The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

You still have the fundamental problem of people willing to achieve their goals at the expense of other people's life and limbs.

I see two possible global developments from this, both bad:

[*] USA pressures the UN into approving a war

[*] USA ignores the UN and goes by itself

In the first case UN will lose its credibility since it can't enforce what the majority of the world thinks is right. In the second case the UN loses its credibility since some of it's members choose not to follow UN directives and international law when it fits them to do so.

A war on Iraq is just a big setback for the UN, no matter how you view it. Collin Powell has made it clear that USA will start the war with or without the support of the UN. If it does it without it will be an illegal war, no more lawful then for instance the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There won't be any sanctions against America for that and the UN will lose its credibility.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 27 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 27 2003,19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens next? My guess is that USA will try to get through a UN resolution for an attack by putting pressure on the other security council members that have veto rights (i.e France, China and Russia). USA has a military build-up in progress that will need a month or so to complete. Then there is going to be a war, regardless of what the UN says.<span id='postcolor'>

If USA attacks Iraq without the support of the UN this crisis could become much more than just about Iraq.

Even if they come up with proof that Iraq has WMD's I see no reason to attack Iraq.

Especially USA shouldn't have any right to complain on Iraq as they have WMD's them selves and are willing to use them.

The world has been united since the collapse of Soviet but now USA is ripping it apart again.<span id='postcolor'>

The world has been far from united since the fall of the USSR!  There hasnt been any monolithic 'cold war' sort of conflict/tension, but to declare that the US is ripping apart an existing world unity is a little ludicrous.

They are however trying to appear to be the knight in shining armour, protecting the world from evil... but it comes off as the biggest kid in the schoolyard beating up a smaller kid to make a point.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe not a complete unity but it was going towards that.

The eastern european countries were closer to europe and america.

USA and China had a more open relationship.

I can't think of any period in history when the world had been more united.

USA is doing eveything to get a war.

I thought they had learned not to use nukes but I was wrong. They have stated to use them again on Iraq if needed.

The whole idea with the war was to eliminate any possible WMD's Iraq might have.

So do you do that with WMD's? I have never heard so much bull shit. Don't they see the problem with the idea?

The pre-emptive attack idea wouldn't that give Saddam the right to send some WMD's against USA?

It is pretty obvious that USA is going to attack him.

Or is that somehow different?

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You still have the fundamental problem of people willing to achieve their goals at the expense of other people's life and limbs.

I see two possible global developments from this, both bad:

[*] USA pressures the UN into approving a war

[*] USA ignores the UN and goes by itself

In the first case UN will lose its credibility since it can't enforce what the majority of the world thinks is right. In the second case the UN loses its credibility since some of it's members choose not to follow UN directives and international law when it fits them to do so.

A war on Iraq is just a big setback for the UN, no matter how you view it. Collin Powell has made it clear that USA will start the war with or without the support of the UN. If it does it without it will be an illegal war, no more lawful then for instance the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. There won't be any sanctions against America for that and the UN will lose its credibility.<span id='postcolor'>

And what do you think the situation will be in, say 10 years?

If USA does not manage to brainwash most of the world, it will surely turn to the opposite quite soon again. If USA goes on with this war, and later continues it war on terrorism, I recon the US will have dug their own grave too deep to be able to get up from it again. EDIT: I probably do best in clarifying that this is not what I hope will happen with the US, but a likely development that will balance the global community again, if the UN is 'eliminated' at first.

There is one thing that could make it all in to one of the worst series of 'happenings' ever though: If USA manages to keep a good shine up in this, and most certainly coming wars - and at the same time eliminate the UN. In that case we are probably on the doorstep to one of the most chaotic periods of mankind....    

But I refuse to be a comlpete pessimist. Even if this would drag the world in a several-centuries-long global conflict, mankind will hopefully stand up once again. But I agee; the current situation is very potential to develop in to the worst conflict in the history of mankind....  

edited above and some typos.

[FSPilot 0]

You guys are just about as optimistic as Bush is about Saddam disarming.

[Balschoiw 0]

Daily life and history makes you "that" optimistic. It is called normal life nowadays.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 27 2003,23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You guys are just about as optimistic as Bush is about Saddam disarming.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush will attack even if Saddam disarms.

How could Saddam possibly prove that he does not have any hidden weapons?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,2304)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the first case UN will lose its credibility since it can't enforce what the majority of the world thinks is right. In the second case the UN loses its credibility since some of it's members choose not to follow UN directives and international law when it fits them to do so.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it would be a shame for the UN to lose credibility.

Semper Fi

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 28 2003,00:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 27 2003,23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You guys are just about as optimistic as Bush is about Saddam disarming.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush will attack even if Saddam disarms.

How could Saddam possibly prove that he does not have any hidden weapons?<span id='postcolor'>

Very simple: he hauls them out into broad daylight, lets the inspectors have a field day, and if, by some freak chance, he doesnt actually have WMDs, then he can trot out any remnants of the program (research areas, labs, loose materiel, whatever), because we KNOW that at one time he had them, and until we find it, or until UN inspectors can conclusively prove that Saddam actually destroyed them on his own (I almost cracked up while typing that part), then the threat of war will be clear and present.

