what do you think about the french attitude toward US foreigner policies?

bonkey

Originally posted by lili
democracy?
explain to me how a democracy could be instored in a country with a majority of muslims who accept only islamic laws.

Democracy results in "rule of the majority". If the majority are muslim, then they can democratically enshrine islamic law as national law.

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Lilli, your spelling and capitalisation are incredibly bad!

Please don't be making disparaging comments about other posters. If you have a problem with understanding the point, ask for clarification, but there's no call for putting other people down.

jc

mike65

Slight OT but on BBC2 tonight at 7 PM is a programme called
With Friends Like These which looks at the relationship between Britain and France with future programmes about relations with USA, and Germany.

Mike.

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Why not? Israel frequently use armaments against their own citizens, the odd foreign aid worker, and they've broken plenty of UN resolutions.

Are they "better" than Iraq?

The two are comletely different given the circumstances and histories involved. Israel was a cold war ally in the ME and had the only democracy, and they still do, in that region. All their neighbors were out to destroy the country at any cost. To put forty plus years of

You are probably too young, but Palestinians iin the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not always have death and despair. It did not become that way until after the first uprising in 1992, thanks to Arafat. Always remember when it comes to ME politics:

1) How can I negotiate when I am weak.

2) Why should I negotiate when I am strong.

Both sides use these strategies to get their way. Personally, I do feel sorry for the Israeli and Palestinians who want peace. My personal proposal would be to send an occupying force to both Palestine and Israel proper, lock down all para military and military combatents, and lock the two most resepcted and willing leaders have in a room to iron out a compromise.

mr_angry

Israel was a cold war ally in the ME and had the only democracy, and they still do, in that region.

Ah, so being a cold-war ally and a democracy excuses their actions, does it? I just wanted to clarify that point.

I'm sorry for the dispariging comment. I just found it a bit hard to read, thats all. Didn't mean it in a nasty way.

lili

yes, could be a good solution, remove arafat, sharon and bush by people really interested to the peace.
if the occupied territories are the reason of terrorism and if israel want really ending with it, why don't they give back what it doesn't belong to them?
i know, the prob is more complicated than that, but it could be a good start isn't it?

mr_angry

Its a nice idea, but I don't think it'll ever work. Every time the two sides sit down, the Palastinian terrorists kill a few people, and the Israelis immediately react.

No matter who sits down with who, for the forseeable future, this cycle will repeat itself over and over again. Either Palastine gets a leader who can maintain a hold on the terrorist groups (only a complete hard-liner could do that, and the Israelis don't want to deal with one - they want a moderate), or the Israelis stop retaliating for suicide attacks. Thats the only way that situation will ever be resolved peacefully.

lili

hmm...
mister angry, after have read your profile, you seem to be the appropriated person to talk about terrorism and peace:D
sorry for the joke, but it made me laugh:)

well, should we do like with kids who fought? should we give a slap to the both and don't search to know who has started?
i think USA should have a stronger speech toward the israelis. europe put already this week the palestians factions on the black list of terrorism.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
The two are comletely different given the circumstances and histories involved. Israel was a cold war aIt did not become that way until after the first uprising in 1992, thanks to Arafat.

I think you may have your dates wrong there.

1993 marked the signing of the Oslo Accords, which was generally heralded at the time as the first real chance for peace the situation had seen.

Surely you're not suggesting that things were fine until right before a peace agreement was signed? Surely that would mitigate the notion of there being any need for such a treaty in the first place?

But lets not get too far off-topic.

Trying to rectify that...

I always wonder at the following two attitudes (as expressed so succintly by Biffa earlier) :

1) Opposition of the US in this matter equates to support for Saddam.

2) Europe should be grateful to the US for past services rendered, and should just shut up and toe the line.

Dealing with the first point....

I wonder how many Americans would have supported a PRC or Russian initiative to annex Iraq, in the name of bringing an end to the regime of Saddam Hussein etc. etc. etc.

If you wouldn't support the Russians or Chinese in such an action, but supported the US incursion, then surely you must recognise that there is a succint difference between supporting Saddam and opposing the manner in which he was dealt with.

Why then are the French wrong to have exercised such a distinction also?

Now the second point...the French should be "grateful".

They are grateful. All of Europe is grateful. However, grateful does not equate to "subservient". If it did, then historically the US would be subservient to the French, for their assistance in the breaking off from Britain.

For me, the whole "grateful" argument, when placed alongside the concepts of democracy and freedom reeks of the same dogma that the Catholic church preaches - that you have free will, but if you don't choose X, you're unequivocably judged to be wrong and in need of punishment by the same powers who "granted" you the freedom in the first place.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by Geromino
My personal proposal would be to send an occupying force to both Palestine and Israel proper, lock down all para military and military combatents, and lock the two most resepcted and willing leaders have in a room to iron out a compromise.

