands of it's government? Where are they while cannibalism goes on in Africa? I see the marches against the US's death penalty in Europe - but amazingly the demonstrations are silent as thousands are put to death for just speaking out against their government in the Middle East.

Yup, it amazes me that so much of this stuff has been going on and yet everyone including the UN and NATO just looks the other way. I mean, did they not see the Iraqi plan dropping the anthrax onto their own people? When I saw that, it made me sick and shocked me that the world is letting this stuff just happen, and in their backyards!!! Unreal, it is simply unbelievable that the world is content in just sitting back and not taking proactive measures to prevent another catastrophe.

A wise historian once said, LEARN FROM THOSE WHO HAVE LIVED BEFORE YOU. History has proven time and time again that it repeats itself, and yet the world still remains blind in seeing that it is just repeating itself again...

jerseydevil

02-13-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Yup, it amazes me that so much of this stuff has been going on and yet everyone including the UN and NATO just looks the other way.

Well it's finally being said and discussed openly about the UN. - it's just a glorified debating club that does nothing to back up it's resolutions. I've said this for a long time, I've continued to say that the US needs to get out.

I love the Saturday Night Live skits they're having about the UN and the peace marchers. It's so funny. SNL had "Powell" give his speech - then afterward the other members started saying how they wanted to go out to lunch to really expensive restaurants, use their diplomatic immunity and go shop lifting at Tiffanys, etc. It was funny. I imagine this Saturday they'll have a bunch of stuff to say about Franch and Germany.

Lief Erikson

02-13-2003, 11:45 PM

I've been keeping up daily on the Iraq issue for some time now, as well as North Korea, and I couldn't agree with you more, jerseydevil and Dúnedain. When Colin Powell gave his speech, Iraq denied the evidence and the other countries ignored it. The UN Council, both with Iraq and North Korea have chosen to ignore their own resolutions. Those resolutions were meant to keep those countries in line, but that was assuming a different character in the governments of those countries than has been observed. Saddam Hussein has openly violated the UN's resolutions time and again, openly and for everyone to see. You have to bend the resolutions in loops to be able to avoid taking their meaning for what it was. I believe that the UN Council, after this war with Iraq is over, could be in danger of that irrelevancy it was warned of approaching.

Originally posted by Tar-Elendil
If the United States is sincerely worried about Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear capabilities, then they would let the war be led by the UN, not America.

This is plainly ridiculous- your logic runs in circles. If you know a man who is in charge of getting a job done, but is shirking his duty, naturally you warn him about it. If he refuses to pay attention to you, you can just continue along with your normal activities, but if you really care about the job, you'll go and do it yourself.

This is normal behavior- it's ridiculous to say that if someone is shirking his job and you really care about it, you'll leave it to him to deal with.

When the U.S. does invade Iraq, I'm looking forward to its being proved to the world's eyes by what they find that Iraq does have the weapons it is accused of having. Although considering the evidence that has already been offered, I don't suppose the proof of what they have would make much difference :rolleyes:.

jerseydevil

02-13-2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
When the U.S. does invade Iraq, I'm looking forward to its being proved to the world's eyes by what they find that Iraq does have the weapons it is accused of having. Although considering the evidence that has already been offered, I don't suppose the proof of what they have would make much difference :rolleyes:.
No - sadly it wouldn't. I also imagine that many people will just claim that America placed them there.

This is the "Talking Point" I was responding to in my above e-mailing to the BBC concerning France and Iraq Is France right to force a split on Iraq? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2748025.stm)

Someone had sent them the following which I thought was funny.

Jay Leno may have stated it best when he said, "How can we (US) expect France to help us get Saddam out of Iraq? We couldn't even get France to help us get Germany out of France!"
Bill, USA

This was the "Talking Point I was responding to in my other e-mail. Anti-war protest: Are you going to the march? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2742687.stm)

Earniel

02-14-2003, 04:49 AM

Europe seems to be fracturing. France and Germany are trying to gain control over the European continent by pushing the "Anti-Americanism". The tiny country of Belgium seems to have sided with the two who it thinks will make the rules in the New Europe. Any European who can't see this - I feel sorry for. If they succeed - I'm sure you'll be wishing for the good old days when you worried about the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic - instead of the two arrogant countries at your front door.

Oh for crying out loud, France and Germany are NOT Anti-American! Why is that that every one who doesn't agree with the Americans immediatly get's the label 'Anti-American'? I am really, really getting sick of it. It's a grave misunderstanding and it is this sort of talk that will only cause more misunderstanding between America and the rest of the world. The world is NOT out to bring America to his knees. And Europe REALLY hasn't forgotten what the Americans did for us in the World Wars, whatever you may think. And neither have we forgotten what Hitler did. Our countries still bear the scars of that. But that doesn't mean we have to rush into battle as soon as someone cries 'Tyrant!'.

It's true that France and Germany are large players in the EU. Isn't that logical? They're big countries, with large populations. And naturally they'll want to have a lot to say in Europe. I don't agree with some of the stuff they want either. But really! A new Europe.... jezus...

Tiny Belgium does NOT think that Germany and France will establish a new Europe. That's NOT why we are against this war! But it seems to me you can't understand that some countries want to exhaust all other options before bringing out the big guns.

Also there was NEVER a time before now that I was worried about 'the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic. But this being bent on war without even justifiable evidence and without even thinking about the consequences it will bring in this world scares the hell out of me!

Dunadan

02-14-2003, 05:11 AM

I agree 100% with what Earniel said, and I'd add that the France/Germany alliance has been the driving force behing the EU for the past 30 years, so there's nothing new there.

Let's be clear:
- this war is not about WMDs: the evidence is pretty scant and even if it wasn't, there are many other countries which have more dangerous weapons and more actively hostile policies.
- this war is not about terrorism: the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida are tenuous at best and far more remote than a dozen other countries'.
- this war is not about liberating the poor, oppressed peoples of Iraq from a despotic dictator: we put him there in the first place. (However, this may be a positive outcome of the war, I accept)
- this war is not about enforcing UN resolutions: the US clearly doesn't give a stuff about the UN or international law.

The possibilities are that it's about one or more of:
- being seen to be kicking somebody's ass for 9/11 seeing as how we've completely failed to bring the perpetrators to justice
(- although that doesn't explain to me why the US reassigned thousands of staff off the hunt for the 9/11 terrorists onto the plans for invading Iraq in the middle of last year)
- securing oil supplies which are independent from Saudi control
- extending US hegemony in the Middle East
- revenge for the Gulf War.

Another worrying thing is the naivety of US politics. What do they think will happen after a successful invasion?
- you can't graft a democracy out of nowhere
- civil war in Iraq between the various factions, with the delicious prospect of the Iranians intervening on the side of the Shia muslims
- civil unrest in every Muslim country in the world, perhaps, say, leading to a coup in (nuke-enabled) Pakistan or (oil rich and bristling with armaments) Saudi Arabia

These old white men behind the throne in the White House are playing dice with the world.

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Dunadan
- civil unrest in every Muslim country in the world, perhaps, say, leading to a coup in (nuke-enabled) Pakistan or (oil rich and bristling with armaments) Saudi Arabia

You have said a lot of misinformed things Dunadan, read the reports that have been released regarding specifics of what you blatantly have disregarded. Also, to call it revenge for the gulf war, gimme a break, if we were out for revenge, don't you think we would be invading Vietnam?

Your above statement is the furthest from the truth, especially when there is finally coherence amongst a number of Muslim countries who are siding with the US...

I would rebut much more of what was posted, however I need to get to work now :D

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Eärniel
But it seems to me you can't understand that some countries want to exhaust all other options before bringing out the big guns.

When are those options exhausted? When we've let a few of those weapons (that we have proved he has) slip through the line and kills thousands of people? Would that be exhaustive enough for those countries?

Originally posted by Eärniel
But this being bent on war without even justifiable evidence and without even thinking about the consequences it will bring in this world scares the hell out of me!

If we were so bent on war, like I said earlier, we would have invaded 6 months to a year ago. Also, please I urge you to read the reports that Colin Powell released on Feb. 5th, in addition Britain has released reports, Israel has released classified intelligence, and even the inspectors have released reports all of which contain the same answer, Iraq has things they should not have and are doing their best to hide them. How is all of that evidence not justifiable?

Believe me, the general consensus in America is to never go to war, and it was the consensus here until Feb. 5th when all of this information was released to the public, there are still some people who don't want to go to war. However, since then we now see why we must, and unfortunately so, stop Iraq before it is too late...

Spock

02-14-2003, 08:19 AM

Dúnedain //a pat on the back and don't wear yourself out trying to be logical with some of these posters, they just don't get it. 'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it. :D

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Eärniel
Oh for crying out loud, France and Germany are NOT Anti-American! Why is that that every one who doesn't agree with the Americans immediatly get's the label 'Anti-American'?

Have you been living under a rock all your life??? France hs always had anti-American feelings - toward culture, towards Americans. Was it because of Iraq that they ransacked McDonalds? No - it's because they think of McDonalds as being American culture and they are afraid it'll over run their so called culture. It's the same reason wanted to or actually did pass a law that requires all Frence websites to be in French and not English. Going over to France has never been a great picnic for Americans - unless you enjoy people being rude and obnoxious to you.

I am really, really getting sick of it. It's a grave misunderstanding and it is this sort of talk that will only cause more misunderstanding between America and the rest of the world. The world is NOT out to bring America to his knees. And Europe REALLY hasn't forgotten what the Americans did for us in the World Wars, whatever you may think. And neither have we forgotten what Hitler did. Our countries still bear the scars of that. But that doesn't mean we have to rush into battle as soon as someone cries 'Tyrant!'.

How is it a grave misunderstanding? Schroeder WAS elected on his anti-American rhetoric. And may I ask how we're RUSHING into war? If we were rushing we would have been at war in 1998 when Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors. Which, by the way - was the terms for the lifting sanction and the actual end of the Gulf War. Technically the Gulf ar has never ended because Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors.

It's true that France and Germany are large players in the EU. Isn't that logical? They're big countries, with large populations. And naturally they'll want to have a lot to say in Europe. I don't agree with some of the stuff they want either. But really! A new Europe.... jezus...

Tiny Belgium does NOT think that Germany and France will establish a new Europe. That's NOT why we are against this war! But it seems to me you can't understand that some countries want to exhaust all other options before bringing out the big guns.

