The Iraq Thread

Tex -USMC- · February 28, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, Tex I didn't know you were such a fan of revisionist history. The Germans didn't lose the war because of the American joining - as a matter of fact, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. <span id='postcolor'>

Here we go. Now, did I ever say that the Germans lost because of American troops? Nope. I did however say that the Ludendorf offensives which potentially could have won the war for Germany were stopped in large part due to American troops. An ounce of reading comprehension prevents a pound of me having to re-explain my posts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The German side of the western front had already frozen and was on the verge collapse when US troops entered the conflict.

Not any more close to collapse than the Allies were, plus Germany was able to bring in troops from the Eastern front giving them the advantage- not necessarily in numbers, but certainly an advantage in troop quality.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. the Russians forced the Germans to fight a war on two fronts, east and west, until the beginning of 1918;

And when Russia collapsed (although the armistic was signed in Dec. 1917, not much more than token resistance had been given since the start of the Bolshevik Revolution), Germany was able to bring its full infantry force to bear in the offensives of May-June 1918. Those offensives were bled dry, in large part to the timely intervention of American troops on the Marne River Line preventing a collapse of the remaining Entente Powers. To call this revisionist history is ridiculous and childish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. the French stopped the German advance on Paris in 1914, and refused to be defeated at Verdun in 1916;

The First Marne and Verdun merely had the effect of bleeding the two armies involved dry- neither was decisive. The First World War was all about attrition. The Allies lost alot, the Germans lost alot. repeat process for several years. However, suddenly, Germany is able to bring to bear a large number of fresh shock troops that neither Britain nor France can effectively deal with. However, the newly arrived Americans are able to hold the line at the key juncture to prevent the collapse of the status quo in Germany's favor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. the British inflicted the first major defeat on the Germans at the Somme in 1916; <span id='postcolor'>

Who's dealing in revisionist history now? The Somme a British victory? At the most, Allied gains were 12 kilometers. TWELVE. At what cost? 420,000 British casualties (58,000 of those on one day), and nearly 200,000 French casualties.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. improvements in Allied artillery technology and tactics by the beginning of 1918 made trench warfare obsolete, and this gave the Allies a huge advantage over the outnumbered Germans

Finally, you are correct. However, this was not decisive in and of itself. To follow up on the advantage this technology supplied, the Allies needed fresh troops who wouldn't mutiny at the mention of an offensive. Enter the doughboys. Americans provided those fresh troops, and were the reason the Allies gained their second wind, while the Germans sputtered out.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5. the Allied blockade of Germany forced the Germans to endure terrible shortages throughout the war, and by the end of October 1918 the German people were ready for revolution; their army had been fighting a defensive war for the past two years, and it was obvious that the Allies were going to win sooner rather than later.

But a success in mid 1918 could have changed all that. Capture Paris, negotiate a favorable peace, end the war in a way that favored the Germans. But American actions against the Ludendorf offensives were decisive in maintaining the status quo that allowed the Allies to ultimately win.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is probably the most stupid thing I have heard from you. A bit simplistic?? Â

Hey, I'm learning from the master. Your lack of understanding of the overall situation circa 1918 is something I can only aspire to.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sorry if it hurts your national pride, but take some history lessons. America's contribution to WW1 was just symbolic. And you don't need to make any special interpretations. Look at the facts. Even if we take your 100,000 figure, that's just a drop in the ocean. Take the third battle of Ypres (passchendaele) for instance. It was after the Americans joined in. That battle cost over 325,000 British soldiers. That's one of many battles, and you are whining over your 100,000? Â

As much as I hate to say it, many of the soldiers that died during the battles of 1915-1917 died absolutely meaningless deaths. They fought and bled for yards of ground that would not decide the war. So, simply because a country lost more men due to command stupidity and obsolete tactics does not mean they helped win. When you get to that point, you look at a situation like Russia or Austria-Hungary: both lost millions of men, but since they weren't ahead when time ran out, they had nothing to show for it. It is tragic, but it's the truth. Americans had the good fortune of being put in the right place at the right time to help seal the end of the war. Did we do it alone? No. Did other countries shed more blood than us? Yes. But fighting a war is not simply a contest of which country can slit its wrists more often, or who can make a larger cut in his own throat. Rather, it is more about who is willing to take the necessary losses to achieve a real victory, and who has the wisdom to recognize a situation when human life is merely being thrown away like so much garbage. Simply because other countries were more adept at slaughtering their own youths does not diminish America's role in stopping the German's final push, or America's own little stake in the attrition war at Meuse-Argonne. To say that this role is insignificant or merely symbolic is simply untrue.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The war was lost on the German part in march 1917 when they ran back to the Hindenburg line. After that it was only a question of time before Germany would lose. It was the beginning of the end.

Hardly. If anything, that withdrawal kept the German war effort going for months. Consolidation during a war of attrition is not only smart, but necessary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While I have the highest respect for the US soldiers that did fight in WW1, claiming that they made any strategical difference is just bollocks.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on, stop hedging. If you say that the American war effort was insignificant, you are automatically paying your disrespect to all the Americans that died for a European cause. You simply cannot say two mutually exclusive things and hope for anyone to believe you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's like claiming that the American Revolutionary War would have been lost without Sweden's help. We sent a couple of hundred of officers and soldiers in 1781 - an whopisdoo! The war started going well for the Americans!<span id='postcolor'>

There were Swedes involved in the Revolutionary War? Well, I suppose you learn something new every day. Too bad this was about the only truly edifying thing in your entire post.

2024-04-27T12:59:05Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 14 2003,08:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey, I'm learning from the master. Your lack of understanding of the overall situation circa 1918 is something I can only aspire to.<span id='postcolor'>

Ouch. I'm getting dissed by an American high school kid. I'm truly sorry for your obvious lack of quality education, but don't blame me for that. And please don't presume that you can teach me European military history.

Now as for the rest of this discussion, I'm going to post it in a new thread where we can continue the discussion. Your twisting of the facts is too amusing to let by uncommented.

Tex -USMC- · February 28, 2002

I'm so glad that we can continue this friendly discussion

The Ferret · January 16, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 13 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 13 2003,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">America strongly resisted entrance into WW1. Europe called repeatedly on our participation. American leadership used the rather thin excuse of the death of 124 American's aboard the Lusitania, to push for War. By wars end the American Expeditionary Force was at 2 million men on the ground in Europe. Would it be unfair to say that US entrance was the turning point in the War?<span id='postcolor'>Yes it would be extremely unfair. Americas participation in WW1 was minimal and irrelevant. You say that you sent 2 million men? Try 30,000 men for the first few months - later when the situation setteled down, you sent more. This in a war where individual battles could kill over 300,000 men. The total number of casualties of ww1 were in the range of 20 million. There were about 53,000 American casualties most that occured in the single larger battle that you were involved in (Meuse-Argonne).

