My answer to Hangtime...

[deSelys]

Hangtime,

You asked me in this dumb thread what were my feelings bout the belgian VETO at the NATO council.

As I said in another thread, I don't agree with Belgium's decision to refuse military aid to Turkey, as requested by the USA.
My point is: our military value is close to zero, and we HAVE to rely on NATO for our defence. It just doesn't feel fair to me
to go as far as using our VETO voice in this matter.
Policy of european countries is utterly naive: trying to solve issues with a dictator diplomatically is hopeless. Dictators rule by the use
of force, so force has to be shown or even used against them to make them comply to UN directives. So, I am the first to admit that
the strong US military presence in the Gulf is THE major factor allowing the return of the inspectors into IRAQ.
I am also a partisan of the 'a poor action is better than no action at all' way of thinking. So, again, I feel closer to the
US policy than to the decisions of my government.
Finally, I have much respect fo the guys and gals who would have to go there and do the dirty work. Last week, one member of my squad
told us that he will be sent soon to the Gulf, and I can honestly say that I think about him at least once a day since then.

However, I can't help thinking that the action in IRAQ is of the poorest kind: logically unsound and ill-planned on the political level.
Let me develop:

- Saddam has no links with Al-Qaeda. 9/11 proved it: the terrible attacks that fateful day were trying to kill as many people as possible,
and to hit a nation where it really hurts by aiming its blows at its symbols (WTC, Pentagon, White House). If AQ had had WMDs ready to use
at this time, there is no doubt they would have used it. They haven't. So they hadn't WMDs ready to use. If Saddam really had ties with AQ,
WMDs would have been available, don't you think so?
It's not because IRAQ and AQ have the same enemy that they are necessarily allies. Islam fundamentalists are probably a bigger threat to Saddam's power
than the USA. Because a much larger percentage of his population is supporting fundamentalists rather than the country that bombed them, castrated their
power and kept them in a cage since 92.

- Hence IRAQ is not a direct threat to the USA. Period. So a 'preemptive' attack is really badly perceived by a lot of people. And when
american politicians, or some of you guys on this board, try to justify this action by an imminent threat of dirty bombs, nerve gas,
or every other ugly stuff designed to drop peoples by the nth power of 10,...well they are just making fools of themselves,
and give an impression of being a bunch of panicky girls instead of the tough cool guys you're supposed to be.

- IRAQ is a dictatorship. IRAQ is inhabitated by many different ethnic groups, with different religions to top it off. The cohesive element
of this heterogen population is the dictatorship, which is not a good thing of course. But any military action designed to replace Saddam
has better to be quick, because the street pressure will be unbearable in the neighbour (and supposed allied) countries like Saudi Arabia.
If the war ever slows down and turns into a blood bath, those 'governments', already eroded by the Islam fundamentalists, could fall to the hands
of those latter and leave us with a much bigger problem than at the beginning.
Add to this that even if Saddam is thrown down quickly, the FNG who will replace him has better be accepted by a majority of IRAQ's heteroclit population,
or he will have to be a meaner dictator than Saddam himself if he wants to keep the population under his boot. And I have the feeling that this
latest point has been seriously overlooked...

- France doesn't agree with the USA. At least France is a self-sufficient nuclear power, and by this doesn't have to be told what to do and what to say.
And if France is, as you imply, such a weak military force, his presence or absence in the Gulf won't be felt much.
France doesn't agree with USA? You should better get over it instead of acting like cry-babies...After all, does a Green
Beret begin to cry when he is slapped by a boy-scout? And using the weapon-selling scheme to bash France is so unfair even
a complete idiot wouldn't use it. As some other have already reminded you, YOU (USA) sold weapons to OBL and made him what he was. And Ruumsfeld restored diplomatic
contacts with Saddam during the 80' too...
BTW OBL is almost certainly dead, otherwise he would be making fun of the USA right now. And AQ has been at least temporarily neutralized, because the best
way to prove their resilience was to continue attacks on the american territory during the actions in Afghanistan, which they didn't do.

So:
1 IRAQ is no direct threat to USA.
2 AQ is much less dangerous than it was a couple of years ago.
3 OBL is prolly dead
4 NK is aggressive to the extreme and should be blocked ASAP before they develop a real ICBM fleet.

