The Iraq Thread

[Badgerboy 0]

It's all burning!

Pistols at dawn gentlemen..... (And no pre-emptive strikes! It's just not cricket!

[bn880 5]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 22 2003,208)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatever you say chief. <span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it would seem you are only 1.5 years older than me... so I am not a boy to you.

EDIT: I'm done getting upset for today...

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,02:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 22 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have an incredible moral double standard that automatically kicks into effect when anything American enters the conversation. Propaganda masquerading as news is a part of life, until it is an American news agency that is runnning a propaganda story. Then, you go absolutely nuts about what a sacred responsibility news-gathering/dissemination is. Now, if you can lose your double-standards, maybe we can talk. As it is currently, I'm forced to argue at you from the base of your ivory tower of moral purity. How's the view from up there?<span id='postcolor'>

This is partly what I think of you... so?

Why should I not stand up for whats actually right, all of you here arguing with me are trying to eliminate the need to discuss logic, and eliminate the need for the media to be objective.  don't you have any morals, is there no shred of intelligence left?

EDIT: Make personal attacks on me, and you are simply saying you can't use logic to discuss, maybe it is because I actually make sense??  Just like Denoir and Bals?<span id='postcolor'>

Personal attacks? Let me put it this way. I am way past retaining any respect for you Bn. Therefore, I'm just going to dispense with the pleasentries and all the passive-aggressive bullshit that all our conversations have recently entailed. Instead, I'm going to tell you what I really think. If you want to translate that into "you win", so be it. It isn't my responsibility to teach you how to respond to the actual arguments, instead of focusing on any real or perceived petty BS. I write over 300 words of text that shows you why your opinion is flawed, and you choose to ignore it all and focus on the one part of my post that suggests that I don't like you, which we have already established. And on a completely seperate note, I'm not the one insulting American teenagers just because they don't agree with your hypocritical anti-American radical sentiments.

[Guest]

Stopping these petty personal attacks would be a good thing to do now.

If you have issues, settle them with PM:s.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 23 2003,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Stopping these petty personal attacks would be a good thing to do now.

If you have issues, settle them with PM:s.<span id='postcolor'>

Sĺ det sĺ!

[Pukko 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I also heard what Rumsfeld had to say about France and Germany today. He classified us as "old europe" that doesnt count much anymore. He said that eastern european countries (that are in fact not in the EU by now) are the ones that like US so the "old europe" opinion doesnt count much anymore.

This will keep the US foreign ministry very busy the next days. What is he after ? To discredit countries that dont support war ?

What happened ?

German foreign minister Fischer said that there is no support for a war right now. He said that UN weapon inspectors must be given time to finish their investigations.

Same did French foreign minister De Villepin.

Rumsfeld now says that France and Germany are a problem. What is next. Will the US bomb us cause we dont agree to a war ? We are a problem now. Funny.

He also said that the vast majority of other countries is on the US side and shares their opinions on the war on Iraq which is in fact a big lie to the american public.<span id='postcolor'>

I bow towards the German and French governments for making such official statements (no matter what eventual secondary reasons they might have to do it).

Most of the world is for sure too dependent on US relations to risk any dangerous comments. Russia more or less officially said they are, recently (EDIT: that was probably only in my dreams, getting a little tired ). Swedish officials are obviously also part of the frightened masses. Primeminister Göran Persson gave a real pathetic impression when asked why he would not make a similar statement this evening (dont remember exactly what he said though, but it was just a few, hesitant words).

Of course 'the old Europe' is a problem. They probably constitute the only (with Australia, Canada and maybe some other as the few exceptions) nations who's opinions have any weight what so ever towards American massopinion.

[Akira 0]

Napoleonic WMD?

Dunno if it was missed in all the shite hurling or just no one cared

Article about a documentary coming out that claims the British briefly considered gas attacks against French ports in the Napoleonic era.

[NavyEEL 0]

close this thread.

[llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Jan. 23 2003,02:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">close this thread.<span id='postcolor'>

If you gave us a few good reasons maybe it would be better, don't you think?

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sorry that I didnt see the whole context of the speech Bush held in St. Louis.  I did so right now.

And I also heard what Rumsfeld had to say about France and Germany today. He classified us as "old europe" that doesnt count much anymore. He said that eastern european countries (that are in fact not in the EU by now) are the ones that like US so the "old europe" opinion doesnt count much anymore.

