Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ygsmilo on March 18, 2003, 05:42:15 PM
-
I have my own reservations about the course we are on but it looks like to me that the failure of the UN to enforce its resolutions has put us on a path of no return.
After the last few days it has become clear to me that world opinion is against what we (the US) are doing in regards to Iraq.
The question is do we care.
I think that world opinion would be against us if we gave food, shelter, and medical supplies to any nation state out there. There is major anti-americanism in the world today. Is it because our standard of living is so much higher than most of the world or that many countries are mirred in self-inflicted poverty.
So the question is do we care.
I know I used to care what folks thought about the US but not now. The US has had its share of blunders the last 50 years when it comes to foreign and domestic policy, both Republican and Democrat leadership can be found at fault but the bottom line is that we try to do what we think is right. Whats right to us seems to not apply to most of the world lately so is that our failing or is it that the world takes offense to anything we do just because we are the US.
I think it is going to boil down to this, either you are with us or against us. Choose clearly but choose wisely because what most of the world does not understand that the vast majority of the country is moderate, we have our wackos on the Right and on the Left but middle America still decides the direction of the country. Most importantly middle America has a long memory.
-
PULL MY FINGER
-
Originally posted by rc51
PULL MY FINGER
I predict that you are not long for these forums dude.
-
yes we care but not enough to allow world opinion to supercede our own convictions.
-
Originally posted by Batz
yes we care but not enough to allow world opinion to supercede our own convictions.
exactly
-
Originally posted by Martlet
exactly
2nd
-
Depends on whether it's *informed* world opinion or not. Didn't a lot of people claim the sky would fall if we tried to throw Saddam out of Kuwait in 1990? And didn't that effort not only decimate his military power, but also prevented him from acquiring nukes within the next two years? So werent those people totally wrong? And how many of those mistaken people are back speaking against the current American policy? And shouldn't they have to wear little bracelets so we can see where they stood in 1990-91?
-
PULL MY FINGER AGAIN
-
What Batz said.
-
Originally posted by Batz
yes we care but not enough to allow world opinion to supercede our own convictions.
ditto
same in personal life also ...
-
Originally posted by Batz
yes we care but not enough to allow world opinion to supercede our own convictions.
which ,of course, are the supreme, total, absolute, immovable, true ,correct and right convictions. The US stand is correct, the rest of the world isn't.
Its so egocentric...
Its SO typical...
-
YES! The top speed of the 190A5 is off by .003MPH at sea level!!
-SW
-
I see your point, SW. I think that no other message could be more on topic in this thread, than yours.
congratulations on a well-written, greatly argumented, post!.
-
Tell you what RAM, I will post this _AGAIN_ although I am getting tired of having to drag it through topics time after time.
*I* will care what the rest of the world thinks, when the rest of the world can actually stand up for their convictions. (UN resolutions)
Until then, I will go on ignoring what the rest of the world thinks because they obviously can not stand up for what THEY think.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
*I* will care what the rest of the world thinks, when the rest of the world can actually stand up for their convictions. (UN resolutions)
I don't live around this forums 24/7, so sorry for making you rewrite something you might have said a lot of times before. Now let me tell you my point of view:
UN resolutions (1441) say that ,if inspectors say they can't do their job of supervision of Irak's disarming properly, Irak would have to stand serious consequences.
inspectors have said they need months to fullfit their work, but that it can be done properly.
Now tell me the part of the UN resolutions where it says that if inspectors say that they need some months to do their job, Irak will have to stand serious consequences.
-
Months, eh?
So, lets see... I have to do the math real quick. 12x12 =?
144 months and going strong.
Inspectors routinely got kicked out of Iraq and denied access to areas they were supposed to be inspecting for 12 years.
Saddam was supposed to disarm, and prove to THEM he disarmed, not have the inspectors playing hide 'n go seek.
So, until the rest of the world can sit there and enforce their original resolution of Saddam disarming and proving his disarmament (not playing hide 'n go seek for 12 years)... then I really do not give one toejam what the world thinks because obviously they care so much about their own opinion that the US and Britain are the only ones who will enforce it.
You say months, they've had more than months, they've had years. The gig is up, and the world has proven to be a joke when it comes down to the wire.
-SW
-
I don't think you know better than the inspectors themselfs, do you?.
I can quote the reports given to the security council by them. What they said is pretty clear: they needed more time. Not weeks, not years: they needed months. But they could get the job done in that time without resorting to the use of force.
If that is what the inspectors say, and the UN resolution says clearly that the reports to follow are THEIR reports, then the situation is clear: there is no need for a war, because the inspectors report that the job can be perfectly done if they are given more time.
So, in short, UN resolution 1441 is being applied successfully. Or at least was being until three world leaders decided to do a coup against the UN last sunday in the Azores meeting, probably destroying in the meantime the credibility of the only international organization that can mediate in the world conflicts today.
-
BTW Spain is also supporting USA and UK in this matter. There will be spanish troops and ships in the area during this war (only in supporting and humanitarian tasks, but they will be there).
Spain is giving plenty logistical support to USA; spanish air bases are full of activity of US planes carrying matherial to the middle east.
All that against a calculated 92% of the public opinion in spain, BTW.
Aznar and his party will have to stand a pretty good hit in the next partial elections ,in a couple of months from now, because that. I voted them last elections. I'm happy they will have to pay for ignoring what most of this nation's people thinks.
-
Sorry RAM, that won't fly.
The only thing that has kept the inspectors in Iraq the past year has been the threat of war by the US.
We're tired of playing this game, it's been 12 long years.. if the UN meant something, the inspectors job would of been done 11 years ago.
They want more time, they've had 12 years... they don't need anymore time, as it's up.
Now, lets pretend the UN had been the one keeping the UN inspectors in Iraq for the past 12 years... I'll bet the tune would be a lot different today.
The jig is up, they've had all the time in the world and accomplished next to nothing. The world wouldn't enforce the UN resolutions dating back to 1991, so we will enforce Saddam's disarmament by force.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
They want more time, they've had 12 years... they don't need anymore time, as it's up.
that is not what the inspectors said. They need months to get their job done, but it will be done when that time's over.
The objective is to get irak disarmed?. Fine, I agree, they've been playing seek&hide for 12 years, and I agree, they only started moving towards disarmement after they had a couple hundred thousands of US soldiers at the other side of the frontier. But the fact is that they ARE GETTING DISARMED.
If you have waited for 12 years you can wait for three or four months, if those who are doing the job of supervision of disarmement say the job will be done by then. But what is not understandable is that now, that Irak is finally doing what it must do, they get into a war.
If what you are looking for is disarmement, it can be perfectly done without throwing a single bomb into Irak.
If what you are looking for is a different thing (whatever it is), then there's nothing more to say, but then I'd thank US diplomacy saying the truth, and not using disarmement as an excuse for an attack that is against all international laws.
-
I don't think it will get done without military force. It would be one thing if Saddam put forth an honest effort, told us what he had, then destroyed it. He isn't. He hides it. He denies it.
It will never all be found unless we beat the piss out of him.
-
Yeah right Saddam's disarming and we have a moon base.
He is NOT disarming, at all.
He's playing games just like he has been for the past 12 years.
You think he's had a change of heart? I'll sell you an air force complete with B-2s and F-117s.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
He is NOT disarming, at all.
UN inspectors think otherwise.
and UN inspectors are the ones to say wether he is doing or not, according to 1441.
So in the end UN resolution is being fully respected so far by the nations that voted it. So your initial argument of
"*I* will care what the rest of the world thinks, when the rest of the world can actually stand up for their convictions. (UN resolutions) "
so far isn't appliable, because latest UN resolution concerning Irak disarmement is being respected and all who voted for it are standing up for their convictions.