Yes, that's the ticket. In effect, a multinational force should declare war on the IDF and the Palestinians simultaneously. If the IDF is having so much trouble wiping out a few lightly armed ragbag guerrillas then they should be easy enough to defeat. It'd probably all be over in a week. :rolleyes: I love armchair generals.

On topic, I think the French attitude to the situation in Iraq is...unfortunate.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

For me, it was in violation of UN resolution 686 and others

Poor argument. If a member state is in violation of a UN resolution, then only the United Nations may approve action to be taken in order to remedy the breach. Member states cannot, any more than public individuals in a lawful society take the law into their own hands.

A good analogy would be if a court of law convicted an offender of a serious crime, and I, a juror of the court decided to blow the convicted's head off simply because I happen to be the person in the courtroom with the nicest stash of firearms and I think it's the right thing to do. If the court convicts an individual, ONLY that court has the powers to order punishment.

and thus, a violation of the cease fire accord in 1991.

And you're telling me that invasion is the best way to solve a diplomatic dispute over a bilateral treaty? Rather a blunt instrument wouldn't you say.

I mean, if you actually *listen* to what that pitiful excuse of a president we have has been saying- he said this war is about striking allies of terrorism (unproven) before they strike us. In fact, the rhetoric and unproven claims linking 9/11 to Saddam's regime have been so dinned into the public consciousness that a recent Gallup poll shows that SEVENTY PERCENT of our country's population believes Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11.

The doctrine of pre-emption to be blunt- is incredibly absurd. Counter-insurgency against known extremist groups is one thing- but when a sovereign state and member state of the UN is involved- you don't strike them unless they strike you first. That's in the UN charter Geronimo, specifically stated, leaving no room for ambiguity. What is worse in your opinion- violation of UNSCR #686, or of the Charter, the legal Constitution of the United Nations?

I mean, if you violate the charter, then how on earth can you consider using 686 as justification for war? Without the charter, the Security Council does not exist- without the principle of the international law of self-defence, the Security Council has no meaning. Therefore it is impossible to use a subordinate body issuing a derivatory document to justify an action that violates the very principle that allows said body to exist!

There was no solid cassus belli for going to war in the name of self-defence regarding Iraq, period. How can we say Iraq is our enemy for example, when they've never attacked us?

Ah, WMD you say- well we haven't found any of those yet, never mind proving intent to use them. Can you or anyone else provide me with any evidence whatsoever that Iraq was about to attack the United States or one of its allies? If not, they weren't an imminent threat, and there should never have been a rush to war.

Even with UN res 1441, the Iraqis were never fully compliant nor did they give compete unfettered access, especially to the scientists the inspectors need to interview.

And now we have unfettered access and for longer than the ENTIRE period that UN weapons inspectors were given from the set-up date- what has the Iraq Survey Group come up with hmm?

If they had found anything incriminating you can be sure we'd have heard about it. Secondly, every single one of their press releases has mentioned "dormant WMD programmes" or just WMD programmes. We weren't going to war over WMD "programmes" for goodness sakes. We were told that weapons of mass destruction would rain down on our cities if we didn't invade NOW. Well, they wouldn't have. Either we were lied to, or the administration miscalculated hopelessly with a pre-emptive war that lacked even the basic shreds of proof needed to justify a regular engagement.

I stayed at home for the 2000 elections, you can be sure I'll turn out this time. And my choice will not be the Lone Ranger erstwhile of Crawford Texas- but a president that can at the very least steer us to a sane foreign policy and avoid massive job losses at home. This whole "war on terror" reeks of the "evil b@stard commies" my dad was told he must hate without compunction or compassion. History is not a kind judge Mr. President.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Geromino
Incorrect! US did not get involved with Saddem until 1984, and reluctently I might add.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
United Press International
Richard Sale

"While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."

"In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this."

"Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions."

and on and on ...

Originally posted by Geromino
And why do you think the US is helping to build Iraq. If you thnkk it is because of oil, you are wrong! If you think it is for American businesses, then you are wrong!

Oh I don't know, why is George Bush awarding multi billion dollar rebuilding contracts to his close friends and neo-con allies?? Ummm let me think about that one for a minute

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,937718,00.html
In Iraq the initial contracts for reconstruction are going to designated US companies without any competition from other US firms, let alone the coalition partners or anyone else. The two year contract to fight oil fires - reportedly worth up to $7bn - has gone to a unit of Halliburton which Dick Cheney, US vice president, ran for five years until 2000.

Geromino

Originally posted by Wicknight
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
United Press International
Richard Sale

"While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."

