The Ferret

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You should read the text of the resolution instead of making your assumptions of what you heard on the radio. You misquoted the resolution entirely. (Full text<span id='postcolor'> I have read them and I cited three resolutions, not just 687. Connect the dots. Read between the lines. What was the purpose of the Cease-Fire and how did then intend exactly to insure that the conditions would be met? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the same fashion as you gave him biological and chemical weapons. "Anthrax? Biological weapons? No! He just likes to study the little buggers" <span id='postcolor'> Sure, but I'm not the one who acts as though France holds it's current position because "they so soft, squishy, loving, and just want peace." Denoir, you said as a Swede you "backed France's position 100%". I'm questioning France's motivations, and saying they are full of it...so bork bork bork put ze cheeken en der ovun. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Which will be traded in $ not €. The sad part is that we'll end up paying for the bloody mess that you make and still reap very few benifits. And while it certainly would be the rigth thing to do we can't tell you to fuck off and clean up your own mess since it would mostly hurt the Iraqi population. It's the same old story, you drop the bombs and we (Europe & Japan) pay for rebuilding it.<span id='postcolor'> Now see...that's just too much. Bomb's we been dropping for who's two damned World Wars? Bomb's we been dropping to protect who from communism? The Balkens are at your own backdoor, and who did you call to lead that fight? Who paid for it? You hate us? Man alive...it was your wars and your rubble that made us! Not only that, but now you're cursing and I don't like conversing on posts with people like that. Best I can do is ask you to take your own advice: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to fuck off and clean up your own mess <span id='postcolor'> And with that, I think I'll call an end to my little posting adventure. Oh I might drop in every so often, but I'm sure the rhetoric (blame America no matter what) will always be here. Not to mention the fact that I don't live in a perpetually neutral country, that loves ABBA, let Hitler roll through, and subsidizes me with the time to post 6,000 times. Dream on of your upcoming Euro empire. America may fall, but it'll probably be the Asians who take over, not Europe. BORK BORK BORK...and have a nice life.

