once it gets started, this weekend or next week....

[Udie]

Irak has said it has nothing that with range enough to hit Isreal,  it has said it has no WMD.

 If one scud or any other type of missile is launched at Isreal or if one drop of bio or chem weapons are used, the USA will be justified in our action (as if we're not already).  At which point the French and Germans should be kicked out of NATO and Russia and France should be kicked off the security councel or the UN be sent packing to Paris.

 I'm just sayin!

[Animal]

I agree 100% on the justifiable attack on Irak if they use a weapon they said didnt exist.

I disagree 100% on your comments about France. What good is UN if nations are not allowed to disagree on an issue?

Why not just be up front and claim sovereignship on all world matters and simply say "This is what we are gonna do, if you dont like it, you cant do nothing about it"

If the US and UK dont like others disagreeing, then disband United Nations and do what they want. No one has the power to stop them, Its better than playing false diplomacy, which will lead into disaster.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Animal
I agree 100% on the justifiable attack on Irak if they use a weapon they said didnt exist.

I disagree 100% on your comments about France. What good is UN if nations are not allowed to disagree on an issue?

Why not just be up front and claim sovereignship on all world matters and simply say "This is what we are gonna do, if you dont like it, you cant do nothing about it"

If the US and UK dont like others disagreeing, then disband United Nations and do what they want. No one has the power to stop them, Its better than playing false diplomacy, which will lead into disaster.

 Of course my rational side agrees with you animal.  But I believe that France and Germany and most likely Russia (you know china is) playing false diplomacy, which could definitely lead to disaster.  That's why I say that, that's why I'm so pissed at them.  Saddam hasn't changed the rules he's playing by, he's done the same BS for 12 years now.   toejam man firing on one US/UK plane enforcing a UN mandate should be enough to take his regiem out.   He gave his 1/2 inch this week.  Too little too late.  If we have to act without the UN on this they are just as Bush said,  nothing more than a debating society.  It's time to give the Iraqi people a chance to live with out this murderer.  But what if we do find that France and Germany and Russia have been supplying him with UN banned weapons?  Then what?


 And don't get me wrong,  I'm scared toejamless about this.  There are lots of ways this thing could explode into ww3.  I very worried about what would happen if he attacks Isreal with chemicals or Bio weapons.

 I'd like the UN behind us kind of, but I haven't trusted that organization in about 8 or 9 years anyway so I can live with out it.  In a case like this I have no problem saying that the USA definitely is the moral side to this and should empose it's will on a "soveriegn" nation.

[Animal]

So three members, out of many more, disagree on a UN issue. This case, an attack on Iraq

Cool, they have a right to disagree. That doesnt stop an attack. The attack goes.

That doesnt mean they should be kicked out of UN because they disagreed. That doesnt mean they are suddenly the enemy. And that does NOT mean they are enemies because some speech Bush said, which means N-O-T-H-I-N-G. That "you are either with us or against us" crap is VERY dangerous. The world is not so black and white.

Its a scary trend nowdays that anyone who disagrees = enemy. We even see it at home with Reps and Dems. They are no longer differing ideologies.

They are enemies, and would like to see each other dead even if they will never admit it.

Thats really dangerous, and it has parallels in the early century that led to disaster. Though I disagree somewhat with France's stand on this issue, I am adamantly opposed to those who which to ostracise them because they used their right as a free nation to disagree.

IMO that is very much against what the US stands for.

[Wlfgng]

Well said Animal.
And to the point.  Intolerance is the main issue that leads to strife.. war, whatever.

[Udie]

Originally posted by Animal
So three members, out of many more, disagree on a UN issue. This case, an attack on Iraq

Cool, they have a right to disagree. That doesnt stop an attack. The attack goes.

That doesnt mean they should be kicked out of UN because they disagreed. That doesnt mean they are suddenly the enemy. And that does NOT mean they are enemies because some speech Bush said, which means N-O-T-H-I-N-G. That "you are either with us or against us" crap is VERY dangerous. The world is not so black and white.

Its a scary trend nowdays that anyone who disagrees = enemy. We even see it at home with Reps and Dems. They are no longer differing ideologies.

