Author Topic: NATO & Iraq (Read 800 times)

Hangtime · « **on:** February 11, 2003, 05:26:46 PM »

Can you BELIEVE the freakin French and Germans??

"we ain't gonna help the turks"

Gawdamn, but ain't these guys just askin for a 'step outside' session?

I'm so annoyed i can't even type!

Rockstar · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:39:05 PM »

You know I've heard from alot of sources why we should and why we shouldn't. Heard from just about every nation in the world EXCEPT TURKEY!

What the heck is their take on this? Thats what I'd like to know.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:43:00 PM »

Turkey is the one asking for the beefed up defenses/protection if I'm not mistaken.
-SW

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2003, 05:52:43 PM »

This would have made GREAT bait during work hours!

bounder · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2003, 07:36:17 PM »

Nah, normally Turkey would invoke article 4 or 5 (cant remember) of the nato pact. There are already plenty of troops and (dutch) patriot missile systems in place and have been since 92 I understand.

The US requested the mobilisation of a NATO force into Turkey without Turkey actually requesting it through NATO. Not entirely sure why, mystery in the media here, which is concentrating on the personality of the spat, making much of the demise of NATO.

Objections were raised because it would raise the whole temperature of the situation unecessarily & and to asser what power the nations have. Thing is France is not a full member of NATO in the military sense anyway.

Big fuss over nothing. NATO is becoming a mutual security society, now that it is no longer needed as an anti communist umbrella. Everyone is clamouring to join in Europe.

US invoked 4 or 5 after WTC/Pentagon. Allies responded promptly and effectively. If turkey did the same (i.e saddam attacked them) then the same would be true.

Like most modern industrialised nations with a healthy defence industry, there are fringe benefits to short, technologically advanced conflict for France. Replacement of materiel used can safeguard jobs and communities for years, political will for defence spending is increased, large contracts are awarded to national arms industries. It's not because France isn't ready to exercise its military muscle, it's because there is a strong feeling in europe of having foreign policy dictated by the USA, and there is a perceived need for (symbolic) asserttion of authority.

john9001 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2003, 08:08:40 PM »

"""It's not because France isn't ready to exercise its military muscle, """" hahaha "military muscle" hahaha

Hangtime · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2003, 08:41:55 PM »

Quote

Like most modern industrialised nations with a healthy defence industry, there are fringe benefits to short, technologically advanced conflict for France. Replacement of materiel used can safeguard jobs and communities for years, political will for defence spending is increased, large contracts are awarded to national arms industries.

Not if we knacker the froggie plants and or destroy the arms while in transit. those SOB's should not be permitted to make one thin dime on this!

wouldn't that be schweeet? "we have discovered evidence that France has been supplying Iraq with weapons technology proscribed by treaty and UN resolution. Accordingly, the factories responsible have been summarily destroyed, and all materials in transit have been obliterated."

..and then I woke up.

Hades55 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 12, 2003, 01:21:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Not if we knacker the froggie plants and or destroy the arms while in transit. those SOB's should not be permitted to make one thin dime on this!

wouldn't that be schweeet? "we have discovered evidence that France has been supplying Iraq with weapons technology proscribed by treaty and UN resolution. Accordingly, the factories responsible have been summarily destroyed, and all materials in transit have been obliterated."

..and then I woke up.

It seems you forget or you dont know that Usa and personaly Donald Rumsfeld
was giving to sadam biological and chemical weapons of mass desruction
at his war with Iran.
Are you hypocrite or just ignorant ?

Slash27 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 12, 2003, 01:34:16 AM »

Ok, we want them back now. With Saddam's head.

Ping · « **Reply #9 on:** February 12, 2003, 02:16:13 AM »

NATo was there for mutual protection if a member country was attacked.

I cant see how they justify its use when it would be the member country commiting the attack.
This is a way for the US to involve other countries in its war against Iraq. By using Nato to bolster Turkey (Whos population is predominently against war) It frees up American troops and weapons for use against Iraq.

Dowding · « **Reply #10 on:** February 12, 2003, 03:00:11 AM »

Spot on Bounder. Why hasn't Turkey applied directly to NATO for a deployment of troops?

bounder · « **Reply #11 on:** February 12, 2003, 03:06:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Not if we knacker the froggie plants and or destroy the arms while in transit. those SOB's should not be permitted to make one thin dime on this!

wouldn't that be schweeet? "we have discovered evidence that France has been supplying Iraq with weapons technology proscribed by treaty and UN resolution. Accordingly, the factories responsible have been summarily destroyed, and all materials in transit have been obliterated."

..and then I woke up.

Er the only people found to have sold WMD technology (especially culture equipment) to Iraq pre-Kuwait are Russia, UK and US.......

bounder · « **Reply #12 on:** February 12, 2003, 03:36:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
"""It's not because France isn't ready to exercise its military muscle, """" hahaha "military muscle" hahaha

So why have they despatched the Carrier Ch. De Gaulle and a battleship group (plus at least one sub) to the eastern med?

They've got this shiny new Nuclear CV and they want to use it (under the right conditions).

The french arms industries will benefit almost as much as the US arms inustries if there is a war. Bombs cost money. Aircraft are phenomenally expensive. Aircraft carriers cost even more.