This will keep the US foreign ministry very busy the next days. What is he after ? To discredit countries that dont support war ?

What happened ?

German foreign minister Fischer said that there is no support for a war right now. He said that UN weapon inspectors must be given time to finish their investigations.

Same did French foreign minister De Villepin.

Rumsfeld now says that France and Germany are a problem. What is next. Will the US bomb us cause we dont agree to a war ? We are a problem now. Funny.

He also said that the vast majority of other countries is on the US side and shares their opinions on the war on Iraq which is in fact a big lie to the american public.<span id='postcolor'>

I think this in nothing new. Many European countries didn't back US in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama or Libya Bombings and I think same kind of harsh comments by US government of European countries were heard back then. The difference is that Germany is now more independent to say what they think of US policies since Cold War is over and it no longer needs the assistance of US troops to cover it's iron curtain against Soviet Union. I wouldn't call it a great dividing factor between US and Europe or a new Cold War frontier. US has always done what it wants without paying too much attention to it's allies. It's regrettable but that's the way it will be but is not anything novel in global politics nor I think it will lead to any kind of serious confrontation between US and Europe. Again, I think European governments just fall into silent acceptance of US actions after the war has begun regardless of demonstrations out on the streets. Unfortunate, but that's I'd predict.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: I am sooo sick of you teenage americans playing little games with what is being said here.  So many BS arguments here it's disturbing.  <span id='postcolor'>

Hmm. I could say same things about some of my fellow European posters (maybe also of myself ) so please let's cut this 'European poster's comments are smarter than ones by Americans' -debate.

[Balschoiw 0]

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

Dunno if it was missed in all the shite hurling or just no one cared

Article about a documentary coming out that claims the British briefly considered gas attacks against French ports in the Napoleonic era. <span id='postcolor'>

No relation to this topic by all means Akira.

If you want to discuss it, pls open a new thread.

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

Why ? Don´t read this thread if you don´t like it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many European countries didn't back US in Vietnam<span id='postcolor'>

The US had problems with backup from their own citizens. Europe was totally out of this. Never asked for assistance or opinion and they did not crucify US policy that time. It was your business, your men, your problem, your civilians that stoped it. Europe was never involved or asked to like it is today.

The tricky thing is that US want NATO and EU assistance in money, material and troops. That is pretty different.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">no longer needs the assistance of US troops to cover it's iron curtain against Soviet Union.<span id='postcolor'>

The cold war actually was over for Germany in the late 60´s and beginning 70´s.There was no real danger for an russian invasion from that time on. Still the US bases in germany are there. Yes the Pershing rockets have been removed by protesters in germany. That is fact. I don´t believe US were in germany mainly for the protection of our country from 72 - today, but to have a good located base situation for their military operations. This is nothing new.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">call it a great dividing factor between US and Europe<span id='postcolor'>

I am certainly not the one to decide, but US itself is very aware of any political comments here and make a fuzz about everything. Why are we not allowed to do the same if someone like Rumsfeld is actually telling lies to his citizens.

The relation between US and germany and other EU nations has already cooled down a lot. 81 percent of the people here in germany dont´t find enough reasons for a war in Iraq. Only 11 percent think it´s ok. The rest does not have an opinion on it. You know we are a nation with a big history backpack and we still have to pay our dues for WW2. So we tend to think at least 20 times more about the justification of a war than other nations do. I was risen in a country where even my grandpa was so ashamed of the things that happened during WW2 that he did not tell a single word about it. It is an open wound still. So we are most likely very picky when it comes to wars. You may understand that. To kill for no prove is no way a justified war and I very respect my government to keep this line up although there are / were heavy insult from the US side. It´s not a trend, but an estimation of facts.

The facts are:

- there is no prove for existing WMD´s in Iraq today

- there is no justification for preemptive strikes on this planet since 1952

- the war in Iraq could cause things we can´t even think of

- by doing a preemptive strike a new era of "war on suspect" could be opened most likely

You know germans are told to be accurate and things like that. What is the problem to let the UN officials work till they say they are finished. The whole case got totally out of control mostly because US say THIS one day and THAT the other.

They wanted inspections - > they got them

They wanted proof -> There was none found till now

They now say they don´t need proof cause they "know" it -> bullshit

They say UN is the one to decide about war or not -> they now say they don´t give a shit about the UN decision and go to war in any way.