I sense a very wrong threat assessment on the US part....Or are you just hitting the easiest target?




BTW, even if I don't agree with the belgian VETO, I'm sure we will gladly go and assist Turkey...if they ask for it directly.


(sorry I had to hurry at the end, and I had no time to re-read myself. But I wanted above all to answer today)

[Hangtime]

Thank you deSelys!

There are some points you make that I'd like to debate further.. (!!!!!!!) but like you, I've gotta get to work. I will be back to here to expand on some of the points you raise ASAP.

Again.. thanks for the reasoned response!

[OZkansas]

Excellent start to a very interesting thread.  I will watch this thread with interest due to it's reasoned agruments:)

Now, the USA has been blindsided more then once, Peral and WTC.  We are just reacting to the aggression of an uncountried nme.  We will attack anyone who gives any indication of helping this uncountried nme.

With the removel of Saddam perhaps stability may get a foothold in the middle east.  At least the USA will have a presents in the Middle east.

[Habu]

Originally posted by deSelys
Hangtime,

1 IRAQ is no direct threat to USA.
2 AQ is much less dangerous than it was a couple of years ago.
3 OBL is prolly dead
4 NK is aggressive to the extreme and should be blocked ASAP before they develop a real ICBM fleet.

I sense a very wrong threat assessment on the US part....Or are you just hitting the easiest target?

 

1. Iraq tried to have Bush Sr assassinated. They are actively trying to produce a nuclear bomb, a means to deliver warheads to Israel (the super gun or the long range Scud both now banned). They are working on germ weapons which are ideal for terrorist attacks. They have shown in the past that they are willing to try something crazy if they think it will work (invasion of Kuwait). Saddam is a butcher who when you compare as a percent of population is killing just as many as Stalin at his peak.

In short he is a psycho who is looking for a big weapon that he can use in a mini MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) type scenario to hold his enemies off. He has a demonstrated history of trying to attack the US when he could. He is a brutal and ruthless dictator who will kill his own people without any hesitation.

2. AQ was never a big organization. They train and support little cells of fanatics to carry out attacks with the intent of killing the largest number of Americans as possible. Unfortunately it only takes a small number of men with the right training and a WMD to now kill thousands. As long as any AQ or any of its offshoots exist they must be hunted down.

3. If he is dead he is doing a good job of making audio tapes these days.

4. NK is just as bad as Iraq. And probably more dangerous. However it is up the Chinese and Japan to help come up with a plan. They must be prodded to agree to join the solution whatever it is. It is those two countries that are most at risk of a NK nuclear weapon right now.

[Hangtime]

- Saddam has no links with Al-Qaeda. 9/11 proved it: the terrible attacks that fateful day were trying to kill as many people as possible, and to hit a nation where it really hurts by aiming its blows at its symbols (WTC, Pentagon, White House). If AQ had had WMDs ready to use at this time, there is no doubt they would have used it. They haven't. So they hadn't WMDs ready to use. If Saddam really had ties with AQ, WMDs would have been available, don't you think so?

Not Tenable. Verifiable contact between Saddam and AQ has been developed post Afganistan. That was a major point of Powells presentation.. we have evidence that contact has been made, an AQ cell is operating in Baghdad, and that WMD may be made available to AQ operatives. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". We cannot overlook the connection, and per our stated policy, states that sponsor, shield, equip and succor AQ operatives are viable targets for US wrath.

- IRAQ is a dictatorship. IRAQ is inhabitated by many different ethnic groups, with different religions to top it off. The cohesive element of this heterogen population is the dictatorship, which is not a good thing of course. But any military action designed to replace Saddam has better to be quick, because the street pressure will be unbearable in the neighbour (and supposed allied) countries like Saudi Arabia. If the war ever slows down and turns into a blood bath, those 'governments', already eroded by the Islam fundamentalists, could fall to the hands of those latter and leave us with a much bigger problem than at the beginning. Add to this that even if Saddam is thrown down quickly, the FNG who will replace him has better be accepted by a majority of IRAQ's heteroclit population, or he will have to be a meaner dictator than Saddam himself if he wants to keep the population under his boot. And I have the feeling that this
latest point has been seriously overlooked...

