The Iraq Thread

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 09 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the french / german initiative is very good.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that the peace-keeping solution is unrealistic for the following reasons:

1) USA will not wait with it's war. It is getting warmer by the minute in Iraq and if they want to do it this year then they have to do it pretty soon.

2) Iraq would most likely not agree.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Feb. 09 2003,18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to sound pessimistic, how do you factor oxygen into that solution?<span id='postcolor'>

We won't trust the oxygen, either!

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the peace-keeping solution is unrealistic for the following reasons:

1) USA will not wait with it's war. It is getting warmer by the minute in Iraq and if they want to do it this year then they have to do it pretty soon.

2) Iraq would most likely not agree.

<span id='postcolor'>

I agree that it is unrealistic that it will happen IF US breaks UN contracts and international law. Annan reminded them of the papers they have signed. Bush seems to be weak when it comes to contracts he did not sign on his own. They don´t exist for him.

Iraq has no options to say yes or no to the troop deployment. It is the logical consequence of UN treaty. They are not in the position to not-allow UN blue helmets to go in. I think Saddam will prefer UN soldiers to US soldiers. What do you think ?

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 09 2003,16:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A Swedish newspaper, Dagens Nyheter made an opinion poll with the question:

"Would you consider fighting for Saddam against the USA alliance".

A disturbing 13% said yes. Over 5000 people participated in the poll so it is statistically significant.

In the same article where the poll was presented they said that tens of thousands Russians have applied for Iraqi visa to fight on Saddams side.

You can imagine how pissed off people must be when they take such an absurd position. These are not some extreme pacifist, but regular people.<span id='postcolor'>

Regular people? Oh please...

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 09 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I oppose the US war plans. No secret. First thing if a UN mission in Iraq is planned is me volunteering for it. This is what I think peacekeeping should look like. Not bombs for freedom, but controlled guidance into freedom.

That´s what the german troops do in Afghanistan where a civil war is uprising at the moment. That is what german troops do in former Jugoslavia. That´s what german troops do in Cambodia, Kuwait, Turkey and other countries that need help and assistance.<span id='postcolor'>

I think you're being overly optimistic. You really think Saddam would allow 'controlled guidance to freedom'

Disregarding that, making inspections more efficient to avoid war is definately a good idea.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 09 2003,18:o7)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the peace-keeping solution is unrealistic for the following reasons:

1) USA will not wait with it's war. It is getting warmer by the minute in Iraq and if they want to do it this year then they have to do it pretty soon.<span id='postcolor'>

The French will not hesitate to veto a second US resolution if this new initiative is not given an opportunity to develop by the US.  The Russians and Chinese may also decide to side with the French if the US rushes things.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 09 2003,18:o7)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Iraq would most likely not agree.<span id='postcolor'>

If Saddam Hussein becomes the sole obstacle to this initiative then it will be much easier for the international community to side with the US/UK - unlike now.  Iraq will probably realise this and agree, if only to see Bush/Blair fall to their political doom for being left out in the cold.

On a side note, Iraq is has always been one of the region's top cement producers. Just imagine how many cool bunkers a sweating invasion force will have to go through. I suspect that most infantry action will take place after dark.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 09 2003,18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that it is unrealistic that it will happen IF US breaks UN contracts and international law. Annan reminded them of the papers they have signed. Bush seems to be weak when it comes to contracts he did not sign on his own. They don´t exist for him.<span id='postcolor'>

There is an economic, political and military reality behind it. USA has over 100000 soldiers in the Gulf. The logistics of that is very expensive. The political reality is that if there is no war, Bush will lose the elections. He has advocated a war on Iraq too much to back off now with any credibility intact. The military reality is that they have to go within a month - at latest mid-March. And this is if one has a very optimistic view on the progress of the war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq has no options to say yes or no to the troop deployment. It is the logical consequence of UN treaty. They are not in the position to not-allow UN blue helmets to go in. I think Saddam will prefer UN soldiers to US soldiers. What do you think ?<span id='postcolor'>

Iraq will say yes if they are certain that USA will invade. Otherwise I think that they will stall it as long as possible. It's possible that they wouldn't accept it at all, seeing it as another form of invasion.

There is also the point of that the UN isn't capable of mounting anything like this any time soon. If they start planning now, we'll be lucky if we have peace keepers in the beginning of the next year.

Bush & Powell have made it very clear that USA is not going to wait for months but max "days or weeks".

The German & French proposal is more about showing Bush in his real light, removing any of his arguments and justification. They present an non violent solution and he rejects it. Europe's conscience is clear then and Bush is the bad guy.