You are naive aren't you? :rolleyes:

Also there was NEVER a time before now that I was worried about 'the "arrogant" country across the Atlantic. But this being bent on war without even justifiable evidence and without even thinking about the consequences it will bring in this world scares the hell out of me!
Justifiable evidence? Can't you see what has happened to North Korea. You might want to take a look. The UN inspectors were there until just 5 months ago - and all that time they had a nuclear program. Now it jjust came out that they have a missile which can most likely hit the west coast of the US.

So how much evidence do you need??? Would a nuclear bomb lobbed over from Iraq at your doorstep be enough evidence?

As I said - I'm tired of hearing this "imminent threat" crap. It was never about imminent threat. It was about Saddam Hussein disarming - and EVERY report for Hans Blix to Colin Powell has said that Iraq refuses to comply.

The support for war in America rose drastically after Powell gave his presentation. I know your media would like to concentrate on the "peace marches" going on and make it seem as if the majority of Americans are against the war - but it might be news to you that the latest poll indicates that 69% are in support of taking out Hussein militarily.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Dunadan
I agree 100% with what Earniel said, and I'd add that the France/Germany alliance has been the driving force behing the EU for the past 30 years, so there's nothing new there.

I agree there. Although as has been pointed out here - France left NATO during the height of the cold war. For one thing - they knew they would be protected even if they weren't a member. They enhoyed "protection without obligations." Now they're trying to block the protection of a fellow NATO member - who has been a TRUE NATO partner - not a fair weather friend.

Let's be clear:
- this war is not about WMDs: the evidence is pretty scant and even if it wasn't, there are many other countries which have more dangerous weapons and more actively hostile policies.

And how did they get to be dangerous? By INACTION. If UN inspectors do such a great job - then why is North Korea holding TWO nuclear bombs and has a missile which can hit the US west coast???

- this war is not about terrorism: the links between Iraq and Al-Qaida are tenuous at best and far more remote than a dozen other countries'.

You think with that argument that Saddam Hussein given the chance wouldn't support terrorism against the west? Also the required to comply with weapons inspections was never about terrorism - it was about him not having WMD - which everone, including Hans Blix - knows he has.

- this war is not about liberating the poor, oppressed peoples of Iraq from a despotic dictator: we put him there in the first place. (However, this may be a positive outcome of the war, I accept)

YOur right it's not - it's about making sure that Iraq can never become another North Korean situation. That he can't hold the Middle East hostage with his weapons in the future.

- this war is not about enforcing UN resolutions: the US clearly doesn't give a stuff about the UN or international law.

Oh we don't? Well if that's the case then I say screw it - lets go in there - and while we're at it - let's liberate Cuba. The UN is a mouth piece which has no back bone. Without the US - the UN is nothing - and that's the same for NATO. When ever there is a crisis in the world - the US is looked to support the operation militarily.

The possibilities are that it's about one or more of:
- being seen to be kicking somebody's ass for 9/11 seeing as how we've completely failed to bring the perpetrators to justice

Give me a break. As I said - everyone was pissed that America was taking military action against bin Laden when he blew up some our embassies. It took him to take down TWO 110 story buildings for people to wake up. Iraq is a preventive measure. We can't be REACTIVE anymore - or else our cities will be destroyed.

(- although that doesn't explain to me why the US reassigned thousands of staff off the hunt for the 9/11 terrorists onto the plans for invading Iraq in the middle of last year)

Osama bin Laden is only one man. Even if he was captured or killed - do you honestly think it would chnage anything??? In the beginning it might have - but now that he has taken down two major buildings - that has chnaged.

- securing oil supplies which are independent from Saudi control

It's amazing - again with the oil. No matter that France's only concerns aren't about war - but about what will happen to their billion dollars in contracts with Hussein. The only reason France and Germany are against the war - is because they're in bed with Hussein.

If it was about oil - then we'd support the lifting of sanctions just like France and Germany have wanted? Believe me - the American oil companies have LONG wanted the sancations lifted. It would also be A LOT cheaper to lift the sanctions than to go to war.

- extending US hegemony in the Middle East

That's a GOOD laugh.

- revenge for the Gulf War.

Revenge??? You must be watching Iraqi TV where Saddam Hussein declares that they won the war. :rolleyes:

continued...

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 11:30 AM

Another worrying thing is the naivety of US politics. What do they think will happen after a successful invasion?
- you can't graft a democracy out of nowhere

Well it's amazing - little over 10 years - NO DEMOCRACY in Russia. Yes - democracy with WORK can flurish in the Middle East - and it's the ONLY way to stop terrorism.

- civil war in Iraq between the various factions, with the delicious prospect of the Iranians intervening on the side of the Shia muslims

Wow - same thing was said about Afganistan. A year later they're rebuilding and there are traffic jams in Khabul. Children are going to school.

- civil unrest in every Muslim country in the world, perhaps, say, leading to a coup in (nuke-enabled) Pakistan or (oil rich and bristling with armaments) Saudi Arabia

Same argument against going into Afganistan. We took out a much more well "respected" islamic government there. Everyone in the Middle East KNOWS that Hussein tortures nd kills his own people.

These old white men behind the throne in the White House are playing dice with the world.
At least they're facing up to an issue - not hiding there head in the sand hoping that when they have the guts to pull it back out that the problem will have miraculously disappeared.

Once war starts - France will join in. They don't want to be eft out of the planning for rebuilding Iraq. Basically they don't want to lose their Billions in contracts. Germany will lose out if they don't end up supporting the effort.

The funny thing is - the MAJORITY of Europe supports America's position. It's only the TWO countries which have fested intrerests there who are against it. Makes me wonder why no one likes to point that out, yet they have no problem accusing the US of doing it for economic reasons.

Millane

02-14-2003, 11:31 AM

So how much evidence do you need??? Would a nuclear bomb lobbed over from Iraq at your doorstep be enough evidence?
ummm id prefer not to get into this debate but the US would never do such a thing would they... Are you saying that Japan should have immediately bombed the **** out of America after they got bombed...
the only solution is if Saddam gives up his office and even then it wouldnt surprise me if war went ahead... bombing gunna do no good because he'll have been in hiding for a few weeks now, and assasination wont work because even if they do kill a Saddam there is still another 100 out there who could be him... to me assasination would be like wheres wally when he is surrounded by other wally's...

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Millane
ummm id prefer not to get into this debate but the US would never do such a thing would they...

I was asking how much evidence does Europe need to realise that Hussein is a threat. Is waiting until he has a nuclear bomb enough evidence? Or does he actually have to blow up London or another European city before Europe wakes up? Or maybe a nice VX bomb in Paris.

Are you saying that Japan should have immediately bombed the **** out of America after they got bombed...

Well they couldn't. But they did start the hostilities with America just like Osama Bin Ladin did and just like Hussein did when he attacked Kuwait.

the only solution is if Saddam gives up his office and even then it wouldnt surprise me if war went ahead... bombing gunna do no good because he'll have been in hiding for a few weeks now, and assasination wont work because even if they do kill a Saddam there is still another 100 out there who could be him... to me assasination would be like wheres wally when he is surrounded by other wally's...
That's true. He'll never give up Iraq peacefully and assinating him is out of the question based on US law.

Sween

02-14-2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's true. He'll never give up Iraq peacefully and assinating him is out of the question based on US law.

But starting a war against him is within US law even though no threat of attack has ever been made against you personally.

Its kinda like me beating someone up because they picked on my mate 12 years ago and you know they could be comming after me......oh err best plan is to send an army in.

Unlike the US we dont live in constant fear of attack sure we look for attack but if we start pre empting anything that may go wrong then oh dear we are gonna be in for heaps of trouble.

Dunadan

02-14-2003, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
read the reports that have been released regarding specifics of what you blatantly have disregarded[/B]
I have. It's hardly earth shattering stuff. My point is that lots of other nations have far more WMDs and have threatened to use them. So why Iraq?
Originally posted by Dúnedain
... when there is finally coherence amongst a number of Muslim countries who are siding with the US
Ha ha ha! Yes, those wonderful democratic countries. No, D, the point is that civil unrest is likely right across the Arab world as a result of this war. Lots of these regimes are so precarious that it would take very little to topple them. The extremists are just sitting there praying for the US/UK to invade so they can spark the demos and riots.
Originally posted by Spock
'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it. :D
Ignorance is cheap, you just have to believe everything you're fed via CNN, the BBC, etc.:D
Originally posted by jerseydevil
then why is North Korea holding TWO nuclear bombs and has a missile which can hit the US west coast???
So, aren't we invading the wrong country, then?
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also the required to comply with weapons inspections was never about terrorism
Ah, so you agree that it's not about terrorism, then.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
It took him to take down TWO 110 story buildings for people to wake up. Iraq is a preventive measure.
Oh, wait a minute, now it is about terrorism. Make up your mind, for goodness sake.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
If it was about oil - then we'd support the lifting of sanctions just like France and Germany have wanted? Believe me - the American oil companies have LONG wanted the sancations lifted. It would also be A LOT cheaper to lift the sanctions than to go to war..
No, no, no. The issue is oil which is free from Saudi control. The US oil companies simply loathe OPEC and this is a tremendous opportunity to restructure the global industry. Do you remember the 1970s? I do, and so does Exxon.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well it's amazing - little over 10 years - NO DEMOCRACY in Russia. Yes - democracy with WORK can flurish in the Middle East - and it's the ONLY way to stop terrorism.
Yes, of course, Russia hasn't suffered from terrorism at all in the last 10 years, has it? Oh, and by the way, the soviet system of governance already had the infrastructure for democracy: that's what the word "soviet" means, JD. Iraq? I don' think so.
Originally posted by jerseydevilsame thing was said about Afganistan
Not by me it wasn't. Again, the naivety that all these dang foreigners are the same. I don't deny that almost all Iraqis (and the rest of the world, for that matter) will welcome Saddam's demise. But your glib dismissal of the very serious issue of "what happens afterwards?" is both scary and, sadly, entirely in step with Bush/Blair.
Originally posted by jerseydevilSame argument against going into Afganistan.
You call that an argument? :rolleyes: Hmm. Well, the "respected" Taliban regime was regarded by the vast majority of muslims as terribly oppressive and extremist. I agree that Hussein is similarly loathed, but the similarity stops there. Believe me, Musharraf is quaking in his boots right now.
Originally posted by jerseydevilAt least they're facing up to an issue - not hiding there head in the sand hoping that when they have the guts to pull it back out that the problem will have miraculously disappeared.
Oh, that is disingenuous in the extreme. Why the sudden interest in disarming the world? Funny, I didn't see George Bush Jr on any CND marches in the 80s. Is Donald Rumsfeld going to the front line to face up to Saddam in person? I think not.