"In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this."

"Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions."

and on and on ...

I typically do not use newspaper accounts as articles of evidence. Journalists are worse than lawyers and true investigative reporting went out the journalism code when hullahoop came into popular culture. I read the article and it is supposedly based on "interviews" without any specific names on the CIA officials or diplomats, except for Abel Darwish and Miles Copeland. Miles Copeland, we are talking about the son and not the father, may have been a CIA officer. The CIA will not acknowledge either way, and his stories range on conspiracy theory from the IRS toi the CIA to the Pentagon to the Beattles. It would be impossible to verify his story since the younger Miles Cooper would have been a thirty something in the late 1950's and not a CIA station chief. His father yes, but not a thirty something. He would have been a little too young for that type of assignment; however I cannot discount the possibility he may have been there. CIA officials, former or otherwise, are a strange bunch of folks. By federal law, in top secret document that they are involved in, they cannot devulge any information whatsoever. They have teh highest security clearance in the nation and speaking like Miles Copeland would only get you the evil eye from his collegues, if he was really a CIA operative. Not exactly what I call crebible evidence. However, when I see declassified reports on said actions mentioned in article, then I will take it into consideration.

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
yes, could be a good solution, remove arafat, sharon and bush by people really interested to the peace.
if the occupied territories are the reason of terrorism and if israel want really ending with it, why don't they give back what it doesn't belong to them?
i know, the prob is more complicated than that, but it could be a good start isn't it?

Israel has already promised to give 80% of the occupied terrotories as well as numerous other concessions. The only thing left, not literally, is to lower their flag. This is not going to happen. Also given the fact they took the lands in the 1967 war in which the Arab states were about to attack as spoils of war makes a good, although not excellent, argument, for keeping the lands.

However, the new leader of Palestine will need to curb the terrorist groups in order to assure the Israelis their borders. Unfortuneately, this could result in civil war within Palestine and without any Israeli involvement.

Geromino

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Poor argument. If a member state is in violation of a UN resolution, then only the United Nations may approve action to be taken in order to remedy the breach. Member states cannot, any more than public individuals in a lawful society take the law into their own hands.

A good analogy would be if a court of law convicted an offender of a serious crime, and I, a juror of the court decided to blow the convicted's head off simply because I happen to be the person in the courtroom with the nicest stash of firearms and I think it's the right thing to do. If the court convicts an individual, ONLY that court has the powers to order punishment.



And you're telling me that invasion is the best way to solve a diplomatic dispute over a bilateral treaty? Rather a blunt instrument wouldn't you say.

I mean, if you actually *listen* to what that pitiful excuse of a president we have has been saying- he said this war is about striking allies of terrorism (unproven) before they strike us. In fact, the rhetoric and unproven claims linking 9/11 to Saddam's regime have been so dinned into the public consciousness that a recent Gallup poll shows that SEVENTY PERCENT of our country's population believes Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11.

The doctrine of pre-emption to be blunt- is incredibly absurd. Counter-insurgency against known extremist groups is one thing- but when a sovereign state and member state of the UN is involved- you don't strike them unless they strike you first. That's in the UN charter Geronimo, specifically stated, leaving no room for ambiguity. What is worse in your opinion- violation of UNSCR #686, or of the Charter, the legal Constitution of the United Nations?

I mean, if you violate the charter, then how on earth can you consider using 686 as justification for war? Without the charter, the Security Council does not exist- without the principle of the international law of self-defence, the Security Council has no meaning. Therefore it is impossible to use a subordinate body issuing a derivatory document to justify an action that violates the very principle that allows said body to exist!

There was no solid cassus belli for going to war in the name of self-defence regarding Iraq, period. How can we say Iraq is our enemy for example, when they've never attacked us?

Ah, WMD you say- well we haven't found any of those yet, never mind proving intent to use them. Can you or anyone else provide me with any evidence whatsoever that Iraq was about to attack the United States or one of its allies? If not, they weren't an imminent threat, and there should never have been a rush to war.


And now we have unfettered access and for longer than the ENTIRE period that UN weapons inspectors were given from the set-up date- what has the Iraq Survey Group come up with hmm?

If they had found anything incriminating you can be sure we'd have heard about it. Secondly, every single one of their press releases has mentioned "dormant WMD programmes" or just WMD programmes. We weren't going to war over WMD "programmes" for goodness sakes. We were told that weapons of mass destruction would rain down on our cities if we didn't invade NOW. Well, they wouldn't have. Either we were lied to, or the administration miscalculated hopelessly with a pre-emptive war that lacked even the basic shreds of proof needed to justify a regular engagement.