Except USA, UK and Spain.
-
No, indeed it is very much appliable RAM.
They've had 12 years worth of resolutions, what were the first 17 just throw-a-ways for hugahunk?
The world has had 12 years to say, okay Saddam, we want you to disarm and prove it to us. We have a resolution saying you MUST do this. It's time for you to stop diddlying around and do what the world is telling you to do.
No, instead we have to wait 12 years until the US has finally had enough of this roadkill to FINALLY hear the world cry out, "Wait! We really mean it!"
But do they? No, indeed they don't. If they did, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
So fact is, the world has had 12 years to say "Okay, our opinions mean something... we have had resolution after resolution passed, inspectors repeatedly kicked out and given the run around. It's time for you to disarm Saddam."
Instead, you all wait until the 11th hour of the 11th day when a country has finally had enough of this roadkill and begins piling their troops up on the borders. Then you still wait another diddlyin year before you cry out, "You don't listen to the world!" "The US is Hitler!" "No war for oil."
Like I said, if your opinions meant something you would of stuck up for them and not waited until it was too late.
Resolution 1441 means this to me: "We've had 17 other resolutions against your nation, but this one really means something because otherwise the US is gonna come in there and kick your ass. So we better get this one out the door real quick just so we can say the US is evil!"
And the UN inspectors.. yeah, they're getting full cooperation (insert rolleye emoticon here)... like I said, would you like to buy my airforce complete with B-2s and F-117s?
Saddam has no intention of disarming, never has and never will... unless of course I'm ill-informed and the UN inspectors put Saddam up to a lie detector and asked him, "Saddam, c'mon ya nice guy, will you disarm for us this time?" and he actually answered truthfully.
If the past 12 years has proven the world nothing else, it's that Saddam is _NOT_ trust worthy and even when he gives the illusion of cooperation with the UN... it is just that, an illusion.
-SW
-
Pull your own damned finger. Begging for a date is pitiful. Go find a teenie chatroom or sumpin.
Originally posted by rc51
PULL MY FINGER AGAIN
-
there are many points where I fully agree with you, Swulfe. In fact almost 90% of your message.
However I insist that the inspectors are those who have to say if Irak is disarming or not. So far their reports say they are doing it, and that in months the supervision of that disarmement will be a fact.
If in months the job isn't done, then they will say so. And THEN, when the inspectors say they can't get their job done, a resolution for using hte force should be presented and voted in the Security council.
And THEN, the use of force would be legitimated. At this moment, it isn't.
In any case there are many, many lessons to learn from this problem regarding the UN. If we want it to be really effective then:
1- veto powers should be removed.
2- a new UN fund should be raised to be used in crisis times to pay the sending&funding of troops to crisis zones. You could say that there should be a fund for the UN to partially "hire" military power to enforce its resolutions, as it is clear that Hussein has started disarming ONLY when he has faced a real military threat...and it is unfair for a single nation to pay for it (yes, I'm talking about US spendings here, I don't see as a fair thing that USA has to pay to enforce an UN resolution)
In any case, in this particular crisis, and with the current UN Security council rules, the war that's about to start is illegal according to international laws.
And regarding 1441 resolution, so far it is being applied successfully. So those who voted for it, and are against a war now, are perfectly consequent with the resolution they agreed to pass.
US, UK and spain, I repeat, aren't consequent with it.
-
To me, its what is important to Americans that matters.
This is my country, and while other nation's are entitled to their opinion, my loyalty is 100 percent to America. I am proud to have a LEADER like Bush, and I pray for him every day.
I think he is a genius. He's intuitive. He knows the right thing. I believe that time will bear this out.
He isn't perfect... but I think he's honest. And very importantly, I think he has a grip on the dangers that face us.
-
Actually, it is legal. It just doesn't have UN backing via 1441.
However, the cease-fire agreement (and Iraq's violation of) and the 17 other resolutions (and Iraq's violation of) gives the US legal justification to take out Saddam.
This is according to the British Attorney General (and they know law).
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2003/03/16/story91854.html
-SW
-
according to the legal counsellors of Jose Maria Aznar, this war is ILLEGAL. At least that whas an inner report that was published in the media (probably someone in the spanish government gave it to the press) said.
Of course Aznar doesn't go on TV saying it is illegal. But his own counsellors gave him a report saying that it is, and that report was published, as I say, a couple of days ago.
No agression war is legal without UN backing, and this is an agression war, and UN resolutions don't back it.
-
No agression war is legal without UN backing, and this is an agression war, and UN resolutions don't back it. - RRAM
Who says that agression war is illegal without UN backing? I dispute that.
The UN has some extremely bad and dangerous people in it that are given automatic legitimacy by virtue of being a member.
The United States of America recognises that fact, and bases its decisions on what is best for the USA - like the war in Iraq for instance.
The UN is not relevent.
-
Well, it's right there RAM.
If you choose to ignore that, fine by me... but it's legal, and there have been no releases to the contrary.
You don't need UN backing for a war to be legal, if their own resolutions make the war legal.
1441 is only _ONE_ resolution, there are previous resolutions and a breaking of the cease-fire agreement by Iraq that make this war legal.
-SW
-
Gunthr, IIRC, Nuremberg trials declared agression war as illegal. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it is that way.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You don't need UN backing for a war to be legal, if their own resolutions make the war legal.
1441 is only _ONE_ resolution, there are previous resolutions and a breaking of the cease-fire agreement by Iraq that make this war legal.
-SW
That's where I (and the legal report sent to Mr. Aznar and published in the press after it was filtrated) disagree, the breaking of the cease-fire happened years ago, but AT THIS SAME MOMENT, the cease-fire agreement is being respected by Irak as it is allowing the UN inspectors to do their job and is complying with the cease-fire demands.
So starting a war at this moment is illegal. That is what Aznar's legal counsellors told him, and they also know about law ;).
-
Errr... uh... they've been firing at aircraft for quite some time. Where have you been RAM?
As to the rest... whatever, you know international law like you understand how a computer program computes flight data. Not at all, so you saying it's illegal doesn't matter one bit.
I'll believe an Attorney General over legal counselors anyday.
-SW
-
not a good way to finish a perfectly constructive discussion, SW, resorting to personal attacks :).
Regarding British attorney general, I dont know how does that role work in UK, is it dependant from the government in any way?.
if it is, do you think that a government member will admit in public that his prime minister is supporting an illegal measure? ;). I insist that the legal report published in spain was a SECRET report directed to the spanish president ONLY. Not a public declaration ;).
if it isn't then I don't know enough about international laws, I'm not a lawyer (far from it). All I know is that a report done by the spanish president's legal assessors said that war is illegal. And I assume they know enough about international laws to send that report to the president of the spanish government.
-
You were complaining about the 190A5's sea level speed. Computer programs aren't exact.
You say that the attack is illegal, and that someone's legal counselors say the attack agrees with you.
I'm pointing out you know neither, so those legal counselors couldn't possibly be in agreement with you. In fact, you are simply in agreement with them.
Now, I have not seen anything about these legal counselors at all, anywhere. You have, or atleast that's what the media is telling you. The Attorney General is the highest lawyer in the land, and really knows his toejam. Despite what you may think, Britain isn't communist and the government officials are free to disagree with the PM, and many did- by leaving office.
I see mention of TWO other resolutions in that link I provided above (again, actual proof) that Iraq is in violation of, and thusly makes the attack on Iraq quite legal. Just in case you didn't know, 1441 does not overwrite previous resolutions- ALL of them are still in effect.
Now if you can provide me of a link or some real substance showing me these "legal counselors" statements, I'd be happy to translate it for myself.
