Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on February 17, 2003, 05:32:53 PM
-
in a suprise move today the EU voted to support the USA's position on iraq, they said saddam did not have unlimited time to comply, he must do it now or suffer the consequences.
recently NATO's defence committee ( which france does not belong) voted to defend Turkey.
-
They also said war should be a last resort.
-
I support the war, but the unfortunate part is that thousands of Iraqi teenagers (soldiers) are going to die for Saddams insanity.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They also said war should be a last resort.
War always is. Bottom line is, the EU gave a green light for war.
-
Not a green light for war, full stop. A green light for war if UN sanctioned.
-
They also left out a line that the UK and Spain wanted in: "Time is running out".
They tried to make an effort to stand united and each side gave something in.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
I support the war, but the unfortunate part is that thousands of Iraqi teenagers (soldiers) are going to die for Saddams insanity.
David - I share your sympathy, and it's a damned shame. That's why war IS a last resort, and a tragedy. As our own Duke of Wellington once said when surveying the battlefield from which he emerged victorious: "The next saddest thing to losing a battle is winning one".
I don't think the Iraqi teenagers will put up much of a fight. Last time, I recall hundreds of thousands (well, 170,000) being taken POW. (BTW I never did hear what happened to them after the war) The news was full of TV pictures of Iraqi soldiers emerging from dug in positions with their hands on their heads. They had no idea of the kind of weaponry that we had. On a small island in the region, a tricycle was found which had a spear tied to it such that it pointed forward. Draw your own conclusions from that! Unfortunately for these gentlemen, the Americans had cluster bombs...
I always remember one pathetic scene in which a terrified young Iraqi soldier, on realising that the game was up, threw down any weapon he had, and in a flood of tears ran to an American serviceman, fell to his knees and kissed the American's boots. It was a moving scene, and one of those moments when one realised just what an amazinhunk Saddam is. He HAS to go.
I'm hoping there will be minimal loss of life on both sides. I still think that when the cards are all played and Baghdad is surrounded, it's possible Saddam could be taken out by his own people. We shall soon see.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Not a green light for war, full stop. A green light for war if UN sanctioned.
muahahaha I think you are about to discover the gentle art of interpreting diplomatic documents.
What exactly does "last resort" mean and when does that happen?
"the UN inspectors must have the time the security counsel deems neccesary" how do you interpret that? What happens if the security counsel is divided...or blocked by veto?
You really are naive.
-
Oh...and where does it say the war has to be UN sanctioned?
-
Eh? You're the one making over-simplified statements such as 'EU gives green light for war'. Are you a tabloid hack by any chance?
I'm saying it's not as simple as that; what happens at the UN will give us a definition of 'last resort'.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
what happens at the UN will give us a definition of 'last resort'.
?
-
Beet1e;
That's a good point, my experience on the first day of the ground war, the first Iraqis that we met asked us, "Why did it take us so long?"
A group of about 15-20 soldiers, a bit of bread to eat , and next to no water huddled in a bunker with a couple AKs, nearly not enough to arm each man.
I wish some of the nay sayers could have witnessed this.
-
From what I recall Beet1e, The coalition with the prisoners very best interests at heart sent the prisoners back to face trial for surrendering.
-
Originally posted by Ping
From what I recall Beet1e, The coalition with the prisoners very best interests at heart sent the prisoners back to face trial for surrendering.
So what?
Are you actually hinting that Iraq is a better place with Saddam?
He needs to go, the sooner the better. Period.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So what?
What about the humanitarian angle Hortlund?
Is that how you would treat defectors? Consistancy is grand.
-
Originally posted by Ping
From what I recall Beet1e, The coalition with the prisoners very best interests at heart sent the prisoners back to face trial for surrendering.
Not true Ping.
-
Monk:
If you can show me some links I would gladly read them. I can only go from hazey memory of that time, so I could very well be wrong.
-
Sorry I can't, but to my knowledge, they were sent to Saudi.
There they had a choice to go back or too stay.
Another story: we ran upon a Iraqi truck with a couple of soldiers in it.
Did we take them prisoner....na, took there weapons, and told them to go home. You should have seen thier faces, Blew that "Great Satan" theory out of the water.
This was standard practice in the last days of the war, at least for us. Get INTEL, destroy weapons, send them home.
-
Come now, Monk.
What would YOU know about it after all?
Let these guys tell you how it really was. Let them tell you how you abused and slaughtered the Iraqi troops.
Sheesh... you act like you know something just because you were there.
;)
-
;) Rgr, Toad.
Oh here is another, ran into some Mech. Div 10th or 15th or something, this is the 23th of Feb.( the ground war officially started the 24th.)