What they are doing is sending a very clear message to the world: we will come and kick your ass, unless you've got a nuke, so hurry up and get one, dudes, or you're history. It's irresponsible, arrogant and spectacularly stupid.

d.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 01:04 PM

Anti-Americanism in Europe deepens:
'New generation of U.S.-haters being created' (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.protests.rodgers.otsc/index.html)
This anti-Americanism is believed to be much worse than what has gone before. Analysts warn that a whole generation of America-haters is being created, a European generation which they say believes Americans deliberately bomb civilians and kill Arab babies.

A Channel 4 television poll in the UK said the country that Britons regard as the biggest threat to peace today is not Iraq or North Korea -- it is the United States.

In recent debates in the UK Parliament, the anti-American undercurrent often means the vilification not of Iraq President Saddam Hussein -- but of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Anti-Americanism in Europe historically comes in waves. In the 1980s Europeans vilified then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Before that there were anti-Vietnam War protests against U.S. presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

Yet the new unipolar world in which America is the sole superpower reminds Europeans of their own weakness -- an irritation to many, including Russians protesting outside the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Whether in Moscow or Paris, it is the same.

Says Dominque Moisi of the French Institute of International relations: "Today's anti-Americanism in Europe is a combination of what America is doing -- preparing to go to war in Iraq -- and what America is: the country of the death penalty, the country -- in European eyes -- of arrogance."

Adds Manfred Guttamacher of Potsdam University in Germany: "We are on the brink of a fundamental rift between the United States and Europe which goes much deeper than the rifts that came up in the course of anti-American sentiments in the '60s or early '80s."

In the 20th century -- in the fight against Nazism and later the Cold War against communism -- a European-American political alliance emerged that many thought would last forever. That assumption looks somewhat less certain now.

As I said - anti-Americanism isn't anything new, but it is far worse than it has been.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 01:06 PM

=http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/comment/story/0,11447,645579,00.html]Anti-Americanism has taken the world by storm
...if America now attacks other countries suspected of harbouring terrorists, it will almost certainly do so alone, without the backing of the coalition that supported the action in Afghanistan. The reason is that America finds itself facing an ideological enemy that may turn out to be harder to defeat than militant Islam: that is to say, anti-Americanism, which is presently taking the world by storm.

Dead or alive, Bin Laden and Omar look like yesterday's men, unholy warriors who forced martyrdom on others while running for the hills themselves. Also, if the persistent rumours are to be believed, the fall of the terrorist axis in Afghanistan may well have prevented an Islamist coup against President Musharraf in Pakistan, led by the more Taliban-like elements in the armed forces and intelligence services - people like the terrifying General Hamid Gul.

...the lessons of the American action in Afghanistan are being learned. Jihad is no longer quite as cool an idea as it was last autumn. States under suspicion of giving succour to terrorism have suddenly been trying to behave with propriety, even going so far as to round up a few bad guys. Iran has accepted the legitimacy of the new Afghan government. Even Britain, a state which has been more tolerant of Islamist fanaticism than most, is beginning to see the difference between resisting "Islamophobia" and providing a safe haven for some of the worst people in the world.

America did, in Afghanistan, what had to be done and did it well. The bad news, however, is that none of these successes has won friends for the United States outside Afghanistan. In fact, the effectiveness of the American campaign may paradoxically have made the world hate America more than it did before.

Western critics of America's Afghan campaign are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, US forces weren't humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn't massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that is surprising people by functioning pretty well.

...those elements in the Arab and Muslim world who blame America for their own feelings of political impotence are feeling more impotent than ever. As always, anti-US radicalism feeds off the widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians...

even if that settlement were arrived at tomorrow, anti-Americanism would probably not abate. It has become too useful a smokescreen for Muslim nations' many defects - their corruption, their incompetence, their oppression of their own citizens, their economic, scientific and cultural stagnation. America-hating has become a badge of identity, making possible a chest-beating, flag-burning rhetoric of word and deed that makes men feel good. It contains a strong streak of hypocrisy, hating most what it desires most, and elements of self-loathing ("we hate America because it has made of itself what we cannot make of ourselves").

What America is accused of - closed-mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance - is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.

These days there seem to be as many of these accusers outside the Muslim world as inside it. Anybody who has visited Britain and Europe, or followed the public conversation there during the past five months, will have been struck, even shocked, by the depth of anti-American feeling among large segments of the population, as well as the news media.

Western anti-Americanism is an altogether more petulant phenomenon than its Islamic counterpart, and, oddly, far more personalised. Muslim countries don't like America's power, its "arrogance", its success; in the non-American west, the main objection seems to be to American people. Night after night, I have found myself listening to Londoners' diatribes against the sheer weirdness of the American citizenry. The attacks on America are routinely discounted ("Americans only care about their own dead"). American patriotism, obesity, emotionality, self-centredness: these are the crucial issues.
[/quote]

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 01:21 PM

I'm not going to respond to all your message because I don't have enough time to discount all the stuff you've said. I will address some points though.
Originally posted by Dunadan
What they are doing is sending a very clear message to the world: we will come and kick your ass, unless you've got a nuke, so hurry up and get one, dudes, or you're history. It's irresponsible, arrogant and spectacularly stupid.

That is ridiculous. So the purpose for North Korea building nuclear weapons was???? We had no intentions of invading them. The only reason we went into South Korea 50 years ago was because North Korea launched a surprise attack on South Korea. It's been a stalemate since then - with each side respecting the border (except for North Korea shooting down a passenger jet and so forth- which interestingly enough - there was no worldwide outcry).

If a dictatorial regime wants to build nuclear weapons - taking action against Iraq is NOT going to give them anymore reason to obtain them. If we put up a force now - countries will think twice. If we do nothing, like what happened in North Korea, and they see that BY HAVING them that they can get their way - that WILKL encourage countries to want to obtain them. You have it backwards. With North Korea we did NOTHING - now we have a situation there.

Yes, of course, Russia hasn't suffered from terrorism at all in the last 10 years, has it? Oh, and by the way, the soviet system of governance already had the infrastructure for democracy: that's what the word "soviet" means, JD. Iraq? I don' think so.

Give me a break. Democracy in word only. If you think that the Soviet Union was a democracy - you really have your head up your a$$.

Oh, wait a minute, now it is about terrorism. Make up your mind, for goodness sake.

I should have stated this better - UN RESOLUTION 1441 was NOT about terrorism. It was about Saddam Hussein giving up his WMD - which he refuses to do and continues to lie about. If we just turn our back on him - then it WILL be about terrorism.

We have a choice - do nothing and have another NK or send a message to the terror regimes that they will NOT be permitted to hold the world hostage or develop these types of weapons.

Earniel

02-14-2003, 01:54 PM

You are naive aren't you?

Maybe but between the two of us, who actually LIVES in Belgium?

Dúnedain //a pat on the back and don't wear yourself out trying to be logical with some of these posters, they just don't get it. 'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it.

This is going to my last post in this thread. Since of today I have other RL matters to fret about than getting angry by this pointless debate. I come to entmoot to enjoy myself not to annoy myself.

So please do continue to find all the world anti-american without me and blast them all off the face of the planet.

Saluut en de kost.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Eärniel
Maybe but between the two of us, who actually LIVES in Belgium?

It's not like we live in a bubble- but it also goes the same for you guys when you bring up stuff about America. We LIVE here and I don't think any of you have even BEEN to America. That least I have been to Europe and seen it for myself.

So please do continue to find all the world anti-american without me and blast them all off the face of the planet.

Well if we were going to do that then we'd have to start with Europe.

You can't deny the fact that Schroeder was elected on his anti-American rhetoric. It has less to with policy than the fact that those governments just have a problem with the US being so strong.

I can deal with a difference of opinion - but France and Germany go WAY beyond that. What makes them right and us wrong? The US had a hard enough time even getting a coalition together when Iraq DID invade Kuwait. More countries SUPPORT America than don't.

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 02:17 PM

Spok Wrote:
Dúnedain //a pat on the back and don't wear yourself out trying to be logical with some of these posters, they just don't get it. 'Tis a wonderful thing to be ingorant but most of us can't afford it.

Proof does not equate with assumptions or hints, it is based on facts. Logic Mr Spok, logic.:D

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 02:23 PM

Have you been living under a rock all your life??? France hs always had anti-American feelings - toward culture, towards Americans. Was it because of Iraq that they ransacked McDonalds? No - it's because they think of McDonalds as being American culture and they are afraid it'll over run their so called culture. It's the same reason wanted to or actually did pass a law that requires all Frence websites to be in French and not English. Going over to France has never been a great picnic for Americans - unless you enjoy people being rude and obnoxious to you.

How many MacDonald’s were burned? One? Is that all? Now if they hated you, one would believe they would have burned a few more by now…

Yep, they see themselves as the epitome of Democratic values, something you don’t (or me) recognize they are, and they resent that. Doesn’t this sounds vaguely familiar ;)

But you are wrong if you believe their attitude is mostly motivated by resentment because the US is were they believe France used to be, on the contrary, their attitude is motivated by were they want to be in the future.

They challenge the US because it is on their own national interest to do so, not because they hate you. That reminds me:
The problem here is a rather ironical one. Those Americans that accuse the French usually defend that, America should not be limited by what other states expect from them, even if they are allies. American policy should defend American interests, not the interests of non-voting non-Americans. Well then, what the French have been doing is precisely what these people defend for America; they defend their national interest, even if you don’t agree with it.
Now, the least one could expect is coherence. What is valid for us is necessarily valid for others, so you haven’t much base for an accusation here.
Personally I disagree with unilateralism, so I can criticize both American and French foreign policy. ;)

How is it a grave misunderstanding? Schroeder WAS elected on his anti-American rhetoric. And may I ask how we're RUSHING into war? If we were rushing we would have been at war in 1998 when Saddam Hussein kicked out the inspectors. Which, by the way - was the terms for the lifting sanction and the actual end of the Gulf War. Technically the Gulf ar has never ended because Hussein kicked out the UN inspectors.