It was likely.. even probable that Saddam would have been forced to leave by these internal groups had we been given the mandate to clean this mess up 13 years ago. International dissaproval for this course of action and agreements made amongst coalition members prior to operation desert storm precluded this from happening.

Continued embargo breaking by France and Germany via oil-for-arms agreements have made the economic blockade since 1991 a joke. Saddam remains entrenched. Saddam continues to build weapons of an offensive nature and w have evidence.. clear evidence that these weapons are in violation of UN.

Yes.. when we do go in it will have to be quick.. it will be. You doubt this? Who says Iraq has to remain Iraq after we go in? Cannot 2 or three states fairly representing the majority of the populations from the geographic area in question not be formed? A Kurdish state? (at last!) A Sunni State, a Shiite State? Look at what used to be Yugoslavia.. it's been done before. The region, thanks to US, and NATO, and Despite German and French national obstructionisim is now more stable than it has been since the fall of the Iorn Curtain. It will likey happen again in what was once Iraq..

- France doesn't agree with the USA. At least France is a self-sufficient nuclear power, and by this doesn't have to be told what to do and what to say. And if France is, as you imply, such a weak military force, his presence or absence in the Gulf won't be felt much. France doesn't agree with USA? You should better get over it instead of acting like cry-babies...After all, does a Green
Beret begin to cry when he is slapped by a boy-scout? And using the weapon-selling scheme to bash France is so unfair even
a complete idiot wouldn't use it. As some other have already reminded you, YOU (USA) sold weapons to OBL and made him what he was. And Ruumsfeld restored diplomatic contacts with Saddam during the 80' too... BTW OBL is almost certainly dead, otherwise he would be making fun of the USA right now. And AQ has been at least temporarily neutralized, because the best way to prove their resilience was to continue attacks on the american territory during the actions in Afghanistan, which they didn't do.

We are not concerned half as much with France's presence as a supporter as we are concerned with the French suggestion that they will be providing technical 'advisors' to the Iraq's in the upcomming conflict. This is very dangerous.. for should American and NATO suppled coalition forces be killed by French supported combat teams we will return to Europe and visit upon France and Germany the Wrath Of America one final time. This is no joke, deSelys.. France is playing a very dangerous game. If, in their efforts to dissuade our path in regards to Saddam should take an active military role the citizens of this nation will INSIST that the french government share the same fate as Saddams.

I've said it before, history bears this out.. anger the americans at your peril.

Point by point, France has chosen to accept the Iraq cat and mouse game that Iraq is playing with the arms inspectors as 'acceptable' behavior. It is NOT. The French and Germans are choosing to pacify Saddam by appeasement. That is not acceptable. France and Germanyhave chosen to factionalize NATO. France and Germany have chosen to accept Saddams testimony instead of Colin Powells. France and Germany are the Nations that are rendering NATO and the UN inconsequential.. all in an effort to demonstrate europen ascendancy and leadership not connected to American intrests.

In europe, it would seem that Terror and Terror supporting states are just another part of your political landscape. Perhaps it has escaped you.. but the United States has sworn a war on terror, and is proceeding down the logical plain path to stamping out the regimes that foster it.

Get on the train, or get outta the way. We're comming.

DeSelys, and my other european freinds.. thans for listening.. and good luck in the comming days!

[lord dolf vader]

"for should American and NATO suppled coalition forces be killed by French supported combat teams we will return to Europe and visit upon France and Germany the Wrath Of America "
hangtime



who died and left you dictator of america. try the truth

"for should american and nato supplied coalition forces be killed by french supported combat teams we will do not a godamn thing but treat them by the rules of diplomacy according to the geneva convention . then we will repair diplomatic relations with both nations thru some kissass  means. and continue on till the next stupid war so as to minimize pointless death."
towd


hangtime stop while you are behind. you are comming of as a hatefull fool however well intentioned.

[Hangtime]

You think the French Government will survive a six month total embargo on their trade with the US and it's allies?

Cancellation of every Airbus contract alone would send that contry into the worst depression it's ever seen.

