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

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
Not even Hitler wanted WW2. He wanted a short succession of quick, vitorious and glorious wars with little inteference from the West.

Just like Bush doesn't want a quagmire but "you can't always get what you waaant".

And Bush wasnt the only one who wanted an invasion of Iraq.

....Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfewitz, Rove, Rice, Powell, Unocal, PNAC, Sharon, Bin Laden

sovtek

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Tell me something lili, do you think the French during 1940-44 wanted America to enter WW2?

...or the British, Russians (who gave millions to the cause....that's lives BTW, not $'s), South Africans, Kiwis, Irish, Canadians....oh yeah and their own countrymen who risked their life inside France to resist German occupation.

ZeFrog

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Tell me something lili, do you think the French during 1940-44 wanted America to enter WW2?

Did it matter then too what France wanted ?

And yes american companies were equipping german's army (Ford, General motors ..) when they invaded France.

Why is it OK for USA to veto over 30 resolutions, but when the French threaten to veto one resolution (or 2) that wasn t going to pass anyway, then we re the evil ennemies of the 'free' world (cf: USA)

On the same line as the quote from BBAcon: Did the yanks wanted the French to help them fighting the English during the independence war or would you have prefered US became a UK colony instead ?


And why the hell are you bringing WW2 on this subject AGAIN ?

===>What has that got to do with anything , can someone tell me ?



:mad:


70 % of americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, I think that s why there was some anti Frog sentiments, thanks to the massive american propaganda. But now american people are realizing they ve been fooled by Bush administration.

nb: Freedom fries ok but what s gonna happen to French toasts ??

lili

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Tell me something lili, do you think the French during 1940-44 wanted America to enter WW2?

39-44.
yes, the french wantend america to enter ww2 but not in 44 if you see what i mean.
as an allie, US had to help.
france is US allie, it would help if US was in danger, i don't think you were threated by iraq.
that's the difference.

lili

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I wanted the war in Iraq. So did the Iraqi people. You should try getting your news from non-biased media outlets. See through the anti-American bull**** propaganda.

i think i'm dreaming, what words do you use?!
anti-american?
propaganda?
it's hopital who's mocking of charity, my word!!!

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino



You may not accept it, but it is an accurate comparison. As for the destruction, what do you call 12 years of sanctions and sabatoge by the Saddem regime on certain facilities, and the first Gulf War. Most of Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed in 1991 and no opportunity to rebuild. THis was contingent on Saddem cooperation with UN weapon inspection. He has not have any cooperation since 1991;hence, no money for reconstruction. Then you had the oil for food program which Saddem pocketed most of the money and used the other proceeds to buy nonbanned and some banned military weapons.

Sabatoge? What sabatoge? You mean the useless bombing of water treatment facilities that weren't able to be re-built in part because of US pressured sanctions. The same sanctions that the UN estimated had killed approx 500,000 children since 1991 (the outcome Albright lovingly claimed "was worth it" to affect regime change).
Saddam used a small portion of oil proceeds for palaces and there is no evidence that he obtained any banned weapons so far.
Saddam obstructed weapons inspectors at various times and it was never consistant. As well that CIA were amongst the inspectors spying for America (which violated the UN mandate in the first place). Either way it appears that people like Ritter have been proven right, that they were able to carry out their job. This was also in the midst of weekly (since 1991) American, British and initially French bombing in the "no-fly zone" that was itself not under UN mandate and a violation of Iraqi soveignty.

Second, you have to get out of your mind that not supporting President Bush is supporting Saddem. That attitude came from The Guardian and certain US persons, but not from the government.

"...your either with us or with the terrorists"?????!!!!!!???????

The Guardian eh?

Geromino

Originally posted by Havelock
Orginally posted by Geromino


Europe, Asia and Latin America are not Superpowers. Just more proof you are an example of America's failing educational system.

After reading all this Thread I realise excatly how much the American media controls their population. There are many reasons, oil, military bases, constructions contracts, claims of WMD's and Terrorist Training and of course the fact daddy failed to do the job. They never showed any concern to the well being of the Iraqi people and still don't with their soldiers absolved from any internation war crimes, and orders to shoot first. Such humanitartism hasn't been seen since...um....Prince Vlad "Dracul" Tepes's treatment of the invading Turks.

First of all, who said anything about being a superpower. All I said was they could get help, economically or militarily, from a country that is not the US. Russia, China, and France/Germany Europe come to mind but are not limited to those specific countries. The military option is not a requirement for such a decision, but could be an advantage or disadvantage in negotiations for post Cold War politics.

Tell my bright eyes, why would you blame Senior Bush if the UN resolution was only to liberate Kuwait? Further, how in the world would the US solve the problem of Syrian, Egyptian, and other Arab forces if they crossed within 100 of Bagdad, they would strike American forces? As for my sources, they include but are not limited to the following: Foreign Affairs, IISS, Arms Control Association, Jane's, Asia Times, The Heritage Foundation, CSIS, Brookings Institute, Financial Times, Global Security, Stratfor, and a couple of good books. Do you see any American newspapers as my source. Or will you make a predictable assertion of some conspiracy theory. Please, if you do not understand a culture, please refrain from making idiotic remarks as "How American media controls their population." American media is a business, not an institution. It will report news deemed newsworthy by the populace and not by idealogy.

The question was what we thought about France's attitude towards America's "Foreign Policy". I am disappointed Ireland and other countries are not as vocal in France in their disapproval of the tyranical acts preformed by America under the laughable guise of liberty. I wish France could be allowed more freedom in blocking America's schemes.