And

You can't deny the fact that Schroeder was elected on his anti-American rhetoric. It has less to with policy than the fact that those governments just have a problem with the US being so strong.

I can deal with a difference of opinion - but France and Germany go WAY beyond that. What makes them right and us wrong? The US had a hard enough time even getting a coalition together when Iraq DID invade Kuwait. More countries SUPPORT America than don't.

Nope, he was elected on his anti war rhetoric. There is a difference. Frankly, many Americans seem to have a misplaced concept of how their country is seen by everybody else. The German people don’t oppose the US stance against the Iraq because they hate you, but because they don’t agree with the necessity of the war itself.

It is not because you believe war is necessary that it becomes an undisputed fact. You are not seen as an infallible country, always doing the right thing. On this case many in Europe believe you are wrong, and we say it. It is simply a matter of defending one’s beliefs on a particular issue. Or should the Germans and other Europeans believe that your war stance is motivated by anti- Europeism?

It is the idea of war they oppose, not the US. And frankly I’m surprised that so many Americans fail to see this obvious fact.

In what sense do they go beyond different opinions?
A strong phrase, but no evidence is given.

About The Franco-German EU alliance.
Do you really think that most Europeans who care about politics aren’t aware of it?
Do you actually think that is a reason for supporting a war that you don’t believe in?
Even if you agree with their position on this, there is no compromise in accepting their views in other issues.

Justifiable evidence? Can't you see what has happened to North Korea. You might want to take a look. The UN inspectors were there until just 5 months ago - and all that time they had a nuclear program. Now it jjust came out that they have a missile which can most likely hit the west coast of the US.

Glad you touched this. So you don’t think there is a duality of stances here?
I don’t see anyone concerned with the North Korea danger, nor in Washington nor in Paris.
Yet, I don’t believe he is a lesser danger than Iraq. In fact I believe him to be much, much more dangerous…

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
How many MacDonald’s were burned? One? Is that all? Now if they hated you, one would believe they would have burned a few more by now…

If only it was just McDonalds. They've attacked our movies, amusement parks, our language being used on the internet.

Yep, they see themselves as the epitome of Democratic values, something you don’t (or me) recognize they are, and they resent that. Doesn’t this sounds vaguely familiar ;)

Epitome of Democratic Values? France? That is funny.

But you are wrong if you believe their attitude is mostly motivated by resentment because the US is were they believe France used to be, on the contrary, their attitude is motivated by were they want to be in the future.

Well then - I guess what this will end up eventually causing is a breakdown of European-American relations. You can't replace a superpower without dethroning them - and that won't be easy.

They challenge the US because it is on their own national interest to do so, not because they hate you. That reminds me:
The problem here is a rather ironical one. Those Americans that accuse the French usually defend that, America should not be limited by what other states expect from them, even if they are allies. American policy should defend American interests, not the interests of non-voting non-Americans. Well then, what the French have been doing is precisely what these people defend for America; they defend their national interest, even if you don’t agree with it.
Now, the least one could expect is coherence. What is valid for us is necessarily valid for others, so you haven’t much base for an accusation here.
Personally I disagree with unilateralism, so I can criticize both American and French foreign policy. ;)

I don't have a problem with France stepping up and saying that they oppose the war or even looking after their self interests. As I've said many times on the "anti-American" threads in respoinse to people problem of the US looking after it's self interest is that EVERY country puts it's interest first above others. That is whast France is doing - but it can't expect us to bend to their will and just ignore our interests. As it is, we've bent over backward to try to oppease the the world community. Come March most likely we will be going into Iraq - because as you say we VIEW it as OUR national interest. It may not coincide with France's and Germany's but they will have to deal with it the way they want to.

Nope, he was elected on his anti war rhetoric. There is a difference. Frankly, many Americans seem to have a misplaced concept of how their country is seen by everybody else. The German people don’t oppose the US stance against the Iraq because they hate you, but because they don’t agree with the necessity of the war itself.

They can oppose their own country going to war - but they didn'[t elect the US President. They don't have the interests of the US in their thoughts - so why should we have theirs?

It is not because you believe war is necessary that it becomes an undisputed fact. You are not seen as an infallible country, always doing the right thing. On this case many in Europe believe you are wrong, and we say it. It is simply a matter of defending one’s beliefs on a particular issue. Or should the Germans and other Europeans believe that your war stance is motivated by anti- Europeism?

Oh give me a break. Europe has consistantly treated us as a wayward child who should listen more to it's elders. This is from the SAME countries which GAVE us the Middle East problem and are now trying to lay the blame at America's feet. My dealing with some Bristish people - I too often felt I had to refrain from an outbrust everytime I had to hear the US referred to as "the colonies". Luckily my father doesn't have any business dealings with them and I don't have to keep quiet about the European arrogance.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 03:17 PM

It is the idea of war they oppose, not the US. And frankly I’m surprised that so many Americans fail to see this obvious fact.

We see and hear the other things that Europeans say and do. For instance - I don't see Europeans being told not to "look" like tourists when they visit us. Believe me - walking through NY - I can generally pick the tourists. When I was at the Grand Canyon - I had to put up with hearing this French person tell everyone who she thought was non-American about how terrible we were as a country and people. The last straw was when she stopped a couple from India and started describing our "so called culture" to them with complete contempt and how the US had nothing to offer. At that point - after dealing with her all day - I gave her the finger. Rudeness is the only thing some Frenchmen understand. It was at OUR national park - she didn't have to be in OUR country if she hated it so much. I had come into concact with another obnoxious French person at the Statue of Liberty. Her and her daughter were pushing their way up the stairs to get up and were cutting and complaining.

Yesterday on Nightline, they had about the breakdown of French, German and American relations - they read an portion of a Frech travel guide for the US Northwest. It said the standard tourist things - then out of the blue it says "The Americans celebrate their national holidays with a sickening sense of patriotism and yet have no problems seeing Iraqi children die becuase of sanctions or have any desire to lift the embargo against Cuba." What does that have to do with travel to the American Northwest. And who the hell cares if we're patriotic - I LIKE being patriotic and I'm PROUD of our country. We don't throw political crap into travel books - and we bend over backward to make people feel welcome when they visit our country. Until recently we didn't have a lot of anti-European comedy skits like we do now and like the one's I have seen in Europe against Americans.

About The Franco-German EU alliance.
Do you really think that most Europeans who care about politics aren’t aware of it?

No - I believe most educated Europeans see the France-German block for what it is - a way of controlling Europe.

Do you actually think that is a reason for supporting a war that you don’t believe in?
Even if you agree with their position on this, there is no compromise in accepting their views in other issues.

They don't have to support the war - but they can't expect us to just go along with their opinions either or their interests.

Glad you touched this. So you don’t think there is a duality of stances here?
I don’t see anyone concerned with the North Korea danger, nor in Washington nor in Paris.
Yet, I don’t believe he is a lesser danger than Iraq. In fact I believe him to be much, much more dangerous…
You are VERY wrong here. It's just that now that North Korea has the weapons - a different tact has to be taken. You obviously don't get much US news if you think that we are unconcerned or that nothing is happening in the US concerning North Korea.

Thing about all this - is that Osama bin laden is laughing so hard at the moment. He is getting EXACTLY what he wants - the distruction of the west. If this fighting between our countries get's much worse - it will be the destrution of the alliance. Americans are increasingly becoming more and more anti-Europe. Schools around here have started to cancel their trips to France and Germany - not so much as anti-European feelings - but the anti-American feelings which are over there and the fear of how Americans will be treated.

Coney

02-14-2003, 03:40 PM

How's the typing speed coming along JD?:D

BeardofPants

02-14-2003, 03:41 PM

Hey, Iran's starting a nuclear programme now, as well. Ain't this great!

Coney

02-14-2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hey, Iran's starting a nuclear programme now, as well. Ain't this great!

So is that every country in the Axis of Evil except Iraq with a nuclear program yet?;)

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants

How's the typing speed coming along JD?:D

Coming along great.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hey, Iran's starting a nuclear programme now, as well. Ain't this great!
And you think that's news? They wanted to for a long time.
So what does the superior powers think we should do? Of course one good thing - Iran isn't ruled by a madman at the moment - or the religious fundamentalists.

Iran is on the road to democracy, pushing Hussein out of Iraq may have a domino affect there and give the people more of reason stand up to the religious fanatics.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 03:56 PM

Now I've been forced to pull out my American Pride Avatar. :D

Radagast The Brown

02-14-2003, 04:34 PM

originally posted by JD
And you think that's news? They wanted to for a long time.I think they just found uranium in their country. (whitch means they can use it to do nuclear program. )

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 04:49 PM

Again I ask - where are the peace activists and humanitarian demonstrations -

The history professor had been condemned to death in November for insulting Islam and questioning clerical rule during a speech

For his remarks in June, Mr Aghajari was also sentenced to 74 lashes, banned from teaching for 10 years and banished to three remote cities for eight years.

Mr Aghajari enraged conservatives when he said that Muslims should not uncritically follow the line laid down by Islamic clerics "like monkeys".

He questioned why clerics alone had the right to interpret Islam, which led many to accuse him of being "Iran's Salman Rushdie".

At least the death sentence has been revoked - but I think the other punishments may still stand. - 'Sentence revoked' on Iran academic (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2763807.stm)

Coney

02-14-2003, 05:14 PM

Nice to see Salman Rushdie mentioned again:)

*Didn't even know what Salman Rushdie looked like until the Fatwah was placed on him*

So what's your point? Do we go to war with every country that has a flooked-up law system?

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Coney
So what's your point? Do we go to war with every country that has a flooked-up law system?
No - I just want to know where the peace marchers are when these atrocities are occurring - or is America they only have a problem with?

Why aren't they taking buses down to Tehran or marching in front of the Iranian Embassies?

Coney

02-14-2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - I just want to know where the peace marchers are when these atrocities are occurring - or is America they only have a problem with?

Why aren't they taking buses down to Tehran or marching in front of the Iranian Embassies?

Hang on a minute JD.....a certain percentage of the world disagree with America's policy re:Iraq......that doesn't mean that said percentage have a "problem" with the whole of the USA.

People aren't taking a bus down to Tehran because here in the west we like to let our elected governments deal with these kind of issues.......sure they usually either don't or mess up in their attempts.... but 100's of years of democracy has made us beleive that the present politcal systems will try to find a way to solve problems.......preferably without bloodshed.