The only bomb we need to drop on the French would be the one that would hurt them the most. The TRADE bomb.

Boycott all French and German goods.

And Monkey boy would do it in a heartbeat.

And don't discount the military option.. if the French are foolish enough to militarily support Iraq, there will be 6 missing french ballistic subs and a warm spot in the med where their carrier used to be.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Hangtime
You think the French Government will survive a six month total embargo on their trade with the US and it's allies?

don't think so
I don't think it will happen either

Cancellation of every Airbus contract alone would send that contry into the worst depression it's ever seen.

Do you know how many country make parts of the Airbus ?
Even the US

The only bomb we need to drop on the French would be the one that would hurt them the most. The TRADE bomb.

so go free enterprise ...
and next you will say it's not to defend your interest

Boycott all French and German goods.

And Monkey boy would do it in a heartbeat.

I'll do !

Cheaper Wine it's like christmas in advance

And don't discount the military option.. if the French are foolish enough to militarily support Iraq, there will be 6 missing french ballistic subs and a warm spot in the med where their carrier used to be.

I don't know what you smoke but you should give me some

[Hangtime]

Straffo.. You are making jokes!

I assure you, France requires the US market far more than the US requires a French one.

You government would fall like a house of cards should we pull the economic plug.

I would be stunned if every french nuclear assett did not have a large target painted on it in the US war Planning Office right now.. and the exact location of all your subs is without doubt known to within a 1/10 mile. I'd not be a bit suprised if every one of them did not have within the next week a very quiet shadow sitting within spitting distance of them either.

Your CV would survive about 60 seconds should we decide to make it go away.

Which is all pie in the sky.. because we both know that come friday your governement will either sign it's own obituary or the one we've prepared for saddam.

Enjoy your wine. Ours is better anyway.

[bounder]

Hangtime....

oh nevermind.

[Hangtime]

Bounder..

I never did. Used to piss my parents off somethin fierce.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Straffo.. You are making jokes!

I assure you, France requires the US market far more than the US requires a French one.

Sure ,but all is overlapped so it will  have side some effect even on the US
(not a tsunami but the economical situation of the world is allready pretty bad ...)

You government would fall like a house of cards should we pull the economic plug.

no need of any US intervention
Look up any french information site and search about 49.3
They  already have started to saw the branch they are sit on (direct frenglish expression )

I would be stunned if every french nuclear assett did not have a large target painted on it in the US war Planning Office right now.. and the exact location of all your subs is without doubt known to within a 1/10 mile. I'd not be a bit suprised if every one of them did not have within the next week a very quiet shadow sitting within spitting distance of them either.

I would be astonished to learn that our sub were not considered as target before ...
afterall yours are concidered as target by our submariner for a long now  ...

Your CV would survive about 60 seconds should we decide to make it go away.

Our CV ?
He was created like a wreck you can bomb it perhaps it will work after ...

Which is all pie in the sky.. because we both know that come friday your governement will either sign it's own obituary or the one we've prepared for saddam.

Pee in the sky no ?
(I'm unsure of the meaning of your sentence)

Enjoy your wine. Ours is better anyway.

euarg  
Depend
We have horrible wine and good wine you too

The only reproach I can do is ... the US is an important market for the Bordeau wine the wine grower of this region have started to make wine "calibrated" for the US taste and worste ! they have standardized their mélange

Now I only drink so Loire/Touraine/Bourgogne wine because of that .

[Hangtime]

Sure ,but all is overlapped so it will have side some effect even on the US

Yah. Boeing will jump for Joy. Goodyear will do handsprings. GE will go into extended party mode. Detroit will probably be saved. The Napa Valley and Eastern Long Island will see the biggest gain in real estate value in 100 years. Our dairy industry will see the first year without a federal subusdy in the last 40.

Your seized financial assets in this country will pay the taxes of every citizen for 10 years.

Yah.. this could hurt us a LOT.

[X2Lee]

I like french women.