So America's role in WW1 was truly irrelevant - the Aussies for instance did much more. It's a grave distortion of history saying that you saved France's butt in WW1

WW2 is a completely different story where USA was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. Without USA, Soviet would have done it, and IMO that would have been a worse option.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. Inspections: If Iraq is cooperating per the UN resolution, why is there a need to "give inspections time to work"? If they are not cooperating, why? Given the size of Iraq, can inspections work without Iraqi cooperation? If Iraqi cooperation is necessary, and they are not fully cooperating, what are we waiting on to work exactly? Why is Blix leaving reports concerning cluster bombs and drones out of the final report? Does a gun smoke before its been fired or after?<span id='postcolor'>

Is full Iraqi cooperation necessary? Not according to ElBaradei (head of IAEA). In short the inspectors say that they can complete their work and if anybody can make that judgement it's them. Blix leaving out reports? No, it was all in his report, it's just the US opinion that those things are violations of the terms of 1441, which the inspectors havn't verified yet. As for the smoking gun, they're actually just looking for the gun and havn't found it. Neither the inspectors nor the intelligence agencies of the world have mangaed to find any substantial chemical and biological weapons that Iraq hasn't declared.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2. WMD's: If the Iraqi military is issuing Chemical gear to it's soldiers, and orders to use the devices to it's field commanders, can we all just agree that yes, Saddam has them, and no he shouldn't have them. For those of you that honestly believe he does not have WMD's, can you please tell me when Saddam had the big change of heart? Tell me when you first noted the "kinder, gentler" Saddam. If you are going to tell me it's because the US may use Chemical weapons against Iraq, you need to understand that US doctrine concerning the deployment of chemical weapons is similar to that of deployment of minefields...to deny the enemy an area, not to fight through it or in it. Exactly the kind of weapon you won't deploy on an assault<span id='postcolor'>

There is no credible evidence at all that Saddam has ordered the deployment of chemical weapons. And about him having a change of heart - it's not sudden. Their interest in chemical and biological weapons phased out after the war with Iran. Most noticable is that they did not use any WMDs in GW1.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> France: I'm not going to get into the whole thing about the quality or lack of quality regarding the French military. I will say I have no appreaciation for the french character at this point. Iraq is in violation of the eaty that ended GW1. If France, and europe in general, would have applied the efforts of their protests against what Iraq has ALREADY done, and not against what America has SAID it will do, that pressure may have well been enough to have ended this already. Instead, they actually increased the likelyhood that there will be a war, and increased the amount of blood that will be shed in that event.<span id='postcolor'>

Bush is the one talking about a war. France is saying that as long as the inspectors feel that they can complete their work that we should let them. And sure, Bush's war monging has put pressure on Baghdad to cooperate with the inspectors, but it's irrelevant since Bush's mind is set on going to war no matter what.

As for the "French character" - I'm Swedish and I agree with their position 100%. Sweden was not helped by the US in any way in any military conflict. On the contrary, as a matter of fact several of my direct ancesters fought on the American side during your little insurrection against the British. So if we apply your logic, you should be kissing my ass out of gratitude, not vice versa.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok Denoir...I think your ate up. I have here in my lap "The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History" Page 1068: speaking of the American build up " Some 2 million in all served overseas" ; "American divisional organization was approximately 28,000 men...Fourty two of these divisons reached France" (Thats equals about 1.2 million) Page 1070: "During the winter of 1917-1918, Ludendorff realized that Germany's only hope of winning the war lay in a decisve victory in the west in 1918, before the weight of American man power could have a significant effect." Page 1071: "1918, March 23-August 7. Artillery Bombarment of Paris. A remarkable long-range German cannon began a sporadic bombardment of Paris from a position of 65 miles away." ( so the germans are 65 miles from Paris and shelling it.)

Page 1072: "1918, May 28. Battle of Cantigny. Meanwhile, as Pershing was rushing the 2nd and 3rd Infantry Divisions to reinforce the French, the first American offensive of the war took place at Cantigny." ( You will note here that 3 American divisions are involved...thats alot more than "30,000 for the first few months")

Battles of Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood.

Noyon-Montdidier Offensive..."By this time 25 American Divisions were in France, 7 at the front." (7x28,000=196,000)

July 15-17 1918 Second Battle of the Marne..."German Seventh Army penetration carried to the Marne...stout defense by US 3rd ID...American now arriving at a rate of 300,000 a month...STRATEGICALLY, IT WAS THE TURN OF THE TIDE; THE INITIATIVE HAD BEEN WRESTED FROM THE GERMANS."

Allied Aised Aisne-Marne Offensive "US 1st and 2nd spearheaded the Tenth Army's attack

Page 1076. October 4-31 Second Phase. "...Clemenceau, exasperated by the Americans' slow progress, tried unsuccessfully to have Perhing relieved. Foch, aware of the nature of the opposition, well knowing that the American offensive-threatening the part of the front MOST VITAL to the Germans-was drawing all available German reserves from elseware for its defense, declined to support Clemenceau."

I could go on...and on. The lines simply were not moving before the arrival of the Americans. I DO NOT in any way make light of the sacrifice of British, French, and other Allied troops. That was their war and they carried the burden, no doubt. I've never asked any one to kiss our ass. What do I ask? Some loyalty. A sense of who your friend's really are. To not be treated like the bad guy, when history has clearly shown that we haven't been.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are cooperating after a fashion. They are cooperating enough that the inspectors who are independent and unbiased feel that they can perform their job (which they didn't in 1998 if you remember).<span id='postcolor'>

I thought the resolution called for complete cooperation, not after a fashion. Does saying that Iraqi scientist don't want to talk sound like complete cooperation? Does Saddam telling his technicians to take documents home sound like complete disclosure? According to 1441 isn't Iraq supposed to declare any weapon system that can deliever WMD's. Cluster bombs and drones can do those things right...is that a fact or just an opinion? I mean either they can deliever them or they can't right? Blix has said Iraq is not cooperating "fully". The resolution calls for "fully", therefore Iraq is in violation.

I find it fasinating that Blix has no bias. Not very common in a human being. I should get a job at the UN, that way I too would suddenly be without bias or opinion. I could just simply do my job without any regard whatsoever, that what I say may lead to a war or have the power to avoid one. Must be nice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is another silly distortion of the truth. It's not France that is a danger to peace, it's USA. And this is not a speculation, just the stating of a fact.<span id='postcolor'>

You act as though peace is the means and not the end result to be obtained.

"Yep, if I just sit here and am peaceable, everyone will see that and be peaceable to me in return." Nobel and desireable: YES. Stands the test of time: NO!. It doesn't even work on a school playground.

How do we achieve peace with Islamic terrorists? It seems that the options given us are:

1. Submit to their brand of Islam, then destroy Israel.

2. Destroy Israel, then submit to their brand of Islam.

3. Die in a manner pleasing to their perception of Allah.

or

1. Fight them ...

If you choose to fight them, with that comes all the aspects of conducting battle as would against any enemy. Which includes gaining intelligence, denying them support, denying them terrain (in which to maneuver or hide), and to take their lives. Getting Iraq out of the hands of Saddam Hussein will go a long way in achieving those goals, and I dare say is not the last battlefield of this war, and thats what Iraq is: a single battlefield in a larger war. I agree, it's scary.

The peace you are promoting isn't really peace. It's doing nothing and hoping. We weren't doing much before 9/11, and it happened. So what's that do for hope?