For Bernadette or whatever: You said "Resolution 687, the nearest I can find to any mention of consequences is this: Quote  [The UN] Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area. You wouldn't just be makin' up all that stuff about military action, would ya?" Well first of all, I cited UN 687 after hearing the discussion on a radio talk show, what I said is precisely what the experts said. UN 687 lays out the terms of the Cease Fire, which includes the afore mentioned WMD issue. The way I read that is : "Iraq, X, Y, and Z are what you must do to uphold your end of the cease fire." What is the implication then if Iraq fails to comply? If they are the conditions of a CEASE-FIRE, and they are not met, doesn't it stand to reason that the fire will resume? Take that back to UN Resolution 678 which says that "all necessary means to uphold and implement" UN 660, which demanded Iraq to withdrawl from Kuwait and establish "peace and security in the area." So, I agree with those that say that this is a continuation of unfinished business. That the world agrees that it is unfinished business is made clear in UN 1441. You said: ["My dictionary has a word for what you are calling illegal in a sense of morality:  Immoral Even though English is not denoir's first language, I suspect he would have used immoral if that's what he'd meant.  Now take it from a native speaker of English:  The US/UK bombing is illegal.  It was launched to defend militants in the north and south as they attempted to overthrow Saddam Hussein and it has nothing to do with resolution 687."] Yea well, the word of the use "immoral" did not fit with the way I wanted the sentance to flow, and I retain literary license over my own written word. The US/UK strikes are, in my and others opinions, legal under UN 678 and 688. I looked for documentation about any UN Resolutions against the US for conducting the strikes and haven't found any mention. If I'm wrong, let me know. Until then, the original question remains. Have the US/UK strikes been illegal or immoral (there happy?) Countless world experts argue the legality, so let's just agree to disagree. If you say it's immoral why? Is it immoral to provide Kurds and Shiite a safe sky against Saddam? Does the world enjoy Saddam so much, that they want to see him crush those within his own country who would oppose him? Is it immoral for pilots who are flying a UN enforcement mission to attack radar stations or missle sites that light them up? Personally, I think MOST of thes strikes everyone makes such big deals about are simply pilots being lit up by radar and releasing a anti-radiation missle in response. Quote (The Ferret @ Mar. 15 2003,18:53) Going back to the days when they sold them the nuclear reactor, didn't that business deal go down while Iraq was engaged in the Iraq/Iran war? You said : "No. Iraq established its nuclear program in the late 1960s when it acquired its first nuclear facilites. Later, in the 1970s, Iraq was unsuccessful in negotiations with France to purchase a plutonium production reactor similar to the one used in France's nuclear weapons program. In addition to the reactor, Iraq also wanted to purchase the reporcessing plant needed to recover the plutonium produced in the reactor. Even through these requests were denied, France agreed to build a research reactor along with associated laboratories. ... In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. " Found this interesting...the Iran/Iraq war began in the spring of 1980 and the Israeli attack in the summer of 1981. So yes,  they were at war, and no it didn't stop France from continuing in assisting Iraq in the construction of that plant. My point was, that if France were really so interested in the cause of peace, they would have broke their ties and applied pressure to stop  that war. They didn't, and after the attack even agreed in principal to rebuild the Osiraq reactor, though yes, they ended up not doing that. Why did Iraq want assistance in developing systems to recover nuclear material, and what does that about Saddam's nuclear ambitions? I know, many of you will say "It's not because he wants the bomb, he just likes things that glow!" I'm listening to the news as I write this. Hans Blix has just said again that Iraq never gave it's full co-operation, and yes he wish he had had more time. That's 12 years after UN 687, and 5 months after UN 1441. Also, of interest. France says that if we are attacked with WMD's they may join our forces. I would think that having gone on a world crusade to front and embarass us, France would have be so certain that Iraq was complying as to preclude any such statements. I'll finish my diatribe with this for all you who say we just want the oil: 1. We have already said that the administration of Iraqi oil will be handled by the UN. France: "OOOH OOOH me me, I wanna help with that!!!" 2. President Bush told them not to destroy the wells, because it's their source of wealth, and vital to rebuilding their country and keeping our expenses down. 3. The US gets less that 20% of its oil from all middle-eastern countries combined, it's been that way for a long while, and our gas prices have been reasonable. 4. Again, if this were just about oil, we could have led the UN in lifting sanctions, and probably struck deals that would have us swimming in it. Sorry...messed up the quote boxes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is getting illegaly bombed every day by US & UK planes, so special forces on the ground wouldn't be so much more radical<span id='postcolor'> Denoir, UN Resolution 687 which was in regards to the terms of the GW1 armistice, gave Iraq 15 days to disclose EVERY WMD in possession, and the details of all WMD development programs. It gave them 45 days to begin complete destruction and dismantling. The consequence of failure? Military action. Iraq never complied...that was back in 1991. UN 1441 echoed many of the demands and thousands of liters of VX and anthrax remain un accounted for. So is US/UK bombing illegal in the legal sense? Or illegal in your Swedish/French sense of morality? And what about this French morality. I remember how you said that your were from Sweden and how you backed the French postion 100%. Later you talked about loyalty and asked where was US loyalty to France's "peace" initiative. Now im finding out that Iraq's telephone company is French! That France makes over 3 Billion dollars a year on Iraqi Food for Oil and Money for Oil deals. I'm finding out that France and other European countries have attended trade shows in Iraq, and been promised all sorts of great business opprotunities in Iraq as soon as trade sanctions are lifted. Did you know that good ol' Jack ChIraq has referred to Saddam as "my good friend"? Going back to the days when they sold them the nuclear reactor, didn't that business deal go down while Iraq was engaged in the Iraq/Iran war? I would think that in the French interest of "peace", and in their high sense of morality would have precluded the conduct of business deals while Iranian peoples were being killed by Iraqi bullets. I must say, I'm confused. I lift my blood stained American hands to my head and rub! Surely, only America is capable of putting money before morals!

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.

</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  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.  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,  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. <span id='postcolor'> 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.

</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. <span id='postcolor'> We are where we are today, precisely because of what has happened in the past.