The french (and the UK) administration(s) realise they can't start talking up a war until public opinion is with the project.

Europeans much more cynical about motives for conflict than Americans *it seems*.

Going to take a lot to swing public opinion. And it has to be done carefully - if the politicos look like they are desperately searching for any pretext, all new 'evidence' will be reviewed with increased suspicion by body politic.

But if French public opinion can be swayed, then the French will prosecute this impending war with as much zeal as the americans.

After all: they've got brand new shiny war machines too, and they'd like to be able to stamp them with 'BATTLE TESTED' in bold black letters and sell them to every other diddlyer who needs to bomb the crap outta their neighbours.

I repectfully suggest you cut down on the hahahahaha nitrous hahahaha oxide.

Batz · « **Reply #13 on:** February 12, 2003, 03:45:26 AM »

Quote

Spot on Bounder. Why hasn't Turkey applied directly to NATO for a deployment of troops?

So France and Germany's reaction could be used at home to bolster the adminstration's position should they decide to act without support of the UN.

Many americans put more faith in Nato (where the US has a good amount of control) then the UN (which many americans mistrust).

Portraying France and Germany as "turning their backs on a Nato ally" gets far more play then "France has vetoed the US backed plan for the use of force on Iraq" from the UN.

Quote

It seems you forget or you dont know that Usa and personaly Donald Rumsfeld
was giving to sadam biological and chemical weapons of mass desruction
at his war with Iran.
Are you hypocrite or just ignorant ?

We give plenty of military aid (including weapons of all types) to our "friends". Should any of those "friends" threaten us with those weapons we would take an equally tough stand.

The difference now is that Iraq has always been a "rogue" Arab state. They attacked "other" arab nations, embraced support from the great Satan (US) etc.....

Iraq has used Saddams anti-US stand over the past years to bolster his position in the Arab world. Especially on the extremist end.

Now, if you believe the hype, Iraq may use these weapons on the US. Bin Laden hated Iraq and Hussein. Suddams anti-US stand has gained him a reputation that no other muslim leader has had. He is seen not only as defying the US but as willing to "go to war". The question is how far is Saddam willing to go. Will he supply terrorists with wmd?

The fact that at one time we viewed Iraq as a potential ally is of no relevance. Before the US involvement in world war 2 our country had all sorts of "dealings" with Hitler. From industry to Political.

If I give my neighbor a hand gun as a present to defend his home and few years down the road he comes to my house to rob or threaten me, its not my fault. It may have been bad judgement but should I throw my hands up and hand over what ever he wants because I gave him the gun?

Also our government is not a homogenous entity. Its complete character and policies change with every new administration. To say 20 years ago the US government used bad judgement in its dealings with Iraq so now the present government must with out question bare the responsibility of those dealings is complete bs.

You cant blame Clinton for what Carter did or what Johnson did nor is it logical to blame the current administration for the decisions Reagan made. Whatever Rumsfield did back then he didnt do it alone and I doudt he made any decision on his own.

Theres plenty of real logical reasons to oppose action in Iraq.

"Bush is a warmonger"

"Bush Jr. wants revenge for Sr."

"Bush is only out to steal Iraq's oil"

Are all bs.

bounder · « **Reply #14 on:** February 12, 2003, 04:22:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
Now, if you believe the hype, Iraq may use these weapons on the US. Bin Laden hated Iraq and Hussein. Suddams anti-US stand has gained him a reputation that no other muslim leader has had.

You are mistaken if you think that Saddam Hussein is a Muslim leader. His Deputy is a Christian...he wraps himself in the Koran when it suits his political needs, but he is emphatically not a Muslim leader./

He is a despised symbol of the type of secular ruler that hardcore islamists reject utterly. OBL is on record as saying he would like to see an end top Husseins rule (and a righteous islamic revolution in Iraq). OBL has come out in support of 'the muslims of Iraq'

Quote

He is seen not only as defying the US but as willing to "go to war". The question is how far is Saddam willing to go. Will he supply terrorists with wmd?

The fact that at one time we viewed Iraq as a potential ally is of no relevance. Before the US involvement in world war 2 our country had all sorts of "dealings" with Hitler. From industry to Political.

[/b]
I agree, but to then go on and claim the moral high ground when we ourselves have been closely involved with the technology for creating these Bioweapons in particular, then that is rank hypocrisy

Quote

If I give my neighbor a hand gun as a present to defend his home and few years down the road he comes to my house to rob or threaten me, its not my fault. It may have been bad judgement but should I throw my hands up and hand over what ever he wants because I gave him the gun?

[/b] Slightly elastic analogy. how bout:

I give someone a bottle of illegal poison that I'm not even meant to have. And he wants this poison to kill his enemy and mine, a common goal.

In the end he uses it to poison his in-laws and a few other people. I'm glad beacuse I live 6 blocks away.

Then I jump on the moral high ground and demand that the police enter his house to remove illegal poison that I know is there despite having a fridge full of the stuff at home.

Then, because the police are just wringing their hands, I decide to break into his house, destroy his poison, kill him and install my cousin as paterfamilias, and start collecting rent from his living relatives.

Analogies are not really useful.