[deSelys]

Originally posted by Habu
1. Iraq tried to have Bush Sr assassinated. They are actively trying to produce a nuclear bomb, a means to deliver warheads to Israel (the super gun or the long range Scud both now banned). They are working on germ weapons which are ideal for terrorist attacks. They have shown in the past that they are willing to try something crazy if they think it will work (invasion of Kuwait). Saddam is a butcher who when you compare as a percent of population is killing just as many as Stalin at his peak.

In short he is a psycho who is looking for a big weapon that he can use in a mini MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) type scenario to hold his enemies off. He has a demonstrated history of trying to attack the US when he could. He is a brutal and ruthless dictator who will kill his own people without any hesitation.

2. AQ was never a big organization. They train and support little cells of fanatics to carry out attacks with the intent of killing the largest number of Americans as possible. Unfortunately it only takes a small number of men with the right training and a WMD to now kill thousands. As long as any AQ or any of its offshoots exist they must be hunted down.

3. If he is dead he is doing a good job of making audio tapes these days.

Habu,

1. with the exception of the assassination plot on Bush Sr, you and I are saying the same: even if IRAQ is a real threat to Israel and its other neighbours, it isn't a direct threat to the USA. That's why the US action is so badly perceived all over the world.

2. let's imagine a group of AQ-linked terrorist planted somewhere in the USAs or any other western country. They have a WMD available. Why would they wait so long before using it, while AQ is on top of the most wanted terrorist organisations? They haven't given any condition before 9-11, they aren't waiting for us to do something. They obviously aren't afraid to die. The longer they wait, the bigger the risk to get caught before having used their precious WMD.

3. Do you think it is so hard in 2003 to get hold of a camcorder and to record a speech of OBL holding the first page of a recent newspaper to prove to the world that he is still alive? This proof would be a serious blow to the effectiveness of the US war against terror.
Before the action in Afghanistan, he appeared numerous times on video. Since then, we've only had a couple of lousy audio recordings so far.
He isn't afraid to die openly neither, it would make a martyr of him.
He's probably dead.

Originally posted by Hangtime
Not Tenable. Verifiable contact between Saddam and AQ has been developed post Afganistan. That was a major point of Powells presentation.. we have evidence that contact has been made, an AQ cell is operating in Baghdad, and that WMD may be made available to AQ operatives. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". We cannot overlook the connection, and per our stated policy, states that sponsor, shield, equip and succor AQ operatives are viable targets for US wrath.

I'm sorry, but how reliable is Powell's presentation? Would it be the first time that politicians are lying to the citizens when they want to take unpopular decisions? Of course I may be wrong because I don't have any hard data about this, but ties between Saddam and AQ don't make much more sense to me than the plot of a Michael Bay movie...

I'm seriously disappointed by Powell's argumentation, especially on this particular topic (the displacement and hiding of WMD-grade installations is much more plausible). I was holding the man in high esteem, and I was hoping that he would be able to be the voice of reason (and resolve if needed) at the White House. I realize he doesn't have much freedom of action, but still he looks like another puppet of Bush right now.
Yeah, I don't like Jr...at all. I'm afraid he's the dumb guy a lot of politicians from 'the dark side' were waiting for so they could take unpopular decisions while he was taking the fire...or even the blame if it turns out wrong.



Finally, I think you're misjudging the french people a lot. First, and Straffo should agree with me, Chirac isn't the brightest president France has known... Before Bush's election, Chirac was THE target (and victim) of a lot of political jokes and 'bons mots'. Now of course, he's relieved that Bush has taken the role...Maybe this explains a part of France's reactions during the last weeks.

French people are mostly like me: they don't like your president. But they are not supporting Saddam one bit. The French people would NEVER accept to help Saddam or any other dictator or terrorist against the USA. It would be completely heretic.
They just ask to study every solution before spilling blood.

Lastly, I want to add that any maneuver by your government to increase the sibjective terrorist threat in the USA (like raising the threat level in NYC yesterday) may increases the national support to the government. You tell me if it is working. But I'm pretty sure that it has mostly a negative effect in a lot of other countries: it gives the feeling that the USA are scared toejamless, and are seeing a terrorist crouched behind every bush (after re-read, no pun intended ), and are mostly reacting emotionally.
And when you guys are looking scared, even if you're not, OBL and the like are winning their bet.



edited for typos and other abuses of english language...