If they are saying this attack is illegal, but do not offer up any evidence as to why.. or if they say it's illegal based upon 1441, then that doesn't mean it's illegal, it just does not mean it is in agreement with 1441.
For the attack to be legal, all that is needed are those two previous resolutions to be violated by Iraq. Which they have been, 1441 would of just been "icing on the cake" as it were.
And the UN does _NOT_ need to back a war to make it legal, it would be nice if they did because that means that an entire UN coalition will be there.. but it does not mean the war is illegal.
-SW
-
Would the US, the allies and the UN have been justified in ousting Saddam for his attack on Kuwait in 1990 and his failure to evacuate in 1991? Obviously yes. You can not only defend against an aggressor, you can take the offensive and defeat him with superior force. Otherwise there would be no risk in aggression, if you find yourself losing, you call "allee-allee-in-free" and go back to the status quo.
Did the US, the allies and the UN stop the counterattack against Saddam only upon certain conditions? Also yes. Did Saddam violate those conditions. Over and over and over. Is the US, the allies and/or the UN, entitled to resume the offensive against the branded aggressor for those violations. Of course. Do we need the French government's permission for this? *Not bloody likely* They are welcome to stand aside and help with the reconstruction of Iraq if they want, but lots of luck getting the free Iraqi government to honor Saddam's contracts with the countries that tried to keep him in power.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You say that the attack is illegal, and that someone's legal counselors say the attack agrees with you.
I'm pointing out you know neither, so those legal counselors couldn't possibly be in agreement with you. In fact, you are simply in agreement with them.
Humm?. I don't see the difference, but ok, I'll agree with this :).
Now, I have not seen anything about these legal counselors at all, anywhere. You have, or atleast that's what the media is telling you. The Attorney General is the highest lawyer in the land, and really knows his toejam. Despite what you may think, Britain isn't communist and the government officials are free to disagree with the PM, and many did- by leaving office.
But if he doesn't want to leave office? ;).
Spain isn't communist either, and is well known that there are inner dissensions in the PP (Popular Party, the party of Aznar and teh government) about the war in Irak. Yet there has been no public manifestation against the war by ANY member of the government, or the party in power.
I see mention of TWO other resolutions in that link I provided above (again, actual proof) that Iraq is in violation of, and thusly makes the attack on Iraq quite legal. Just in case you didn't know, 1441 does not overwrite previous resolutions- ALL of them are still in effect.
I'm well aware that the resolutions are all in effect. I'm also well aware that Irak AT THIS MOMENT is complying all of them according to the UN inspectors :). That it hasn't done it in hte past is irrelevant, since 1441 was put in effect and Saddam forced to comply with it because the US military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Irak has complied with ALL those resolutions.
There are several nations in the world that have breached many UN resolutions in the past. Are you going to declare war on them all? ;).
Now if you can provide me of a link or some real substance showing me these "legal counselors" statements, I'd be happy to translate it for myself.
I'm happy to make your wish true:
link to one of the many URLs reporting the new:
http://www.diariodirecto.com/int/int030317informe.html
The document itself ,signed by the lawyer services of the foreign ministry of spain, and directed to the spanish foreign minister and spanish president (in pdf format):
http://www.diariodirecto.com/nac/informemae.pdf
it's about 6.5 Megas.
And the UN does _NOT_ need to back a war to make it legal, it would be nice if they did because that means that an entire UN coalition will be there.. but it does not mean the war is illegal.
-SW
I repeat that IIRC Nuremberg trials declared waging agression wars as Illegal. And this is an agression war.
-
Think he cares?
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Humm?. I don't see the difference, but ok, I'll agree with this :).
Attorney General= THE highest.
Legal counselors as you are saying it= people who just report to the person in charge, but aren't the highest legal authority.
But if he doesn't want to leave office? ;).
He doesn't have to. Those other people who agreed with Blair, they didn't have to leave... but for whatever reason they decided their actions spoke louder than their continued public opposition.
Blair's popular opinion is also very low, opposition to Blair would more than likely lead to good public opinion which would be beneficial to the Attorney General later down the road.
I'm well aware that the resolutions are all in effect. I'm also well aware that Irak AT THIS MOMENT is complying all of them according to the UN inspectors :). That it hasn't done it in hte past is irrelevant, since 1441 was put in effect and Saddam forced to comply with it because the US military presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Irak has complied with ALL those resolutions.
At this moment doesn't over write 12 years of non-compliance.
Hell, if Saddam would of just said, "Here's my weapons, watch me destroy them." 1441 would of been resolved. The UN inspectors are _NOT_ there for an easter egg hunt. He is still not fully complying, as HE IS SUPPOSED TO DO THE DISARMING NOT THE INSPECTORS!
There are several nations in the world that have breached many UN resolutions in the past. Are you going to declare war on them all? ;).
Ah, yes... typical diversion. Why can't we deal with them as we see fit?
I'll deal with translating those articles tommorrow, I have stuff I need to get on doing after this. But atleast I got something.
I repeat that IIRC Nuremberg trials declared waging agression wars as Illegal. And this is an agression war.
I repeat, Saddam's violation of past UN resolutions makes this a legal war. "War of aggression" is a semantics play, Saddam's invading Kuwait just to take those oil wells is a war of aggression.
The US going into Iraq to take out Saddam for 12 years of non-compliance is justifiable.
These past, and lets be honest, 3 months of Saddam "complying" (which he hasn't fully) has been his way of buying more time. He doesn't intend to comply, the UN inspectors and Blix are only saying what they think and believe. Aside from the few facilities they've been given admittance to over the past 3 months, Saddam hasn't been saying "Here are my weapons, watch me destroy them."
The latter is full compliance, UN inspectors going on an easter egg hunt isn't fully compliance.
In any event, past violations are violations... and you don't have to go very far into the past for the violations.
-SW
-
Geez, just pull his finger.......:D
Thorns
-
I just did a quick scan of that article, my spanish is not very good but from what I can tell- it only covers Resolution 1441.
The previous resolutions require Saddam to account for his WMDs, show them to the inspectors, and have the inspectors oversee the destruction of said weapons.
Without that, he is not in compliance with the previous resolutions.
-SW
-
read the PDF, it's dated in October 2002, that is, BEFORE resolution 1441 was passed.
-
Let me put it this way RAM, regardless of what the PDF says (6.5MB... I'm still on 28.8k here): Saddam has been up to this date in time in violation of previous resolutions.
Unless HE invites the weapons inspectors into Iraq, shows them all of the weapons unaccounted for, and destroys them under the supervision of the inspectors then he IS in violation of those resolutions.
To date he has not done that, and therefore is not in compliance with those resolutions.
Cooperation is not in those resolutions, compliance is- and this compliance means HE has to do those things I mentioned above.
It's as simple as that.
-SW
-
Why does Bush need inspectors? why doesn't he just ask his dad what WMD he and Reagan gave Saddam?
-
The real question is, would US have hesitated to attack if it was really illegal?
...
Nope.
That never bothered US in any occasion be it 'Nam or Panama.
...
Kind of funny seeing people 'pray' for safety of soldiers engaging in full-fledged military attack which their own government so enthusiastically planned. You send your own young men to go kill someone else, with your own hands, and now praying for their safety? Hypocrisy at its prime, if you ask me. (But I guess no one's asking me. Hey, you don't care if whole mess of countries are against you, so why should you care for the opinion of a single individual?)
Who are they praying to, god?
"Thou shall not kill" is an absolute commandment existing in every religion in every world. It is when a certain group think they have the sole right to translate that in relative terms, that people become immune and numb in face of destruction.
The Al Queda bozos thought the same. Now, the US is also thinking the same. I pity the US for that.