It's a politcal move, nothing more.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 09 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The French will not hesitate to veto a second US resolution if this new initiative is not given an opportunity to develop by the US.  The Russians and Chinese may also decide to side with the French if the US rushes things.<span id='postcolor'>

USA has made it very clear they will go with or without UN support. This is their policy for this situation and they have said it publicly a number of times now. It doesn't make any difference what France, Russia or the Chinese do and what they veto.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 09 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 09 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The French will not hesitate to veto a second US resolution if this new initiative is not given an opportunity to develop by the US.  The Russians and Chinese may also decide to side with the French if the US rushes things.<span id='postcolor'>

USA has made it very clear they will go with or without UN support. This is their policy for this situation and they have said it publicly a number of times now. It doesn't make any difference what France, Russia or the Chinese do and what they veto.<span id='postcolor'>

it will make of the USA a terrorist state (or whatever you may call it)

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, that would probably change things quite a bit for USA. I'm not sure they would be able to handle this without British support.

Do you know when the proposal will be presented to Parliament? <span id='postcolor'>

He mentioned this on an interview about the Iraq crisis, but I don't know when the proposal will be submitted to Parliment. Just before hostilities I imagine.

To be fair, he did pretty well in the interview. Not only was Paxman (The toughest interviewer in the UK) hostingit, they also had 12 members of the public in as well to throw questions at him (Non scripted and angry questions!. He did pretty well! Certainly rebuilt some of my faith in him.

Has Bush done anything like this? It might help his cause if he does. Or make people die from laughter, either way!

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 09 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 09 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The French will not hesitate to veto a second US resolution if this new initiative is not given an opportunity to develop by the US.  The Russians and Chinese may also decide to side with the French if the US rushes things.<span id='postcolor'>

USA has made it very clear they will go with or without UN support. This is their policy for this situation and they have said it publicly a number of times now. It doesn't make any difference what France, Russia or the Chinese do and what they veto.<span id='postcolor'>

True, but now the consequences of unilateral aggression are far greater.

It was reasonable to speculate ~24 hours ago that the French would not have wasted a veto on this issue.  Most likely they would have abstained.  Furthermore, I doubt that a majority of SC member would be in favour of aggression, anyway.

This new initiative changes things.  A French veto still won't prevent unilateral aggression, however suddenly it will be as if the US is attacking the French/German plan as well as Iraq.  And that is significant.  There was a very good reason that the French and Germans kept it secret.  I'd be surprised if the Iraqis weren't already consulted.  If they are on board then a deployment could probably happen very quickly.

And if the US still proceeds with an invasion then they will be seen more than ever as an international pariah, especially if the UK gets cold feet.  I suspect there are few Republican congressmen and senators unwilling to let that happen.

I expect Sam Samson to show up any minute now.

[Othin 0]

I think the France/Germany proposition is worth slightly less then the paper it would be printed on.

One of the favorite arguments of the anti-US/UK crowd is how much our sanctions have hurt Iraq.

-Under the France/German proposition sanctions would be tightened

The no-fly zones are constantly berated by the same people as being invasive and holding back economic redevelopment.

-Under the proposition the no fly zone would be extended to cover all of Iraq.

So where will the manpower for this come from? If Iraq won't let a U2 fly over the central part of the country, why would they let warplanes?

What if the worst comes to pass and Iraq decides to forcibly eject the UN monitors? Will the UN get into a shooting war with Iraq? No slight on the UN peacekeepers, but it would be a slaughter. There would be far to few troops spread over to large an area.

I think it's obvious that this is a last ditch effort by the governments of France and Germany to prove that they still hold relevence in world politics. Moreso after political (which I realize is completely different then public) opinion in Europe has increasingly shifted towards a pro US/UK standpoint.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 09 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Moreso after political (which I realize is completely different then public) opinion in Europe has increasingly shifted towards a pro US/UK standpoint.<span id='postcolor'>

On the contrary, it has shifted very much against. Countries that havn't said anything before (like Sweden or Belgium) are now very much against the US ambitions.

There are some countries that are pro US-cause (at least the political leadership) but that's a very small minority.

[maddogx 13]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's obvious that this is a last ditch effort by the governments of France and Germany to prove that they still hold relevence in world  politics.<span id='postcolor'>

You think the governments of France and Germany consist of 5-year olds? Their reasons surely can't be THAT immature!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am confused!

Lets focus on the term: United states of America. Considering the cultural compatibility of the US and europe and considering the amount of equal economical interests Americans should understand that the ideological idea behind "United States" is simillar to those of the "United Nations".

Just imagine that instead of United States of America we would live in a "united states of western nations". Then you could no longer staple us as "the germans with their perception" and "the french with their attitude" but you would have to consider us as people with equal rights to yours.

Consequently a demonstration should not be seen as a rage against the americans but simply citizens expressing their opinion in a great big State. (I guess noone understands what I try to say). So Dont try to marginalise as a outsiders but consider us a group of you state that defend a certain opinion. By the logic of democracy you are obliged to take 85 million german votes seriously.

