The Iraq Thread

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Denoir- I never claimed to be an unbiased reporter of facts. (however you can define facts in the murky world of international politics)

I try to be honest(dont always succeed), guilty as charged there.

I try not to present opinion as fact (im sure i fail sometimes)

Yes i have opinions and i allow them to influence my posts.

However i am not reporting on a weapons of mass destruction program.

So you agree that Hans Blix may edit information to 'engineer' impartiality?

Denoir-"If there is something however I really can't tolerate it's the condescending smug air of superiority that some British people project. It's ten times worse then rabid American nationalism since it is truly unfounded."

Some might see a similarly smug air of superiority in certain Scandinavians(and other 'enlightened' europeans). Some may regard a healthy debate as the only reasonable way of resolving conflicts but there are plenty of places in the world where unfortunatly debate has a negligable effect unless words can be backed up with action.

The fact that you respect Spains position (officially supporting the US in relation to Iraq but doing nothing about it)

over Britains (officially supporting the US on Iraq and putting troops in harms way) speaks volumes.

I understand you are anti-war but a government unwilling or unable to back up their statements with action does not strike me as preferable to one willing to put its 'money where its mouth is'.

France backed up 1441 saying military action may be necessary as a last resort. Now that america might act they are saying 'non' to ANY US /UK resolution. They have in effect vetoed a resolution before it has even been put to them.

A grandstanding move which coincidentally(?) made Chirac astronomically popular in the polls.

(which by the way helps the 'bastard' Blair to portray the French resolution as 'unreasonable' )

So the French did put their veto where their mouth is ,but they contributed nothing to the military buildup even when they supported action against Iraq 'if necessary'.

The Spanish gov. says military action may be necessary but if it is they are either not willing or able to take part. THATS the EU way?

If the Blair government is wrong at least it is acting on what it claims to believe in.

I think Tony Blair may be wrong but i do not think he is a 'bastard'.

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

Denoir-(on kosovo)"He should have taken a better look. The Albanians wern't at all that thrilled about the whole venture since it only catalysed the ethnic cleansing and the bombings killed many Albanians. In the end they didn't even get a country of their own, which was the objective of their little insurrection"

You have been to kosovo i believe.  Do you deny that they (the majority of the albanian population) wanted rid of Milosevic, that the Albanian population appealed desperatly to the outside world to intervene? The flowers civilians threw at NATO tanks were just an hallucination?

Tony Blair was actually the only leader arguing for ground troops to be sent in. Why? was it massively popular at home? a shrewd political move? Try- a great risk ,the type generally only made by those trying to stand for what they believe in (right or wrong).

Iraq is not different in that respect.

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

Denoir-"This is exactly what I am talking about: criticism based on lack of understanding. There is not a French bias in the EU. There is a EUROPEAN bias on the EU"

This is exactly what i fear. A naivety on the part of many idealistic europeans when looking at the EU. Why is it so impossible that some countries might have more control in the EU than others?

The C.A.P. DOES favour the French. They DO oppose moves to change it. There ARE a large number of French people in the higher echelons of the EU.

The UK was not a founding member, we have not seen it in our economic interest to so far go for the EURO.

Why is it so impossible that some of the more anti american founders might not discriminate against the UK ?

I admire the high ideals of the EU that you appear to have so fallen for. unfortunatly the reality is still far from the ideal.

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

Denoir-"National states are perfect examples of the stupidity of man kind where people are ready to kill each other for abstract symbolic matters."

Denoir-"Self defense is allowed by the UN charter. That island was internationally recognized as Spanish territory."

So war over a rock makes sense but war over proliferation of biological/chemical weapons doesnt?

Is this another flaw in the UN or a flaw in your argument?

Denoir-"We are all humans, we have a basic set of needs and desires and we should focus on that. I'd support a union between the EU and US if such a thing was proposed. As a matter of fact my utopial vision is the abolishment of all nation states and joinging the world into one solid entity, working together instead of against each other"

I agree. But that can only come after a great many conditions have been fulfilled or else it is a recipe for tribal chaos not seen since the dark ages. Nation states however imperfectly help hold some degree of order. If they CAN be abandoned >>>without<<<< trampling on those desires and needs you mention then all to the good.

