Why Europe (mainly France though) is against the US policy on Iraq.

[Dowding]

The US dealt with the 9/11 terrorists. They established a link with Bin Laden and went after them in Afganistan.

I had few reservations about the action - the link was well established/documented.

Who are the rogue states that aid and abette terrorism? Who are the states most likely to give terrorists weapons capable of killing large numbers of people?

Korea - has nuclear weapons, has a nutcase leader capable of starving millions of people to death on a whim, great links with the Terrorist Place in the Sun...

... known as Yemen. Excellent training facilities, plenty of friendly reps. Not very far from the historic...

... Sudan. Brutal civil war has destroyed any form of law and order, a great place to lie low. In the middle of darkest Africa and out of the spotlight. It even has oil reserves!

The events of 9/11 are linked to the present Iraq situation in that they opened the eyes of the US and showed it no longer had the luxury of hideing its head in the sand and ignoreing the riseing threat of rogue states and terrorists.

Rising threat? Iraq is contained and has been contained for a decade. Al Queda is a multi-national terrorist organisation with more ties in Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

Where are you from, out of interest?

[Vulcan]

Umm hmmm Dowding. Where do you get your info?

Its well known that the 911 terrorists met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Europe. Its also well known that Al Qaeda operatives travel through Iraq on a regular basis to the training camps in the north.

Subsequently Iraq has threatened the US with immediate suicide bomber reliation on the continental US should the US attack Iraq. If this isn't an admission of links with Al Qaeda then I don't know what is.

As for the French, well its pretty well known now they are chasing oil contracts in Iraq. The Germans I believe are trying to assert their national identity after the cold war.

As for containing Iraq, yeah right, we've contained Iraq with active military operations on their borders.

What happens when Iraq becomes nuclear capable?

What happens when Iraq draws Israel into a fight?

Whats the UN gonna do? You refer to Koreas current actions but what is the UN doing there?

Frankly if I was the US I'd pull out of the UN (its the League of Nations all over again), crack down on my immigration, tighten my borders. And laugh at the middle East when the Israeli's and Iraqi's finally start turning it into a nuclear wasteland.

[Dowding]

Read it in the paper the other day. Also saw it on the news several times. Both the CIA and British intelligence do not support the Al Queda-Iraq link.

Training camps in Northern Iraq? I'm sorry, Vulcan, that's roadkill. Yemen, Afghanistand, Somalia and Sudan definitely - but there are no camps in northern Iraq. It would be all over the news and great ammunition for the pro-war camp. Got any sources for that out of interest?

Subsequently Iraq has threatened the US with immediate suicide bomber reliation on the continental US should the US attack Iraq.

That's not quite true. They were describing how the civilian population should act against invaders. It's not an admission of guilt.

I can believe Saddam has C and B technology - but the Al Queda thing is fishy.

[Ping]

Vulcan, You may have to rethink the Iraq and Al Qaeda links.
 Blair and Bush have distanced themselves from tying the 2 directly together.

[Puke]

What is all this talk of USA showing proof?  The burdeon of proof is not with the USA for anything here.  You see, we were at war with Iraq in the early 1990s and were within days of completing overrunning the country and government and so that Iraq could end the war, the parties entered into a contract which stipulated that Iraq destroy weapons of mass destruction and show proof of their destruction.  We are aware of many weapons of mass destruction that were accounted for under the agreement but Iraq has not been able to show the proof that these weapons have been destroyed.  Now we seek to find where these things may be and if they've created any new weapons.  But it's not the USA's burdeon to prove Iraq has anything.  But since Iraq does not show proof that everything has been destroyed, that means the contract for peace has been voided which means we are back in a state of war.

[Vulcan]

Most recent proof I believe was one of the terrorists linked to the UK arrests traveled through Iraq on several occasions to Ansar al-Islam training camps in Kurdish controlled areas. Although Iraq claims these to be 'out of its reach' in the Kurdish controlled area they happily turn a blind eye to those traveling in and out of Iraqi controlled Iraq to these camps. Ansar al-Islam is openly linked directly to Al Qaeda.