By the way. Sweden received some 217 million from the US under the Marshall Plan. Not to belittle the valiant efforts of the Swedish Resistance, Sweden as a whole, let Nazi Germany roll through at will. I do believe that some of your boys were even blond and blue enough to serve in the Waffen SS. So it's accurate to say the US never helped you in the conflict, because Sweden was never IN conflict. Let me break it down for you. Russia + Fight Germany= military aid. Britain + Fight Germany= military aid. Sweden - Fight Germany = no military aid...wasn't needed...see?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trying to dismiss a valid political position with references to historical events is silly.

We are where we are today, precisely because of what has happened in the past.

2024-04-27T12:59:06Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 14 2003,10:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I could go on...and on. The lines simply were not moving before the arrival of the Americans. I DO NOT in any way make light of the sacrifice of British, French, and other Allied troops. That was their war and they carried the burden, no doubt. I've never asked any one to kiss our ass.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are cooperating after a fashion. They are cooperating enough that the inspectors who are independent and unbiased feel that they can perform their job (which they didn't in 1998 if you remember).<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Do it in the WW1 thread that we created. The fact is that the lines were moving in mid 1917 and that the American contribution to the second battle of marne was insignificant. But anyway, save it for the ww1 thread.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What do I ask? Some loyalty. A sense of who your friend's really are. To not be treated like the bad guy, when history has clearly shown that we haven't been.

You mean like you now loyally stand by the French peace initiative. Loyatly goes both ways.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought the resolution called for complete cooperation, not after a fashion. Does saying that Iraqi scientist don't want to talk sound like complete cooperation? Does Saddam telling his technicians to take documents home sound like complete disclosure? According to 1441 isn't Iraq supposed to declare any weapon system that can deliever WMD's. Cluster bombs and drones can do those things right...is that a fact or just an opinion? I mean either they can deliever them or they can't right? Blix has said Iraq is not cooperating "fully". The resolution calls for "fully", therefore Iraq is in violation.

Yes it does and we are getting there. War is a very serious matter and should be avioded if possible. The majority of the world and the UN inspectors currently think that they can monitor and verify Iraq's disarmament. A majority believes that there is progress and that we will disarm Saddam (or verify that he indeed does not have WMDs) without resorting to a war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find it fasinating that Blix has no bias. Not very common in a human being. I should get a job at the UN, that way I too would suddenly be without bias or opinion. I could just simply do my job without any regard whatsoever, that what I say may lead to a war or have the power to avoid one. Must be nice.<span id='postcolor'>

Everything is relative. He sure is hell more unbiased then Bush or Saddam is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You act as though peace is the means and not the end result to be obtained.

"Yep, if I just sit here and am peaceable, everyone will see that and be peaceable to me in return." Nobel and desireable: YES. Stands the test of time: NO!. It doesn't even work on a school playground.

How do we achieve peace with Islamic terrorists? It seems that the options given us are:

1. Submit to their brand of Islam, then destroy Israel.

2. Destroy Israel, then submit to their brand of Islam.

3. Die in a manner pleasing to their perception of Allah.

or

1. Fight them ...

If you choose to fight them, with that comes all the aspects of conducting battle as would against any enemy. Which includes gaining intelligence, denying them support, denying them terrain (in which to maneuver or hide), and to take their lives. Getting Iraq out of the hands of Saddam Hussein will go a long way in achieving those goals, and I dare say is not the last battlefield of this war, and thats what Iraq is: a single battlefield in a larger war. I agree, it's scary.

The peace you are promoting isn't really peace. It's doing nothing and hoping. We weren't doing much before 9/11, and it happened. So what's that do for hope?

I'm not saying that you never need violence and neither is France. As I remember they stood loyally by you when you bombed the shit out of Afganistan. This is about Iraq.

So what is the objective?

Eliminating Iraq's WMD capabilities?

Iraq is cooprating, the inspections are working, producing real results. What's the rush? If Saddam starts to stall again then go ahead, invade. But he is cooperating enough for the inspections to work.

Is it a matter of fighting terrorism?

War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence. A war on Iraq is Osama bin Ladens wet dream. The terrorists lose nothing. On the contrary they gain more followers.

Is it about recasting the political landscape of the Middle East?

In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability, not to mention that in Iraq itself the large number of communities and religions already represents a danger of a potential breakup.

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

By the way. Sweden received some 217 million from the US under the Marshall Plan.

You got me there. I checked it up and you are right, Sweden did indeed get some money under the Marshall Plan due to its proximity to the Soviet Union.

Jinef · October 4, 2002

Shouldn't it be IDS?

Ian Duncan Smith?

I know he's a conservative but he wants to privatise medicine and stuff - sounds like tory shit to me.

Blaegis · March 22, 2002

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,117)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what is the objective?

Eliminating Iraq's WMD capabilities?

Iraq is cooprating, the inspections are working, producing real results. What's the rush? If Saddam starts to stall again then go ahead, invade. But he is cooperating enough for the inspections to work.<span id='postcolor'>

The rush is that it costs a hell of a lot to keep a significant portion of your military combat power deployed overseas. According to the Congressional Budget Office estimate one month of occupation of Iraq would cost USD 1-4 billlion and one month of combat USD 9-10 billion (using the "Heavy Ground" option), so it's reasonable to assume that the cost of just keeping the forces on hold prior to invasion lies somewhere in between these two figures. Therefore the US has a direct economic incentive to invade immediately after the military readiness has been achieved.

If you also consider that the price tag for deploying/returning the troops is another USD 20 billion it's obvious that the war Â became inevitable when the deployment decision was made. Either that, or the US government was prepared to throw away dozens of billions of dollars with no discernible purpose, which I find hard to believe.

bn880 · November 7, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 14 2003,07:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,11<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what is the objective?

Eliminating Iraq's WMD capabilities?

Iraq is cooprating, the inspections are working, producing real results. What's the rush? If Saddam starts to stall again then go ahead, invade. But he is cooperating enough for the inspections to work.<span id='postcolor'>

The rush is that it costs a hell of a lot to keep a significant portion of your military combat power deployed overseas. According to the Congressional Budget Office estimate one month of occupation of Iraq would cost USD 1-4 billlion and one month of combat USD 9-10 billion (using the "Heavy Ground" option), so it's reasonable to assume that the cost of just keeping the forces on hold prior to invasion lies somewhere in between these two figures. Therefore the US has a direct economic incentive to invade immediately after the military readiness has been achieved.

If you also consider that the price tag for deploying/returning the troops is another USD 20 billion it's obvious that the war became inevitable when the deployment decision was made. Either that, or the US government was prepared to throw away dozens of billions of dollars with no discernible purpose, which I find hard to believe.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sorry but that's their problem. You can't rush into war because you deployed too early or too much. Not morally.

Okay, so maybe you agree with this...

Blaegis · March 22, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 14 2003,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm sorry but that's their problem. Â You can't rush into war because you deployed too early or too much. Â Not morally.

Okay, so maybe you agree with this... Â <span id='postcolor'>

I do. My point was that the development of the Iraq situation becomes quite clear if you look at the money involved. The money involved also goes a long way explaining why there'll be a war in the first place.

IsthatyouJohnWayne · July 21, 2001

[edit- i hate it when people get in comments before me thus making me look silly ]

Blaegis-I agree that the cost is a major factor, but you can hardly expect non americans to take that as a reasonable cause to initiate an invasion of Iraq.