Unfortunatly different people have different opinions. Whose world view gets upheld? At what price?

anyway this isnt the place for that discussion. Another thread perhaps.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 14 2003,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir- i would not be so jubilant about the US 'squirming' in the UN as this will only convince the Bush administration to avoid it altogether in future.<span id='postcolor'>

In a way that's good. It's obvious that they don't respect it enough, so why should they stay. As a matter of fact, I'd suggest kicking out the countries that start wars without the approval of the UN and enforce heavy sanctions.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh forget it....hate it when I'm like 3 pages behind!

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I understand the concept that "jaw jaw is better than war war", however, at some point you need to realize that the UN will be unable to enforce its resolutions without the use of force. The real tests of organizations like the UN never occur in situations where talking ad infinitum will help- they occur when a country defies the UN's rules and peaceful means do not take hold. It is essentially simple: in any other language than couched bureaucratese, the Iraqis are still in violation of 1441 and even the weaker 1287. To that effect, the US and company are pushing for a resolution that will give us the green light. However, the UN (specifically countries that shall remain nameless) is blocking this move towards a resolution. I mean hell, Kofi Annan will notify America that military force against Iraq will be illegal without the UN approval, but isn't nearly so hot to trot for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately. The word block is important, because it means that they automatically rule out the use of force. This might fit in with your moral view of the world, but it automatically hamstrings the UN in future situations when countries may simply thumb their noses at the Security Council, and nothing can be done.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 14 2003,23:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I understand you are anti-war but a government unwilling or unable to back up their statements with action does not strike me as preferable to one willing to put its 'money where its mouth is'.<span id='postcolor'>

The question is if there is a necessity for action. This is what war advocates seem to miss, but it is crucial. If Europe believed that a war was just we could give our support without actually participating. The Americans are more then willing to do the bombing. If this was just a question of "having the balls to actually do something", we wouldn't be having any problems now. We'd just let the Americans do the dirty work and all be happy and friends.

The thing is that there are serious doubts about this war since very little valid reason has been given. USA has not managed to come up with a persuasive explanation and that's the reason to the world wide opposition. It's not out of love of Saddam (everybody agrees he's a monster) and it's not about being afraid of fighting (since the US is more then willing to do it for us).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France backed up 1441 saying military action may be necessary as a last resort. Now that america might act they are saying 'non' to ANY US /UK resolution. They have in effect vetoed a resolution before it has even been put to them.

<span id='postcolor'>

That's not quite true. He said that he would veto any US/UK resolution that sets a deadline that is not approved by the inspectors.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Spanish gov. says military action may be necessary but if it is they are either not willing or able to take part. THATS the EU way?<span id='postcolor'>

They are at least not going against the UN. Saying that you support a war is different from actually starting one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the Blair government is wrong at least it is acting on what it claims to believe in.

<span id='postcolor'>

That's hardly a valid argument. Hitler (no, I'm not comparing) did what he believed in and that can hardly be said was a positive thing. What Blair does however is going against the majority of the people on this one. Does he not stop for one second to consider that what he is doing is wrong? Especially since right/wrong is defined by the majority in a democratic society.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have been to kosovo i believe. Do you deny that they (the majority of the albanian population) wanted rid of Milosevic, that the Albanian population appealed desperatly to the outside world to intervene? The flowers civilians threw at NATO tanks were just an hallucination? <span id='postcolor'>

Oh they wanted to get rid of Milosevic and they were begging for international intervention. They got however a bit more then they bargined for as NATO bombs killed more Albanians then the Serbs did and that Serbs escalated their ethnical cleansing as the bombing started. When it later became obivious that there were no plans on letting them have a country on their own, the relations turned sour. It's not a coincidence that 90% of the violence against KFOR soldiers come from Albanians. When I was there in 2001 the situation was so absurd that KFOR brought in Yugoslav special forces known for war crimes to help them deal with the 'kla situation'.

But, I'm not going to criticize the NATO intervention too much since I am certain that it was done with good intent, even if it was a real failure.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is exactly what i fear. A naivety on the part of many idealistic europeans when looking at the EU. Why is it so impossible that some countries might have more control in the EU than others?