Iraq keeps Al Qaeda at arms length 'officially' for one simple reason: any direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq would be grounds enough for the US to make a LEGAL attack (without the UNs ok).

Don't expect Saddam to wave a flag saying "I support Al Qaeda". Hes not that dumb. Thats why the Al-Qaeda+Iraq thing is SO fishy.

Dowding, go do a search on Ansar al-Islam, come back to me with an update on what you think.

Also in the statement by the Iraqi vice-president on the suicide bombers it was expressly stated that Iraq did not have weapons capable of reaching the US but it had suicide bombers (matyrs). To me it implies a lot.

[Smut]

Originally posted by Dowding
Rising threat? Iraq is contained and has been contained for a decade.

Thanks to who? Who has been "containing" Iraq?

Why aren't the Iraqi's being held to the commitments they made after the Gulf War?

-Smut

[Dowding]

Thanks to who? Who has been "containing" Iraq?

The UK and the US, and I've supported that effort.

Why aren't the Iraqi's being held to the commitments they made after the Gulf War?

Why hasn't Israel been held to the resolutions against it over the last 40 years?

Iraq is not setting a precedent by ignoring UN resolutions.

Vulcan - I'll take a look at that when I have more time. Cheers.

[Habu]

Originally posted by Dowding



Why hasn't Israel been held to the resolutions against it over the last 40 years?

Iraq is not setting a precedent by ignoring UN resolutions.

Please read my post on the UN to understand why Israel has not respected the UN resolutions.

The UN human rights commission is nearly half composed of dictatorships, and third world despotic members such as Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc.

Of the 59 General Assembly resolutions made during the 2001 session almost half dealt with Israel while the General Assembly remained silent of the actions of many ruthless undemocratic regimes.

Do you really think that Israel should be adhering resolutions by this tarnished institution in what is obviously a kangaroo court of inquiry?

The US should not have tried to get the UN's backing. The corrupt third world members of the UN make Olympic Figure Skating judges look fair in comparison. The US should phone every country and ask do you support us or oppose us. Keep a list and act unilaterally if necessary.

And remember those countries like Germany and France who decided to political grandstand instead of help.

[Smut]

Originally posted by Dowding
Iraq is not setting a precedent by ignoring UN resolutions.

I wasn't talking about the UN, I was talking about the cease fire agreement that Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War.

-Smut

[Toad]

In November 2001, two defectors from the Iraqi intelligence services said that Iraq had used Salman Pak, a camp south of Baghdad, to train Islamist radicals in the techniques of terrorism, including training on a Boeing 707 fuselage in the desert.

Salman Pak: An Iraqi Lt. general and Captain Sabah Khodada defected from Iraq and emigrated to the US in May, 2001. In separate New York Times interviews, they described Salman Pak, a highly secret terrorist training camp south of Baghdad. The trainees were Iraqi, and non-Iraqi Arabs.

[Toad]

After Iraq threw out the UN Inspectors last time, what force, what factor, what issue made them to decide to let them back in?

Now that they're back in and Blix himself says they're not getting enough cooperation, what force, what factor, what issue is causing the Iraqis to try and accomodate the concerns and issues Blix has recently raised?

What if all that needs doing gets accomplished without a shot being fired? What if just moving troops around resolved the Inspection/disarmament concerns?

How would all of you view that circumstance?

[lazs2]

It is difficult to understand the mind of a jerry lewis fan.
lazs

[Duedel]

Habu i have to admit I really really love u ... I love u babe ... so much

[Replicant]

Going back to the original subject 'Why Europe (mainly France though) is against the US policy on Iraq'.  

You may ask why France isn't a full member of NATO.

It is true that the French do still want their exports of military hardware but so do many other countries.

I cannot remember which conflict it was, but anyone remember something about the French tipping off the enemy about US/UK strikes?  Was it the Kosovo/Serbia crisis?