I stayed at home for the 2000 elections, you can be sure I'll turn out this time. And my choice will not be the Lone Ranger erstwhile of Crawford Texas- but a president that can at the very least steer us to a sane foreign policy and avoid massive job losses at home. This whole "war on terror" reeks of the "evil b@stard commies" my dad was told he must hate without compunction or compassion. History is not a kind judge Mr. President.

Considering that UN resolution 686 is based upon the cease fire accord between the US and Iraq, then yes, I would use it. Since it was the cease fire accord between the US and Iraq, then, the US has the right under international law to renew hostilities with Iraq. Saddem was in direct violation and numerous UN resolutions condemned Iraq for making those violations. You speak as if this was only going on for a few months. That is did not. From 1991-1998, the UN inspection teams tried, but failed, to get Iraq to comply. Nearly evreytime Iraq was about to kick out the inspectors or had kicked out the inspectors, US and UK demostrated its military presence and lo and behold, Iraq complied for a short period of time. One last chance, was the motto, for UN resolution 1441. More chances than I would have given. However, we should have gone to war in 1998 when the inspectors were asked to leave for the seventh time. We are now doing it four years later with the same regime that was preventing the UN inspectors from doing their jobs.

You speak of the UN as an international government. That it is not. It is a cartel, by definition, and supposedly a neutral place to resolve disagreements. However, there is nothing neutral about the UN and it is used by all sides for their own purposes and agendas, whether you agree or disagree with them. I happen to agree with the President and you disagree. That is what democracy is all about. However, he is still the president and I give him the benefit of the doubt just as I have given President Clinton the benefit of the doubt with Waco and Iraq.

I use all options when dealing with a specific situation and I do not eliminate a specific option unless it directly violates local and federal law. Howerver, when it comes to international issues, military force is always an option and every option should be considered. The "pre-emptive" strike goes directly in accordance with violation of UN accords. The term "serious consequences" is waht is being debated here and I have heard that sometimes it does not involve military action unless specifically stated. That is pure bull. According to ACA (Arms control Association), one of the primary reasons why the inspectors failed was the UN failed or was hesitant to use force when necessary. And since Saddem had no intention to comply with UN resolutions, then pre-emptive strike is the next military option.

I have not seen the President link Saddem to 9/11, but I have seen him link Saddem to OBL. That was a mistake by the President. However, when President Bush made his speech about terrorism, he did not acknowledge any specific terrorist groups, but all terrorist groups. Al Queda was high on the list and Saddem in a close second. There has been some linkage to terrorist organizations, namely the Palestinian terrorist groups. But this is only recent involvement by Saddem.

I do not mean to get on my soap box, but you should vote on every election, local, state, federal. I have not missed voting since I was early enough to vote and make it a point to vote in every general election. I do not care who you vote for, but as long as you vote, then by all means, vote.

On WW2:


Don't come on this thread all high and mighty about the Americans in WW2. The Americans made the brittish pay for all weapons up front until they couldn't possibly buy any more. America ONLY intervened when Pearl Harbour was attacked, and even then was only at war with Japan. 6 days later when Hitler declared war with America and started sinking ships off the coast of New York was when America declared war on Germany.



On Israel:


"Geromino"...Do you even know how the state of Israel came about? Peace before a 1992 uprising caused by Arafat?? Your blind ignorance is insulting me here...



On Iraq:


You know this isn't the first time there's been a regime change in Iraq by a foreign superpower. In the early 1900's after ww1 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Brittish decided it was time for one and so figured that a Constitutional Monarchy such as the Brittish had at the time would be perfect for iraq. After a long national resistance, "King" Feisel II was killed in the 1958 military coup.
When Saddam came into power, he began the process of moderninsing Iraq. He had a vision for a strong iraq being the center of the Middle East and it was to be this that would eventually bring him down. He started up huge public programs such as the Literacy campaign that saw even old men going to school to learn how to read and write.
The war with Iran in the 80's took alot out of iraq and ofc America didn't like Iran at the time and so Suddam became an ally. When he gassed the Kurds in 88, did America condone the actions? hmmmm
It was only in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and America saw that this country might soon control roughly 1/4 of the worlds oil supplies did they condone his actions, and so came Gulf War 1.
Fast forward to 2000+ and we see a poor iraq which is basically less of a threat to America than Saudi Arabia(an ally) at this stage. And so America plunders a relatively stable country into a total state of chaos and then realises that it's totally out of its depth here and comes crawling back to the UN looking for aid in Iraq.

One has to wonder what Americas situation in the Middle East will be in 20 years time. Will Saudi still be an ally? Or will it be atop of a new "terror" list. Will a country like Iran become Americas new middle East ally?



