The Iraq thread 3

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Yet NATO 'defended' the Kosovan Albanians from apparent ethnic cleansing even though Yugoslavia was not a part of NATO and to my knowledge no member was in imminent military danger.

So a precedent (or precedents) have already been set in regards to NATO going on missions that do not directly fall under the old justification of military defence of member states. The cold war being over, the original set of circumstances that necessitated the creation of NATO have changed and so NATO is more or less searching new roles. In that context, Bush trying to get NATO involved in Iraq seems at least to be consistent with the changing nature of the organisation. And i cant say i find it too distressing, especially now with a UN resolution as i understand it 'abolishing' the occupation (hah). There is no guarantee but internationalising the training of Iraqi security, policing and defence seems likely to increase stability and make it harder for insurgents to unite the population against the foreigners in their midst.

[theavonlady 2]

Thought NATO was supposed to be only a defencive pact?

Oh well, another good reason not to join (at least officially).

Hi EiZei

Yes that what it is; a defensive pact.

In other words someone has to attack a member of the pact.

Iraq did not attack any member of the pact. It was not even a threat to any member of the pact.

For us to claim support under that defensive pact is clearly wrong and I am glad you brought it to our attention.

Kind Regards Walker

This is not accurate. See the NATO Treaty text.

A NATO member, in a legitimate offensive initiated by a member country, who is then attacked, would trigger NATO's military involvement, according to the treaty.

But there seem to be numerous other provisions that exclude NATO's participation in Iraq, at least from what I understand from the treaty.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

A NATO treat indeed. Lawyers could probably find justification for more than one course of action in the Treaty but anyway, as France or Germany seem unwilling at the moment to contribute significant forces to Iraq as part of NATO its a bit academic.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]Well, the UN resolution is basically just form, not substance. It does not do anything to solve the problem.

Yet a UN resolution in the first place would have made the invasion of Iraq somehow legitimate?

Thats certainly what a lot of people were arguing before the war (being quite confident the US & UK would not be able to get such a resolution to pass). When the structure and processes of the UN are flawed then its resolutions would tend to be flawed as well (i think that is so). But surely if UN resolutions are relied on to confer legitimacy then this recent change is very significant. It could be called a victory for US diplomacy.

[edit[edit- But i agree with Denoirs essential point that the changes mentioned in the article Tex posted are the most significant recent change in the Iraq situation]

[walker 0]

Yet NATO 'defended' the Kosovan Albanians from apparent 'ethnic cleansing' even though Yugoslavia was not a part of NATO and to my knowledge no member was in imminent military danger.

Hi IsthatyouJohnWayne

As you know war in the balkans triggered WWI any war there is clearly a threat to NATO.

I do take your point about internationalising the peace keeping effort and training the police but for anything like that the country has to be secure which clearly it is not.

We tried to do the war on the cheap

If at the start we had commited such troops as were required to stabalise the country, about 5 times as many as are there now, and spent money on fixing the the economic and social infrastucture we destroyed, we would be looking at a fixed Iraq with elections in September but we did not.

Political dishonesty and cronyism

We sacked the first govenor of Iraq who made that his priority and replaced him with Bremmer who's first priorty was taking 18 billion dollars worth of Oil out of Iraq and privatising it and giving the contracts to companies like Halliburton.

Net result:

* A country who's borders leak like sieve.

* No fresh water supplies and half the country still without electricity and or oil to boil water to make it clean they have even taken to sneeking in to old army ammo stores emptying ammo boxes to use the wood to boil water so their kids dont catch typhoid or cholera.

* No jobs the devil makes work for idle hands I will remind you.

* The festering wound that is occupied Iraq threatens to destablise the entire region already Saudi Arabia is no go area as bad as Iraq it self for westeners.

* The price of oil soaring as speculators make money out of peoples fears. Want to see who new they were going to make money out of you by charging more for gas? Check out the trailer for Michale Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/ you will see them laughing about their plans to charge you for that massive hike in the price of gas at the pump and to stiff the US Tax payer for the bill.

* Deaths of Coalition soldiers about to reach 1000 (948 to date and rising at 2 a day) plus one captured by insurgent forces and total coalition casualties of 4878.

* 89 contractors dead and a further 12 missing believed captured.

* A number of Iraqis dead so stagering as to cause Bremmer to censor it and refuse to count them but conservative estimates put it in exess of 15,000.