Which of course begs the question, if he doesnt have the weapons, why all the Mickey Mouse with the inspectors?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Jan. 28 2003,00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,2304)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the first case UN will lose its credibility since it can't enforce what the majority of the world thinks is right. In the second case the UN loses its credibility since some of it's members choose not to follow UN directives and international law when it fits them to do so.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it would be a shame for the UN to lose credibility.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

What can I say: that's democracy for you. Sure it is absurd that Lybia should head a human rights comittee, but they were elected in proper fashion. As for them manipulating themselves into that position - I'm assuming they learn from the best: the US. If the UN had been objective and not politically biased because of USA's economic and military resoruces there would be no Iraq on the agenda today.

[brgnorway 0]

I'll use the title of this thread and add the recent mentioned word "optimistic" to speculate about the future!

What will happen after a war in Iraq?

UN will unfortunately be discredited again as it was in the Balkans. Again the result is given by a/some of it's most influential and powerfull memberstates. This time - they brake international laws and the basic rights of the worlds people. Last time - in the Balkans - they failed to provide the manpower and material in order to ensure safety (like in Srebrenica). Again, people will suffer - and inevitabely UN's prestige, because of the disgraceful actions of a few memberstates.

What am I optimistic about then?

EU is strengthening in political prestige - both internaly as well as externaly because of the new "motor" of franco-german cooperation . The importance of Nato will change somewhat and a more focused european cooperation in terms of security and foreign policy will emerge. The dependence on Nato will be reduced in favour of a European task force. UK will no matter how this conflict (Iraq) ends, hopefully change into something else than the "hesitant" EU member. I predict Blair's political career is on a fall due to internal opposition because of his clumsy and chauvinistic attitude towards his fellow party critics in the Iraq-US problem. Also, do expect that the tory's will use his handling of the conflict for everything it's worth. I guess they will use the symbolic value of England the "strong and mighty (former) world power aswell as play down their traditional friendly ties with US. Nothing could be worse for UK than a EU dominated solely by a franco-german initiative.

.....and Norway will finaly join EU!

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> All seven members of the European Union abstained, even as their ambassadors in New York were insisting that only the United Nations has the moral authority to authorize the deposing of a dictator guilty of some of the most terrible crimes since World War II.<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

The US could have vetoed him out, but didn't. So I hardly see how that would give the US a higher moral ground to discuss this issue from.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 28 2003,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How could Saddam possibly prove that he does not have any hidden weapons?<span id='postcolor'>

How could he possibly be so reckless and 'lose' all those weapons into thin air? It's naive to suppose that he just can't prove he doesn't have them - WMDs are always catalogued and tracked. If they are destroyed, of course there is some kind of document of it.

It's incomprihensible to me that some people think that Saddam doesn't know a thing about them.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 28 2003,05:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How could Saddam possibly prove that he does not have any hidden weapons?<span id='postcolor'>

its not that he cant, he wont.

[bn880 5]

And yet there is another slight possibility...

Iraq complies fully in about a month when squarely faced with a military conflict.

That is, accounting for everything, disclosing what's hidden (if anything), and then disarming what's left (if anything). In return the world community would have to uarantee Iraq security. (especially from the U. states)

Well, anyway, that's what Zbigniew Brzezynski came up with in an interview today.

[FSPilot 0]

I don't really care for evidence of his weapons. He's probably exported them anyway. I want some type of hard solid proof of what he did with them. We knew he had them in 1998, and I'm pretty sure he didn't disarm. Unless he can prove it, I won't oppose this war.

Then again, I won't fully support it without more international support. This could easilly make us more enemies than we already have.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US could have vetoed him out, but didn't. So I hardly see how that would give the US a higher moral ground to discuss this issue from.<span id='postcolor'>

It doesn't work that way, chief.

Libya Wins Leadership of Rights Panel Despite U.S. Opposition

By BARRY JAMES,

International Herald Tribune

PARIS, Jan. 20 — The United Nations Commission on Human Rights, meeting in Geneva, elected Libya to its chairmanship today after the United States demanded and lost a vote.

The United States insisted on a vote, which was the first since the commission was formed in 1946. The chairmanship is usually decided by consensus. It was apparently a move to embarrass Libya's supporters.

But 33 countries voted for Libya. Only three — the United States, Canada and, reports said, Guatemala — voted no. Seventeen countries abstained, including seven members of the European Union. Diplomats said they did not want to offend African nations, whose turn it is under a rotating system to select the new leader.

The vote means Libya will preside over the meeting, from March 17 to April 25, at which the commission will survey the human rights situation around the world.

Libya has been accused of abducting and torturing opponents of its government. It has openly supported violent organizations like the Irish Republican Army, and it is held responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died.

The Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, has assiduously courted African nations with cash and political influence. He was a driving force behind the formation of the new African Union, even paying off some of the debts of the old Organization of African Unity, its predecessor.

Libya, still not fully free from United Nations penalties that were imposed because of the Lockerbie bombing, was the only country nominated by the African bloc.

The United States insisted on a vote, the State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said, because Libya's "terrible conduct" should not be rewarded.

The United States has just rejoined the commission after losing its seat in 2001 in a secret vote of member countries.

The American ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Kevin Moley, said he was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome. "A country with this record does not merit a leadership role," he said.

Human rights advocates said the election of a country that has not had a free election since Colonel Qaddafi seized power in 1969 put the credibility of the rights panel at stake.

Earlier, in a statement, Human Rights Watch said Libya's rights record over three decades had been "appalling." Amnesty International also has expressed concern that about 150 opponents of the government who are facing trial in Libya later this month will not receive a fair hearing.

The Libyan representative to the Human Rights Commission, Najat al-Hajjaji, said in a speech after her election that she would rely on the body's collective wisdom and that she would avoid "as far as possible" making decisions on a personal basis.

NY Times

Semper Fi

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't really care for evidence of his weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

That´s exactly the point of the US administration. They just don´t care. But for the international community it is indeed a bit different. We want to know why we should invade a country and risk lifes, the stability of the region and our all future. We simply ask more before we shoot.

I have to repeat myself that Bush is going to war no matter what happens from now on. He can´t pay the troop movements so he need sponsors. Best would be with UN. If not he will get some money back from British Petrol and maybe his daddy

The hunt for reasons for a war and the flaming of panic in the US shows that Bush wants to control Iraq. He is not searching for a peacefull solution as other countries do, but pushing his military efforts to start the war. Or can you tell other things ? Has there been a political suggestion to Iraq from the US lately ? Have the US tried to solve this peacefully? No. I see any other state doing that, but not the US.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This could easilly make us more enemies than we already have.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. This will indeed be a painfull experience for the US. You will be punished multiple times:

1. breach of international law and major violation of human

rights.

2. radicals all over the world will know where their target is

from now on.

3. international community ? not you anymore. Europe will

be able to benefit of your behaviour and you isolate

yourself more and more.

4. provoked wars and their follow-ups will keep you very busy.

5. Your economy will go down. It does at the moment. Daily.

6. But well, you´ll have a fresh population as a lot of the

youth will be killed in wars that will be fought for money

reasons.

Have fun ! You will harvest what you started. And remember:

Not only the worth of a US citizen is wort something. Every human is worth the same. But ME nations have much more relatives to take revenge

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,01:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US could have vetoed him out, but didn't. So I hardly see how that would give the US a higher moral ground to discuss this issue from.<span id='postcolor'>

Refer to the other post...

It doesn't seem to give the EU any moral ground to judge human rights violations when they stand aside and let Libya become the chair, for fear of "offending Africa."

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 28 2003,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That´s exactly the point of the US administration. They just don´t care. But for the international community it is indeed a bit different. We want to know why we should invade a country and risk lifes, the stability of the region and our all future. We simply ask more before we shoot.<span id='postcolor'>

We don't care about new evidence because we already know. We've already seen all the evidence we need.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The hunt for reasons for a war and the flaming of panic in the US shows that Bush wants to control Iraq. He is not searching for a peacefull solution as other countries do, but pushing his military efforts to start the war. Or can you tell other things ? Has there been a political suggestion to Iraq from the US lately ? Have the US tried to solve this peacefully? No. I see any other state doing that, but not the US.<span id='postcolor'>

We've already been over this. Saddam has proved that he doesn't want to cooperate with diplomacy. He's a dictator, not a diplomat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have fun ! You will harvest what you started. And remember:

Not only the worth of a US citizen is wort something. Every human is worth the same. But ME nations have much more relatives to take revenge <span id='postcolor'>

You say that like I support this war. I think it's funny how you criticize Bush's urge to go to war, but they express your blood lust for the US.

[brgnorway 0]

never mind.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 28 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">never mind.<span id='postcolor'>

lol

those kindsa posts always crack me up

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 28 2003,04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 28 2003,04:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">never mind.<span id='postcolor'>

lol

those kindsa posts always crack me up<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe

I wrote a post completely lacking any logic statement. Made sure to delete it to avoid making an ass of myself!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 27 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe

I wrote a post completely lacking any logic statement. Made sure to delete it to avoid making an ass of myself!

<span id='postcolor'>

Ever wish you could do that in real life? Just Edit what you said.

EDIT: I'll be Bush would.

[brgnorway 0]

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 28 2003,050)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Jan. 27 2003,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hehe  

I wrote a post completely lacking any logic statement. Made sure to delete it to avoid making an ass of myself!

<span id='postcolor'>

Ever wish you could do that in real life?  Just Edit what you said.  

EDIT: I'll be Bush would.  <span id='postcolor'>

 ...since when did this thread become funny!

.......maybe 1/3 of his voters would edit the voting card.. since it clearly lacked any logic at all