On France:


The French are hardly prophets of peace, with all the crap they've done in the last few years - Nuclear tests, sinking a GreenPeace boat, turning Paris into a practical police state and suppressing protests during the Mugabe visit etc etc
However the American view of french people was disgusting. While the French and German people didn't want to go to war, they were called "weasels", while countries like Spain who had LARGE majorities against going to war were labeled as heroic allies!



On Ireland:


Well, someone mentioned that it's about time for a regime change here, and I totally agree with them. I just registered myself on Friday, so me thinks its time to change sig again



On "Geromino":


You...are a moron. An ignorant moron. I can't tell if you mispelled your name on purpose, or if you're just plain stupid.


HIS NAME IS SADDAM for God's sake!!!

bonkey

Originally posted by utility_
You...are a moron. An ignorant moron. I can't tell if you mispelled your name on purpose, or if you're just plain stupid.

I always find it amazing how people who seem to show a complete inability to either read, understand, or follow a simple set of rules for a forum are so quick to insult other people's intelligence.

utility_,

if you haven't done so, read the rules.
If you've read them already, I strongly suggest you re-read them.

Either way, attack another poster in this manner here, and you will find yourself banned.

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Geromino
Considering that UN resolution 686 is based upon the cease fire accord between the US and Iraq, then yes, I would use it.

It's still a UN resolution- and "based on" doesn't mean anything really. Moreover, Resolution 1441 specifically supercedes UNSCR 686. Therefore using 686 as justification makes about as much sense as linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda (lol?)

Since it was the cease fire accord between the US and Iraq, then, the US has the right under international law to renew hostilities with Iraq.

Wrong again. Active clause #4 of 686 clearly states that further action pursuant to the cease-fire accord must be approved by the Security council in and I quote "certain terms". That was never done.

We are now doing it four years later with the same regime that was preventing the UN inspectors from doing their jobs.

They didn't do a very good job of preventing them- evidence now available to us shows that Iraq was in fact disarmed long before we ever went to war, in fact even before we committed troops. So, if Iraq was disarmed, how exactly were the inspectors prevented from doing it?

You speak of the UN as an international government. That it is not. It is a cartel, by definition

What cr*p. The UN is a treaty organization Geronimo, if you are a signatory to that Charter, then you are bound by international law to abide by its principles. Sh*t, you can't go around saying that "Iraq must comply with international law and resolutions" if we're violating the damn charter itself! After all, what good are our demands on Iraq if we're unable to live by the Charter in making those demands? You're a signatory to a treaty, you have to obey the treaty precepts.

I happen to agree with the President and you disagree.

Given that WMD haven't been found, the security situation grows progressively worse not better, and he's just asked Congress for 87 billion smackers to pay for Iraq while our own public institutions fall into disrepair- exactly why do you agree with the course of action taken?

That is what democracy is all about. However, he is still the president and I give him the benefit of the doubt just as I have given President Clinton the benefit of the doubt with Waco and Iraq.

What democracy is all about? 154 million of us didn't vote for President George Jr. In a nation of 200 million voters, and given that his opponent actually won *more* votes- I don't quite see how democracy worked. As for trusting him because he's the President- where exactly have you been for the last couple decades? If anything, our past Presidents have made it the prudent thing *not* to trust them. From the Gulf of Tonkin to Watergate, from Iran Contra to Manuel Noriega- distrust has been sown *around the world*- everywhere except at home oddly enough. If I'd told you at the time that Manuel Noriega, the leader of another country was a CIA agent, you'd probably have laughed at me. Same if I told you we fired on our own boys at the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for invading Vietnam- you'd not have believed it. Yet you believe our President when he said Iraq posed a clear and imminent threat- despite all the evidence to the contrary...why is that exactly?

The "pre-emptive" strike goes directly in accordance with violation of UN accords.

Ever read the UN Charter? I strongly recommend it, here is the link: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Read Chapter VII, articles 39 and 51, and tell me again how pre-emptive action is justified. In fact, look through the WHOLE charter and point out to me where it's justified. If it is, my professor of international relations at Duke, Noam Chomsky, and about 300 leading international figures have a lot of egg on their face.

and I have heard that sometimes it does not involve military action unless specifically stated. That is pure bull.

No it's not actually- it is absolutely true. Before my dad was appointed to the bench of the 9th Federal District circuit (COA), he was an international lawyer. When all this was going down, I asked him about the language used. He told me that "serious consequences" meant the requirement of a second resolution authorizing force, and "immediate use of all necessary means" meant war. Looking through past UN resolutions (Indo-Pak war, Korean war, invasion of Yemen) I could see he was exactly right. Moreover, if "serious consequences" were enough to go to war Geronimo that leaves you with a serious problem in your argument- Why was a second resolution so long and desperately sought by all parties concerned?