So, what do think about this ? I mean international rules and laws are not just for fun. Bush claims that Iraq has WMD´s with no prove, but in the same sentence he tells that he will break international law and open up a war. I don´t see the good guy here, sorry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think European governments just fall into silent acceptance of US actions after the war has begun regardless of demonstrations out on the streets.<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t think so. It´s the people that make a state, and the people here are not unactive. Public pressure of 81 percent of the population can be a hard thing to stand. Also I am sure that US will come up with some bills as they preventually already did. We will not pay for a US homegrown war.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Jan. 22 2003,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Jan. 23 2003,021)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">EDIT: I am sooo sick of you teenage americans playing little games with what is being said here. So many BS arguments here it's disturbing. <span id='postcolor'>

Hmm. I could say same things about some of my fellow European posters (maybe also of myself ) so please let's cut this 'European poster's comments are smarter than ones by Americans' -debate.<span id='postcolor'>

I know, I thought some members; like Akira were a lot younger... I was frustrated, I'm not afraid to admit it. I am still frustrated, but I don't want to destroy this great thred. (any further )

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,03:59)</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">Napoleonic WMD?

Dunno if it was missed in all the shite hurling or just no one cared

Article about a documentary coming out that claims the British briefly considered gas attacks against French ports in the Napoleonic era. <span id='postcolor'>

No relation to this topic by all means Akira.

If you want to discuss it, pls open a new thread.<span id='postcolor'>

Other than the fact this thread has occasionally gone to WMD's in general and "first use"?

Well if that isn't good enough maybe this is...

Labels Read 'Made in China'

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,04:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

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

The tricky thing is that US want NATO and EU assistance in money, material and troops. That is pretty different.<span id='postcolor'>

But again, they are perfectly capable of doing the job alone. Basically, if they want war with Iraq European opinions will fall into insignificance. EU is lacks political force to do anything about it and EU member Britain is quite firmly with Americans on this current crisis.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The cold war actually was over for Germany in the late 60´s and beginning 70´s.There was no real danger for an russian invasion from that time on. Still the US bases in germany are there. Yes the Pershing rockets have been removed by protesters in germany. That is fact. I don´t believe US were in germany mainly for the protection of our country from 72 - today, but to have a good located base situation for their military operations. This is nothing new.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm aware of the good relations established to East-Germany and Soviet Union in early 70s by Willy Brandt and other good German politicians. But good relations just don't dismiss the fact that there are dozens of tank divisions just on the each side of the border with pre-calculated objectives in case of world war III breaks out. And good relations are quite easily worsened by political crisis resulting from various factors. I would not be so cynical by saying that US military had no business in Europe 1972 onwards. This icy period melted between 1985-1989 but before that US military presence was very well justified. NATO still exists and Germany & US are allies so bases are still there.

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

The facts are:

- there is no prove for existing WMD´s in Iraq today

- there is no justification for preemptive strikes on this planet since 1952

- the war in Iraq could cause things we can´t even think of

- by doing a preemptive strike a new era of "war on suspect" could be opened most likely

You know germans are told to be accurate and things like that. What is the problem to let the UN officials work till they say they are finished. The whole case got totally out of control mostly because US say THIS one day and THAT the other.

They wanted inspections - > they got them

They wanted proof -> There was none found till now

They now say they don´t need proof cause they "know" it -> bullshit

They say UN is the one to decide about war or not -> they now say they don´t give a shit about the UN decision and go to war in any way.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with this - inspections should go for as long as they need to be conducted. I really hope US will not go to war with the current flimsy proofs of Iraqi WMDs. I think it would be great political victory for US if Iraq is disarmed peacefully and Saddam is made to obey the UN resolutions. I sincerely hope that this all is just a gigantic bluff and storm of rhetoric with the language even Saddam Hussein understands. But I also think the majority of Europeans supports the toppling of Saddam,  but not by full scale invasion causing civilian casualties. US just has to come up with some other solutions if possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don´t think so. It´s the people that make a state, and the people here are not unactive. Public pressure of 81 percent of the population can be a hard thing to stand. Also I am sure that US will come up with some bills as they preventually already did. We will not pay for a US homegrown war.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes but in order to change country's policies there has to be some major demonstrations combined with significant labor strikes. Opinion polls and few thousand protestors just won't cause any serious political shifts against US let alone practical economical sanctions etc. I just don't see that coming in Europe, especially if the war is relatively quick blitzkrieg with Iraqi army and resistance collapsing the way it did in Desert Storm. We just have to wait and see.