Also as the report by leading republicans indicates,

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

this invasion of Iraq has been on the cards for a long time, before sept.11 certainly. Sept.11 only provided an added and unexpected impetus for an invasion.

Republican hawks have indeed been planning a 'pax americana'

targetting 'rogue states' since before the turn of the millenium

of which this invasion would probably have been the first part if it had not been for the Sept.11 attacks bringing Afghanistan into the picture.

The links between Iraq and Al Quaida are almost entirely theoretical and have been tacked on in a half hearted way

. An invasion of Iraq Â has been in planning by Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz , Jeb Bush etc. since before Al-Quaida (or 'islamic' terrorism) were a major feature of US politics.

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

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.

I would be interested to know how you would account for Blix neglecting to mention the recently discovered drone in his report? Unbiased reporter of facts? Or does he see his job as that of editing the facts so as to make each sides case look equally valid without giving total advantage to either?

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

I wont comment on all the stuff about WW1 and WW2 as it could go on forever and it belongs in another thread and is only indirectly relevant.

brgnorway -Iain Duncan Smith is now the leader of the conservative party (main party of opposition). He is probably worse than William Hague , noone even remembers his name .

I dont see a major rival to Tony Blair at this stage.

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

E6hotel-Denoir was rather vague with 'we', But i believe with the nation states thing it holds somewhat truer if you look only at present day western europe(the EU-'heart' of europe) -former east block /communist countries have only had a decade out of soviet influence. Yugoslavia as it was was never going to get into the EU-

Still its debatable whether 'europeans' have 'evolved' out of the nation state. I cant say i see it in my own country. There are still varying degrees of national pride expressed in various ways in all european countries. The EU is not a greatly loved institution here(UK), but it has promise.

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

Sam Samson-"third: europeans don't believe in the significance of the nation state"

Frances current actions are in many ways the perfect example of its belief in its national significance (alternatively described as arrogance). It is opposing the US currently through the UN because that is what suits France, i have no doubt it would oppose the US in other ways including through the EU or unilaterally if the need was felt. But of course countries tend to like to see themselves as the good guy and in a democracy that means having the broadest base of support at home-but if possible abroad as well.

France is also engaged in military actions in Cote D'ivoire for which there is no UN resolution and is and has been involved in many other places also without resolutions.

France is not the only country. Britain ,Spain and perhaps other euro countries seem or have proven willing to act unilaterally when they feel the need. (and will likely act similarly for a long time to come)

The biggest european supporters of a decrease in the importance of the nation state tend to be countries who for the past few decades or so have had relatively very little importance in international affairs anyway (even compared to the modest affects the big euro countries have had)

And hardline socialists in all countries obviously.

I think people tend to exaggerate the differences between europe and the US in this respect. Yes european countries are more willing than the US to engage themselves in multinational organisations. But then the US doesnt really need to enter such organisations at the present.

If euro countries see a need to act unilaterally and are able, then evidence suggests that they tend to do so.

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

Warin "A very learned friend of mine says that history will remember this as the time when the US began to decline as an economic and social power. Â He also believes that the decline will be sharper if the US decides to buck the UN and go to war withour 'permission'"

I am also not convinced that the US will recede as an economic and social power anytime soon. Yes this may be the beginning of a long slow decline in US influence but it would have to be just that- long and slow.

What will replace the massive Hollywood industry (as representative of the whole US media juggernaut)?

Bollywood? there is nothing. It will take decades to approach.

Militarily? the same

Peoples love hate relationship with America has simply become more complex. People shout at the news on television about american stupidity and then sit down and watch 'The Simpsons'. Basically the great mass of people still think America is cool after its government has been surgically removed from the picture(even if they dont realise they think it).

American music,clothes, american TV, american websites even, Â all of these far outstrip the products of other countries in terms of global reach, availability, reputation etc.(Although if you want reputable quality hardware its Japan or Germany)

That may well be on the the decline but if so , its a loooonng sloooooww decline.

Theres simply noone else in the picture at the moment to replace wholesale US military might, cultural hegemony or economic strength (even in this recession)

Necromancer- · October 14, 2002

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,11:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it a matter of fighting terrorism?

War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence. Â A war on Iraq is Osama bin Ladens wet dream. The terrorists lose nothing. On the contrary they gain more followers.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam has a motive to finance Al Qaeda, but the problem is that there is no physical proof found yet.

If we want Saddam to be removed, we should wait till he strikes first. This would undoubtedly happen in the future if he stays on power. By that time the world would beg for the US to help.

WhoCares · October 12, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Mar. 14 2003,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we want Saddam to be removed, we should wait till he strikes first. This would undoubtedly happen in the future if he stays on power. By that time the world would beg for the US to help.<span id='postcolor'>

So why don't you hunt those first, of which there is already evidence that they finance AQ? This would also give your agencies more time to fake some evidences against Saddam...

btw: Does anybody know what happened to those ships in the Indian Ocean, that were accused to carry all the WMDs in their belly?

And who wants to remove Saddam? Didn't TBA say that they would rest the case if he disarms? Or was it the war against terrorism (w/o proven link to Saddam)? Or was it Saddam being the evil dictator? confusion

I wonder, why you don't start a war against Cuba? Evil Dictator, had WMDs on its soil before, close proximity to USA...

FallenPaladin · October 12, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Mar. 14 2003,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,117)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it a matter of fighting terrorism?

War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence. Â A war on Iraq is Osama bin Ladens wet dream. The terrorists lose nothing. On the contrary they gain more followers.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam has a motive to finance Al Qaeda, but the problem is that there is no physical proof found yet.

If we want Saddam to be removed, we should wait till he strikes first. This would undoubtedly happen in the future if he stays on power. By that time the world would beg for the US to help.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam Hussein has no motive to aid any islamic terrorist groups. In Iraq the Islam has a very bad standing as a matter of fact. The religion has almost no might in the state. So to say the Iraq is more "western-oriented" than for example Iran or Saudi Arabia. It`s foolish to think that any country in the mid-east is or will be a supporter of AQ, only because the people there look "arabic".

2024-04-27T12:59:06Z

</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><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would be interested to know how you would account for Blix neglecting to mention the recently discovered drone in his report?<span id='postcolor'>

He did not "neglect" anything it was in his report but not in his presentation. The Americans dug it out from the report that he presented. He did not highlight it however since they had not confirmed that the drone was in violation of the rules.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6hotel-Denoir was rather vague with 'we', But i believe with the nation states thing it holds somewhat truer if you look only at present day western europe(the EU-'heart' of europe) -former east block /communist countries have only had a decade out of soviet influence. Yugoslavia as it was was never going to get into the EU-<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe. I certainly wouldn't be including Britain into that. Not in its present state.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still its debatable whether 'europeans' have 'evolved' out of the nation state. I cant say i see it in my own country. There are still varying degrees of national pride expressed in various ways in all european countries. The EU is not a greatly loved institution here(UK), but it has promise.