I mean after all, if they'd got authorization for war in that clause, where goeth the need for a second resolution authorizing force a second time? Moreover, how is it that in every previous conflict, nowhere does the phrase "serious consequences" translated into military action. Answer those, and I'll consider the weight of your argument- but against the word of an advocate 35 years at the Washington state bar and the Hague- I'd still probably have to go with my dad & his colleagues.

According to ACA (Arms control Association), one of the primary reasons why the inspectors failed was the UN failed or was hesitant to use force when necessary.

Inspectors failed? Begging your pardon, but the distinct lack of WMD in usable, unusuable or even decrepit form leads me to think they did their job rather well. How ironic that without force they managed to accomplish what a ruthless military campaign failed to achieve hmm? Says a lot for the precision of force when dealing with a complex issue like WMD.

I have not seen the President link Saddem to 9/11, but I have seen him link Saddem to OBL.

In the minds of Americans OBL was responsible for 9/11, therefore linking Saddam to OBL (when the two would happily strangle each other) was an outright lie, not a "mistake".

That was a mistake by the President. However, when President Bush made his speech about terrorism, he did not acknowledge any specific terrorist groups, but all terrorist groups.

But no proof- and don't give me that cr*p about giving money to suicide bombers' families...the Saudis gave about 100 times more than he did and they're our closest allies in the ME after Israel.

I do not mean to get on my soap box, but you should vote on every election, local, state, federal. I have not missed voting since I was early enough to vote and make it a point to vote in every general election. I do not care who you vote for, but as long as you vote, then by all means, vote.

I was at Seattle Mercy hospital on election day with my dad, who'd been knocked over by a drunk driver in the early hours of the morning preceding. Otherwise I would have voted- haven't missed one before or since.

Victor

Spoils of war can only go to someone who didn't start the war as aggression (starting a war) is a war crime.

Originally posted by Geromino
The "pre-emptive" strike goes directly in accordance with violation of UN accords.

Pre-emptive strike is permitted where the is unquestionable evidence of an intended attack - e.g. Israel attacking Egypt's air force.

ZeFrog

Originally posted by lili
and especially in iraq?
do you think UN should go in iraq with the new resolution suggered by bush administration?

Why should the French but also the irish, the germans, etc send troops in Iraq to protect the interests of a couple of american business men ?

And please I am sooooo fed up to hear that we're hated by the american because we are ungreatful frog eater.

USA indeed liberated France (any other solution ? Were they to liberate the rest of the world but France ?) and indeed The French helped the americans during their civil war at Yorktown , so now they don t have to sing God Save the Queen before their crick... sorry, baseball matches.

But has that got to do anything with Iraq ? No

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
Spoils of war can only go to someone who didn't start the war as aggression (starting a war) is a war crime.Pre-emptive strike is permitted where the is unquestionable evidence of an intended attack - e.g. Israel attacking Egypt's air force.

Then please explain why President Nassir of Egypt kicked out the UN observers in 1966, mobilized significant troops (I saw military numbers ranging from 200k to 500k) into the Sinai peninsula, signed a "secret" docurment to attack Israel in the near forseeable future, closed the straight of Tirain to Isael (both Israeli ships and ships bound for Eilat, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, the signing of terrorist attacks into Israel from Syria, Jordon, and Lebanon increased from 1965 to 1967, the signing of a defense pact of Egypt, Syria, Jordon, and Lebanon, the constant rhetoric by President Nassir, King Hussein of Jordon, Hafez Assad to challenge Israel to War or to make war with Israel where no coexistence with Israel is the aim; and yet you have the audacity to call the Israelis war criminals?

Geromino

Originally posted by ZeFrog
Why should the French but also the irish, the germans, etc send troops in Iraq to protect the interests of a couple of american business men ?

Then please explain why France's export industry to Iraq amounts to 14% (EUR 660 million) of trade by Iraq. In case you are wondering the US does not even go into the top ten with trade by Iraq. Please also explain the difference between TotalFinaElf S.A. or Halliburton? In case you are wondering, both are oil companies.

Originally posted by Geromino
Then please explain why President Nassir of Egypt kicked out the UN observers in 1966, mobilized significant troops (I saw military numbers ranging from 200k to 500k) into the Sinai peninsula, signed a "secret" docurment to attack Israel in the near forseeable future, closed the straight of Tirain to Isael (both Israeli ships and ships bound for Eilat, Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967, the signing of terrorist attacks into Israel from Syria, Jordon, and Lebanon increased from 1965 to 1967, the signing of a defense pact of Egypt, Syria, Jordon, and Lebanon, the constant rhetoric by President Nassir, King Hussein of Jordon, Hafez Assad to challenge Israel to War or to make war with Israel where no coexistence with Israel is the aim; and yet you have the audacity to call the Israelis war criminals?

e.g. = for example...