It's good that European powers have now stated clearly that they they want US to 'hold their horses' in Iraqi crisis but same kind of decisiveness should also be shown when the use of force is justified and inevitable, even if it means commitment of European troops. Balkans civil war in early 90s showed serious impotence in EU crisis management and much due that 200,000 people were killed in one of the most outrageous parts of European history. That should never again be possible. This however bears no resemblence the current situation of course.

[Akira 0]

Iraqi National Congress

Found another interesting page, this time testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Dr Ahmad Chalabi.

The interesting thing about this is it was in 2000, before Bush came waltzing along, while Clinton was still President. Chalabi talks of an interesting piece of legislation that I, admitedly, have heard nothing about and will edit this page with a link if I can find one.

Here is the relevant qoute:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The Congress of the United States has recognized this fact and moved decisively against Saddam. By overwhelming bi-partisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, duly signed by the President, Congress has appropriated funds, provided constitutional authority and ordered military support to the Iraqi National Congress. The Iraq Liberation Act, the centerpiece of these Congressional efforts, is historic legislation. In the ILA, for the first time, the United States has overtly committed itself to the overthrow of an illegal dictatorship and to support for the establishment of a democratic government in its place. The Iraqi people are forever grateful.

The Iraq Liberation Act is United States law. President Clinton signed the ILA on December 31 ,1998 . On November15 ,1998 , he made the ILA the centerpiece of his Iraq policy.

Yet, despite bold words and professed commitment, almost nothing has been done. There has been virtually no military drawdown, less than $20, 000from a $ 97million authority. There has been virtually no financial support, less that $100, 000actually given to the INC.<span id='postcolor'>

This is after Desert Storm obviously, and after Bush Sr. tried to persuade the Kurdish and other minorities and disidents to rise up. This is while sanctions are still being imposed upon Iraq.

Here Charabi mention that a proposal for Fiscal Year 2000 has been submited for aid but not yet approved. I bolded text that I found interesting.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Our proposal for the $ 8million in FY 2000 State Department Economic Support Funds appropriated to the INC is on the administration's desk and has been since November. If it is approved before the end of this month, we can begin humanitarian relief projects within 45 days and begin broadcasting operations in less than30 .

Our preliminary requests for material and training under the ILA have been submitted since February. If accepted by the end of this month, effective INC military units, intelligence teams and humanitarian aid workers can be operating in coordination with US support by the end of August.

We need these US actions immediately and are counting on the word of the Vice President to deliver them.

<span id='postcolor'>

Vice President at the time was of course Al Gore.

Here is the text of the ILA.

Iraq Liberation Act

It appears that Bush is continuing a policy that was started, and signed by the largely Democratic Congress and signed by the Great Bill Clinton.

It appears this act was established but then never followed up on ,nor given any serious fiscal support to meet its goals.

EDIT: Reread my thingie and it seems anti-democratic....not what was intended.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,01:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am sorry that I didnt see the whole context of the speech Bush held in St. Louis.  I did so right now.

And I also heard what Rumsfeld had to say about France and Germany today. He classified us as "old europe" that doesnt count much anymore. He said that eastern european countries (that are in fact not in the EU by now) are the ones that like US so the "old europe" opinion doesnt count much anymore.

This will keep the US foreign ministry very busy the next days. What is he after ? To discredit countries that dont support war ?

What happened ?

German foreign minister Fischer said that there is no support for a war right now. He said that UN weapon inspectors must be given time to finish their investigations.

Same did French foreign minister De Villepin.

Rumsfeld now says that France and Germany are a problem. What is next. Will the US bomb us cause we dont agree to a war ? We are a problem now. Funny.

He also said that the vast majority of other countries is on the US side and shares their opinions on the war on Iraq which is in fact a big lie to the american public.<span id='postcolor'>

Rumsfled is full of it. I don't know if this is a lame propaganda attempt or if he is really delusional. The support for a war is if anything weaker in eastern Europe.

Perhaps it is some form of attempt to put pressure on the newest NATO members. He fails to understand though that regardless of that good relations to Germany are much more important for those countries then good relations to the US. Their priority is to join the EU. Pissing off Germany and France is not the way to achieve that.