What goes around comes around, and those that rise by guns and knives fall by guns and knives. The world rubbed in the face of the US its whole 'justification' attempt. Clearly, the world does not agree with the US. So now they're saying "fu*k you, we'll do whatever we want".
....
One thing for sure, as predicted by many, the world is changing, and the former rules and deceptive masks which covered and justified so many things, are now going out of effect. The hood is off, shroud is unveiled, and its gonna be a nasty future lying ahead all of us.
If there is one thing I really pray, I hope your governement don't pull off the same stunt against other countries, too. A war ever breaks out where I live, unlike you guys, the chances are very high I'm gonna be dead here in Korea.
But would something like that bother the concscience of Americans? I hope so, respected friends, I hope so.
-
ygsmilo - I think the US and UK (and supporters like Spain) are doing absolutely the right thing, right now. Of course, this latest phase of the war should have been done in 1991, but was halted.
I don't think there is anti-American feeling from the UK anti-war crowd. And I would like to bet that MOST of the anti-war people have never visited the US at all, or even gone beyond their own shores. I believe that any anti-American feeling is borne not of ill-will, but of ignorance.
Psst... Guys, it's "supersede" - derived from supersession. ;)
-
And I would like to bet that MOST of the anti-war people have never visited the US at all, or even gone beyond their own shores.
It's a real shame there are brits on this board to call time on your assertions. People might actually believe you're telling the truth. ;)
British people go abroad now with flights for as little as 80 quid return - friends of mine went to Barcelona for 30 quid return last week - are you seriously suggesting that the people on that march have never been abroad?
roadkill.
-
Dowding - yes, I believe that only a minority of people in Britain have ever been to the US. As to flying to other foreign parts, you might find that only a relative minority of people have done that too. Back in the 80s when I did my PPL exams, the training syllabus included a section on how to brief passengers for a flight, and cautioned that MOST people in Britain have never flown! I was surprised myself. :eek: The CAA's words, not mine.
Anyway Dowding, I see that Iraq is firing Scuds - the ones they were supposed to have destroyed. Got your evidence yet? Next time, matey, I'd leave it to the CIA to know what weapons Iraq has and does not have. It's their JOB to know.
Perish the thought that my security is ever placed in the hands of an armchair politician. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Anyway Dowding, I see that Iraq is firing Scuds - the ones they were supposed to have destroyed. Got your evidence yet?
the destroyed missiles could very well be Al-Samuds, which were properly declared to the UN inspectors, and were being destroyed under UN supervision.
There's no proof those missiles were Scuds, at all. I'm not saying they weren't ,simply that they could not be. So far there's no such evidence as you seem to believe :).
-
Originally posted by RRAM
So far there's no such evidence as you seem to believe :).
Bollocks, RRAM. What you mean is, there is no evidence that you personally know about. That does not mean that no evidence exists. Do you really think that the CIA is going to publish details of the whereabouts of WMD, thereby affording Saddam the opportunity of relocating them - again? Do you really believe that 280,000 service personnel would be deployed to the Gulf, with political futures being placed on the line, as part of a military exercise? No need to say any more. It won't be long now before the truth will out. And then you and Dowding, Bounder, Blitz et al are going to have egg on your faces! I see from another post that you're approximately the same age as Dowding, and probably doing your own term of service in the office of armchair politics. It will pass...
-
I'm sorry, but you said abroad, not just the US. This isn't the 80's. The advent of ultra-cheap package holidays in the early nineties and the recent phenomenon of ultra-cheap flights to anywhere in continental Europe, means your assertion that most of the marchers had never left the country, is quite frankly, bollocks.
And if it was the Al Samud type - which isn't neccessarily the case - we know they had those missiles. Why? Because the UN inspectors were in the process of cutting them up. The UN inspectors have now gone, leaving their work unfinished. The implication is that there are missiles left behind. So it's hardly a 'revelation' that they have some left, is it?
It's hardly a vindication of your faith in the current party line.
-
Should be intresting to see the world reaction should the US/UK/AU forces be required to use their chem/bio suits in other than just a precautionary manner.
Hope it doesn't happen, and if (when) it does the counter-measures work as well as advertized.
Wait... none of that will be required, because Iraq destroyed all that stuff long ago. The inspectors proved that...
-
I said that MOST people in Britain have not been to the US, and quoted the CAA which advised (in the 80s) that MOST people in Britain have never flown.
The UN inspectors have now gone, leaving their work unfinished.
You're right about that one. Silly me. Silly Tony Blair. Silly Dubya. The answer was staring us in the face. We should have just given the UN weapon inspectors another 12 years. :rolleyes:
-
Is that really what you said?
And I would like to bet that MOST of the anti-war people have never visited the US at all, or even gone beyond their own shores.
Hmmm...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Bollocks, RRAM. What you mean is, there is no evidence that you personally know about. That does not mean that no evidence exists. Do you really think that the CIA is going to publish details of the whereabouts of WMD, thereby affording Saddam the opportunity of relocating them - again? Do you really believe that 280,000 service personnel would be deployed to the Gulf, with political futures being placed on the line, as part of a military exercise? No need to say any more. It won't be long now before the truth will out. And then you and Dowding, Bounder, Blitz et al are going to have egg on your faces! I see from another post that you're approximately the same age as Dowding, and probably doing your own term of service in the office of armchair politics. It will pass...
I don't know personally about any WMD in Irak, that is true. Nor do you, for that matter, and you are basing your arguments on mere speculation.
If the US intelligence reports had evidence of the existance of WMD in Irak, then why didn't you show it in the UN SC?...so far all you have showed is ,either false proof, or very questionable reports. So far there is NO EVIDENCE of WMD in Irak. Period. If CIA has it, then they should have presented it in the UN SC for a proper way to solve this thing.
BTW, I honestly hope to have egg on my face, as you say. I'll sleep much better knowing that I was wrong, that you were right, and this war was really unavoidable as you claim it was. So far I think it could've been avoided, and so I don't feel well about it.
-
RAM, have you actually read UN Resolution 1441? Or are you just parrotting back what you have been told that it says?
Here is the full text of the resolution (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html), and from a non-US website, so I don't get accusations of "american bias".
Let me point out Clause #13
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations
Specifically, "will face serious consequences" is politico speak for "war".
But regardless of what 1441 itself says, Iraqi is in violation of the original cease fire agreements (note it was a "cease fire" not a peace treaty) and the resolutions following it, so even by YOUR definitions RAM, it is a legal and just war.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Is that really what you said?
I quoted the CAA in saying that MOST Britons have never flown. And I don't see tens of millions of Britons going to France/Spain etc. by boat. Maybe a few thousands each year? Check with P&O or Brittany Ferries.
RRAM If CIA has it, then they should have presented it in the UN SC for a proper way to solve this thing.
This has always been a tough one for armchair politicians to understand. The point is that if the CIA supplies information of that kind, Saddam is going to know about it, and will take action to thwart their position. Not only that, but the source of the information (how the CIA got it) could be exposed. You and I simply do not know what agents the CIA has on the ground in Iraq, but they are there. If the CIA were to blow its cover, as you seem to deem fit and proper, those sources of information might be cut off. Is that what you want?
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
RAM, have you actually read UN Resolution 1441? Or are you just parrotting back what you have been told that it says?.
I've read it, and I still keep what I said. According to 1441, war is illegal.
On the argument about the previous resolutions being broken, I must admit that the war can be legal, and that SW's posts are bassically right. I was mistaken on that particular matter.
However, WMD existance in Irak has not been proved, at all. And I think that war could've been avoided had a different path of action been selected. I still think the US decision to go to war at this moment is bassically wrong, even while is legal according to the letter of the UN resolutions.