I admire the high ideals of the EU that you appear to have so fallen for. unfortunatly the reality is still far from the ideal.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I suppost that's the difference between you and me. When I see a French guy, I think - "we, Europeans", while you think "you, French, me English". I don't by default distrust the Swedish, German, French or the British representatives in the EU since I believe that they are working for the common goals that we share as Europeans.

[Pete 1]

..............nearly 300 pages? and i missed pretty much all of it, there is no way i'm going to read all of that so ill just stick to the last few pages and the most current events.

today as i was working and listening to the radio it suddenly struck me, its so clear to me now.....france, russia and germany are NOT the countries preventing the war and stopping the united states...its england, its Blair!!!!

as the situation is now, english population and some part of key politicians are strongly against Blair and would go very far to destroy Blairs political life if he would go to war without un's aproval, some would even quit there jobs.

when bush-blair decided to go the un-way to get the permission to attack iraq they never expected such stubborn resistance not only among the "people" but also from france and germany, but we all know how it went so far....but, now, as blair is in a VERY tight situation, bush is forced to NOT attack iraq without un permission as this move would cause the end of blair, now they both sit stuck and unable to do pretty much anything without un, if bush goes without blair..blair becomes a huge loser, if they go together, 50-50 chance of blair becoming a political winner (depending on how the war goes)

would blair go alone, saddam would die of laughter (perhaps a good idea?)

i very much doubt that english population would accept a unsanctioned war on iraq....so bush and blair very much need to the the approval of un, this explains the very strong american promises/threats towards weaker countries who could make a vote on us favour.

its not at all "respect towards un" that stops usa, in some ways im sure the us would even be better off without un at all, a french veto or no...it wouldnt stop bush anyway, as someone already said...nobody would build up such a force and spend so much money to prepare an invasion just to threaten iraq, from the start it was intented to get a war against saddam.

now i am very intrested to see how long bush will support blair, this and nothing else decides when/if the war starts.

dont expect to see much of me at the forums anymore, im very busy trying to make a living (starting a own company next week) and so on....ill be reading the forums tho, always intresting to see denoir, longinus, bgnorway, pukko and others on one side of the fence fighting against tex, akira, foxer and others.....

later all.

Pete

[Guest]

Long time no see Pete

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 14 2003,20:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't know if saddam is working with an terrorist group or not.Just like we don't know if he is.So why deny it ? He very well could be.Just because doesn't sound like it wouldn't mean he isn't.Because that would almost be the perfect cover.<span id='postcolor'>

What about the beloved American tenet of innocent until proven guilty?

Until there is evidence found that Saddam and/or the Iraq hierachy has terrorist ties it must be assumed that they do not. And following this assumption, Bush, Blair and Howard are wrong in using this angle to push their reasoning for war.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 15 2003,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">....ill be reading the forums tho, always intresting to see denoir, longinus, bgnorway, pukko and others on one side of the fence fighting against tex, akira, foxer and others.....

later all.

Pete<span id='postcolor'>

I'd just like to say that I'm not really on one side of the fence or other...I'm more like balancing on top of the fence huckin' rocks at both sides...

[Major Fubar 0]

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 14 2003,212)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some people forget what good the US gov't did.They seem to defend the french about the good stuff they did.But they rather just talk about all the bad stuff US gov't,They really think the US gov't is some evil power,and never did a good thing to help out anyone.Some people will say " look another american that doesn't know what were talking about."Also another will probably say that US gov't foreign policy hurt them.But i don't see how.Unless your from the middle-east or south asia,or africa(parts).<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, who cares if American policy hurt some "sub-human" Arab, or Asian, ar African. And you forgot to throw in Latin Americans...