Yes, Britain is unfortunately still pretty backward. If it was up to me I'd kick them out of the EU until they make up their mind if they are Europeans, self sufficient imperialists or American pets. You can't be all three of those. Either you are a modern European country, a nostalgic Victorian age wanabee or Little America. Take your pick.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Frances current actions are in many ways the perfect example of its belief in its national significance (alternatively described as arrogance). It is opposing the US currently through the UN because that is what suits France, i have no doubt it would oppose the US in other ways including through the EU or unilaterally if the need was felt. But of course countries tend to like to see themselves as the good guy and in a democracy that means having the broadest base of support at home-but if possible abroad as well.

France is also engaged in military actions in Cote D'ivoire for which there is no UN resolution and is and has been involved in many other places also without resolutions.

France is not the only country. Britain ,Spain and perhaps other euro countries seem or have proven willing to act unilaterally when they feel the need. (and will likely act similarly for a long time to come)

The biggest european supporters of a decrease in the importance of the nation state tend to be countries who for the past few decades or so have had relatively very little importance in international affairs anyway (even compared to the modest affects the big euro countries have had)

And hardline socialists in all countries obviously.

I think people tend to exaggerate the differences between europe and the US in this respect. Yes european countries are more willing than the US to engage themselves in multinational organisations. But then the US doesnt really need to enter such organisations at the present.

If euro countries see a need to act unilaterally and are able, then evidence suggests that they tend to do so.

That is a very conservative, right-wing view of the situation, with an apparent British twist. I can't really say that I agree one word with it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Warin "A very learned friend of mine says that history will remember this as the time when the US began to decline as an economic and social power. Â He also believes that the decline will be sharper if the US decides to buck the UN and go to war withour 'permission'"

I am also not convinced that the US will recede as an economic and social power anytime soon. Yes this may be the beginning of a long slow decline in US influence but it would have to be just that- long and slow.

What will replace the massive Hollywood industry (as representative of the whole US media juggernaut)?

Bollywood? there is nothing. It will take decades to approach.

Militarily? the same

Peoples love hate relationship with America has simply become more complex. People shout at the news on television about american stupidity and then sit down and watch 'The Simpsons'. Basically the great mass of people still think America is cool after its government has been surgically removed from the picture(even if they dont realise they think it).

American music,clothes, american TV, american websites even, Â all of these far outstrip the products of other countries in terms of global reach, availability, reputation etc.(Although if you want reputable quality hardware its Japan or Germany)

That may well be on the the decline but if so , its a loooonng sloooooww decline.

Theres simply noone else in the picture at the moment to replace wholesale US military might, cultural hegemony or economic strength (even in this recession)

Perhaps in your neighbourhood, but don't count on it being representative. Hollywood, McDonalds, yes even Microsoft are all being replaced at a surprising rate with domestic and European products. In Stockholm for instance this is evident from the heavy decline of American movies that are shown while domestic film industry is blooming. On TV you are more likely to catch a European show then American. McDonald's are going out of business everywhere. There is a change. It remains to be seen if this is temporary or not.

As for you not noticing it in Britain, well, let's just say that Britain isn't really known for its independence these days. Considering your obvious dog/master relationship to America, I wouldn't be surprised that the popularity of American products is rising.

Which brings me to a long overdue question: Why are we always letting Britain of the hook so easily? Blair has the same position on Iraq as Bush and is just as ready to completely ignore the UN. At least Bush has an agenda of his own, while Blair seems to be just following in his master's footsteps. Is it out of pity that we chose not to waste our energy on the British governement? Possibly. Britain has a long history of fucking up EU agreements and for some reasons we tend to tolerate it a bit beyond what I would consider reasonable. I think that the problem of the British governments is that they havn't realised that the Victorian era is over and that the British empire is now a little island with bad weather and an antiqued industrial infrastructure. Perhaps it is why they are sucking up to their former colony - to get a glimpse one more time of what it is like to be a super power.

British international politics is like British football in the world cup: a lot of talk and expectations but very little results

brgnorway · September 15, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 14 2003,11:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shouldn't it be IDS?

Ian Duncan Smith?

I know he's a conservative but he wants to privatise medicine and stuff - sounds like tory shit to me.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh my - Placebo has a point. I should have known

Actually the new one is even more insignificant

Die Alive · September 8, 2001

Design IRAQ's New Flag Contest: You could win $100

By MICHAEL FORSYTH

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- When the people of Iraq are liberated from the crushing tyranny of brutal madman Saddam Hussein by the U.S. military, they'll need a proud new symbol of democracy and freedom.

That's why Weekly World News is sponsoring a nationwide Design Iraq's New Flag Contest!

Every American of every age, from kindergartners armed with boxes of crayons to professional artists at the top of their field, are invited to participate in the contest to replace Iraq's current emblem.

Although the contest has not officially been endorsed by the White House, government officials are enthusiastic about any tool that can help establish the dawn of a new era in Iraq. And the winning flag design has an excellent chance of flying over Baghdad for centuries to come.

"This is some average American's chance to achieve lasting fame just like Betsy Ross, who designed the original U.S. flag in the Revolutionary War era," says one observer.

"It's also your chance to do something patriotic for your country that will give good Iraqis a powerful symbol of freedom to rally around."

Simply send us a color drawing of your flag concept, along with your name, address, phone number and a brief explanation of what the various elements of the design mean. For example, the 50 stars on the American flag stand for each of our 50 states.

Use your imagination. Don't feel compelled to imitate the look-alike <span style='color:red'>red</span>, <span style='color:white'>white</span> and <span style='color:blue'>blue</span> U.S. knock-off flags used by so many other nations.

Remember that the new flag is supposed to stand for freedom, democracy and Iraqi pride. LOL

Our editors will review all entries and narrow them down to five finalists which we'll print in a later edition. Then we'll let readers pick the winner!

The winning entry will be sent to President Bush for consideration, along with our written recommendation. The designer of the winning entry will be awarded a $100 grand prize along with two free Weekly World News T-shirts.

Send your entry to:

Iraqi Flag Contest

c/o Weekly World News,

5401 NW Broken Sound Blvd.

Boca Raton, Fla. 33487.

-=Die Alive=-

The Ferret · January 16, 2002

</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">[edit- i hate it when people get in comments before me thus making me look silly ]

Also as the report by leading republicans indicates,

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

this invasion of Iraq has been on the cards for a long time, before sept.11 certainly. Sept.11 only provided an added and unexpected impetus for an invasion.

The links between Iraq and Al Quaida are almost entirely theoretical and have been tacked on in a half hearted way

. An invasion of Iraq Â has been in planning by Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz , Jeb Bush etc. since before Al-Quaida (or 'islamic' terrorism) were a major feature of US politics.

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

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.

I would be interested to know how you would account for Blix neglecting to mention the recently discovered drone in his report? Unbiased reporter of facts? Or does he see his job as that of editing the facts so as to make each sides case look equally valid without giving total advantage to either?

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

I wont comment on all the stuff about WW1 and WW2 as it could go on forever and it belongs in another thread and is only indirectly relevant.

brgnorway -Iain Duncan Smith is now the leader of the conservative party (main party of opposition). He is probably worse than William Hague , noone even remembers his name .

I dont see a major rival to Tony Blair at this stage.