FOR EXAMPLE, there was unquestionable evidence that egypt was an iminent threat to Israel.


Why am I not surprised that you were unable to get that in context?

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Then please explain why France's export industry to Iraq amounts to 14% (EUR 660 million) of trade by Iraq. In case you are wondering the US does not even go into the top ten with trade by Iraq.

That should be amounted and did not.

Currently, the only people doing any significant trade in Iraq are - surprise sur-fscking-prise - the US of A.

The French commercial interest in Iraq under Hussein was obviously a key factor in their opposition to the war.
I don't think anyone has tried denying it (except possibly the French government). They wanted assurances that any contracts they had would be honoured if Hussein was removed - that they weren't effectively shooting themselves in the foot in order to help the US with a plan which (as appears increasingly likely) was by no means built on convincing facts in the first place.

The US, on the other hand, would not even entertain the notion of honouring those contracts and wanted the French to help remove him anyway.

Please also explain the difference between TotalFinaElf S.A. or Halliburton? In case you are wondering, both are oil companies.

One is French and one is American???

Surely you're not suggesting that the French should have forgotten national interests, and put their asses on the line to help American commercial interest take contracts which were - at the time - held by French interests???

In other words, you're criticising the French because they weren't willing to spend time, money, and lives in helping the US in an action which would remove contracts from their own companies in favour of US companies????

Come on......thats really stretching it a bit, don't you think?

As was commented in the UN last night when the resolution was put forward knowing the US would vote it : "The United Sates must learn that it cannot always have everything its own way."

If the US really wanted French help, they probably would have received it by guaranteeing to honour the French/Iraq contracts, or supply new, equivalent contracts in their place.

If the US wasn't willing to do that, then how can anynoe sanely criticise any other nation for putting its own commercial interests first.

jc

Qadhafi

I think the French position is admirable but stupid. Its costing their economy loads and the US is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Why bother.

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
Spoils of war can only go to someone who didn't start the war as aggression (starting a war) is a war crime.Pre-emptive strike is permitted where the is unquestionable evidence of an intended attack - e.g. Israel attacking Egypt's air force.

I guess that's why Israel lied about striking first.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Israel has already promised to give 80% of the occupied terrotories as well as numerous other concessions. The only thing left, not literally, is to lower their flag.

Yet the settlement continue to grow and have never stop doing so. After 50 years of this, it's understandable why Palestinians wouldn't trust this.

Also given the fact they took the lands in the 1967 war in which the Arab states were about to attack as spoils of war makes a good, although not excellent, argument, for keeping the lands.

Of course there was no earthly reason to attack Israel and that's why Israel lied about attacking Egypt in the first place. Then they kept land afterwards..which they've done in every situation. Secondly the spoils of war aren't justification for holding land for 30 years plus especially when several UN resolutions tell you to give it back.

However, the new leader of Palestine will need to curb the terrorist groups in order to assure the Israelis their borders. Unfortuneately, this could result in civil war within Palestine and without any Israeli involvement.

That would be a hell of alot easier if Palestinians weren't killed on a daily basis by IDF forces, many of them teenagers throwing rocks. As well if Israel quit using missiles from our F-16's (part of the 3 billion we give them for "defense") to assassinate "militants" (which, of course, is against international law).
It'd do an awful lot to ensure Israel's borders if illegal settlements didn't continue to grow and fundamentalist settlers didn't continue (with the IDF lookin on...as well as participating) to harrass, kill, vandalize, humiliate and exploit Palestinians that they just took the land from.
It's quite hypocritical for Sharon to make a demand for a "Prime Minister" of his choosing (as Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinian people)to curb "terrorist" being that Sharon is no stranger to the subject.

K ummmmm....on topic...French government had a great motivator in not joining US in Iraq (besides it being a stupid exploit on the surface), they got to keep their jobs....isn't democracy great? Maybe they send in consultants and teach us how it works.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Then please explain why President Nassir of Egypt kicked out the UN observers in 1966

They weren't kicked out (where have we heard that before?) but withdrawn by the UN.

Syria's attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967

Uh uh, no retailiation to it...