We did not fool them the first time and it aint going to work now

Now to expect some one else to foot that bill when we misinformed them to try to get them to agree to a needless war in the first place; and they went and checked it with their own intelligence service, who correctly assessed what we said as load of old rot, would seem to me slightly naive.

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

This was a good time to bring up the subject of NATO:

Quote[/b] ]Pentagon May Withdraw Troops From Germany

Tue Jun 8,10:35 PM ET

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has advised Germany that as part of a global shifting of U.S. military forces, it wants to withdraw its two Army divisions and replace them with fewer, lighter, more mobile troops.

The move would represent a significant change in the U.S. military presence in Europe, where American forces stood guard throughout the Cold War against the threat of a land invasion from the Soviet Union. The Pentagon has no intention of abandoning Europe but wants more flexibility in the way it can move Germany-based forces into other parts of the world like the Middle East, U.S. officials have said.

Defense Undersecretary Douglas J. Feith briefed senior German defense and diplomatic officials last week in Germany on the Pentagon thinking about U.S. troops in Germany.

Feith stressed in an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday that there's been no decision on U.S. troops in Germany. He said, however, that planning was "very far along," and "we are going to share our analysis" with the Germans.

A senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the near-final Pentagon thinking on the matter was to withdraw the two American divisions.

President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder did not discuss the Pentagon's desire to withdraw its two Army divisions during a meeting at the Group of Eight summit in Georgia, an administration official said.

Feith said the Pentagon was "pushing forward with cutting-edge capabilities" and that fewer, lighter and more modern units would be moved into Germany.

"It is not a retreat," Feith said. "We are swapping some forces for others."

In the revamping, Feith, who is undersecretary of defense for policy, said the 5th Corps headquarters, which is in Germany and oversees nearly all U.S. Army troops in Europe, would be overhauled but remain a headquarters.

The two divisions in Germany are the 1st Armored and the 1st Infantry. They would be returned to the United States under the Pentagon plan although it was unclear where.

In Berlin last week, Germany and U.S. officials had insisted that the United States had yet to complete plans for any troop withdrawals from Germany and was still consulting with allies.

German Foreign Ministry spokesman Walter Lindner told reporters Friday that it was too early to publicly discuss timetables and numbers.

Some 70,000 U.S. troops are assigned to Germany, although the Army's 1st Infantry Division and 1st Armored Division are currently in Iraq. The 1st Armored is due to finish its Iraq tour within a few weeks.

U.S. troops were based in large numbers in Germany throughout the Cold War to deter a Soviet invasion.

Turkey, close to Iraq and other hot spots in the Middle East, has been cited as a place to which some forces — particularly fighter planes — could be moved.

In South Korea, meanwhile, the U.S. military command announced Monday that it planned to cut U.S. troop strength — currently at 37,000 — by 12,500. But South Korean Defense Minister Cho Young-kil said Tuesday that talks with U.S. officials about the reduction were not complete.

The Bush administration is carrying out a worldwide force realignment to respond more effectively to emerging threats.

At the same time, it is trying to cope with keeping 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to help the newly sovereign government in Baghdad gain control over opposition forces. The United States also has some 20,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Even so, the worldwide revamping is being cast in terms of modernizing for the new century, and not offsetting manpower needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are now about 40,000 U.S. Army troops in Germany. But Feith said with plans to send "lighter forces in," it was not clear what the net reduction might turn out to be.

"Everything we are talking about now is in a sense notional because no final decisions have been made," Feith said.

"I stressed to them that what we are doing here is increasing our capability to fulfill (NATO) alliance commitments well into the future," Feith said. "They understood if you don't modernize and update your capability, you wind up with a problem."

The Germans understand "that what counts is capability, not numbers," he said.

Germany's consent would be necessary for the Bush administration to make a decision, he said.

And if the plan is approved, there will be further consultations with Germany in future years on how forces are aligned, Feith said.

[red oct 2]

why not just pull out of europe all together? i don't see any chances of another communist revolution in the near future. while were at it maybe we could pull out of korea as well...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

walker-

Quote[/b] ]to expect some one else to foot that bill when we misinformed them to try to get them to agree to a needless war in the first place; and they went and checked it with their own intelligence service, who correctly assessed what we said as load of old rot, would seem to me slightly naive.

George W Bush?

Quote[/b] ]Net result: ....

All of which may be true but now there is a real chance the situation can improve (be improved), a chance that must surely be seized upon. And despite your valiant efforts to illustrate the current inadequacies in Iraq, unfortunatly a situation in Dafur has developed that looks still more grave and perhaps worthy of our attention currently (though not Halliburtons).