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

E6hotel-Denoir was rather vague with 'we', But i believe with the nation states thing it holds somewhat truer if you look only at present day western europe(the EU-'heart' of europe) -former east block /communist countries have only had a decade out of soviet influence. Yugoslavia as it was was never going to get into the EU-

Still its debatable whether 'europeans' have 'evolved' out of the nation state. I cant say i see it in my own country. There are still varying degrees of national pride expressed in various ways in all european countries. The EU is not a greatly loved institution here(UK), but it has promise.

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

Sam Samson-"third: europeans don't believe in the significance of the nation state"

Frances current actions are in many ways the perfect example of its belief in its national significance (alternatively described as arrogance). It is opposing the US currently through the UN because that is what suits France, i have no doubt it would oppose the US in other ways including through the EU or unilaterally if the need was felt. But of course countries tend to like to see themselves as the good guy and in a democracy that means having the broadest base of support at home-but if possible abroad as well.

France is also engaged in military actions in Cote D'ivoire for which there is no UN resolution and is and has been involved in many other places also without resolutions.

France is not the only country. Britain ,Spain and perhaps other euro countries seem or have proven willing to act unilaterally when they feel the need. (and will likely act similarly for a long time to come)

The biggest european supporters of a decrease in the importance of the nation state tend to be countries who for the past few decades or so have had relatively very little importance in international affairs anyway (even compared to the modest affects the big euro countries have had)

And hardline socialists in all countries obviously.

I think people tend to exaggerate the differences between europe and the US in this respect. Yes european countries are more willing than the US to engage themselves in multinational organisations. But then the US doesnt really need to enter such organisations at the present.

If euro countries see a need to act unilaterally and are able, then evidence suggests that they tend to do so.

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

Warin "A very learned friend of mine says that history will remember this as the time when the US began to decline as an economic and social power. Â He also believes that the decline will be sharper if the US decides to buck the UN and go to war withour 'permission'"

I am also not convinced that the US will recede as an economic and social power anytime soon. Yes this may be the beginning of a long slow decline in US influence but it would have to be just that- long and slow.

What will replace the massive Hollywood industry (as representative of the whole US media juggernaut)?

Bollywood? there is nothing. It will take decades to approach.

Militarily? the same

Peoples love hate relationship with America has simply become more complex. People shout at the news on television about american stupidity and then sit down and watch 'The Simpsons'. Basically the great mass of people still think America is cool after its government has been surgically removed from the picture(even if they dont realise they think it).

American music,clothes, american TV, american websites even, Â all of these far outstrip the products of other countries in terms of global reach, availability, reputation etc.(Although if you want reputable quality hardware its Japan or Germany)

That may well be on the the decline but if so , its a loooonng sloooooww decline.

Theres simply noone else in the picture at the moment to replace wholesale US military might, cultural hegemony or economic strength (even in this recession)<span id='postcolor'>

Honestly John Wayne's post has been the most even minded and concise as any I've seen in a while.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Republican hawks have indeed been planning a 'pax americana'

targetting 'rogue states' since before the turn of the millenium

of which this invasion would probably have been the first part if it had not been for the Sept.11 attacks bringing Afghanistan into the picture.

Perhaps, who knows what politicians aspire to, but I really have difficulty in believeing that. The vast majority of Americans, and especially republicans, would cringe at the very idea of "Pax Americana", it goes against the very core of what Americans believe about themselves.

My whole intention in even bringing up America in WW1, was going to be that America fights and disarms. It got badly sidetracked, and I apologize for that. At the end of WW1, the US had a 4 million man Army. We disarmed. At the end of WW2, the US had not only one of the largest militaries in the world, but the only one nuclear one, and we disarmed. Just look at the state of US forces in the opening days of the Korean War. It was 1. Geography, and 2. the Communist threat, that put the US in the world position it holds today . After the fall of the USSR, what did we do? We disarmed. The USAF is currently capable of producing only 1/3 of the sorties it flew during GW1. The very infantry division I served in (the 5th) has long since been deactivated. National Guard and Reserve units, which we almost never activated during the Cold War, are now absolutely essenitial to US military strength. My point being...if we are truely out for Pax Americana, we are doing alot to tear up the Legions.

No one sits over here happy that McDonald's are popping up in Europe, or that you are watching Amercian entertainment. I pray to God, that you don't watch Baywatch or whatever and think it represents typical life in the US. Frankly, no one cares if you watch our movies or eat our burgers, except the businesses involved and thats all it is business, if you don't like the product don't buy it, and it will go away. Alot is said about Americans' lack of knowledge regarding world events, well geography still plays a large part even in the communication age. You are over there, doing whatever it is you do, and we are here. Right now 95% of American's don't have a clue about France having troops in the Ivory Coast.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Blaegis-I agree that the cost is a major factor, but you can hardly expect non americans to take that as a reasonable cause to initiate an invasion of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

The cost of pulling out now, would still be cheaper than the actual conduct of the war and support of a new Iraqi government.

Which just brings us back to Iraq. Go to the web site for "The Center for non Proliferation Studies (CNS)", which agrees with many of your assessments: that war now is unprudent. But is also much more clear-minded than many of you, regarding Saddam's WMD programs and aspirations.

Which brings us to Bush's position. Saddam has been doing a song and dance for 12 years. UN 1441 has stopped the music, but Saddam continues to scoot his boots. Without pressure, Saddam will never leave the dance floor. So either we can wait forever, or we can call over the bouncer and kick his ass out of the club. For any of you who say "it won't be forever." I ask: How long? On whom does the responsibility lie? Just for giggles, I like to see us withdrawl. I like to see UN inspections stepped up, and once they get close...like they did the first time, I'd like to see them kicked out again and just watch world reaction. You've already shown him you lack the conviction to actually carry out the promised military action. Now lets just remove that warmongering, bastard nation at his doorstep.

"OWW!"

"What happened?"

"Well, I was just putting this flower in the muzzle of Saddam's AK-47, and he pulled the trigger, blew my f@ing finger off!"

"Do you think it was an accident?"

"I guess, but why is he grinning?."

Lastly, if at some point, you do finally decide that yes Saddam's an ass, and yes he needs to go. Who's gonna do that? Who is able to do it? You talk about the impending decline of the US, thats fine, I can live with it. If fact, why don't you just go ahead and politely ask us to leave the UN now? That request would be welcomed by millions and millions of Americans ( I hear it on the radio every day), it would save us billions and giving the rest of the world the responsibility of filling the gap, would probably benefit it.

IsthatyouJohnWayne · July 21, 2001

Denoir- Well well ,heheh

Getting interesting. I recall you expressing some of these uglier views a long time ago, and now they have resurfaced.

Whats the matter, you didnt like me cracking the myth of beautiful law abiding europe?

Denoir-"In a way that's good. It's obvious that they don't respect it enough, so why should they stay"

Oh very diplomatic of you. I suppose (to use a topical example) Iraq does support the UN and respect all its rules? And what of Iran, China,Israel, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia ,Eritrea +50 other countries.(in other words the countries that NEED a UN superstructure to prevent wars)

It seems here that you are just as happy to see the UN go up in smoke as you claim Bush is.

If you kick out all countries you dont like the actions of

or who have acted without UN resolutions then who does that leave?

Sweden? Norway?Mongolia?

