Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

Rush Limbaugh (we all know he's unbiased, right? biggrin.gif) doesn't even think the French should have veto power. If I understand it correctly, they got a lot of power because of their involvement in world war 2 and it had just remained unchanged all this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 18 2003,05:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think its more of a desire for compromise with the Turkey situation. NATO, like the UN, is split as well. Especially since there is no attack that needs to be defended against.<span id='postcolor'>

Bah, CNN. They somehow always miss the essentials.

The compromise was suggested by France! And it had to seruously negotiate with the Germans to get them to accept the agreement.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it also shows that France is starting to find itself diplomatically isolated.<span id='postcolor'>

Au contraire. France has much more backing then USA has. (11 of 15 security council members are for the Franco/German/Russian plan). The EU yesterday adopted basically the French line.  This includes Blair's government.

This includes Italy, Denmark and Holland too. The EU came to agreement on a unified policy:

[*]More time for the inspectors.

[*]More inspectors.

[*]UN approval of attack if inspectors conclude that they can't work in Iraq.

There has been a spledid development the latest few days. While Blair's position is not quite clear yet since he has been making promises on both sides, it's looking like he is leaning towards a UN enforced solution.

That would leave Bush standing all alone left with the choice of breaking the US budget by going in alone or trying to explain to the US public why Saddam suddenly isn't such an immidiate threat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come.

-Carl Sandburg

<span id='postcolor'>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair wanted to have the "time is running out on saddam hussein" Bush sentence in the EU paper, but had no chance biggrin.gif

Anyway I see EU heading back to course now. The future countries that want to join EU have got a slap for their letter to assist US. I think they are smart enough to know what they will benefit most of in the future:

1. A partnership of war with the US (financial aids and trade included)

2. A partnership with EU countries on a peaceful base and with money aswell. Trade from poland to US is not very common, but trade from poland to EU countries is.

I think they know their partners.

I see a little change in policies at the moment. Governments seem to react to the large peace protests over the world. It has an effect. They realize that at last the people decide if they will go to a war or not. Good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 18 2003,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blair wanted to have the "time is running out on saddam hussein" Bush sentence in the EU paper, but had no chance  biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Ah! The marvels of today's open-minded democratic press! wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

First post here, just a reaction to Blair's speech. I was a little bit afraid of the perception we have of non-Western countries. And by the perception of our own importance and self-esteem.

There is a mix between Irak and Al-Qaeda, Milosevic and Talibans, where it seems that as long as it is not understandable ( "things that seem alien to us"), we shall, sadly, strike.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is a regime that contravenes every single principle or value anyone of our politics believes in. <span id='postcolor'>

So we shall strike? I agree this is the case w/ Saddam, but think about this sentence only, talking about any country, and said by some futur minister/president of one of our country. Why should we have the right to judge another country politics which do not follow our values? Where are the rules, the limits? This is a very dangerous way of thinking.

This was for a general comment.

Specifically on the subject :

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored. If we do not confront these twin menaces of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, they will not disappear. They will just feed and grow on our weakness.

When people say if you act, you will provoke these people; when they say now: take a lower profile and these people will leave us alone, remember: al Qaeda attacked the U.S., not the other way round. Were the people of Bali in the forefront of the antiterror campaign? Did Indonesia "make itself a target"? The terrorists won't be nice to us if we're nice to them. When Saddam drew us into the Gulf War, he wasn't provoked. He invaded Kuwait.<span id='postcolor'>

Once more, Irak and Al Qaeda are not just "the others". They are different and poses different threats. They do NOT like each others, and are not part of the same ennemy. Saddam is not a terrorist, he is a bloody tyran. Bin Laden is not a bloody tyran, is is a terrorist.

Today Saddam is alone, and do not represent a center of "interrest" for terrorist rebellion. Bin Laden is such a center, he use every single bit of anti-west feeling to turn pple into terrorist and west-haters (guys who where having some griefs against west for whatever reason, griefs which are used by Al-Qaeda).

Coming to Iraq to make war with so few reasons we have will make every1 in the area react strongly against it. This will raise the anti-west feelings, thus growing terrorists numbers. This is exchanging a local and known threat for a global, unknown one, against which we currently have no weapon at all.

The main problem is how to remove Saddam without permitting Al-Qaeda and the like to grow up on this.

In '91, Saddam did make the mistake, HE showed himself as the bad guy, and we had the opportunity. We did not use it (for what reason, I don't know). Trying to use the terrorist excuse to repair this mistake is I think not the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post whisper.

You make a good point, which I thoroughly agree with. Too many people (and most importantly people in power) seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between Al Queda, Iraq etc. Just content to paint them all as "the bad guys". What the hell does attacking Iraq have to do with S11 or the Bali bombing? Someone needs to remind him that there are no proven links between Saddam and Al Queda.

How long before every country with different religious or political beliefs gets lumped in with these anonymous villains we are being fed by Bush, Blair and co.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the discussion in this thread has so far been centered on whether the US has the right to invade Iraq or not (which is amusing from the debating standpoint but ultimately irrelevant  since the they're going to do it anyway wink.gif ).