Here is an interesting survey

ABCNEWS Nightline poll

I would like to find some world statistics on support for war on Iraq, but I have failed. If youfeel that your google skillz are good, please try to find the statistics.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

This is taken from here:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/834572.asp?cp1=1

Its not exactly comprehensive, but it gives a general overview of the figures.

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

Even in Britain, the only major nation that supports America’s threat of military action against Iraq, support slumped to its lowest level last week. The weekly Guardian/ICM tracker poll, which began Aug. 23, shows that 1 in 3 support military action, down from 42 percent after the terrorist attack in Bali, Indonesia, last month. Opposition to the war started at 50 percent but has settled at around 40 percent. In Ireland, the public opposes military action by the United States without U.N. approval by a margin of almost 3 to 1.

      Canadian support has fallen to only 38 percent, compared with 52 percent in January. The percentage of Canadians against joining a war nearly doubled, with 44 per cent saying they would oppose participation.  

Advertisement

 

        In Italy, one recent poll showed that nearly 90 percent of those surveyed opposed war against Iraq and 95 percent were opposed to any Italian participation. In another poll, 97 percent of Germans were against German participation in the war. Nearly two-thirds of French people were also opposed to their country becoming involved in a military strike, even if it had U.N. support. More than 82 percent of Swiss were against a military attack against Iraq without a U.N. mandate, while 75 percent of four Norwegians were against any U.S.-led operation to oust Saddam.

      Asian countries are also opposed to the war. Eight out of ten people in Hong Kong are against military intervention in Iraq. Seventy-seven percent of Japanese oppose a U.S. military attack on Iraq. In Australia, only 45 percent approved of an American military strike.

      However, just like the Europeans, 68 percent said they would support Australian involvement in a U.S.-led war that was backed by the U.N.

      In Moscow, a poll showed 53 percent of Russians opposed U.S.-led military operation. In Czechoslovakia, only 42 percent support a military operation and 49 percent are against Czech troops being deployed.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But again, they are perfectly capable of doing the job alone. Basically, if they want war with Iraq European opinions will fall into insignificance. EU is lacks political force to do anything about it and EU member Britain is quite firmly with Americans on this current crisis.

<span id='postcolor'>

Basically yes, but there are several options for the EU to react:

- denial of airspace use for military jets and transports to the region over EU countries

- denial of local airfield useage in EU countries

- import taxes on US goods risen (US did this sometimes to EU goods)

- no military support to guard US installations in EU countries.

- UN intervention on the breach of inernational law.

- no AWACS from NATO for US.

this list could be continued. There are options EU and NATO has. I don´t count Brits in as an independant , selfdeciding country anymore. Blair has his head so deep in someone elses *** that he misses to see the light of day. But he risks his political career if he continues like that. British citizens are not with him, when it comes to Iraq war without UN mandate.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would not be so cynical by saying that US military had no business in Europe 1972 onwards. This icy period melted between 1985-1989 but before that US military presence was very well justified. NATO still exists and Germany & US are allies so bases are still there.

<span id='postcolor'>

They actually had business there, but the main factors have changed untill then. Right now US uses their bases in germany as a jumppoint to the ME and for supply ways. Germany has rights and these rights include to voice their opinions on the useage of their soil. Therefore US has to listen if they want to keep the bases open for some more time. If you follow Rumsfeld´s statememnt you could get the impression , that US bases in germany are for controlling us. Just a funny idea.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I also think the majority of Europeans supports the toppling of Saddam, but not by full scale invasion causing civilian casualties. US just has to come up with some other solutions if possible.

<span id='postcolor'>

Most europeans think that Saddam is a bad guy. But also most of the Europeans think the only ones that have the best view on the problem are the Iraqi citizens and their neighbours. Political pressure on Saddam is great, but a war on his soil will be no good for a longterm political and attitude change in the country. I mean it is not only Saddam. It is the whole Bath party that currently rules Iraq. You can´t execute them all to invent a new democracy. By the way all neighbout countries except Israel have no democracy. They fear:

- a democracy in Iraq wont work (civil wars)

- a change in their own countries that would be accomponied with loss of power

- a heatsource within ME that could be the source for mayn problems that are not so easy to control as they are right now.