[Akira 0]

As you know war in the balkans triggered WWI any war there is clearly a threat to NATO.

Hardly the same set of circumstances.

Politics and national political structure were a LOT different then, as was the preceptions of the belligerent nations.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]But surely if UN resolutions are relied on to confer legitimacy then this recent change is very significant. It could be called a victory for US diplomacy.

I dont think the US diplomacy skills are the main reason for the "victory". If their skills are any indication, its the other way around since they couldnt get the UN to approve of their actions BEFORE starting the war. The UN is almost forced to agree to some kind of resolution, for the sake of the Iraqi people if nothing else.

[walker 0]

As you know war in the balkans triggered WWI any war there is clearly a threat to NATO.

Hardly the same set of circumstances.

Politics and national political structure were a LOT different then, as was the preceptions of the belligerent nations.

Hi Akira

Yes they were different times the wall was not long down and europe was afraid that there might be coups in former warsaw block countries as they had only just stabalised and were going through economic reforms in preperation for entering the European Parliment.

If there were a war in the Balkans now I would not be so worried with europe under the enlarged European Parliment. At the time we got involved in the Balkans it was very worrying. I would remind you that several members of this forum from several European countries were involved in stabalisation actions in the balkans for more than a decade. Which should show you the commitment and awareness of the danger of war in the Balkans percieved by those countries.

A comparison of actual war in the Balkans that is surounded by European countries to a non existant threat in far off Iraq places the argument in perspective.

Kind Regards Walker

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

You just argued in your previous post that Iraq was in danger of destabilising the whole region (that paragon of stability and international safety the Middle East) did you not?

That seems like a potential threat at the least.

[billybob2002 0]

This is funny but I would call it....********

http://cbs11tv.com/international/Spain-Iraq-ai/resources_news_html

Quote[/b] ]

Spain insists its troops won't return to Iraq under any international mandate

Wednesday June 09, 2004

By MAR ROMAN

Associated Press Writer

MADRID, Spain (AP) Spanish troops that withdrew from Iraq will not return under any international mandate, the foreign minister said Wednesday, a day after the United Nations endorsed a multinational force as part of a plan to restore Iraqi sovereignty.

Quote[/b] ]

``We haven't been disloyal, neither with the Spanish citizens, nor with our European partners, nor with our Latin American partners, nor with the Security Council. They have considered us loyal, constructive partners,'' Moratinos said.

So, Zaphead is doing a 180 after he said they would sent troops if a UN mandate happened. Disloyal....yes!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]* The price of oil soaring as speculators make money out of peoples fears. Want to see who new they were going to make money out of you by charging more for gas? Check out the trailer for Michale Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/ you will see them laughing about their plans to charge you for that massive hike in the price of gas at the pump and to stiff the US Tax payer for the bill.

The price of gas is suppose to go down around $1.75/a gallon (national avg.) in a few weeks or so. Today's price of barrel is $38.30 and that dropped from $42.00 a barrel last week. But, it could go up some because of demand not a hike....

[denoir 0]

So, Zaphead is doing a 180 after he said they would sent troops if a UN mandate happened. Disloyal....yes!

Actually he said that Spain would only consider staying if there was a UN mandate. He made no promises.

And of course he won't change his position. The UN resolution is just window dressing.

[turms 0]

Peculiar would be if Spain would send troops to Iraq against the will of majority of the spanish people. Nothing weird in not sending troops in my wiev.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually he said that Spain would only consider staying if there was a UN mandate. He made no promises.

And of course he won't change his position. The UN resolution is just window dressing.

You notice has soon as that resolution was passed that Spainish government changed their minds....

Taken from earlier in the posts (link is dead)

Quote[/b] ]

His party won March 14 general elections and had pledged to bring Spain's 1,300 troops home unless the United Nations took political and military control.

[walker 0]

You just argued in your previous post that Iraq was in danger of destabilising the whole region (that paragon of stability and international safety the Middle East) did you not?

That seems like a potential threat at the least.

Hi IsthatyouJohnWayne

Yes I did say Iraq was in danger of destabalising the region.

You agree we caused the very thing we were suposed to be stopping.

To expect others to clean our mess is as I said naive.

As you said with regard to George Bush Jnr. I feel all members of TBA and TBA2 should have their personal fortunes so reduced as to force them to then to live in council/public housing projects; for their error or lies it does not matter which.