What's this whole Anti-American stuff about?........this is one policy people are disagreeing with the US about.......if it were real anti-American feeling then people would be calling to their governments to boycott America entirely.

Tar-Elendil

02-14-2003, 05:42 PM

dunedain, it just doesnt make sense. cure evil with evil? murder with murder? some may say that this is a just war, but it isnt. If you like and want the media to feed the concept that it is into your mind, go ahead. I am a person who would rather seek peace, not more bloodshed. and the un being the weakest blah blah blah.. whatever dude. in my opinion, on the surface it looks like the world is making an effort for peace, though we're not achieving it. If you want to bash my opinions go for it mate, i dont really care, but all people want now is war. you would rather war over a peaceful stop to the damn madness it seems.

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 06:42 PM

only it was just McDonalds. They've attacked our movies, amusement parks, our language being used on the internet

They attack the predominance your movies have, and want to protect the French language on the Internet, so?

If French movies dethroned American ones on America (now that would be funny :D) I can see a lot of Americans complaining about it and demanding the State to intervene. The same thing in the case of the Internet; they want French language to be a factor there, they couldn’t care less if English is your language or not, it s the predominance of a language they attack, a predominance they see threatening their own language.

Well then - I guess what this will end up eventually causing is a breakdown of European-American relations. You can't replace a superpower without dethroning them - and that won't be easy.

Only if you equate that with having always your way about everything. The future world won’t see an eternal dominance of the US, nor, I believe, the creation of a single other power to replace it. Likely will have at least three powers, possibly more. The US role will diminish, as others will rise, but this will likely not be the result of wars, but simply economic and social factors. The US will have a diminished ability to enforce its will, and like other before it, will have to adapt.

As for the future role of France, well, everyone have a dream. ;)

I don't have a problem with France stepping up and saying that they oppose the war or even looking after their self interests. As I've said many times on the "anti-American" threads in respoinse to people problem of the US looking after it's self interest is that EVERY country puts it's interest first above others. That is whast France is doing - but it can't expect us to bend to their will and just ignore our interests. As it is, we've bent over backward to try to oppease the the world community. Come March most likely we will be going into Iraq - because as you say we VIEW it as OUR national interest. It may not coincide with France's and Germany's but they will have to deal with it the way they want to.

So, if you know that, why do you get all outraged by their attitude? In what way is it different when it is the US doing it?

They can oppose their own country going to war - but they didn'[t elect the US President. They don't have the interests of the US in their thoughts - so why should we have theirs?

Applying you logic, the US have no reason for complaint or to feel betrayed.

Oh give me a break. Europe has consistently treated us as a wayward child who should listen more to it's elders. This is from the SAME countries which GAVE us the Middle East problem and are now trying to lay the blame at America's feet. My dealing with some Bristish people - I too often felt I had to refrain from an outbrust everytime I had to hear the US referred to as "the colonies". Luckily my father doesn't have any business dealings with them and I don't have to keep quiet about the European arrogance.

Nope, you are the ones that want to play the role of Lone Wolf, and then expect that to be compatible with being Pack Leader. Well, it is not. You can play one of the roles, at a time, not both.

France just thought that it could do it too, as self-appointed leader of the EU, and just got a major slap onthe face by the other European states.

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 06:45 PM

This is from the SAME countries which GAVE us the Middle East problem and are now trying to lay the blame at America's feet. My dealing with some Bristish people - I too often felt I had to refrain from an outbrust everytime I had to hear the US referred to as "the colonies". Luckily my father doesn't have any business dealings with them and I don't have to keep quiet about the European arrogance.

Funny thing, you like to lecture us about the “evil, old colonial powers” being responsible for everything that is wrong, but you do not accept that others may see the US foreign policy as anything but pristine white. ;)

To put it in plain English, there aren’t blameless nations here; the US is as “guilty” as the rest.

You get irritated when they refer to you as the colonies? Well, American reaction at our disagreement with you on this issue is at least as annoying.
Do you understand how this all seems? It gives the impression that around there you seem to believe Europe is just a kind of pseudo-colony. No right to have a will of our own, just do as we are told by those that know best (ie. You). You say Europeans want to tell you how you should act, well, isn’t it actually what you are trying to do with us?
If not, why make such a big issue of punctual disagreements?

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
It gives the impression that around there you seem to believe Europe is just a kind of pseudo-colony. No right to have a will of our own, just do as we are told by those that know best (ie. You). You say Europeans want to tell you how you should act, well, isn’t it actually what you are trying to do with us?
If not, why make such a big issue of punctual disagreements?
No because we're not demanding that Germany and France join in. They don't have to parake in military action or even support it.

If it wasn't for the US show of force- Iraq wouldn't even be allowing inspectors in. If it wasn't for the show of US force Iraq woulnd't be allowing U2 over flights. Iraq knows to do JUST enough to keep Europe from supporting a war against him.

coney -
What's this whole Anti-American stuff about?........this is one policy people are disagreeing with the US about.......if it were real anti-American feeling then people would be calling to their governments to boycott America entirely.

The French have repeatedly called on the boycotting of American goods.

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 07:09 PM

I don't see Europeans being told not to "look" like tourists when they visit us

I have ;)

Besides, if your words about the French are just half felt, I wouldn’t like to be a French tourist there right now. :rolleyes: :D

Besides, the problem with American tourists is one of attitude, and one that is shared by other countries’ tourists. The stereotype of the Ugly American Tourist is not entirely unfounded, you know. But if it is of any consolation, there are other Ugly Tourists out there; you found out there are Ugly French Tourists also, good, I’ve had may share of Ugly tourists too, including American ones. Yet I don’t make my judgement of a country based on a minority group of <self-censure applied here>, Whatever their nation may be.

They don't have to support the war - but they can't expect us to just go along with their opinions either or their interests.

They don’t.

You are VERY wrong here. It's just that now that North Korea has the weapons - a different tact has to be taken. You obviously don't get much US news if you think that we are unconcerned or that nothing is happening in the US concerning North Korea.

I don’t remember Bush speaking of going to War against North Korea; on the contrary, he seems to believe that talking is the best way here. This IS a double standard. Yet North Korea is not in any way contained, as such, much more dangerous.

Thing about all this - is that Osama bin laden is laughing so hard at the moment. He is getting EXACTLY what he wants - the distruction of the west. If this fighting between our countries get's much worse - it will be the destrution of the alliance. Americans are increasingly becoming more and more anti-Europe. Schools around here have started to cancel their trips to France and Germany - not so much as anti-European feelings - but the anti-American feelings which are over there and the fear of how Americans will be treated.

Yes it is, and worst of all, is winning is more absolute if you attack Iraq.
Osama already made clear about his game here; he will use the attack, unfounded by hard evidence as it is, to get new Arab recruits for his cause. Be assured he will accomplish that goal; the only doubt is if he will get enough power to topple another Middle East nation, or not. As a plus bonus, he will get rid of an obstacle, Saddan, and even will capitalize on his demise.

But you may have touched it here, while most Europeans see this disagreement as a punctual one, a matter of issues and not of disliking your nation, you seem to feel differently about us, it may be that is not so much a case of anti-Americanism but Anti-Europeism.

Coney

02-14-2003, 07:14 PM

The French have repeatedly called on the boycotting of American goods.

Yes..but their govenrment (democratically elected I might add) have not boycotted US goods......a few people disagreeing with one country is not a reason to slap an Anti-American label on them.......governments should (hah) respond to the wishes of their people.......we vote them in, in the hope that they will keep international relations as smooth as possible.

Ok one quick question....

If the USA feel that their is so much Anti-American (which reeks of an accusation of hatred IMO) feels so strongly that they have evidence of WMD then why are they not acting independantly from the UN in your opinion?

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 07:25 PM

No because we're not demanding that Germany and France join in. They don't have to parake in military action or even support it.

Yes you are. They are telling you they don’t agree with war, and do not want to have part in it. This means, not sending troops nor giving you clearance at the UN to do something they think is wrong to begin with.

What would you want them to do? To say what they think and then give green light for you to go? (And incidentally, give permission for the US to use their bases and furthermore be ready to step in to cover the rear front in Turkey). So contrary to what you say, Bush Administration IS telling them what to do.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
Besides, if your words about the French are just half felt, I wouldn’t like to be a French tourist there right now. :rolleyes: :D

Well the French aren't very welcome right now in America I don't think. Just like they never really were very warm and welcoming to American tourists all these years.

Besides, the problem with American tourists is one of attitude, and one that is shared by other countries’ tourists. The stereotype of the Ugly American Tourist is not entirely unfounded, you know. But if it is of any consolation, there are other Ugly Tourists out there; you found out there are Ugly French Tourists also, good, I’ve had may share of Ugly tourists too, including American ones. Yet I don’t make my judgement of a country based on a minority group of <self-censure applied here>, Whatever their nation may be.

I'm not judging my opinion by a few tourists. I have been to England at least and I have had DIRECT dealing s on personal and business basis with British - and so many people from Europe had a superior attitude to our culture and way of life.

I don’t remember Bush speaking of going to War against North Korea; on the contrary, he seems to believe that talking is the best way here. This IS a double standard. Yet North Korea is not in any way contained, as such, much more dangerous.

If you can't see - as I have repeatedly said - that Norh Korea is a different issue now - I am truly sorry. We DO currently have war ships off the coast of North Korea. My brother is staioned in Japan. As I have repeatedly said - whihc you seem to ignore - is that UN weapons inspectors were un NK the entire time they were continuing to work on their nuclear weapons program. Right UNDER the UN's nose. We are in a situation now with Norht Korea because of failed diplomacy and negotiations and weapons inspections. Are we going to allow the same thing to happen with Iraq?

Yes it is, and worst of all, is winning is more absolute if you attack Iraq.
Osama already made clear about his game here; he will use the attack, unfounded by hard evidence as it is, to get new Arab recruits for his cause. Be assured he will accomplish that goal; the only doubt is if he will get enough power to topple another Middle East nation, or not. As a plus bonus, he will get read of an obstacle, Saddan, and even will capitalize on his demise.

I seriously doubt this. He doesn't need an excuse, also this is the same thing people said when we bombed Lybia because of Pan Am 103. It's also the same thing when we went into Afganistan.

If you live in fear to take any action because of a possible terrorist attack then I suggest you lock your doors and not come out.