Beet1e, if CIA had evidence of WMD in Irak, UN inspectors could've been secretly informed to go to a certain place to conduct an investigation by surprise putting no sources in danger. If they had found something, of if they had met any kind of resistance or lack of cooperation to their inspection then I'd thikn you're right.
but that hasn't been done, nor anything similar to that...there's nothing that leads me to think that the UN inspectors were wrong in their reports to the UN SC. And all you have is speculation to toy with.
And supporting a war only having speculation to back up your opinion, is something questionable, at least from my point of view.
-
The UN is a sieve (ie its full of holes) when it comes to information, especially "secret" information. So I can see a reluctance of any intelligence agency to turn over sensitive information that would compromise the source.
But at this point, such an arguement is moot. Either he does have weapons and material that is illegal under UN mandates, and they will be revealed in the coming weeks. Or he doesn't and the US will have some explaining too do.
We'll just have to see who history proves was right.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
We'll just have to see who history proves was right.
as I said before, I honestly hope you are right on the WMD and weapons matter. I will feel much better if this war has been not only legal, but also needed.
-
All you people who talk about anti-americanism... that is not really the case. "The world" has nothing against the american nation, "it" only does not like your foul leader ;)
Hmmm... that has a familiar sound in it.. doesn't it? ;) :D
OK, what is the next country with weapons of mass destructions... or was it "...with oil resources" ?
-
you didnt read 1441 ram, no where does it mention anything about the legality of war, one way or another.
What it provisdes for is that if Iraq is held in material breech there will be serious consequences.
What constitutes a material breech is to be determined by the individual members of the security council not the Inspectors.
The US feel Saddams in material breech and is acting to protect its interest.
The legal justification for this war can be found in the agreements Saddam signed at end the previous war.
This war is continuation of the last one, to bring Saddam into compliance.
But theres another justification that Bush mentioned that relates to self defense.
The inspectors went to Iraq to verify that Saddam is in compliance with previous resolutions, not to play detective, not to "catch Saddam in a lie" and to not find wmd but to ensure Saddam has destroyed those wmd which he previously acknowledged as having.
You havent read the 1441 if you think otherwise.
The UN has no legal authority over the actions of the US all they can do is handring and voice disagreement in our approach.
-
RRAM, naturally the inspectors who work for the UN need more time, their coffers are getting alittle low ;)
"Oil Loss Hits UN coffers" -- The United Nations is losing its only cash cow with the shutdown of Iraq's oil fields -- with profits of more than $300 million year. The UN has been making a tidy gain acting as a partner for Iraq for the past 11 years to sell its embargoed oil in exchange for food and medical supplies. "It was the only profitable thing at the UN", said one oil analyst. "It paid for a lot of programs and overhead there."
The UN controlled the sale of as much as $200 billion in Iraqi oil since the 1996 economic embargo started against Iraq . . . . "Everyone on the Security Council liked the arrangement because of the relief money it provided," said oil analyst Peter Beutel of Cameron, Hanover. He said the UN also arranged for the purchase of food and pharmaceuticals with the oil money.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
If they had found something, of if they had met any kind of resistance or lack of cooperation to their inspection then I'd thikn you're right.
but that hasn't been done, nor anything similar to that...there's nothing that leads me to think that the UN inspectors were wrong in their reports to the UN SC. And all you have is speculation to toy with.
And supporting a war only having speculation to back up your opinion, is something questionable, at least from my point of view.
So you really believe that the US and UK governments have embarked upon a multi-billion dollar campaign, using intelligence gathered by the CIA, which you, from your armchair, dismiss as "speculation"? Give the guys some credit, RRAM. The CIA has spy satellites. They have telephone surveillance monitoring equipment. They have agents on the ground...
...but you won't be satisfied until pictures of VX gas cannisters appear on your TV. When that happens, you will want the evidence to be substantiated, as many will argue that the evidence was "planted" by agents of GWB's "terrorist regime". What else will you want - interviews with our Iraqi moles? What do you think would happen to their families when Saddam found out what was happening, and who those moles were? And what do you think would be our chances of gathering intelligence by covert means after that?
-
Beetle, you'd changed tack from your original position. You never mentioned method of travel in your first post - you simply asserted that most people on that march had never 'left these shores'.
I've never met anyone who hasn't been abroad. Anyone. Even my 83 year old grandmother has been to Spain dozens of times. She went last year. At school, we went on trips to France etc. My current friends probably use their passport a dozen times a year, both for pleasure and business. I don't consider them out of the ordinary - far from it. Your original assertion was just plain wrong.
Now, the inspections. Why couldn't the CIA have given the UN inspectors a list of locations of GPS coordinates and said 'Check this out'? Blix wanted more intelligence sharing, but those who apparently held that information were very reluctant to even give a list of infringements with associated coords.
-
I'm not sure if I could express it better myself.....
(http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/03-12-2003.gif)
Sorry, I read that and laughed my bellybutton off. :D
-
Ram,
The inspectors were to be SHOWN that the disarmament was DONE, as Iraq has and continues to state it was. This was done in South Africa due to the country’s willingness and eagerness to comply.
What we have now is the worlds biggest game of hide and seek and it has made a joke of the UN and its rules.
I don’t think any nation will ever take a requirement of the UN seriously again (I wont). History will bear out the depth of the non-compliance of Iraq and when that happens I don’t suspect you or the other doom and gloom Peace nicks will have much to say (we don’t expect an apology).
The US asks no one and no country for permission to defend its people. If France has a problem with us going after its #1 trade partner and source of much income, tough. I remember a time when Germany once had a problem with us helping the French deal with a tyrant.
If the world wants to suck up to Saddam fine, you just might want to wait a bit first.
If you think what we do is illegal fine then kick our troops out of Europe and stop buying our stuff and put us in jail.
The days of the US giving and bleeding for others may be starting to come to an end... think about that and what it would mean (stop and really think about that).
Europe wants and wants, we are starting to see a trend here and are getting a bit tired of it, I know I am.
-
Dowding -
Now, the inspections. Why couldn't the CIA have given the UN inspectors a list of locations of GPS coordinates and said 'Check this out'? Blix wanted more intelligence sharing, but those who apparently held that information were very reluctant to even give a list of infringements with associated coords.
I said what I said about British travel. Feel free to dispute the Campaign Against Aviation as an authoritative source of aviation related fact.
Maybe the CIA does not want to disclose the information, so that we can HAVE the war, get rid of Saddam, and then reveal the hidden WMD. If they disclosed the whereabouts of the WMD, they would have to be destroyed, and there would be less of a case for a war. The troops would withdraw, and Saddam would be back in business as usual.
-
you write well my friend RRAM.....
but ya gotta understand....this is an American in majority board....ya gonna get it ...from all sides.
Serious Consequences.......
does it mean WAR....
does it mean a few missiles at suspected targets.....
does it mean taking out the LEADER.....
a few bombs dropped on suspected target.....
more embargoes.....
more scare tactics to make em comply......
I think your "Serious Consequences" means all out WAR..... is single minded.....
I'd think It meant a more AGGRESSIVE approach to inspections.....meaning, inspectors backed up with military power....
but but but but but.....ah well.....War is begun.
-
I said what I said about British travel. Feel free to dispute the Campaign Against Aviation as an authoritative source of aviation related fact.
Travel in the 80s was expensive. Now it's cheap. Show me information from the 21st century and I might concede your point.
Maybe the CIA does not want to disclose the information, so that we can HAVE the war, get rid of Saddam, and then reveal the hidden WMD. If they disclosed the whereabouts of the WMD, they would have to be destroyed, and there would be less of a case for a war. The troops would withdraw, and Saddam would be back in business as usual.