This is an external source:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saudi Arabia, and the other Arab states, don't want the US throwing Saddam out and establishing a democratic government in Iraq. If this succeeded, it would encourage Arabs throughout the region to call for democracy. The only functioning democracy in the region is Israel. Egypt's democracy is a one party affair tightly controlled by a "president for life" and stifling bureaucracy. Iran's democracy is controlled by a religious council that has veto power over everything.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

As I see it the UN inspectors in Iraq are not about finding weapons but to delay or possibly prevent a war. Europe isn't concerned about Saddam, but about Bush.

Bush cited the violation of UN resolutions as the main reason for war. The rest of the world, not wanting to go to war found the perfect solution for the situation: involve the UN. As USA is a military might, the UN is a beaurocratic might. Make it a UN matter and you'll be sure to delay things to a maximum.

Objectivly Saddam poses no threat, especially not after the last Gulf War. Therfor the probability of him having a grand nuclear program was very slim. The inspectors are bound to find nothing, at least for a considerable time.

This is just a nice way of saying 'fuck you' to Bush without provoking America too much.

And it had worked quite well. The inspections are of course taking more time then Bush is willing to give. The rest of the world can say "Well, we'd love to bomb Iraq with you but sorry we have to follow international law. Maybe next time"

It is a nice diplomatic solution that minimizes the antagonism between the US and the rest of the world while it is making war on Iraq more difficult. Bush & co are of course perfectly aware of their frustration is showing like in the statement that Rumsfeld gave yesterday about France and Germany.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bush & co are of course perfectly aware of their frustration is showing like in the statement that Rumsfeld gave yesterday about France and Germany.

<span id='postcolor'>

and China today stated that it´s position is very close to the position of france in this matter. This means China does not support a war at Iraq right now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I see it the UN inspectors in Iraq are not about finding weapons but to delay or possibly prevent a war.<span id='postcolor'>

Don´t get me wrong denoir. Their mission is certainly not delaying a war. Their mission is to find things Iraq was told to have from the US and to enforce UN treaty. This is what s done. They are responsible ones to judge if Iraq is dangerouse or not. The US basicallly have no right to attack Iraq. There was no military action form Iraq on the US or any neighbour lately. Besides that a preemptive strike still is on the ban list.

Rumsfeld´s speech yesterday had a big echo here. France and germany will react accordingly.

In the US itself Senators urged Bush and Rumsfeld to synchronize their speeches and public interviews to avoid harm on unilateral relations.

Tom Daschle said that a lone run without the allies would be a "big mistake".

Jon Kyle added that the US itself needs more consense about this issue before any steps are taken.

Joseph Biden stated that a war without a broad assistance within the US public is unthinkable.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 23 2003,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don´t get me wrong denoir. Their mission is certainly not delaying a war. Their mission is to find things Iraq was told to have from the US and to enforce UN treaty. This is what s done. They are responsible ones to judge if Iraq is dangerouse or not.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not talking about the consequences of the UN involvement or what rights the US has. I'm talking about the motivation behind why suddenly the whole world became interested in disarming Iraq. Nobody had any interests in Iraq until Bush said he wants his war. Then suddenly everybody starts saying that this is a very important thing that the UN must deal with. The involvement of UN is simply a way of making it more difficult for Bush to get his war.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Denoir is right. Bringing in the UN is the perfect way to delay any US action. They can claim that the inspectors need more time (certainly they do- they chased Saddam all over for 8 years the first time), and that a month and a half was an unreasonable timeline to complete a full report in the first place. The idea that this entire inspection regime is just an apparatus to slow down or halt the US's march to war has been something I've considered from the beginning, and only recently (a few days ago) when C.I. Blix changed his wording for the January report from a 'full report' to an 'update' was it manifest. Now, completely sidestepping the issue of whether the politically-inspired delay is good or bad, it is obvious that Europeans and others are exerting all the pull they can through the UN to slow down or delay the inspection regime, in the hopes that the US will not initiate hostilities until the inspections have either wrapped up or come up with a conclusive report.

[Guest]

I've just read some French and German newspapers (on the web). They seem to be very, very upset by Rumsfeld's statements.

I don't know what he was trying to achive with them but pissing of France that has veto in the security council is not a good idea. If there was any chance that Germany and France were to help USA in the war on Iraq, Rumsfeld blew it.

Der Spiegel article

Le Figaro article

[Bernadotte 0]

ABC News Online