Kind Regards Walker

[Akira 0]

Putin Puts Democrats To Task

Quote[/b] ]Putin Takes Bush's Side Against Democrats on Iraq

2 hours, 1 minute ago

SEA ISLAND, Ga (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) stepped into the U.S. political campaign on Thursday, saying the Democrats had "no moral right" to criticize President Bush (news - web sites) over Iraq (news - web sites).

The Kremlin leader, answering a reporter's question in Sea Island, Georgia, suggested that the Democrats were two-faced in criticizing Bush on Iraq since it had been the Clinton administration that authorized the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. and NATO (news - web sites) forces.

The reporter had asked Putin to respond to U.S. press articles questioning Russia's place at the G8 feast of leading industrial countries.

Putin brushed these off, saying such articles were part of an internal U.S. political debate.

He went on: "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same.

"It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."

Russia was adamantly opposed to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, as it has been to the U.S.-led military operation Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

At the same time, Putin forged a strong friendship with Bush by offering immediate support in the global fight against terrorism. Both men go out of their way now to avoid criticizing each other publicly.

Yahoo News

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

EDIT:

Uhhg, I am going to stay out of this.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

It's happening again...

[billybob2002 0]

Handing more security over...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._combat

Quote[/b] ]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military will consult Iraq (news - web sites)'s interim leaders before engaging in future offensives and is shifting its priorities from fighting guerrillas to training Iraqi troops and protecting Iraq's fragile new government, the U.S. general who heads military operations said Thursday.

Quote[/b] ]

But decisions on U.S. operations will be made in concert with Iraq's incoming leaders, through liaisons sprinkled through coalition and Iraqi military units, Metz added.

Quote[/b] ]

"Combat becomes a lower priority than it has been for much of the insurgent fight to date," Metz said.

Quote[/b] ]

Metz said another top job is guarding Iraq's economic infrastructure — pipelines, electric pylons, roads — needed to resuscitate the economy, while protecting the fragile, fledgling government selected to run the country until January's elections.

Quote[/b] ]

With about 130,000 U.S. troops and some 24,000 British and other coalition soldiers in Iraq, Metz said U.S.-led troops will keep up their intelligence-based raids on rebel targets. The top focus will be capturing international terrorists believed to be behind the deadliest car bombings here, Metz said.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

"Combat becomes a lower priority than it has been for much of the insurgent fight to date," Metz said.

Someone better tell the insurgents....<------------------------------sarcasm

[Jinef 2]

The insurgents are going to be much much much better informed than anyone else on what is happeneing in Iraq.

[billybob2002 0]

Now he sees the light....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....cid=716

Quote[/b] ]

Shiite Cleric Vows to Support Iraqi Gov't

2 hours, 59 minutes ago  

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A radical cleric whose uprising two months ago has left hundreds dead and threatened to enflame the Shiite heartland said Friday he would cooperate with the new government if it works to end the U.S. military presence.

Quote[/b] ]

In the sermon, the fiery young cleric said "I support the new interim government" and asked his followers to "help me take this society to the path of security and peace."

Quote[/b] ]

But he apparently softened his stand under pressure from mainstream Shiite Muslim leaders, who negotiated a truce in Najaf and Kufa this month between the al-Mahdi Army and U.S. soldiers.

Quote[/b] ]

"It has to put a timetable for the end of the occupation," al-Shibani said. "This is the main and principled way to recognize this government and cooperate with it."

Quote[/b] ]

Remarks by both al-Sadr and his aide suggest that the firebrand cleric is bending to pressure from the influential, mainstream Shiite clergy while at the same time trying to preserve his image as a leader who stood up to the Americans.

....   What a waste of lives

[quicksand 0]

"Al-Sadr said he would cooperate with the new government on the condition that it provide a deadline for the end of the US-led occupation of Iraq."

You forgot to put bold letters on that part,which is the most important.The deadline which the interim gouverment isn`t hurrying even a tad to give.

Quote[/b] ] What a waste of lives

Indeed,of more then 50,000 Iraqis+900 coallition soldiers in the illegal war,more then 1.000 Iraqis in the useless siege of Fallujah that has strenghten the resistance,40 Iraqis at a wedding,thousands more because of the grose inabillity to provide security and the continuos frustration and fear of Iraqis concerning this occupation which made a radical cleric to have the support of 68% of the Iraqis,all this one year after the mission was accomplished and Iraqis sarted trowing flowers at US soldiers.