But you may have touched it here, while most Europeans see this disagreement as a punctual one, a matter of issues and not of disliking your nation, you seem to feel differently about us, it may be that is not so much a case of anti-Americanism but Anti-Europeism.
It is only recently where I have been turning to Euro-bashing. I've heard it a lot longer from Europeans concerning America and it's finally come to a boiling point. Maybe you just don't see it - because your just used to it and live it everyday.

I do know that I still have resentment for the repeated - repeated - anti-American threads which appeared on Entmoot in a short amount of time. I can't remember if you were here or not.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
Yes you are. They are telling you they don’t agree with war, and do not want to have part in it. This means, not sending troops nor giving you clearance at the UN to do something they think is wrong to begin with.

What would you want them to do? To say what they think and then give green light for you to go? (And incidentally, give permission for the US to use their bases and furthermore be ready to step in to cover the rear front in Turkey). So contrary to what you say, Bush Administration IS telling them what to do.
We don't need UN permission to go into Iraq.

France and Germany is NOT NATO. The majority of NATO is upset that the Frence and Germany are blocking support for Turkey - so it's not just the US there.

Is the US supposed to spend billions of dollars a month to keep pressure on Iraq so he will continue to SLOWLY comply? Who is going to pay for our presence there? Is France or Germany? That's the only reason why he is barely complying. If we didn't have such a show of force - NO inpsectors would be in Iraq nor would he have all of a sudden let scientists be interviewed.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Coney
If the USA feel that their is so much Anti-American (which reeks of an accusation of hatred IMO) feels so strongly that they have evidence of WMD then why are they not acting independantly from the UN in your opinion?
Because we were trying to work within the International community. But as you know - I think the US should get out of the UN. We are by the way - going to go into Iraq, with or without anyone else.

You have seen Iraq not complying with the UN resolutions. Lying repeatedly over the years. You can't possibly think that Iraq just can't find tons of VX nerve gas they once had - which they still have not accounted for. Or the anthrax, or the any of the other weapons we KNOW they have that they are hiding.

The only reason we went to the UN was to prevent an international backlash. It's beyond that - we now realise that NO MATTER how much evidence we present - nothing is going to get France or Germany to believe it.

Coney

02-14-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because we were trying to work within the International community. But as you know - I think the US should get out of the UN. We are by the way - going to go into Iraq, with or without anyone else.

You have seen Iraq not complying with the UN resolutions. Lying repeatedly over the years. You can't possibly think that Iraq just can't find tons of VX nerve gas they once had - which they still have not accounted for. Or the anthrax, or the any of the other weapons we KNOW they have that they are hiding.

The only reason we went to the UN was to prevent an international backlash. It's beyond that - we now realise that NO MATTER how much evidence we present - nothing is going to get France or Germany to believe it.

TY JD...........I won't argue with your opinion (I don't agree 100% with it....but an opinion is a personal thing/choice).

Do you not think that the UN proposals to continue with intensified weapons inspections would be preferable to all-out war at this time? (Saddam cannot commit to war with so many troops gathering at his borders IMO).

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 08:02 PM

Someone yesterday had told me about this cartoon in their paper.

...there was a political cartoon in the local paper and it had the stereotypical Frenchman (beret, moustache and striped shirt) and German (suspenders, lederhosen, funny hat with feather) looking into a big, huge cannon labeled 'Iraq'. they say to each other "but it's not smoking... we should keep looking into it" and Colin Powell is standing behind them.

This basically sums it up.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Do you not think that the UN proposals to continue with intensified weapons inspections would be preferable to all-out war at this time? (Saddam cannot commit to war with so many troops gathering at his borders IMO).
No - I don't think it will do anything. Saddam Hussein most likely moved his biological and chemical weapon making underground. Hell - North Korea was able to continue with their nuclear weapons program while UN inspectors were there.

Also - who is going to pay the American tax payers back for the billions it'll cost us to keep our forces their idle - while Europe continues to insist on inspections? If inspectors are going to be there and the frence want them - then I think the Frence and all the other countries who think Inspections will work - they should put their troops in there to make sure that Hussein starts to comply with inspections. He has not complied in the last 5 months except piecemeal - just enough to keep some countries thinking that inspections are working.

I have a feeling we'll be bombing Iraq the first week of March - time is up.

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 08:47 PM

so many people from Europe had a superior attitude to our culture and way of life.

Yep, that is precisely the complaint I usually listen about the US, isn’t it ironical? :D

But let’s face it, I’ve heard the same complaint about the Brits, French, German, and the Spanish (specially the Spanish, mind you, they are the worse, after all, they are our neighbours ;)) all seem to be guilty of it at the eyes of everyone else (all but the Portuguese, of course :D).

We are in a situation now with Norht Korea because of failed diplomacy and negotiations and weapons inspections. Are we going to allow the same thing to happen with Iraq?

According to Bush, it already happened. They already have deadly biological weapons and chemical ones. These are probably easier to smuggle into a nation that an atomic devise, and in the end they are as deadly. So is not a matter of Saddan not having the means and Norht Korea have them. Both are supposedly capable of dealing mass destruction.

I seriously doubt this. He doesn't need an excuse, also this is the same thing people said when we bombed Lybia because of Pan Am 103. It's also the same thing when we went into Afganistan.

If you live in fear to take any action because of a possible terrorist attack then I suggest you lock your doors and not come out.

I’m not speaking of him attacking Arab countries, or the West, yet. I’m saying of him consolidating his influence there, and use it to gain control of local countries at a later time. And making more attacks against the West, once he is more consolidated.

You fail to see things have changed. When you attacked Afganistan that was because your country was attacked by someone living there, someone that was in very friendly terms with the local regime. Even many Arabs accepted that that was a good cause. But what now?
If you can’t even convince Europe of the need to attack Saddan, do you think the Arabs will be convinced? Like I said, the fundamentalists will appreciate your efforts.

It is only recently where I have been turning to Euro-bashing. I've heard it a lot longer from Europeans concerning America and it's finally come to a boiling point. Maybe you just don't see it - because your just used to it and live it everyday.

No I don’t see it. In fact you are right, I’m used to it. I’m used to hear complains of the English about the Scots, of the Irish about the Brits, of the Spanish about the French, and so on. Some are about real issues; others are not. You are wrong if you think this is just reserved for you, it happens to all.

I do know that I still have resentment for the repeated - repeated - anti-American threads which appeared on Entmoot in a short amount of time. I can't remember if you were here or not.

I believe I was, but I failed to see any real hate towards America. Critics yes, hate, no. But then I didn’t read them all, and only posted a little (mostly to say, in my opinion, why do some hate America. It seems I have this flaw of trying to understand and explain why things happen).

France and Germany is NOT NATO. The majority of NATO is upset that the Frence and Germany are blocking support for Turkey - so it's not just the US there.

Of course, but that doesn’t change what I said; you want them to do what YOU want them to do (even if others want it too). Say it as you will, you still want to have a saying on how those nations should act.

Who is going to pay for our presence there? Is France or Germany? That's the only reason why he is barely complying. If we didn't have such a show of force - NO inpsectors would be in Iraq nor would he have all of a sudden let scientists be interviewed.

Well then, negotiate with the others. If they agree with the slow method, let them know that they also have to participate more actively in it.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
You fail to see things have changed. When you attacked Afganistan that was because your country was attacked by someone living there, someone that was in very friendly terms with the local regime. Even many Arabs accepted that that was a good cause. But what now?
If you can’t even convince Europe of the need to attack Saddan, do you think the Arabs will be convinced? Like I said, the fundamentalists will appreciate your efforts.

The majority of Europe is behind the US - it's only pretty much France, Germany and Belgium. Russia started siding with us - then Putin met with Chirac - I'm sure Chirac offered a slice of Europe to them in order for Russia to swing back. Probably offered the Eastern Block back to Russia, Germany will get the slovac nations and France will get the western section of Europe.

Well then, negotiate with the others. If they agree with the slow method, let them know that they also have to participate more actively in it.
They don't want to enforce the inspections. All France and Germany want is to wear down the world and hopefully everyone will give up and then they can go on about their business of making billion dollar deals with Iraq.

France nor Germany is going to put troops in to enforce inspections. yeah - they offered their spy planes - wow - that's a lot.

Coney

02-14-2003, 09:10 PM

Lief Erikson

02-14-2003, 09:14 PM

I have a question, Jerseydevil. How come you've been complaining about Anti-Americanism in Europe? You've just said that Europe is mostly behind us. If that is true, then we should be happy for what we have.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I have a question, Jerseydevil. How come you've been complaining about Anti-Americanism in Europe? You've just said that Europe is mostly behind us. If that is true, then we should be happy for what we have.
Well France has been the most anti-american during the last 20 years. Germany is beginning to be anti-American.

The Eastern European countries support the US position - as does Italy and Spain.

There were the overwhelming majority of European countries who signed and took out that ad stating their support in the US position.

Also - I was referring to the anti-Americanism among the people of those countries - not necessarily the governments. The Brisith people generally have a very condescending attitude towards Americans - but the government is our closest ally.

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Coney
If the USA feel that their is so much Anti-American (which reeks of an accusation of hatred IMO) feels so strongly that they have evidence of WMD then why are they not acting independantly from the UN in your opinion?

One quick reason, then I am going to finish reading everything to catch back up :D

Simply put, stability. We know that, as weak as the UN is (:D), it is important to have a coalition. If we act without the UN support it will show the world that the UN really means nothing (which it does) and that would be bad. Believe me, if we didn't think a coalition was necessary in the world, we definitely would have acted by now, but we are taking the chance of giving more time so we can show the UN that this is important to have the use of force available. Ultimately, we do not want to defy the UN for those simple reasons, but if we have to, we most certainly will. We don't want to defy the UN and the countries withing certainly don't want us to either, because it will just show the weakness of the UN...

ok back to reading now :D

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Coney
So....if it's not about the oil and $'s ....Why doesn't the US offer to honour the deals after the Iraqi' invasion?

(The US does, after all, forsee a two year "peace keeping" US government in Iraq after the disposal of Saddam's regime).
We did offer that - that's exactly what we negotiated with Russia. Then they went and visited Chirac and now they changed their mind. Chirac obviously made a behind closed door deal with them.

If the countries want to have a say in the government and help with the redevlopment of Iraq - they better support something in the military action front.

Elvellon

02-14-2003, 09:38 PM

The majority of Europe is behind the US - it's only pretty much France, Germany and Belgium. Russia started siding with us - then Putin met with Chirac - I'm sure Chirac offered a slice of Europe to them in order for Russia to swing back. Probably offered the Eastern Block back to Russia, Germany will get the slovac nations and France will get the western section of Europe.