So unless your policies hurt nice, white Anglo-Saxons, they are OK?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 15 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until there is evidence found that Saddam and/or the Iraq hierachy has terrorist ties it must be assumed that they do not. And following this assumption, Bush, Blair and Howard are wrong in using this angle to push their reasoning for war.<span id='postcolor'>

I think what you meant are Al-Qaeda ties. Iraq doesn't really have any ties to Al-Qaeda, but they have myriad ties with other Mid-East terrorist groups. I believe I posted a list about 60 pages back

But you are correct, we shouldn't point fingers about Al-Qaeda ties until we develop some rock solid evidence.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 15 2003,00:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 15 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until there is evidence found that Saddam and/or the Iraq hierachy has terrorist ties it must be assumed that they do not. And following this assumption, Bush, Blair and Howard are wrong in using this angle to push their reasoning for war.<span id='postcolor'>

I think what you meant are Al-Qaeda ties. Iraq doesn't really have any ties to Al-Qaeda, but they have myriad ties with other Mid-East terrorist groups. I believe I posted a list about 60 pages back

But you are correct, we shouldn't point fingers about Al-Qaeda ties until we develop some rock solid evidence.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I meant terrorist ties. Can you post that link again please?

[Pete 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 15 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd just like to say that I'm not really on one side of the fence or other...I'm more like balancing on top of the fence huckin' rocks at both sides...<span id='postcolor'>

yep. thats how i remember you, we had some good discussions... you are one of the few (very few) who can be somewhat neutral and see both sides in a argument, i just out you there since i suddenly realised that i didnt know any others that foxer and tex who are always on the "other side of the fence"...wheres wobble by the way?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pete @ Mar. 15 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 15 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'd just like to say that I'm not really on one side of the fence or other...I'm more like balancing on top of the fence huckin' rocks at both sides...<span id='postcolor'>

yep. thats how i remember you, we had some good discussions... you are one of the few (very few) who can be somewhat neutral and see both sides in a argument, i just out you there since i suddenly realised that i didnt know any others that foxer and tex who are always on the "other side of the fence"...wheres wobble by the way?<span id='postcolor'>

He left in a huff one day.

Popped up once about a month ago...haven't seen him since...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 15 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I meant terrorist ties. Can you post that link again please?<span id='postcolor'>

Absolutely, if I can find it. Wish me luck

[Pete 1]

speaking about terrorism....

i read that us sent special CIA agents to iraq, they are called "shadow warriors" of something like that...its not that i do believe all thats written in the newspapers but, heres a thought...

in the article it said that these special men were already preparing an invasion by blowing up important places or preparing to do so.

since the war is still "undeclared"...wouldnt these men be in this case be classified as terrorists?

perhaps someone knows more about this?

not that i say that any of that is actually true, but its much more likely to be true than that iraq has nuclear weapons or is developing them, perhaps about the same much true as iraq having chem/bio weapons on ships that are sailing around the planet (power said so...), it might be or it might not.

(hrmmm...cant avoid to be largely antiamerican...aargh!!

[Guest]

Iraq is getting illegaly bombed every day by US & UK planes, so special forces on the ground wouldn't be so much more radical.

For the last weeks US & UK planes have flown 700 missions each day over Iraq. For comparison at the height of the bombing of Yugoslavia 600 missions/day were flown.

[Guest]

Ooops.

I was tempted to put it in the "Military Stupidity thread" but CIA is not a military organization

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Pete- theres a voice (well not exactly) i have missed hearing for a long time.

A reasonable Scandinavian guy who can see both sides of an argument (some of the time)

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

Due to some misunderstandings

i would like to state that i do not regard myself as pro-war

or a war advocate. But nor admittedly do i hold overwhelmingly anti-war views.

I can see possible positive outcomes to going to war and to not going to war, and negative outcomes for both.

Nor am i some blind supporter of america.

There are plenty of aspects to US foreign policy i find highly questionable. But the same goes for the EU. Just because the US does one thing it does not mean doing the 'other' is always sound foreign policy. Unquestioning support of Israel (on issues such as settlers and unreasonable use of force)

by america is a mistake but so is unquestioning support of the Palestinian Authority by the EU (even where evidence of corruption and terrorist funding may exist).

I do not regard the EU as some platform of righteousness from which to criticise america.