You have to tolerate things you dont like and try to reach a compromise ,thats how how the UN works (or doesnt).

More than one European country with a tradition of such things

(military expeditions outside of total international support)

have continued to do so up to the present day. You cant just blame Britain. Kosovo saw France, Germany, Italy et al involved

>>>without<<< a UN sanction. Should all those NATO countries who took part be asked to leave the UN as well?

Spain was mobilising for (very unlikely) war with Morroco over a tiny island. It still has colonies in north africa and is highly suspicious of any moves to get rid of them.(by countries of Maghreb)

Glorious perfect peace loving France has deployed unilaterally in countless places in the former French empire. The Gallic knight in shining armour of peace lovers everywhere(Chirac) does tours of Africa supporting and patting on the head some nasty people. Fr. Gave nuclear capabilities to Iraq and Israel supplies weapons involved in wars all over the world, etc

The garlic shrug will not suffice as an explanation.

many other european countries are just not significantly CAPABLE anymore of deploying unilaterally overseas.

some countries of the former USSR still have REAL 'master-dog' relationships with russia.

Anyway the UN also works day to day on the basis of realpolitik even if it doesnt admit it.The UN is a deeply flawed organisation in desperate need of revision.(as this Iraq crisis has illustrated)

"As for you not noticing it in Britain, well, let's just say that Britain isn't really known for its independence these days. Considering your obvious dog/master relationship to America, I wouldn't be surprised that the popularity of American products is rising"

Of course.Everyone knows how overwhelmingly popular Tony Blairs position is proving with the great British public.So yeah of course everyones loving american stuff right now!

And being the 'dog' of unelected Francophone beaurocrats sitting on 'commisions' in Brussels is infinatly preferable.Anything the government here does the people mindlessly agree with. We worship pictures of George Bush and pour out love letters to Tony Blair. Right.

(have you had enough of my hideous sarcasm yet?-i thought the stupidity of your statement warranted it)

The EU is a good idea, but at the moment it is riddled with problems. One is the common agricultural policy particularly generous to....ta-rum te-dum.. the French.

There is undoubted French bias in the EU (aims etc)

"Perhaps in your neighbourhood, but don't count on it being representative. Hollywood, McDonalds, yes even Microsoft are all being replaced at a surprising rate with domestic and European products. In Stockholm for instance..."

What you are suggesting is that perhaps many countries will

eventually evolve thier own dedicated media, street fashion industries, international food/drink organisations that other computer operating systems will arise etc etc.

to fill gaps left by unwanted US stuff, but many countries(especially poorer countries) are not able for various reasons to do that.And i cant remember the last time i saw a Swedish film (norwegian yes)...

and in any case it would take a long time for all of that to reach fruition all over the world.

Britain is not representative of the world but nor is Sweden.

Just because i bring up problems it doesnt mean i necessarily object to the concept in question.

If US cultural hegemony is diminished so what? It doesnt affect me ,or my country particularly.Oh I forgot ,we're all dogs of the americans so ill be very sad.

I just think people tend to exaggerate trends in this area. I can easily see a change in global consumerist trends happening but there are many hurdles to overcome first.(in which time US industry can adapt to changing markets if they regard profit losses as large enough)

Anyway i didnt mention Macdonalds. It sucks.

IsthatyouJohnWayne · July 21, 2001

DieAlive- There are high levels of silliness there and i somehow

cant see the flag actually being used by Iraqis at all(wild guess)

Denoir- I tried not to go into to much detail in the UKs

defence but i must answer this\/

"If it was up to me I'd kick them out of the EU until they make up their mind if they are Europeans, self sufficient imperialists or American pets. You can't be all three of those. Either you are a modern European country, a nostalgic Victorian age wanabee or Little America. Take your pick."

Presumably the British action in Sierra Leone (widely regarded as having saved the democratic government and the UN mission from murderous rebels and having spared the capital Freetown from a massive slaughter) would fall under "nostalgic victorian"

The Scandinavian -acceptable to you- modern euro way?

A strongly written letter?

American pets? That would be British people not regularly burning the US flag or spitting at americans?

Or perhaps cooperating on something like the Joint Strike Fighter with the US as opposed to working with France and Italy and Germany only to see them drop out and lose interest as has happened in other projects.

If you are as scornful of variety as much as you and Chirac seem to be then maybe YOU should get out of the EU. Every country is different. So there MUST be different interests.

National interests (shock horror! ) .

Compromises can be reached and general foreign policies agreed on but only if you accept countries as they are to some extent. Britain IS an ex-colonial power just like France. Such countries tend to feel certain burdens (especially to large expatriate communities) that perhaps Sweden doesnt have.

That makes us no less european.

Neither does our lack of hatred for the US. I dont love america ,neither do i hate it. Much like most reasonable people with a grasp of reality. Then i look at france. Hhmmm.

I dont like the large scale anti french sentiment in the US media. Neither do i like the national obsession of france either.

Tony Blair is a liberal interventionist, im not surprised hes in for an attack on Iraq (however unpopular it is, he will remember kosovo when thousands of Albanians surrounded him as a hero shounting 'to-ni to-ni' )

I believe however that he is a passionate believer in facing up to proliferators and that is his great motivation in this.

If France is your example of a 'modern european country'

in terms of government then you mean a more arrogant, self serving, manipulative, condescending ambitiously anti american version of Britain, with more nuclear testing perhaps?

More cultural elitism? More corrupt politicians perhaps?

lovely.

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

Denoir-"Why are we always letting Britain of the hook so easily?"

What about spain? better get criticising them too+ half of eastern europe

Ah but you only criticise those who break your

'modern' european principles by actually doing something rather than talking without action.

TheFerret- i agree the cost of pulling out would be cheaper , but pulling out now without something visibly worthwhile

to the US public for all this cost would be highly unpopular no?

I initially thought Bush would never be an interventionist, but it seems Spt.11 changed some things and the interventionists may have won out....(speculation certainly)

foxer · September 13, 2001

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 14 2003,16:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Mar. 14 2003,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 14 2003,11<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it a matter of fighting terrorism?

War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence. Â A war on Iraq is Osama bin Ladens wet dream. The terrorists lose nothing. On the contrary they gain more followers.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam has a motive to finance Al Qaeda, but the problem is that there is no physical proof found yet.

If we want Saddam to be removed, we should wait till he strikes first. This would undoubtedly happen in the future if he stays on power. By that time the world would beg for the US to help.<span id='postcolor'>

Saddam Hussein has no motive to aid any islamic terrorist groups. In Iraq the Islam has a very bad standing as a matter of fact. The religion has almost no might in the state. So to say the Iraq is more "western-oriented" than for example Iran or Saudi Arabia. It`s foolish to think that any country in the mid-east is or will be a supporter of AQ, only because the people there look "arabic".<span id='postcolor'>

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.

McDonald's are going out of business everywhere.

Yeah samething in america,Their going outta business.I think we all know mcdonalds sucks.But their 50 other fast food places taking their place.

foxer · September 13, 2001

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).

The Ferret · January 16, 2002

John Wayne...I love your style. Direct, Honest, Fair-minded.