The fact that the US will be able to pull off the invasion militarily is usually taken for granted, which is not necessarily true. At least the results of Millennium Challenge 2002, a huge $250 million Joint Forces Command exercise designed to simulate a conflict with a large Middle-Eastern nation (read Iraq) that took place last summer, are ambiguous to say the least. In short the OPFOR, commanded by by retired USMC LtGen Van Riper inflicted severe losses (1 CV and 2 LHDs among the large navy units) on the Blue side by using unorthodox tactics , before the umpires decided to "refloat" [!] the lost vessels since their sinking wasn't in the exercise script. The rest of the excercise could hardly be called objective either, since Van Riper's orders were countermanded and the downright cheating continued. Of course when the exercise was concluded, the desired goal i.e. the Blue victory was achieved. If I'd be in the US army/navy on the way to Iraq, I'd be a little worried. smile.gif

Here's more info on MC2002, if you're interested

Guardian article

Washington Post article

copy of the Army Times article

JFCOM page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 18 2003,09:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hope you have all seen this:

The Cost of 'Stop the War', by Tony Blair.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you feel that inspections should be allowed to continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Feb. 18 2003,04:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The future countries that want to join EU have got a slap for their letter to assist US. I think they are smart enough to know what they will benefit most of in the future:

1. A partnership of war with the US (financial aids and trade included)

2. A partnership with EU countries on a peaceful base and with money aswell. Trade from poland to US is not very common, but trade from poland to EU countries is.

I think they know their partners.<span id='postcolor'>

I hope you are right, but as far as I can read Polish views for instance, a lot of Polish people think of the U.S. as some sort of eutopia. I don't want to go into this misconception too deep, but it has to do with immigrants not giving very useful feedback back to Poland.

If any members on the forum are currently in Poland, let us know what the Polish public feels about this Iraq/US situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people seem to be confused as to the mission of the inspectors. Iraq is supposed to reveal all their weapons to them voluntarily. It is not the job of the inspectors to "hunt" for weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 18 2003,15:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some people seem to be confused as to the mission of the inspectors.  Iraq is supposed to reveal all their weapons to them voluntarily.  It is not the job of the inspectors to "hunt" for weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Problem is that Saddam claims that he has none, so he can't reveal anything... crazy.gif

So we HAVE to hunt for them as we are persuaded that they do exist.

This is a situation without solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 18 2003,15:o8)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some people seem to be confused as to the mission of the inspectors.  Iraq is supposed to reveal all their weapons to them voluntarily.  It is not the job of the inspectors to "hunt" for weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree that hunting of prohibited weapons is not the inspectors' only job.

Under UN Resolution 1441, Iraq is supposed to do a great number of things.  Thing number 5 is to allow access to UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors anywhere they may wish to inspect (or hunt) for evidence of WMDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I hate to gloat but hehe:

Turkey puts brake on US deployment

I can just imagine the frustration of the US military command, trying to form an invasion plan while all the basic conditions change from day to day.

I'm telling you, things are starting to look much better smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 18 2003,15:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to gloat... <span id='postcolor'>

I soooooooooooooooo don't believe you. tounge.gif

Perhaps the US should have accepted Turkey's secret bid to join NAFTA. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Blair held his montly press conference today. Main points:

Britain will only go to war if:

[*] Weapons inspectors say that their work can't be completed

[*] Second resolution, authorizing war is passed

Time is running out, not for Saddam, but for the Bush regime. After March the weather in Iraq will be unfavourable for an invasion. I'm also pretty certain that Saddam is smart enough not to give the UN a reason to approve an attack.

It looks like Gerogie boy is becoming more lonely by the day. If he goes through with it alone it could possibly break the US economy - it's bloody expensive to go to war. Also there is a strong public opinion, even in the US, against going in alone. If Britain does not participate there will be even more opposition.

On the other hand if Bush plays ball and accepts that there won't be any invasion any time soon then he has a shitload of political problems too. He'll have to explain to the American people why Saddam was this evil threat that had to be stopped immediately yesteday, and not today. He'll have to explain all the money invested in logistics and troop movements that didn't lead to anything.

It seems to me that mr. Blair's Iraq position is decisive in the question if Bush will get re-elected - regardless if there is going to be a war or not. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Feb. 18 2003,16:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7218.asp

letter from Iraqi exile to British PM Blair<span id='postcolor'>

You discard the credibility of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist (see massacre thread), but you have no doubts about the words of a so-called Iraqi in exile?  Do you know anything at all about the person who wrote the letter?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So here I am, 19 years later, never having set foot in the country of my parents.<span id='postcolor'>

The letter was written by a 19 year old born outside of Iraq to Iraqi parents who fled 23 years ago.  That's right, the author is not even Iraqi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 18 2003,16:46)</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">So here I am, 19 years later, never having set foot in the country of my parents.<span id='postcolor'>

The letter was written by a 19 year old born outside of Iraq to Iraqi parents who fled 23 years ago.  That's right, the author is not even Iraqi.<span id='postcolor'>

Is a palestinian born in exile still a palestinian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public pressure seems to work now.

I like the growing opposition. This can´t go unheard.

I don´t want to know the current spin-speed of Bush and Rumsfeld biggrin.gif

Even german independant authorities now claimed that the risk of smallpox in posession of terrorist goes to 0.

Iraq has experimented with camel smallpox 12 years ago but never reached the human phase and were not able to produce it at all.

Time is running out on G.W. Bush tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 18 2003,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Time is running out, not for Saddam, but for the Bush regime. After March the weather in Iraq will be unfavourable for an invasion. I'm also pretty certain that Saddam is smart enough not to give the UN a reason to approve an attack.<span id='postcolor'>

This is where the genius of Bush may kick in, attack anyway in bad weather. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×