My preposition here would be that we switch positions. Those of us that are against the war should try to defend it, and those that are for the war should try to find arguments that speak against a war. This is a strategy that "Board of Directors" take whenever they are stuck. (I guess you consider my idea to be silly, so it was just a preposition)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MadDogX @ Feb. 09 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's obvious that this is a last ditch effort by the governments of France and Germany to prove that they still hold relevence in world  politics.<span id='postcolor'>

You think the governments of France and Germany consist of 5-year olds? Their reasons surely can't be THAT immature!<span id='postcolor'>

You would be amazed how closely junior-high politics resemble world relations sometimes

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Fine, maybe some americans can help to stamp me!

What am I?

Am I geman because I was born there?

Or am I Irish because I went to school there?

Maybe I am french because I worked there?

Or maybe I am spanish cause I went there for a semestre?

Maybe even swiss cause I studied there for 5 years?

Or maybe even Maltese (no please not these Machos) because I work there right now?

Oh, I worked in thailand as well?

So all I know is that I lived in western nations and I got an opinion. Do you now consider me as a "ah these wannabe pacifist germans" or "oh these frenchies" or maybe even "damn Irish prolitarians". Help me!

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 09 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> One of the favorite arguments of the anti-US/UK crowd is how much our sanctions have hurt Iraq.

-Under the France/German proposition sanctions would be tightened<span id='postcolor'>

Tightening that would curb smuggling would be welcomed by all, especially if a peacekeeper presence helps food and medicine get to the real needy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 09 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The no-fly zones are constantly berated by the same people as being invasive and holding back economic redevelopment.

-Under the proposition the no fly zone would be extended to cover all of Iraq.

So where will the manpower for this come from?  If Iraq won't let a U2 fly over the central part of the country, why would they let warplanes?<span id='postcolor'>

I hope you realise that placing all of Iraqi airspace under UN control with Iraqi approval is very different than having 2 no-fly zones that everyone opposes, except the US and UK.  So far, the Iraqis have merely not been able to guarantee the safety of U2s if they fly while the US/UK fighters are prowling.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 09 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What if the worst comes to pass and Iraq decides to forcibly eject the UN monitors?  Will the UN get into a shooting war with Iraq?  No slight on the UN peacekeepers, but it would be a slaughter.  There would be far to few troops spread over to large an area.<span id='postcolor'>

Umm... when have UN peacekeepers ever fought against their host to stay in a region?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Feb. 09 2003,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it's obvious that this is a last ditch effort by the governments of France and Germany to prove that they still hold relevence in world  politics.<span id='postcolor'>

Just because it was revealed in the last minute doesn't mean it was formulated in the last minute.

[Guest]

You can see the Blair interview that Badgerboy talked about here. It's worth watching.

I don't agree with much of what Blair said and I think there are serious flaws in his logic. I have however gained some respect for him for doing such an interview since the questions thrown at him were pretty direct and brutal. It would be interesting to see Bush in a similar interview, but hell will freeze over before that happens.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Have you heard about the new european peace plan for Iraq? It was proposed by european leaders and if Russia particiaptes then it will even be considered by the UN.

The idea is to station "Blue Helmets" in Iraq and triple the amount of UN-inspectors. Entire Iraq will become a "no fly zone" and Mirage planes will observe the entire country 24hours. Sounds good to me!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh and by the way Solana said about the comments against Germany:

Wir sollten den polemischen Kommentaren, die von der anderen Seite des Atlantiks kommen, keine größere Beachtung schenken

(We shouldnt pay any attention to the polemic comments that come from the other side of the atlantic.)

[FSPilot 0]

I'm starting to lose my support for this war, especially since politics are getting involved (more). I shouldn't say politics, but if Bush's next term is riding on this war and that's why he's rushing it then he definately won't be getting my vote. I support this war to disarm a threat, and only if we have international support. Not to keep Bush in office if we don't have any international support.

I guess I'll be voting for a 3rd party candidate, I won't be voting for a democrat any time soon, they're worse than Bush.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Feb. 09 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have you heard about the new european peace plan for Iraq? It was proposed by european leaders and if Russia particiaptes then it will even be considered by the UN.

The idea is to station "Blue Helmets" in Iraq and triple the amount of UN-inspectors. Entire Iraq will become a "no fly zone" and Mirage planes will observe the entire country 24hours. Sounds good to me!<span id='postcolor'>

That also sounds good to me.We should do that and see what happens in a year.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

hell.......newsflash..... unfortunately I cant translate that but Rumsfeld and Powell are getting agressive...

The article sais something like "if germany and france dont change their opinion within 24 hours they will dissapear into irrelevance" and Rumsfeld even accused germany of "disgraceful behaviour"

Der Spiegel (German) Rumseld about germany

The new german french peaceplan

[Guest]

The Pope sends special envoy to Saddam to support peace. Does that mean that now the Catholic church is connected to Al Quida? I mean the the Pope is since long a proven Iraqi sympathizer