Yes, pulling out now, would cost alot more than just the dollars and would be unacceptable, unless Saddam caves and cooperates, and I mean really cooperates.

Bush, yes before 9/11 his speeches were decidedly "We're over here, they're over there....let's keep it that way."

Post 9/11 :I honestly believe that Bush believes what he has said...this is war, I'll go at them where ever they are, I'll do whatever I must to stop them with or without help.

I basically agree with him...I do feel that he can slow down some, but I see what he is trying to do.

No one over here considers Britain to be lap dogs. We consider them to be the only true friends we have, and the only nation willing to back their words. Much respect.

foxer · September 13, 2001

Here's a question...

What happens when iraq uses his weapons( he don't have ) on countries and us/brits soldiers when they invaded ?

What will you people be saying then ? It's the US fault ?

2024-04-27T12:59:06Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 14 2003,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Getting interesting. I recall you expressing some of these uglier views a long time ago, and now they have resurfaced.

Whats the matter, you didnt like me cracking the myth of beautiful law abiding europe?<span id='postcolor'>

No. Europe has its problems and I'm perfectly aware of them. 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.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir-"In a way that's good. It's obvious that they don't respect it enough, so why should they stay"

Oh very diplomatic of you. I suppose (to use a topical example) Iraq does support the UN and respect all its rules? And what of Iran, China,Israel, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia ,Eritrea +50 other countries.(in other words the countries that NEED a UN superstructure to prevent wars)

They have chosen to be a part of the UN and take the consequences and benifits of that. Do you really think that there will be any formal consequences to USA and Britain if you go through with this war?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have to tolerate things you dont like and try to reach a compromise ,thats how how the UN works (or doesnt).<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed, but Britain and USA have decided that things will be done their way or not at all in the framework of the UN. And this supposedly to enforce a UN resolution... yeah right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Spain was mobilising for (very unlikely) war with Morroco over a tiny island.<span id='postcolor'>

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

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">More than one European country with a tradition of such things (military expeditions outside of total international support) have continued to do so up to the present day. You cant just blame Britain. Kosovo saw France, Germany, Italy et al involved >>>without<<< a UN sanction. Should all those NATO countries who took part be asked to leave the UN as well?

It was wrong to go in without UN support there too in princple. In pracitce there was a UN agreement. Everybody but Russia supported an intervention and a deal was made that they wouldn't go through the UN to allow the Russians to save face and still remain on good terms with the Serbs. Today's situation is different where there is a real and wide opposition to a war throughout the world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course.Everyone knows how overwhelmingly popular Tony Blairs position is proving with the great British public. We worship pictures of George Bush and pour out love letters to Tony Blair. Right.

It will hardly get you of the hook. You elected the bastard so indirectly you all supported him. I don't know however why you are trying to distance yourself from Tony since you clearly agree with his policy.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And being the 'dog' of unelected Francophone beaurocrats sitting on 'commisions' in Brussels is infinatly preferable.<span id='postcolor'>

I certainly think it is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The EU is a good idea, but at the moment it is riddled with problems. One is the common agricultural policy particularly generous to....ta-rum te-dum.. the French.

There is undoubted French bias in the EU (aims etc)

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. What annoys Britain is that they are not the main player but have to share that position with France,Germany and Italy. It doesn't go well with their victorian self-image.

The EU does have a lot of work in progress, and yes, the agricultural policy is one of them. There are however countries that are dedicated to improving it (continental Europe mostly, France,Germany,Belgium, Holland, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal), those who quitely accept it (Scandinavia) and those that rabidly work against it (Britain).

Well, my opinion is that you shouldn't be part of a group if you keep taking a leak at it each and every opportunity you get. If you think that Britain is strong enough to stand alone or if you wish to be the 51st US state, that's all fine with me, your choice, but then for crying out loud, get the hell out of my EU and stop obstructing our project!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are as scornful of variety as much as you and Chirac seem to be then maybe YOU should get out of the EU. Every country is different. So there MUST be different interests. National interests (shock horror! ). <span id='postcolor'>

The EU is a globalization poject aiming at if not removing our differences then at least working them out. Countries have a certain degree of individuality, but that can't be pushed too far either. We wouldn't want for instance have nazis in the EU (just an example).

It's obvious that you don't share this view on the EU and view on the world where we form a union based on our similarities as opposed to creating conflicts based on our differences. National states are perfect examples of the stupidity of man kind where people are ready to kill each other for abstract symbolic matters. 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. Now since that's not going to happen during my lifetime, I'll just have to settle for the EU.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(On Tony):

He will remember kosovo when thousands of Albanians surrounded him as a hero shounting 'to-ni to-ni' )<span id='postcolor'>

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. He should take his time looking what the results were instead of rushing into the next conflict.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe however that he is a passionate believer in facing up to proliferators and that is his great motivation in this.

I don't buy his oh-I-feel-your-pain sincere-kind-of-guy attitude for one second. You can't be that blue-eyed and succeed in politics.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If France is your example of a 'modern european country'

in terms of government then you mean a more arrogant, self serving, manipulative, condescending ambitiously anti american version of Britain, with more nuclear testing perhaps?

More cultural elitism? More corrupt politicians perhaps?

lovely.<span id='postcolor'>

I never said that France was the shining row model for the EU. The only thing I've really said about France is that I agree with their position on Iraq, which I do. France has its share of problems that they need to work on. The difference is however that they have managed to get their nationalism acceptable to other members of the EU by not imposing it too much on others.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What about spain? better get criticising them too+ half of eastern europe<span id='postcolor'>

I respect Spain although I disagree with their opinion on Iraq. IMO they have taken their position by their own free will and not out of irrational loyalty to the US. I think however that they could have handled it better within the EU. And as far as I know, Spain won't be sending any real troops to Iraq. It's more sort of a moral support for Bush then actual military support.

Easter Europe? They are entiteled to their opinion but I think it was clumsy of them to get involved in the first place before a general Eurpean agreement was reached. Apparently they had been pressured from USA and they withdrew their comments as soon as the EU made a statement.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah but you only criticise those who break your

'modern' european principles by actually doing something rather than talking without action.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, now you are getting it. We've been slaughtering each other for 1000 years and have noticed that it wasn't all that good. We also noticed if we talked instead of cutting each other throats that we could accomplish much more. Europe is fragile (which if anything this crisis has shown) and has to talk things over before taking any action. That will probably change in the future when we learn to trust each other more, but that's the situation right now. It's good in some ways (we really do everything to try a peaceful solution) and bad in some (we're uncapable of united action).

2024-04-27T12:59:06Z

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 14 2003,21:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">John Wayne...I love your style. Direct, Honest, Fair-minded.<span id='postcolor'>

</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">Unbiased reporter of facts? Or does he see his job as that of editing the facts so as to make each sides case look equally valid without giving total advantage to either?

The Iraq Thread

Recommended Posts

Tex -USMC- 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tex -USMC- 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Ferret 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Jinef 2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Blaegis 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

bn880 5

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Blaegis 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

IsthatyouJohnWayne 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Necromancer- 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

WhoCares 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

FallenPaladin 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

brgnorway 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Die Alive 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Ferret 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

IsthatyouJohnWayne 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

IsthatyouJohnWayne 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

foxer 0

Share this post