They are enemies, and would like to see each other dead even if they will never admit it.

Thats really dangerous, and it has parallels in the early century that led to disaster. Though I disagree somewhat with France's stand on this issue, I am adamantly opposed to those who which to ostracise them because they used their right as a free nation to disagree.

IMO that is very much against what the US stands for.

 I don't think I made my point clear.  I am of the belief that those 3 nations have been breaking the UN "Law" by supplying Iraq with banned weapon materials.  That's why I think they should be kicked off the security council (not out of the UN)  I think Germany and Belgium should be kicked out of NATO for not supporting turkey, which is their obligation to do.  Why should they benefit from NATO if they are not willing to shoulder the responsibility?

 gotta go home and to the doctor,  talk to you later

[Animal]

Good point, but I gotta leave too. Will reply later.

Hope this discussion remains the way its going so far.

[AKIron]

Agreed Animal.

Fact is, we (the US) can quite capably handle the job alone. UN is nothing more than a tool that may have outlived it's usefulness. Really could care less whether France and Germany stay in NATO either. Of course should they find themselves in need of our help somewhere down the road their demands may fall on deaf ears. A risk they seem willing to take.

[weazel]

What do you think about millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq being channelled discreetly through European and other companies, in a practice that has highlighted the double standards now dominating relations between Baghdad and Washington after a decade of crippling sanctions?

Don't look now but Unka Dick Cheney is guilty of it.

The Bush henchmen are as guilty as the French and Germans are of collaborating with the enemy....but hey it's all good, after all the Bush and Walker families have a long history of it....going back to supporting the Nazis in WW II.

[funkedup]

I don't think anything will happen this weekend or next week.  I think the US readiness is mostly a show of force to keep the pressure on Saddam.  Same for all of the diplomatic bluster and the "accidental leaks" of info about US special forces and nuclear posture.  Bush showed in Afghanistan that he is willing to "pull the trigger" and he is using this memory to full effect to bluff Saddam into compliance.  If you get in a bar fight with two uglies and you put a pool cue through the trachea of one of them, it's going to make the other ugly think twice about messing with you.  Saddam is just about impossible to bluff though, so I think it will eventually come down to a vulgar brawl.  But Chimpy is giving him every chance to back his way out of a fight.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by weazel
What do you think about millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq being channelled discreetly through European and other companies,

Dude you need to check your sources. The very reason the French and Germans are desperately trying to save Saddams bellybutton is because French and German companies are sitting on the oil contracts right now. toejam weazel, you should at least get your basic facts straight before trolling, otherwise it is too easy to shoot your arguments down.

Bottom line:
What nations have the fat oil contracts with Iraq?
France and Germany

Iraq owes billions of dollars for pre91 weapons delieveries to what nations?
Russia and China

oo ooo look at the security counsel, what nations are screaming loudest against any war that will remove Saddam (and any current contracts/debts) and loudest for any kind of solution that will settle the Iraq question without changing government?

[funkedup]

I find at amusing how there is this assumption by some that European governments are less controlled by business interests than the US government.  Or that European citizens are less affected by their government's propaganda than US citizens.  The fact is that French and German politicians answer to their industrial masters just like the Republicrats.  And those polticians manipulate Euro media just like the Republicrats do the US media.

[Suave]

I agree with funked, Bush administration has done a great job with the Talk loudly and carry a big stick method so far . They've said from the beggining that they planned on doing this with a gun to Saddams head. The fewer Nato service men put in harms way the better . But we can't leave the area with Saddam still there, we'll just have to come back again if we do . So in the end I think there will have to be a military operation, but it will be no where near the scale of what it was 12 years ago like the CNN junkies are hoping for .

[weazel]

Did you even read the link I posted?

[Hortlund]

Yeah...does that make it more true?

Fact is you are full of it this time. French and German economic interests benefit right now. If Saddam is removed, these contracts are killed, and there will be a huge scramble as all oil companies tries to get their share. oo ooo Oil companies own stock in each other...big diddlying surprise weazel.