So the inspection regime might have worked if information you trust the CIA to have (implicitly and without reservation, it would seem) was given to Blix, but it wasn't because it would have interferred with an agenda that centres around regime change?
Wow. Right about now I should be saying 'get your tin foil helmet out' or other such nonsense. But of course, that only applies to theories that contradict the party line, rather than support them. :p
-
To answer the original question before the thread got hijacked:
You Americans can ignore world opinion as you please. You may sit in your bubble on earth and ignore other cultures or opinions. Uou can also assume you are morally superior to all other people and that all actions you take abroad are for the good of mankind.
It is up to you.
Everything comes with a price. The price of ignorance and arrogance is a building of contempt and hatred. Hatred leads to desire to hurt - and we've seen what that can do on 9/11.
What I am saying is that you're powerful enough military, economically and culturally to do whatever the hell you please. However, being hated by the rest of the world will have consequences, and you know it and accept it.
If you ignore world opinion and do things that are very popular in the US but extremely unpopular everywhere else, the price you'll pay is a great increase in terrorist attacks, in the US and against US interests and people in other parts of the world. A situation like in Israel may come to be.
And despite the massive power the US possesses, it will be unable to stop some of these terrorist attacks. The more countries against the US, the more likely it is that terrorists will get hold of more potent weapons. The more unpopular the US is abroad, the less cooperation it'll get - sure on the surface countries will cooperate for economic rasons and the US will be able to buy allies, but there will be large areas where there is some cooperation, enough to not stop lucrative trade, but not enough to stop terrorists.
For companies there is a qualititative thing called goodwill. It's actually incorporated into the net worth of a company. Massive loss of this will of course take place if the US did what I mentioned above.
In summary, the price you will pay for ignoring world opinion is a) loss of face to the rest of the world, which you of course can ignore, unless people spit at you when you're on vacation b) less cooperation and goodwill around the world, with the exception of bought off states, c) increased terrorist attacks in the US and against US interests d) govt interference in private life of peole living in the US, in order to thwarth the increased number of attempted terrorist attacks.
But you can do it, as you're pissed off, bellybutton kicking, brave, close to the ground uncomplicated people who prefer action to thoughts and words. You do what you have to, and the rest of the world will do the same.
Just do not forget that the US is as dependent on other nations as other nations are on the US. We're not living in isolated bubbles within a vacuum.
Me, I hope we get a more thoughtful administration in the US who thinks more and doesn't create more tension than there already is by you're either with us or against us and axis of evil speeches, coombined with disregard of Rule of Law.
-
So we need to watch out for French and German terrorists,
Thanks for the warning.
But you should know theres 35 nations aiding the US in their actions in Iraq.
The majority of the worlds economies bare some relation to the US economy. If our economy hurts, so does yours.
The US government has no obligation to world opinion. They are obligated to the American people who elected and pay them.
While the US certainly has a concern about its image in the world it will not allow world opinion to over rides its own interests.
We are not "citizens of the world" we are a sovereign independent nation and the leaders of this Nation are responsible to its citizens not the some European socialists or 3rd world dictators.
America has paid the price in blood, personal sacrifice and money to be in this position.
We will not wait until something worse then 9/11 happens.
You Europeans can either except that or hold another "candlight vigil" but that that wont change a thing.
We were attacked by terrorist before the Iraq invasion, we will be attacked by terrorists regardless. What we can do is take away the possibility of state support. Its state supported terrorism that is the greatest threat to America. While 9/11 was tragic there are things out there far worse.
The price of ignorance and arrogance......
Thats typical european response and quite hypocritical of you since in the paragraph before that you say
Uou can also assume you are morally superior to all other people.....
It seems to me thats the very thing you are doing.....
America wont end over this despite your prophecy. We hear alot on this board about how America treats its friends that disagree with us. Mostly from Europeans but they fail to take into account how they treat the US.
Our government heard the "worlds complaints" and made a descision based on its own interests. If the world has trouble with that so what.
-
Me, I hope we get a more thoughtful administration in the US who thinks more and doesn't create more tension than there already is by you're either with us or against us and axis of evil speeches, coombined with disregard of Rule of Law.
it' a two-way street santa.
personally, i doubt bush will get re-elected.
i do hope we get the attention of the terror states and slaughtering dictators... i hope they get the message.
-
So we need to watch out for French and German terrorists,
LOL funny comment, but not what I meant. You can expect more terrorists from everywhere, with less impetus for foreign government to do something about them.
Thanks for the warning.
I aim to please. And succeed often enough, according to the ladies.
But you should know theres 35 nations aiding the US in their actions in Iraq.
Including my own govt, and I support their position. We're not just talking Iraq here; we're talking world opinion in general. And as I said, if US does things popular at home but widely unpopular abroad...that is the premise.
The majority of the worlds economies bare some relation to the US economy. If our economy hurts, so does yours.
Aye, I think I make it clear that I understand that in later comments. Also works the other way; the world hurts, and the US will hurt
The US government has no obligation to world opinion. They are obligated to the American people who elected and pay them.
Yep, and they need to make the US as prosperous and secure as possible. And having the world as an enemy might not be what the people who elected and pay them want.
We are not "citizens of the world" we are a sovereign independent nation and the leaders of this Nation are responsible to its citizens not the some European socialists or 3rd world dictators.
Of course you are an independent nation. But you are also people in a world. Borders are arbitrary lines on a map, and you cannot live in a vacuum. You are affected and influenced by the rest of the world. See how well you'd do without oil imports, for instance.
You Europeans can either except that or hold another "candlight vigil" but that that wont change a thing.
My govt has, at great political cost, stood by the US EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. Including sending submarine, fighter planes, special forces to aid the US, in Afghanistan and Iraq. And Denmark is a European country. Please, if you must make blanket statements, let them be a little more accurate. I can understand your resentment towards certain European countries such as France and Germany, but do not let their behavior blind you to the behaiour of other European countries who've proven by words and actions to support you.
Thats typical european response and quite hypocritical of you since in the paragraph before that you say
Am commenting on what the price og ignorance and arrogance is. England knows it. France does. Denmark does. We've all first hand experienced it. The comment wasn't meant to be an insult, rather a warning. Previous great powers like France and England are a shadow of their former selves - in great part because of ignorance and arrogance.
It seems to me thats the very thing you are doing.....
No, I am just so Golly-geened tired of hearing how the US is the only protector of freedom and democracy and always altruistic. This is pure BS and I react violently to it. Other nations pull their weight too, yet when one read these boards one get the distinct feeling that Americans seem to thin they invented freedom and are the only ones doing something to keep it. A comment made because it annoys me to a great degree that there isn't credit given elsewhere.
America wont end over this despite your prophecy. We hear alot on this board about how America treats its friends that disagree with us. Mostly from Europeans but they fail to take into account how they treat the US.
Ah, you mean the Danish soldiers that died in Afghanistan helping the US? Or the fighters and AWACS we sent? Or the support in Iraq? The support in the EU through Denmark? We've been there, all the way.
Our government heard the "worlds complaints" and made a descision based on its own interests. If the world has trouble with that so what.
We need to see broader than the current crisis.I am commenting on, as I said earlier, if US did things popular at home, unpopular abroad a LOT, not thinking at all about public opinion, then what would happen.
And I didn't prophesice (sp?) about the destruction of the US. Was saying what I thought would happen - increase in terrorist attacks, more intrusion in your private lives, most costly, spitted upon abroad etc.
And as I said, you can do it. It'd be arrogant and ignorant, a big bully tactic. 'Because I CAN' is pretty arrogant and ignorant in my book.