Not quite accurate. The majority of the European governments are with Bush, but for what I’ve seen, that doesn’t means the people agree. Only a minority, even outside those two countries seem to believe in the War rhetoric. The governments seem to be willing to risk popular displeasure by giving their support to a war few agree with, in part so that they can send a message to Germany and France. The division is as much an inner issue as it is an external one.

As for Putin, don’t you think he would be happy if, in the end, he can keep Russia in one piece? I really don’t believe that Putin represent a danger to Europe.

So what they talked?, you may ask.
About the Iraqi oil, of course.

They don't want to enforce the inspections. All France and Germany want is to wear down the world and hopefully everyone will give up and then they can go on about their business of making billion dollar deals with Iraq.

France nor Germany is going to put troops in to enforce inspections. yeah - they offered their spy planes - wow - that's a lot.

The Iraqi oil works mostly in the case of the French government, the German one doesn’t seem to be the case. They don’t have much manoeuvre space. Their public opinion dreads the prospect of War, and I believe that if their Chancellor doesn’t try (at least that) to keep peace his government will fall.

Well, I don’t know about the Germans, but it isn’t really unlikely that the French would be willing to send troops to the region. It actually would benefit their own plans of increasing their influence there. But is also very unlikely that the subject of keeping the slow method was brought on, anyway.

Coney

02-14-2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
One quick reason, then I am going to finish reading everything to catch back up :D

Simply put, stability. We know that, as weak as the UN is (:D), it is important to have a coalition. If we act without the UN support it will show the world that the UN really means nothing (which it does) and that would be bad. Believe me, if we didn't think a coalition was necessary in the world, we definitely would have acted by now, but we are taking the chance of giving more time so we can show the UN that this is important to have the use of force available. Ultimately, we do not want to defy the UN for those simple reasons, but if we have to, we most certainly will. We don't want to defy the UN and the countries withing certainly don't want us to either, because it will just show the weakness of the UN...

ok back to reading now :D

So the UN is weak, unecessary and means nothing........hmmm:rolleyes:

Lief Erikson

02-14-2003, 09:41 PM

If the majority of these people state that they are in favor of the U.S. position, how can we label these countries as Anti-American though? What it seems to me is that, jerseydevil, you've defended both of your statements without really addressing the contradiction. A population can't be both supportive of the U.S. and Anti-American, can it? Or are you saying that some of the European countries are Anti-American and most of them are supportive?

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Coney
So the UN is weak, unecessary and means nothing........hmmm:rolleyes:
Well if they refuse to have any back bone and enforce their own resolutions without having to have the US do and force them to - then what use are they?

They're basically a glorified humanitarian organization like the Red Cross.

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If the majority of these people state that they are in favor of the U.S. position, how can we label these countries as Anti-American though? What it seems to me is that, jerseydevil, you've defended both of your statements without really addressing the contradiction. A population can't be both supportive of the U.S. and Anti-American, can it? Or are you saying that some of the European countries are Anti-American and most of them are supportive?
I'm not talking about the populations supporting us. The public doesn't - the governments do however.

I obviously didn't make it clear enough since Elvellon didn't understand either. I realise the people don't stand behind the US position - that is very clear. But the US doesn't work with the people of those countries - we work with those countries' governments. It's their responsibility to deal with their citizenry.

The people can be anti-American and resort to American bashing while at the same time their governments support and stand by our positions - which the majority of European GOVERNMENTS do.

Coney

02-14-2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if they refuse to have any back bone and enforce their own resolutions without having to have the US do and force them to - then what use are they?

They're basically a glorified humanitarian organization like the Red Cross.

Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence:).

Told you that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I?;)

Laurelyn

02-14-2003, 09:49 PM

Heya, where does Ireland stand in all this mess?

Lief Erikson

02-14-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence:).

Told that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I;)

I don't find that last sentence at all funny, Coney. As for the rest of this apparent 'backbone' that you are seeing, I think it is rather plainly not backbone but self interest. And the evidence given has so far all been backing our government's statements describing the situation. This backbone is going against a super-power that has strong evidence backing up its claims.

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 09:51 PM

Ok here is my take on things after seeing how today unfolded in the world. Basically it is only France who is against what we want to do. Germany and Russia both say they are against action as well, however, I have inside knowledge that says they are just standing their ground currently, but will back us with whatever happens. BTW, I know people working in the government, that's where my sources are, plus living here in Washington DC helps a bit :D

Just to touch what JD has said about Anti-Europeanism. Americans are not against Europe, in fact everyone I know is basically just anti-france right now. I haven't heard one bad thing said about any European country besides France, that I can remember for years now, lol. I think the whole France issue is more than what it seems to be.

Basically, we Americans (this is my opinion, others can agree if they want), don't hate France, we just feel like they have backstabbed us one too many times. They are our best friend when they need us, but when we need them or their backing they turn their backs on us. This point can be said about many countries as well. Let's face it, if we didn't fight in WWI, france would be no longer. If we didn't fight in WWII, france would be no longer. It is things like this when we have given up hundreds of thousands of our own lives to help France live on only to years later fight us over protecting their backyard yet again. Basically, if we didn't come in, France would now be a Soviet Socialist Republic...

I mean seriously, the US hardly gets the aid we deserve for the things that we do. We are lucky to have certain time-tested friends and allies that always support us through thick and thin to back us no matter what and we would do the same. Hell, if France turned their back on us and we desperately needed them we would both go on. However, if France was attacked tomorrow, we would still aid them and they would thank us one day and slap us the next. It is this relationship that they sourly provide that has really broken the camels back between our relations this go around.

In respect to North Korea. We are certainly involved and are moving troops their as we speak (insider info again :D), however nuclear issues MUST be handled much more delicately than other weapons issues. Japan said today, that if North Korea even points a missile in their direction, they will immediately attack North Korea, would the US be treated the same way if we made that statement? Most definitely not!

Japan, is our other top ally, people just don't know it. Our friendship is so below the radar, it is great, Japan will be a big reason for world stability in the coming 50 years, and they will be as important as Britain has been to us and vice versa.

After reading many of the posts today, it really comes down to a few things. Everyone, on both sides, throw misconceived perceptions at one another, however in such times that is a good thing, because this is the essence of natural and goodly debate and solution finding. Does anyone have the right answer? Of course not.

The main thing is this, and sometimes the world doesn't feel this way. The U.S. does not want to fight wars. We really don't. We DO however keep the use of force as a resort as it is necessary for countries like Iraq to comply. Like JD said earlier, if we didn't get more aggressive with the possibility of using force, do you really think we would be having any inspections right now? Of course we wouldn't! Force is a means to an end, used or not. In this case, it will undoubtly be used at some point and it will be a good thing, because like it was said earlier, we now live in a world, where preventative measures are much more important that reactive measures....

D

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence:).

Told you that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I?;)

They are? You should revise that to 3 countries out of the 15 countries on the Security Council.....

jerseydevil

02-14-2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Coney
Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence:).

there is plenty of evidence that Iraq is not complying. Even Hans Blix has said they're not copmplying.

Also - if it wasn't for the US military force in the region at this moment - threatening Hussein - the inspectors wouldn't even be in there. So - unless the UN can enforce their resoltuions on their own - WITHOUT the US forcing them to - then the UN is useless.

As I've said before on other threads. I personally think we should pull out troops out of the world stage. Take them out of South Korea, Europe, leave NATO, leave the UN, leave Africa, leave the Middle East and build our missile shield and lock our borders a little tighter. Then you can deal with the world as you see fit. We never wanted to conquer the world - we haven't set out to conquer the world.

During the cold war - people complained that the US didn't spread it's democracy - that we sided with dictators. And that is true - the main goal of US policy was to contain Russia and make sure communism didn't spread across the globe. We succeeded there. NOw it is time to spread the democracy. We don't necessarily have to prop up dictators and hopefully we can bring democracy to the Middle East - where Eurooe failed to even try.

Told that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I;)
That's because nothing would make an ounce of difference until iraq lobs a nuclear weapon over Europe. Even then I don't think France or Germany would care as long as it wasn't them.

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Laurelyn
Heya, where does Ireland stand in all this mess?

Ireland is cool, that's all that matters :D

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 09:59 PM

If you haven't read it yet, I urge that you do. Here is the text from the presentation Colin Powell made to the UN Security Council on Feb. 5th, proving the U.S. case against Iraq....

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, distinguished colleagues, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks for the special effort that each of you made to be here today.

This is important day for us all as we review the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

Last November 8, this council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote. The purpose of that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years.

Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any allusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.

And to assist in its disarmament, we called on Iraq to cooperate with returning inspectors from UNMOVIC and IAEA.

We laid down tough standards for Iraq to meet to allow the inspectors to do their job.

This council placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm and not on the inspectors to find that which Iraq has gone out of its way to conceal for so long. Inspectors are inspectors; they are not detectives.

I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to this council on January 27th, quote, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it," unquote.

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, "did not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding since 1998."

My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions.

I might add at this point that we are providing all relevant information we can to the inspection teams for them to do their work.

The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are U.S. sources. And some are those of other countries. Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.

I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.

What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraqis' behavior — Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort — no effort — to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.

....continued

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 10:01 PM

.....continued

Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you're about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 of last year, on the day before United Nations teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, from Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

Speaking in Arabic.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he's coming for, and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.

But they're worried. "We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?"

What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.

The general is incredulous: "You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?"

"I have one."

"Which, from where?"

"From the workshop, from the al-Kindi company?"

"What?"

"From al-Kindi."

"I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left."

"We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left."

Note what he says: "We evacuated everything."

We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up.

"I will come to you tomorrow."

The al-Kindi company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.

Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16. On January 20, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week on January 30.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

Speaking in Arabic.

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message.

"They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes."

"Yes."

"For the possibility there are forbidden ammo."

"For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?"

"Yes."

"And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there."

Remember the first message, evacuated.

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

If you go a little further into this message, and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: "After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message."

"OK, OK."

Why? Why?

This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things. But they don't want that message seen, because they were trying to clean up the area to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there. And the inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing.

This effort to hide things from the inspectors is not one or two isolated events, quite the contrary. This is part and parcel of a policy of evasion and deception that goes back 12 years, a policy set at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime.