One of the "Iraqis" is from Chicago, duel Passport. he was visiting his family, when he was pressed into service. Christ, he didn't even have a freakin weapon.
Or...... we hear some shots off our right flank, so we check it out.
Someone fires a 25mm, at a bunker, more like a big foxhole, kills an Iraqi soldier.
Come to find there are about 10 soldiers there, 1 weapon, they had shot in the air, because they were afraid that we would go by without seeing them, so they could surrender. What roadkill
1 weapon no food, very little water.
(This is scary, coming back like its yesterday)
This is why I feel we need to go in, These people want to get rid of Saddam, more then we do.
-
Scuse me Toad, directed at me?
I never claimed that the coalition did that to the prisoners.
-
Monk..I was wrong.
Here is what happened.
http://www.americanfreedomnews.com/afn_articles/afn_iraq_pows.htm
By war's end, almost 110,000 enemy soldiers were taken to two camps in Saudi Arabia. The vast majority of them had been captured by United Nations coalition forces. They eventually were repatriated to Iraq under the auspices of the International Red Cross after Saddam Hussein issued a general amnesty.
[snip]
In early 1992, according to the State Department, it became clear that conditions in Iraq precluded the safe return of many of the 4,000 Iraqi soldiers and other refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concluded that other solutions, such as resettlement in other countries, had to be found.
Along with the United States, Sweden, Denmark and Norway also agreed to accept some of the camp refugees.
-
Monk
You have to be mistaken .. they voted him, Saddam, in 100% to nothing :)
-
Yeah see? Scandinavia and the US offering to get some of the soldiers that surrendered.
I met one of them at school. A 40 year old ex Colonel in the Iraqi air force. He flew helicopters and was captured after US planes bombed his chopper - he was wise enough to take to the air, fly for five minutes towards the front, land, wait. He thus survived.
You should see his face when he talks about Saddam. Pure hatred.
And now he is in Denmark. He fought in the Iran-Iraq war, probably killing a lot of people. He's a Colonel used to flying combat aircraft. And now he's being passed on the inside by snotty 20-somethings with little life experience living in a sheltered nation. All while knowing his family is still in Iraq. Apparently, the surrendering soldiers could be relocated, but not their families. I gather that's Saddam's way of ensuring they won't speak too loudly.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
You should see his face when he talks about Saddam. Pure hatred.
and... Originally posted by Monk
This is why I feel we need to go in, These people want to get rid of Saddam, more then we do.
and...Originally said by an Iraqi bloke I met in Tenerife
Saddam Hussein is the worst animal, the most evil creature ever to contaminate the earth. He is worse than Adolf Hitler, worse even than Joseph Stalin.
and...Originally said by an Iraqi woman to Tony Benn, who blamed thousands of Iraqi deaths on sanctions
No Mr. Benn! It's not the sanctions that are killing our people, it is Saddam who is doing all the killing.
and...Originally posted by sabre
Blix has as much as stated that inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq, if Iraq is intent on hiding WMD from the inspectors. He has said specifically that more inspectors are not the answer. Only if Iraq embraces the disarmament process, enthusiastically, publicly, and honestly as South Africa did, can there be any hope that inspectors will be able to verify Iraq if free of WMD. There is no sign that Saddam intends to do so, so removing Saddam is the only way to end the suffering of Iraq while insuring that country is no longer a threat to world peace and stability.
Ahoy there Blitz! And Bounder, and Dowding - are you listening? Do you get the message now? These are accounts which have come from actual Iraqis. These accounts speak VOLUMES - far more than can be derived from 999,999 uninformed, blinkered fools waving anti-Bush banners. (Bounder is not a fool)
Let's see, it's almost 6:30. France must be due to call for another last chance to be given to Saddam... :rolleyes:
-
I'd study Liam Lynch a little more closely, Beetle. I've never said Saddam was a nice guy. No one denies Saddam needs to be disposed of. It's all about the method and the circumstances in which that method is employed. It should be done with a UN mandate, IMO.
-
Exactly my though.
-
And when the UN will not give such a mandate because France is blocking such a resolution? What then?
The question begs an answer you know...what do we do if the UN fails to call for violence against Iraq? WHAT THEN?
WHAT?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I'd study Liam Lynch a little more closely, Beetle. I've never said Saddam was a nice guy. No one denies Saddam needs to be disposed of. It's all about the method and the circumstances in which that method is employed. It should be done with a UN mandate, IMO.
Had to do a Google search for Liam Lynch - political protest singer was all I came up with. Dunno what he has to do with the price of fish. :confused:
I'm coming round to Rude's point of view. Let the US go into Iraq, with or without UN blessing. I'm coming round to the view "What's the UN got to do with it anyway?" So Dowding, remind us WHY we need to await UN approval. I'm afraid I've forgotten/lost the plot... It was the US that was targeted by the 911 attacks, and they (Dubya) warned that the war on terror would extend beyond Afghanistan/Taleban/OBL - to other belligerent countries that may sponsor terrorism against the US. And Iraq is one.