Hello again, Been reading the posts and would just like to throw in my penny's worth...some observations and comments about what I've been reading. It will cover various topics. 1. 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 treaty 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. Hasn't France been fighting in the Ivory Coast to protect it's interests and citizens? Add to all this that the fact, according to the United States Tour Operators Association, that American tourists in France are being cursed in the streets and being told to go home. Am I to take it that it's no longer just the US government that they hate now? At this point the only thing France has yet to do: send us a modification kit for the Statue of Liberty...a big middle finger to replace the torch, and the means to rotate it TOWARDS New York City. 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. 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? 4. American's role in WW2: (Just tell me where I'm wrong, and why America has an inflated view of it's participation). 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? The US went home, and disarmed. At the beginning of WW2 the US had one of the smallest and most ineffective militaries in the world. Everyone's equipment was superior to our own, not to mention the level of training. So much so that, both Japan and Germany, handed our asses to us several times in the early battles. America entered the war and the outcome is history. Now, let's talk about the US role. Several of you have pointed out that the USSR was the real hero. Fine, but I want to put that in perspective, because I do think we have some credit due us. I cannot deny that 8 of every 10 German soldiers killed were killed on the Russian Front. I would never deny the blood, skill, or bravery of the Soviet soldier. However, I would submit that a large part of that success is because of American involvement thru the Lend Lease Program. I do not think that Germany would have won against Russia, the battles insuring Soviet survival were won or stalemated before much of the American support started rolling in. But think about the Russian Offensives and ask yourself if the USSR would have been able to mount them, or been able to counter German Offensives without this US (and other Allied) support: 20,000 Armoured Fighting Vehicles (tanks, half-tracks, SP Artillery, the Sherman was widely used in Soviet Tank Training Regiments because it was mechanically more reliable than the T-34) 151,000 1.5 ton trucks 201,000 2.5 ton trucks (thats about 59% of the trucks used by the soviets) 52,000 motorcycles 2 million tires 7000 anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns. 2400 Field guns and artillery pieces. 81,000 machine guns 103,000 tons of toluene (used in production of TNT, USSR produced 116,000 tons...they would have had 50% less explosives without our aid) 476,000 tons of 100% octane aircraft fuel. 8,000 aircraft 5.5 million combat boots 4.5 million tons of food stuffs ( saw a History Channel special on the T-34 tank. An old crusty Russian tank soldier talked about how much they enjoyed American canned beef) 23 million yards of military cloth 317,000 tons of explosives (that includes the afore mentioned toluene) 22 million shells ( How many of those shells killed Germans? Arty was the biggest killer in WW2 you know.) It goes on and on...a study of this will show that a lesser percentage of this equipment was British, and I don't snub my nose at that, but isn't it also fair to say that the US was propping up Britain and keeping her going long before the US was formally involved in the war? Wasn't it US built Liberty Ships that kept supplies flowing to Britain? I hear alot about "The USA's late entry into the war...DEC 41. The USSR entered JUN 41. Six months is the difference between "late" and "hero" eh? And after the war? We were told, by all countries participating in the Lend-Lease Program: "We cannot, and will not repay the debt." America didn't whine or moan, or demand. I gotta go to work...chew on that. If you flame me, at least be fair and honest. I'm trying to be! Forgive any errors in spelling or grammar.