And yer leaders are too intelligent to think they can piss off the entire world without it having negative consequences. The question is; are you ready to accept teh consequences or not? Not talking just Iraq but if there is a coninuation of the scenario I have put forth three times.
With regards.
-
in answer to your question
NOPE! you know what they say about opinions
Does the world care about ours dont look like it
-
no you dont care and why should you...you have enough military power to take the rest of the world hands down...and you dont care who knows it...invading someone because they do not share the same veiws as you IS not a good opinion...hitler was liberating poland...lets just hope iraq is the last place you decide to invade...at least you have a half decent reason for that...
and it seems you dont like people who DO care about world opinion...
one of these days your gonna get your bellybutton horribly kicked by that little wimp who just took boxing lessons and when he does youll learn your rightfull place...mind your own business and well mind ours
thats just my uneducated non corect opinion that will have you flaming me for ages...but guess what
I DONT GIVE A toejam ABOUT "WORLD" OPINION EITHER AND THATS THE LAST IM SAYING ON THIS SO FLAME AWAY LIKE A CHILD[/COLOR]
-
Please name any country we invaded and did not give back to the people.
is Japan a state? nope
is Germany a state? nope again
is France a state? nope a rooney
we have liberated more Muslems in the last 15 years then anyone ever in the history of the world (look it up)
how have we been remembered for dethroning Noreaga (sp is wrong)
how have we been remembered for dethroning that dude that I cant even begin to spell in that country that I also cant spell
We are not the bad guy here please see the history of Saddam
EU and the UN are just going to loose a bunch of $$ in this deal and thats what is got there panties in a wad
-
I'm curious, I keep hearing "the majority of the world is against the US's action in Iraq"...
Now seriously, if you are going to throw out that accusation, do you have some numbers?
Unless we are talking 2.5 billion or more, then we aren't even at half of the world population.
-SW
-
Bend over, beet1e ;):
UK Department for Transport
Transport Statistics
Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2002 Edition:
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/pdf/11002.pdf (http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/pdf/11002.pdf)
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/pdf/10102.pdf (http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/pdf/10102.pdf)
http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/section1.htm#Overseas%20passenger%20travel (http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/1/section1.htm#Overseas%20passenger%20travel)
42.9 million Brits went overseas by air in 2001 (UK population is 58.8 million), of which only 6.2 million were business trips.
-
ok ok this I can't take any more.....
YOU HELPED LIBERATE FRANCE.....
little news....you where not alone.....actually the canadians let YOU go in 1st for a PUBLICITY stunt....(1st troops to go inside PARIS woulda been canadians....but that didn't look GOOD enough)....
ya guys gotta learn the REAL history....not just your own please.
just like YOU let the Russians into Berlin 1st....
-
Just spray them all with Agent Orange and put Kissenger in charge then let Hollywood take care of the rest.
Keep it simple...
Nexted!!!!
-
Wow now they are saying american military did not play the central role in western front in europe....
Whats next? That canada was the key bulwark against the soviet union for 50 years of cold war?
And you guys accuse other people of biased "hollywood" perceptions?
You guys are nuts.
-
Sorry SLO you are correct we helped, I stand corrected.
My point is still we are not conquerors, never have been.
It seems from so many on thes board that we are and I only ask show me where in our history (American Indians excluded) have we Invaded and taken over the land of another for our own pleasure.
Please never ment to offend SLO
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Wow now they are saying american military did not play the central role in western front in europe....
Whats next? That canada was the key bulwark against the soviet union for 50 years of cold war?
And you guys accuse other people of biased "hollywood" perceptions?
You guys are nuts.
no 1 said you didn't play a central roll.....what I said is a FACT in our canadian military history.....alot of Canadians died liberating France.
50 years of cold war you say....I think Canada did its part....as much as we could....
look its not a pissing contest.....but from what i keep reading on these boards is that ONLY americans liberated France.....
-
bah scooter no offence takin bud:D
just discussin is all
-
SLO, you and I must be reading different boards. I dont see anyone denigrating Canada or its input in WW2, the cold war or the recent battles in Iraq,Afghanistan etc.
39,0000 Canadian Soldiers gave their all 60 years ago and crap on anyone who disrepects that. But please never think that what sets you off here is any true indicator of what the "other" North Americans really think.
-
rgr wilco jimmybear:D
we "meaning" the US liberated FRance is all over these boards....
problem is the WE....
the WE was India...Australians....Brits(limeys)....Americans....Canadians... ..French Resistence....etc etc
the WE used in here is us americans....it gives em permission to BASH France cause WE(US) liberated them...cause they disagree with OUR opinion about Irak....
Canada doesn't agree with your opinion or Facts about
Irak.....yet NONE i repeat NONE have said 1 word about that.....
but boy did you guys bash France.....
-
Slo now that ya mention it I'm starting to get pissed off at the Canucks, trouble is I can and did give up French wine but good beer well thats a bit of a pause aint it.:D ;)
-
Originally posted by RRAM
as I said before, I honestly hope you are right on the WMD and weapons matter. I will feel much better if this war has been not only legal, but also needed.
Guess what Ram....it's legal in the eyes of America and that's all that matters....I'm so sick of folks overseas telling us how we should govern our nation...you want a utopian one world govt? Go have it amongst yourselves...we're not interested.
As to this war, get over it....we will do what we feel as a nation is right.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Guess what Ram....it's legal in the eyes of America and that's all that matters....I'm so sick of folks overseas telling us how we should govern our nation...you want a utopian one world govt? Go have it amongst yourselves...we're not interested.
As to this war, get over it....we will do what we feel as a nation is right.
Nice Rude!
...and to add to that: "Oh and by the way, 1441 made this legal" See, we can interprete "our way" just like "they" do :D
-
Santa
I like how you presume to preach to us and tell us what is good for us. Then you imply we are ignorant and arrogant in our world view.
You have to see the hypocracy in that.
Even as we read the BBS the "Coalition of the Willing" has grown. This was predicted by the hawks who put forth the idea that "if the US leads the rest will follow".
You arent in a position to suggest foreign policy to the US. You arent in a position to know what will work and what wont.
You assume that the world will hold a "grudge". As soon as this passes we will wait and see. I am more likely to believe that countries that opposed us like France will be tripping all over themselves to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.
As for assuming that American tourist will be put off by attitudes of Europeans who are holding a grudge against the American government is laughable. You assume that those who hold these grudges wouldnt want the american money.
As for economic codependency you over state the relationship that America has with most of Europe. France does 29 billion worth of "buisness" with the US. Guess what % of gdp that is. The US does 19 billion. Guess what % of gdp that is.
Heres something to put that in perspective, it was reported that we offerd the turks up to 26 billion to allow troops to transit into Iraq.
Now we go and look at each Euro economy that may hold a grudge if you like. Part of American foreign is based on the global market and the creation of co dependent situations. Look at China.
America will come out smelling like a rose with a few grumpy old Europeans who will have no choice but to get over it.
-
I have read alot of these different post and for the life of me I can't fathom why we (Americans) are forced into such a defensive posture by whom we considered to be "allies".
Let look at the players here:
USA : Freedom Fighters - basically mind our own business until someone screws us with (9/11) or someone asks for our help.
Iraq: Saddam Hussein. Certified nut case. Commits genocide on his own people. Executes anybody that disagrees with him. Invades bordering countries. Lights oil fires that still are impacting the world's ecosystem. When he lit those fires did he think that the fallout would not effect France, Germany, or Russia. NO ... he didn't give a toejam about you guys and still doesn't give a toejam about you guys. Ignores "world" opinion (UN resolutions). Continues to try to build WMD with intent to terrorize or overthrow other countries.
So all our "buddies" when forced to make a choice choose "Saddam". Un-diddlying-believable !!! Oh poor Saddam, poor Iraq they cry out.