-
It should be done with a UN mandate, IMO.
Forgive me for getting lost in all of the technical terminology, but what exactly would a UN mandate to remove Saddam entail? What does that allow/disallow, and how is the goal of the mandate reached/enforced?
-
Originally posted by Ossie
Forgive me for getting lost in all of the technical terminology, but what exactly would a UN mandate to remove Saddam entail? What does that allow/disallow, and how is the goal of the mandate reached/enforced?
it is a document all the nations with their hands in their pockets get together and sign, hand to the US and her allies and say you have "our permission" now ....
-
Hortlund, I suggest you chill. You're going to do yourself an injury.
Try harder Beetle.
Last time I checked, none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. The link between Iraq and Al Queda is tenuous at best and revolves around camps in the north of the country, the very same type of camps that reside in Saudi and several other 'friends'. Also, the IRA had cells operating in the US, but no one would suggest there were links between official government and them. MI6 said there was a fledgling relationship, but it floundered because of acute ideological differences.
In terms of international relations, war is generally viewed as just when the nation instigating the conflict has been attacked - i.e. a war in self-defence. Iraq has not attacked the US. It has engaged USAF/RAF fighters over the no-fly-zones, but these are NOT UN mandated and never have been. Hence, quite frankly, they can engage whoever they like over their air space.
A UN mandate keeps dialogue between certain 'problem' states open and free-flowing. It also gives them the idea that they are not side-lined on this issue. Bush Snr and Baker spent a huge amount of effort keeping a coalition together regarding the last Gulf war - the result was a successful outcome. A cowed and much weaker Iraq which had 95% of it's WMD destroyed and it's armed forces in ruins. It's called diplomacy.
Iraq is not Afghanistan. The evidence is not as forthcoming or as clear-cut. To me that speaks volumes.
If the major players within the UN cannot commit themselves to non-aggressive conflict, then why should any other State? How can the West dictate how 'things should be done' with this precedence in place? I don't think it can.
I'm not so sure France won't back down in the end. There's too much for it to lose. I believe there will be more evidence discussed at the UN soon.
-
I'm coming round to Rude's point of view. Let the US go into Iraq, with or without UN blessing. I'm coming round to the view "What's the UN got to do with it anyway?" So Dowding, remind us WHY we need to await UN approval. I'm afraid I've forgotten/lost the plot... It was the US that was targeted by the 911 attacks, and they (Dubya) warned that the war on terror would extend beyond Afghanistan/Taleban/OBL - to other belligerent countries that may sponsor terrorism against the US. And Iraq is one.
IF the US 'coalition' invades Iraq without UN approval then it makes a mockery of the whole reason(s) the US has for being there in the first place. That whole heartedly disreguard of international law would only rubber stamp such acts as Saddams invasion of Kuwait as a legitimate action.
As for the terrorism link Dowding said it best:
Last time I checked, none of the 9-11 hijackers were Iraqi. The link between Iraq and Al Queda is tenuous at best and revolves around camps in the north of the country, the very same type of camps that reside in Saudi and several other 'friends'. Also, the IRA had cells operating in the US, but no one would suggest there were links between official government and them.
Tronsky
-
You need UN approval so you can claim to be enforcing international law.
Without it, you're breaking it. Of course since the US is the only superpower, people wouldn't call it breaking international law. Politicians wouldn't, I mean - those allied with the US.
The USA can basically do whatever it wants at the moment. It's like being the biggest baddest kid on the playground - one can use or abuse the authority. Up to the Yanks to decide which.
I see the UN as a way of attempting to listen to all parties involved and where possible reaching a compromise peaceful solution. Nothing forces the US to participate in this. But if it wants to act on behalf of 'the world', it has to go through the UN. The alternative is acting upon the behalf of own interests, and those of allied nations.
Since WWII we've tried to solve problems through diplomacy and through talking to each other. We NEED a place to talk about things. It's good we have one, even though we might disagree.
The US might end up doing its thing. Still, I think the UN is valuable partly because of its peace keepers, but more importantly as a formally recognized *forum*. If the US has taken its discussion there but fail to get enough support, of course it can still act if it believes it is in its interests - no one is gonna impose sanctions on the superpower.
Basically,the US is so far ahead of any competitor when it comes to conventional forces that it's almost ridiculous. None can come close to it. Not even countries with massive populations like China. I think the power difference between competitors has never been as great as it is today ever in the history of mankind.