We know that Saddam Hussein has what is called quote, "a higher committee for monitoring the inspections teams," unquote. Think about that. Iraq has a high-level committee to monitor the inspectors who were sent in to monitor Iraq's disarmament.

Not to cooperate with them, not to assist them, but to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs.

The committee reports directly to Saddam Hussein. It is headed by Iraq's vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan. Its members include Saddam Hussein's son Qusay.

.....continued

Coney

02-14-2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't find that last sentence at all funny, Coney. As for the rest of this apparent 'backbone' that you are seeing, I think it is rather plainly not backbone but self interest. And the evidence given has so far all been backing our government's statements describing the situation. This backbone is going against a super-power that has strong evidence backing up its claims.

I don't realy care if you find that sentance funny or not (it was meant to be serious.in fact as serious as killing hundreds of thousands, potentially, of people in the name of the "evidence").

If the "evidence" was 100% proof of WMD being harboured in Iraq' and that the ability was there to use them do you think that any country would be against a direct assault and the removal of the Hussien regime?

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 10:03 PM

.......continued.....

This committee also includes Lieutenant General Amir al-Saadi, an adviser to Saddam. In case that name isn't immediately familiar to you, General Saadi has been the Iraqi regime's primary point of contact for Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. It was General Saadi who last fall publicly pledged that Iraq was prepared to cooperate unconditionally with inspectors. Quite the contrary, Saadi's job is not to cooperate, it is to deceive; not to disarm, but to undermine the inspectors; not to support them, but to frustrate them and to make sure they learn nothing.

We have learned a lot about the work of this special committee. We learned that just prior to the return of inspectors last November the regime had decided to resume what we heard called, quote, "the old game of cat and mouse," unquote.

For example, let me focus on the now famous declaration that Iraq submitted to this council on December 7. Iraq never had any intention of complying with this council's mandate.

Instead, Iraq planned to use the declaration, overwhelm us and to overwhelm the inspectors with useless information about Iraq's permitted weapons so that we would not have time to pursue Iraq's prohibited weapons. Iraq's goal was to give us, in this room, to give those us on this council the false impression that the inspection process was working.

You saw the result. Dr. Blix pronounced the 12,200-page declaration, rich in volume, but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence.

Could any member of this council honestly rise in defense of this false declaration?

Everything we have seen and heard indicates that, instead of cooperating actively with the inspectors to ensure the success of their mission, Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

Orders were issued to Iraq's security organizations, as well as to Saddam Hussein's own office, to hide all correspondence with the Organization of Military Industrialization.

This is the organization that oversees Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. Make sure there are no documents left which could connect you to the OMI.

We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes. We know that Iraqi government officials, members of the ruling Baath Party and scientists have hidden prohibited items in their homes. Other key files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.

Thanks to intelligence they were provided, the inspectors recently found dramatic confirmation of these reports. When they searched the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist, they uncovered roughly 2,000 pages of documents. You see them here being brought out of the home and placed in U.N. hands. Some of the material is classified and related to Iraq's nuclear program.

Tell me, answer me, are the inspectors to search the house of every government official, every Baath Party member and every scientist in the country to find the truth, to get the information they need, to satisfy the demands of our council?

Our sources tell us that, in some cases, the hard drives of computers at Iraqi weapons facilities were replaced. Who took the hard drives? Where did they go? What's being hidden? Why? There's only one answer to the why: to deceive, to hide, to keep from the inspectors.

Numerous human sources tell us that the Iraqis are moving, not just documents and hard drives, but weapons of mass destruction to keep them from being found by inspectors.

While we were here in this council chamber debating Resolution 1441 last fall, we know, we know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq. Most of the launchers and warheads have been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.

We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.

......continued

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 10:05 PM

......continued....

Let me say a word about satellite images before I show a couple. The photos that I am about to show you are sometimes hard for the average person to interpret, hard for me. The painstaking work of photo analysis takes experts with years and years of experience, pouring for hours and hours over light tables. But as I show you these images, I will try to capture and explain what they mean, what they indicate to our imagery specialists.

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji (ph). This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapon shells.

Here, you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says security points to a facility that is the signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker.

The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.

This is characteristic of those four bunkers. The special security facility and the decontamination vehicle will be in the area, if not at any one of them or one of the other, it is moving around those four, and it moves as it needed to move, as people are working in the different bunkers.

Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone, it's been cleaned up, and it was done on the 22nd of December, as the U.N. inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.

The bunkers are clean when the inspectors get there. They found nothing.

This sequence of events raises the worrisome suspicion that Iraq had been tipped off to the forthcoming inspections at Taji (ph). As it did throughout the 1990s, we know that Iraq today is actively using its considerable intelligence capabilities to hide its illicit activities. From our sources, we know that inspectors are under constant surveillance by an army of Iraqi intelligence operatives. Iraq is relentlessly attempting to tap all of their communications, both voice and electronics.

I would call my colleagues attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.

In this next example, you will see the type of concealment activity Iraq has undertaken in response to the resumption of inspections. Indeed, in November 2002, just when the inspections were about to resume this type of activity spiked. Here are three examples.

At this ballistic missile site, on November 10, we saw a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components. At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly.

At this ballistic missile facility, again, two days before inspections began, five large cargo trucks appeared along with the truck-mounted crane to move missiles. We saw this kind of house cleaning at close to 30 sites.

Days after this activity, the vehicles and the equipment that I've just highlighted disappear and the site returns to patterns of normalcy. We don't know precisely what Iraq was moving, but the inspectors already knew about these sites, so Iraq knew that they would be coming.

We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what they had or did not have?

Remember the first intercept in which two Iraqis talked about the need to hide a modified vehicle from the inspectors. Where did Iraq take all of this equipment? Why wasn't it presented to the inspectors?

......continued

Laurelyn

02-14-2003, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Dúnedain
Ireland is cool, that's all that matters :D
Ja, I agree. Is Ireland a part of NATO or something or not? I figure if I'm going to be moving to Ireland I want to find out what the deal is there in the world of wacky politics. Hopefull this war business will be over by the time I move, but that's the country I care about. Do they support/not support war on Iraq; anybody know?

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 10:06 PM

.....continued

Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspectors.

This refusal to allow this kind of reconnaissance is in direct, specific violation of operative paragraph seven of our Resolution 1441.

Saddam Hussein and his regime are not just trying to conceal weapons, they're also trying to hide people. You know the basic facts. Iraq has not complied with its obligation to allow immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access to all officials and other persons as required by Resolution 1441.
The regime only allows interviews with inspectors in the presence of an Iraqi official, a minder. The official Iraqi organization charged with facilitating inspections announced, announced publicly and announced ominously that, quote, "Nobody is ready to leave Iraq to be interviewed."

Iraqi Vice President Ramadan accused the inspectors of conducting espionage, a veiled threat that anyone cooperating with U.N. inspectors was committing treason.

Iraq did not meet its obligations under 1441 to provide a comprehensive list of scientists associated with its weapons of mass destruction programs. Iraq's list was out of date and contained only about 500 names, despite the fact that UNSCOM had earlier put together a list of about 3,500 names.

Let me just tell you what a number of human sources have told us.

Saddam Hussein has directly participated in the effort to prevent interviews. In early December, Saddam Hussein had all Iraqi scientists warned of the serious consequences that they and their families would face if they revealed any sensitive information to the inspectors. They were forced to sign documents acknowledging that divulging information is punishable by death.

Saddam Hussein also said that scientists should be told not to agree to leave Iraq; anyone who agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq would be treated as a spy. This violates 1441.

In mid-November, just before the inspectors returned, Iraqi experts were ordered to report to the headquarters of the special security organization to receive counterintelligence training. The training focused on evasion methods, interrogation resistance techniques, and how to mislead inspectors.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.

For example, in mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.

On orders from Saddam Hussein, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist, and he was sent into hiding.

In the middle of January, experts at one facility that was related to weapons of mass destruction, those experts had been ordered to stay home from work to avoid the inspectors. Workers from other Iraqi military facilities not engaged in elicit weapons projects were to replace the workers who'd been sent home. A dozen experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses. It goes on and on and on.

As the examples I have just presented show, the information and intelligence we have gathered point to an active and systematic effort on the part of the Iraqi regime to keep key materials and people from the inspectors in direct violation of Resolution 1441. The pattern is not just one of reluctant cooperation, nor is it merely a lack of cooperation. What we see is a deliberate campaign to prevent any meaningful inspection work.

My colleagues, operative paragraph four of U.N. Resolution 1441, which we lingered over so long last fall, clearly states that false statements and omissions in the declaration and a failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall constitute — the facts speak for themselves — shall constitute a further material breach of its obligation.

We wrote it this way to give Iraq an early test — to give Iraq an early test. Would they give an honest declaration and would they early on indicate a willingness to cooperate with the inspectors? It was designed to be an early test.

They failed that test. By this standard, the standard of this operative paragraph, I believe that Iraq is now in further material breach of its obligations. I believe this conclusion is irrefutable and undeniable.

Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately.

....continued

Dúnedain

02-14-2003, 10:08 PM

...continued

The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction. But how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: "Enough. Enough."

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

First, biological weapons. We have talked frequently here about biological weapons. By way of introduction and history, I think there are just three quick points I need to make.

First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry — to pry — an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons.

Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount — this is just about the amount of a teaspoon — less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.

Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.

And that is my third point. And it is key. The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them. And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.

Dr. Blix told this council that Iraq has provided little evidence to verify anthrax production and no convincing evidence of its destruction. It should come as no shock then, that since Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998, we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons.

One of the most worrisome things that emerges from the thick intelligence file we have on Iraq's biological weapons is the existence of mobile production facilities used to make biological agents.

Let me take you inside that intelligence file and share with you what we know from eyewitness accounts. We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails.

The trucks and train cars are easily moved and are designed to evade detection by inspectors. In a matter of months, they can produce a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.

Although Iraq's mobile production program began in the mid-1990s, U.N. inspectors at the time only had vague hints of such programs. Confirmation came later, in the year 2000.

The source was an eyewitness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents.

He reported that when UNSCOM was in country and inspecting, the biological weapons agent production always began on Thursdays at midnight because Iraq thought UNSCOM would not inspect on the Muslim Holy Day, Thursday night through Friday. He added that this was important because the units could not be broken down in the middle of a production run, which had to be completed by Friday evening before the inspectors might arrive again.

...continued