The Israeli daily, Yediot Aharanot, in its Passover supplement of April 1997, published for the first time notes of a 1976 conversation between Moshe Dayan, Israel’s Defense Minister in 1967, and Rami Tal, now a senior editor at Yediot Aharanot. On May 2, 1997, the Boston Globe ran a story headlined, “Israel Took Golan Out of Greed, Dayan Says: Ex-Defense Chief Describes Tactics of a Land Grab.” The New York Times (May 11, 1997) was more neutral: “General’s Words Shed a New Light on the Golan.”

http://www.searchforjustice.org/faqs/golan.html

"Dayan told Tal that Israeli farmers urged the Labor government to seize the Golan in 1967 primarily because they sought Golan farm land, not because of Syrian shells: “They did not even try to hide their lust for that soil. That is what guided them.” Dayan added that “eighty percent of the incidents” on the Syrian border resulted from Israeli provocations: “We would send tractors to plow in an area of little use, in a demilitarized zone . . . to advance until the Syrians would get aggravated and start shooting.” Israel responded with artillery and air power. Why? Israel was unhappy with the cease-fire lines and needed excuses to seize additional farm land.
"

and yet you have the audacity to call the Israelis war criminals?

Plain as the day is long....

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
That should be amounted and did not. {/B]

Please for the love of God, do not try to reinterpret what I wrote. This is coming from UN statistics on the oil for food program. Surely you gest if you are going to argue with that statistic.

{QUOTE]Currently, the only people doing any significant trade in Iraq are - surprise sur-fscking-prise - the US of A.[/QUOTE]

What trade, donkey? It is called rebuilding.

The French commercial interest in Iraq under Hussein was obviously a key factor in their opposition to the war.
I don't think anyone has tried denying it (except possibly the French government). They wanted assurances that any contracts they had would be honoured if Hussein was removed - that they weren't effectively shooting themselves in the foot in order to help the US with a plan which (as appears increasingly likely) was by no means built on convincing facts in the first place.

And yet you criticize the US commerical interest as going into Iraq. Which is it, status quo with a dictator or a different solution. By the way, most Iraqi exiled groups did not want any French commerial contracts guaranteed since they viewed them as keeping Saddam in power. So, would you ciriticize the US for honoring the local population for wanting to make their own decisions on who goes and who stays in Iraq.

The US, on the other hand, would not even entertain the notion of honouring those contracts and wanted the French to help remove him anyway.

One is French and one is American???

Surely you're not suggesting that the French should have forgotten national interests, and put their asses on the line to help American commercial interest take contracts which were - at the time - held by French interests???

In other words, you're criticising the French because they weren't willing to spend time, money, and lives in helping the US in an action which would remove contracts from their own companies in favour of US companies????

Come on......thats really stretching it a bit, don't you think?

As was commented in the UN last night when the resolution was put forward knowing the US would vote it : "The United Sates must learn that it cannot always have everything its own way."

If the US really wanted French help, they probably would have received it by guaranteeing to honour the French/Iraq contracts, or supply new, equivalent contracts in their place.

If the US wasn't willing to do that, then how can anynoe sanely criticise any other nation for putting its own commercial interests first.

jc

I was hoping not to have an obtuse, superficial answer like yours, but yours will have to do anyway. So from your post, I gather you are in favor of French commercial interest and not the US commercial interest. That goes hand in hand with your political and philosophical idealogy. Otherwise I might get confused, NOT! As for having the French help, what help? Or are you "suggesting" a bribe to Chirac and the French government to keep the contracts and other incentive, lucrative deals already in Place under Saddem. Are you also suggesting that once Iraq is liberated, they will still be confined under the old lucrative contracts in which Saddem and his loyalists had control and not to control to whichever government deemed necessary by the Iraqi people. I know you are not suggesting this, are you donkey?

bloggs

I read that 70% of Americans polled said taht they belived that Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Now Bush has come out and said that he wasn't, BUT had some links to Al Quida (bloody hell this sounds like 5 steps to Kevin Bacon).

Hans Blix had said that Iraq probably destoyed this WMDs in the 1990s. It certainly looks that way, as Bush/Blair haven't found any.

The French didn't want them going in as it was would have have made void current French contracts, but not going in for financial reasons i think were better than going in and killing thousands of people for financial reasons.

bloggs

Originally posted by Geromino



By the way, most Iraqi exiled groups did not want any French commerial contracts guaranteed since they viewed them as keeping Saddam in power. So, would you ciriticize the US for honoring the local population for wanting to make their own decisions on who goes and who stays in Iraq.

That's a load of BS! Where have the Iraqi council (not even an elected body) said that they wish American companies to carry out the 'reconstruction' (i prefer rape, but i will stick to the words used). The people on the Iraqi council are US friendly, otherwise they wouldn't be there. They currently don't have any power (it's Bremmer who is incharage), and even when they do have power, it will be Washington who will decide who will be carrying out the 'reconstruction'.

France and Germany wanted to have free elections within this year. Washington said it would be perhaps 2 years away, anyone else smell something fishy there?