Saddam should be given more time to prove that he has complied. Holy toejam !!! It's been 12 years of the "shell game" and his refusal to comply. So now the US is pissed and says "times up" were coming for ya. Now Saddam starts to appear to comply and with that he should be given more time to play his "shell game" so that he can lull the work back into a bored state to the point that we forget about him for another 12 years so he can complete his work. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!
For those who don't stand with the US and the other allies on this action ... Saddam is using and abusing you like a 5 dollar crack potato. Hope your proud.
-
I'll be damned Slap ya summed it up nicely
Please Read above, rinse and repeat
-
SlapShot: "Oedipus ... what a beautifull forest ?"
Oedipus: "Where Slappy ... I can't see it, the trees are in the way !!!"
If the Boston Globe wrote it ... It must be true !!!
But, you believe in your heart that Saddam has/had nothing but honest intentions of living up to 1441 because he started to let a few UN inspectors poke around for the last couple of months.
Do you have a PayPal Id so that I can send you 5 dollars to change your opinion ?
-
Fact: Iraq supports terrorists.
Fact: Iraq has WMD in violation of several UN resolutions.
Fact: Key countries opposing this military action have dealings with Iraq in violation of UN resolution.
Fact: Coalition against Iraq has over 35 members.
Fact: Saddam will be removed from power shortly.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
We should have just given the UN weapon inspectors another 12 years. :rolleyes:
if you are talking about Mr. Hans Blix, when he said, that he likes his job and he would like to do that for next 15 years, you are a bit off
it was one of his usual jokes
Mr. Blix is around 70 years old (i think 75, not sure)
if you know this, you could know, that he isnt realy that serious..
-
yep. we'd like russian comedians to be weapons inspectors. the swiss ones ain't funny.
-
Batz, if I came off as a preacher, arrogant and ignorant, I apologize. After rereading what I wrote I can see how it can be seen in that light. Know my intentions weren't to be that sorta person and accept my apology. Ain't afraid to give it if I err.
Even as we read the BBS the "Coalition of the Willing" has grown. This was predicted by the hawks who put forth the idea that "if the US leads the rest will follow".
I think our problem here is a misunderstandng. I am talking about a continuation of doing things that are very unpopular amongst the *people* in the world, and not just talking about Iraq. Am talking about future events, and past. Kyoto deal. Refusal to ratify deal on the banning of land mines. Refusing to sign chemical weapons inspectyion/disarmament thingy. Pulling back from ABM treaty. Those thing are relatively minor and in the past. So to clarify I am talking about events where the world population by and large strongly disagrees with the US.
I don't want to sound like I am lecturing you, but one has to recognize that while lots of *states* are behind the US on Iraq, their populations ARE NOT. The govts join because 'you are either with us or against us' - ie. politically and economically NOT doing so would be very damaging. But take Spain, an ardent supporter of the US position; 80% of the population is totally against what the US is doing. Even in Denmark, more are against than for. The situation is mirrored all over the world and disagreement turns into hatred as you approach some African nations and virtually all Middle Eastern nations.
Terrorists tend to come from the population rather than the governments of nations. So this is the premise for what I've been saying. Perhaps now you will agree that it is also possible to interpret my words not as preaching, arrogant and ignorant, but rather words of caution, strongly worded.
You arent in a position to suggest foreign policy to the US. You arent in a position to know what will work and what wont.
No, but I am in a position to give voice to my opinions, and I am in a position to logically come to a conclusion based on past epxperiences, deduction and so forth. And we're here on this board to discuss matters, not to run the US. Fortunately :).
You assume that the world will hold a "grudge". As soon as this passes we will wait and see. I am more likely to believe that countries that opposed us like France will be tripping all over themselves to help in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Again, Iraq is just one isolated case. Am talking several situations where the US does something popular at home but extremely unpopular abroad. With regards to the Iraq situation; it can go both ways. You may gain more respect and status from the western world if things play out ok; Iraqi people see you as liberators, VMDs are found etc. But you may also come out as occupiers with no justification for a war. We don't know yet. In any case I think it is prudent in any situation to take the worst case scenario and ask: 'am I ready to risk that?' before moving on.
As for assuming that American tourist will be put off by attitudes of Europeans who are holding a grudge against the American government is laughable. You assume that those who hold these grudges wouldnt want the american money.
Not just talking Europeans here. And you equal money with respect. Perhaps that is the way it is in the US - you have money and you automatically have respect. You'll have some people smiling at you (those directly dependent on US tourist dollars) but you gotta recognize that in for instance Denmark, your US tourist dollars are negligble and you cannot buy respect.
Is it a US phenomenon to think that money or might is directly equal to respect? For the money part; it is greed or necessity, which isn't respect. For might, it is fear, which isn't respect either. I think you're placing far too much value on money here; we're talking respect, not economy. We're talking a qualitative thing, not something that can be quantified. I think it IS a bit arrogant to say 'we got the money, you depend on us, now respect us'. Perhaps it is the essence of the expression 'ugly American'
As for economic codependency you over state the relationship that America has with most of Europe. France does 29 billion worth of "buisness" with the US. Guess what % of gdp that is. The US does 19 billion. Guess what % of gdp that is.
Again, you gotta see the broader scope. I am not making this a EU vs US competition. I am saying WHOLE WORLD. The US does trade with the whole world. And one doesn't have to be a genius to realize that if the US starts to lose markets here and there it is bad for the economy. Let's say you lose 10% of the market you have now. Doesn't sound much. But it is in terms of unemployment, rise in poverty etc. etc.
America will come out smelling like a rose with a few grumpy old Europeans who will have no choice but to get over it.
I sincerely hope this is true. Then the fight on terrorism wil be easier because of not so much recruitment material for terrorists, more world unity and if what you say happens countries like France, Germany and Russia will learn to have all facts before making direct opposition. And the economy will improve, which means I can get a decent paying job again. There is a distinct possibility you may be right; but you may also be proven wrong. I hope for the former.
Batz, I get the feeling yer a bit defensive and dug in on this. Read what I write as if we were sitting next to each other at the AH con sharing a beer. Please, do point out if ya think I am being rude or arrogant/ignorant, but it would be nice if the spirit of the conversation essentially was friendly.
-
StSanta, I appreciate your opinion, but at least use arguments that are verifiable. When this action started, the anti war folks screamed about how all these governments are against us. Now, many of these countries have come out as supporters of the coalition. This cuts the anti war argument "America scoffs at the world, the world stands up", so they change their tune to "well, all those governments are lap dogs, their CITIZENS oppose you".
In my experience it just isn't true.
-
I think our problem here is a misunderstandng. I am talking about a continuation of doing things that are very unpopular amongst the *people* in the world, and not just talking about Iraq. Am talking about future events, and past. Kyoto deal.
Oh ok I got what you are saying now.
But all I can reply is that the US government has to do what it feels is right for the people they represent, that is the American people.
The American people for the most part dont support Kyoto and never will. Its not a good thing for the US to be involved in. Even Clinton knew that.
When world opinion is different then the US, the US has an obligation to "look out" for its people 1st. When the "world" and US interests are the same then we work together.
I mean you cant really believe that the US hasnt contributed greatly to the world in general. The US wont crawl into a hole and say f' the world. But when the world and the US differ the US has the political, military and economic will necessary to protect it interests.
But the US isnt alone in Iraq or in opposition to Kyoto. We arent in agreement with some of Europe and thats what it comes down to. Especially in regards to Iraq. Old Europeans Nations living on faded glory demanding that we take them seriously. Not to mention the main countries opposing the US have economic interests in the current Iraqi regime.
On this issue the US has different interests then these countries.