I have said previously that in the present conditions i am ideally not in favour of a war, but

I am not necessarily greatly opposed to a short war toppling Saddam Hussein, totally halting his proscribed weapons program and replacing him with something the Iraqi people find more acceptable. It depends a lot on the outcome in Iraq , the way the war is conducted ,whether it sets a long term precedent for US policy+ many other factors. Motives in this situation have importance to me but they are not the be-all and end-all.

I do not feel it is as simple for me as 'for' or 'against' war. The fact that i have friends in the British army (and US marines) complicates things further. I would rather they were not in harms way at all but if they are deployed i would like them to know that they have my support if noone elses.

I do think countries should pay attention to international law, but im not doing. Im only interested in whats actually likely to happen. Not particularly French. I suppose im just a dumb practical anglo-saxon.Ah well, ill live.

It (war in Iraq) may cause some international instability but global politics is not in fact the politics of the playground, countries will not start invading each other en masse as soon as the war is over. There are only a few countries capable of projecting power globally in the form of expeditionary forces and most countries either do not want war with their close neighbours or are already in a de facto war.

The only thing an invasion of Iraq against most UN wishes would indicate is that the UN is not a very valid means of ensuring international stability, but it hasnt been since the cold war. It works (after a fashion) in some cases, not in others.

Ill maybe add some more here in the morning.

(uk time )

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It (war in Iraq) may cause some international instability but global politics is not in fact the politics of the playground, countries will not start invading each other en masse as soon as the war is over. <span id='postcolor'>

By justifying preemptive strikes like the US is doing right now or intensively trying to, you open doors for any mumbo jumbo country to invade it´s neighbours for the same reasons. You don´t have to obey to UN. You don´t have to collect prove. You only claim some terrorist stories and go for preemptive.

A bad but valuable example for a lot of countries searching for a reason to fight their neighbours. I won´t comment the destabilization of the ME anymore. I guess everyone with a little knowledge and brains knows what will happen or is likely to happen in ME after and during GW2.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ooops.

I was tempted to put it in the "Military Stupidity thread" but CIA is not a military organization<span id='postcolor'>

You know how it works right now ?

The TBA is panically searching for reasons to go to war.

As a matter of fact the CIA is paid by it´s government and collects info for them. If the CIa reports there are rumours of WMD´s , production places and such they report it to their administration. The administration needs evidence badly to convince their own public to go to war. So the administration tells the CIA to adjust their reports to make them fit the TBA line. Unfortunally the whole thing has taken to long for the TBA and now things get uncovered one by one. Beginning with the hidden fascilities reported to inspectors, the false reports made by CIA and the British student report hijacked by Secret service and MI5 . There is a german word for that things "Lügen haben kurze Beine" wich mean any lie will be uncovered, no matter when. I think it´s kind of worrying that the main purpose of this was to betray the US public first. Do you trust a government that sets up a scenario of lies to it´s own people ?

[FSPilot 0]

Iraq's links to Al-Queda?

Granted, it's a very biased source, but his sources aren't biased.

Aviation Week & Space Technology

PBS

Guardian Unlimited

[SirLoins 0]

FS, don't apologize for your source to these guys. It is as valid as anything they can muster up.

Granted, they will still disregard the truth yet again. What's new?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Mar. 15 2003,05:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FS, don't apologize for your source to these guys.  It is as valid as anything they can muster up.

Granted, they will still disregard the truth yet again.  What's new?<span id='postcolor'>

Come on man, it's Rush Limbaugh. This guy criticizes Bush for not being conservative enough lol

[HellToupee 0]

lol i dont think we are the ones ignoreing the truth, if there were truthful reasons hell people would support the war, but since their isnt the majority is against it.

[SirLoins 0]

Just because Rush Limbaugh has a link to information regarding something that supports the argument for war with Iraq, you all think its invalid?

Get real.

Also, don't let the peace rallies fool you on just how much support for taking out Saddam there actually is.

Why don't you peaceniks just admit that there is no amount of evidence that will change your minds.  At least be honest with yourselves.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just because Rush Limbaugh has a link to information regarding something that supports the argument for war with Iraq, you all think its invalid?

<span id='postcolor'>

That's not the point. The point is that true or untrue, thr source is indeed biased, and FS did well to point it out ahead of time.