I've just finished watching a program on the History Channel call "Beyond the Gulf War". The program went into detail about Iraq's weapons programs, from the purchasing of a Calufuge to enrich plutonium to interviews with Iraqi scientists who have defected. It showed films of the original UN inspectors having their vehicles stopped and documents they had taken from weapon sites, forceably removed by the Iraqi military, also it showed them not being allowed to leave various sites with certain documents or pieces of equipment they had taken for analysis. It documented the threats they received and them ultimately being kicked out of Iraq. Just days AFTER having kicked out the UN inspectors the US conducted airstrikes for several days. One of those strikes damaged a building which revealed to spy satellites, four drones designed for delivering chemical warheads, drones that had not been discovered by 8 years of UN inspections. Some days ago, I asked 11 questions, most of which were ignored. That's fine, I work alot and am not a serious or frequent poster on this board. However, one of the individual's, who did post a response, said that my contention that Saddam is actively trying to build WMD's was "pure supposition". If the stupid History Channel can produce a two hour show which endlessly documents Iraq's weapons program, how can anyone honestly hold to the position that Iraq doesn't have WMD, and Saddam has had a change of heart? Does anyone believe that Saddam Hussein did not spend the years between 1998 and 2002, when there were no UN inspectors, going to great lengths developing methods to hide his programs from future inspectors? I mean hell, he was doing that when they were there! All over Iraq, Saddam has himself depicted in paintings as Saladin, the historical, warrior, savior of the Arab world. You honestly don't believe he would try to strike a massive blow against Israel given half the chance? If he did strike a nuclear blow against Israel. How do you think most of the Arab world would react to that? Does comparing him to Hitler still seem that laughable? By the way, despite Iraq not being an industrialized country, Saddam Hussein did in fact have the fourth largest military in the world prior to the first Gulf War. If not a Hitler on the global scale, he was and can be again well on way to being one in the Mid-east. Which supplies most of the world's fuel. In a recent post it was said "Bush hasn't given Saddam a chance to get on the right side of the line in the sand." He's had 4 months to open up. Saddam says "Golly, my scientiests just don't wanna talk to the inspectors, Can't force 'em you know, I'm just a dictator responsible for the torture and death of tens of thousands, but I can't influence my scientists to talk with you." He says it, and half of you believe it. Blix has said over and over that Iraq still has not made the decision to fully cooperate. How long does it take for a man to decide to stop playing games? How much cooperation do you think we'd get if Bush had been any less hard lined then he has been? I read these posts, and I'm absolutely amazed. No matter what America is the bad guy. As far as Bush wanting real estate: 1. We don't want it. American's are not imperialistic in nature. You looking for imperalism, look at European history, not American. 2. At this point Bush, and unless this turns out PERFECTLY, he has lost his chances at re-election, and he knows it. This isn't the act of a politician, this is a man who right or wrong is fighting with a conviction. 3. Â Name a country we've ever fought and kept. We left Iraq the first time. I fought in Panama not much more than a decade ago, and last I heard we don't even have troops there anymore. Grenada...nope. Skip Vietnam (eh). Korea...we are the only reason there is a South Korea. Germany...yes we all know what a puppet of the US they have been, and to think, it just as easily could have been "Western Russia" or maybe "Stalinland". Japan? Sneak attack us, and 60 years later both my cars and my TV are made there. Spain? Mexico? Name one! Sometimes inept, sometimes naive, usually imperfectly...we have always been kind, tried to be fair, and tried to make it a better place, leaving it in the hands of the people who live there. 4. Lastly, if you really believe that all we want is cheap oil, think about it....We strike a deal with good ol' trustworthy, peace-loving Saddam. We ask the UN to lift the sanactions, I bet France wouldn't even whimper over that request. We get oil for $5 a pop. Saddam goes on being....Saddam, and everyone's happy and blissfully stupid. That would be much cheaper than the money we will be pumping into the war, the rebuilding, the proping up and support of a new Iraqi government, not to mention the lives to be saved.

As an American, I support what our President is doing, but that is not to say that I or we as a nation "want" to go to war. Now, I have seen the international outcry against the war on TV, and I've read posts on this forum that reflect that view. I know there are alot of Europeans who post on this forum, and I know that most Europeans believe that Americans have no idea what goes on outside the US. So, I am asking, tell me where I am mistaken on the following points. 1. Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam, invaded Kuwait. 2. With the sanction of the UN (ie the world community), the US led an international military coalition that pushed Iraq out of Kuwait, and forced Iraq to sue for peace. 3. The terms of the treaty ending the war, stipulated that Iraq would destroy all weapons of mass destruction in their possession, stop any research, production, and development of such weapons, and that there would be UN inspections to insure that Iraq was upholding its end of the treaty. 4. Iraq thawarted inspection efforts immediately and eventually kicked out UN inspectors. Putting Iraq in violation of the treaty. 5. The international community and the US, under the Clinton administration, did not force Iraq to comply with the conditions to which they had agreed. Instead, it imposed embargos, which has had no effect on Saddam's weapons programs or palace construction, has only hurt the Iraqi populace, and on which we are all still waiting to work. 6. The US was attacked by Islamic extreamists on 9/11/01. 7. Iraq as a matter of state policy is likely to help and supply terrorist organizations. 8. Iraq is actively trying to develop WMDs. 9. If having successfully developed nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein is exactly the type of man who would supply such weapons to terrorists for use against the US or Israel. 10. Despite lessons that Europe should have learned when appeasing Hitler, it still believes that "force is not the answer to everything"...so much so that it has come to believe that "force is the answer to nothing." 11. That although it is Saddam Hussein who is in violation of the treaty, the US is the country the world is protesting. Could not the protest signs have just as easily and more morally read "SADDAM DISARM" as opposed to "THE US IS IMPERALISTIC" I have to go to work...I'll stop there. But I am curious. So tell me where I'm messed up.

And it got even worse...that radiation awoke Godzeera! Not to mention Gamera...and it stunted the growth of those two little women who ride around on Mothra! How many times must Godzeera trample Tokyo before those poor bastard Japs will have paid for bombing Pearl Harbor? The Japs said they were solly, and I for one accept their apology! Let's get that big lizard back to Monster Island were he belongs.