What do you think France and Europe are doing in Africa when it comes to genetically engineered food. They are threatening heavy sanctions toward African farmers if they grow genetically engineered food, even if it is slight and not to mention with American farmers who see no problem in genetically engineered food products.

Personally I'd push for the UN to let America hang in Iraq. Hopefully until the elections, where some one like Wes Clark will win, in which case the UN offers a hand to America in prosicuting Bush and Co, offers monoitary support to the redevolpment on the condition of American with drawl etc....

The next president would continue to current policy from the previous administration, but with minor changes probably. If this is the case, then the act would be no more than a vendetta iwhich most of the member countries have no stomach for fighting in the first place. Also, no US president would allow a former President or citizen to be prosecuted under an international tribunal. That would be political suicide for both the individual and the party involved. Americans, generally from both left and right, do not like nor want supranationalism, not to be confused with supernationalism.

But it ain't gonna happen, America will strong arm the UN or ignore the conditions of the aid, rape Iraq of its oil, invade Saudi in the foreseable future, then Lybia, North Korea.....then who else, well we'll wait to see who next the accuse of being A) Producing WMD's Out selling American suppliers of WMD's C) Supporting Terrorism D) Not being white E) Slagging Bush F) Had a problem with America in the past 200 years G) etc...

PS: I have no problems with Americans, I actually quite like a lot of them. Its the current government (dictatorship) that I don't like. Give me one reason to. Its a good thing God blesses America, because currnetly no-one else is.

The truth is, every country that has a permenant seat in the UN has strong armed the UN. Yes the US is no different, but France has, Russia has, China has, and England has.

If you want an excellent article on post Cold War politics and the UN, see this article

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
But they said that there was a direct link with Iraq, and that is why they attacked. But after the war they said there wasn't a link.

Oh wait, no the war wasn't about the 'war on terrorism' it was about WMDs, no wait it was about freeing the Iraqi people, no wait it was about removing Saddam.

Damn im confused. Can some please tell me what this war as all about???

I do remember Bush stated that Iraq was tied to terrorism, but not specifically to Al Queda. That came from a newspaper article which named "unnamed sources in the White House." Anytime you see this, you can bet your cajones that the newpaper aticle is filled with false or misinterpreted information. Journalists, as a whole, do not tell the truth (no matter what country they are from) and the investigative reporting went out the window during the late 40's and early 50's.

Now, I do not have time to go and search every speech in which the President talked about Iraq. I have my own analysis and sometimes it does not agree with President Bush or former President Clinton. I only read my local newspaper for arts, entertainment, sports, and local events. I generally do not view the national and international section as analytical, but only as story telling.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
I do remember Bush stated that Iraq was tied to terrorism, but not specifically to Al Queda. That came from a newspaper article which named "unnamed sources in the White House." Anytime you see this, you can bet your cajones that the newpaper aticle is filled with false or misinterpreted information.

Really, how about Colin Powel as a source?

“We are not surprised that Iraq is harbouring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al-Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al-Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad.

Early al-Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaeda. We know members of both organisations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2729525.stm

Journalists, as a whole, do not tell the truth (no matter what country they are from) and the investigative reporting went out the window during the late 40's and early 50's.

And the Watergate scandal was all a liberal conspiracy, no doubt :rolleyes:

Now, I do not have time to go and search every speech in which the President talked about Iraq. I have my own analysis and sometimes it does not agree with President Bush or former President Clinton. I only read my local newspaper for arts, entertainment, sports, and local events. I generally do not view the national and international section as analytical, but only as story telling.

It’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone openly defend ignorance as a virtue...

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
Sabatoge? What sabatoge? You mean the useless bombing of water treatment facilities that weren't able to be re-built in part because of US pressured sanctions. The same sanctions that the UN estimated had killed approx 500,000 children since 1991 (the outcome Albright lovingly claimed "was worth it" to affect regime change).
Saddam used a small portion of oil proceeds for palaces and there is no evidence that he obtained any banned weapons so far.
Saddam obstructed weapons inspectors at various times and it was never consistant. As well that CIA were amongst the inspectors spying for America (which violated the UN mandate in the first place). Either way it appears that people like Ritter have been proven right, that they were able to carry out their job. This was also in the midst of weekly (since 1991) American, British and initially French bombing in the "no-fly zone" that was itself not under UN mandate and a violation of Iraqi soveignty.

Do you sovtek just make this stuff up as you go along or are you a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Let me see, when Saddem left Bagdad, the primary electrical facility suddenly and unexpectedly shut down and no explosions near the facilitiy. The cause, the primary transformers were blown. There were other instances as well in most of the central and northern cities. Most of the current sabotage is now being done after the end to major fighting, but not all fighting. As for Saddem's money, have you seen the lavish lifestyle the palaces engraved. Take Buckingham palace and multiply it by ten fold. To make that ignorant statement shows you really not paying attention in class.

So, I take it you are aganst the sanctions. If you did not have the sanctions, bright eyes, how in the hell do you expect Saddem to comply. That is what the sanctions were for. As for the bombing, they were targeting air defense installations targeting coalition aircraft. This was in direct association with the cease fire accord. Any violation would be considered hostile and deemed with appropiate force. In case you are wondering bright eyes, UN resolution accepted the cease fire accord in full and without any reservations nor admendments.

Apparently Arms control association does not agree with your assertion that Iraq was in full compliance. Instead key outstanding issues remained from 1991 through 2003. And although there were some accomplishments by the UN inspections, not all the issues were addressed and became like a game when Iraq was going to comply when force is about to be used and not comply when force is not going to be used. You can see this info at: and continued even with the latest round of inspections. Third, and this is where I disagreed with President Bush, you never use intelligence as evidence. You use intelligence as part of a mosaic or part of the bigger picture. The fact is Saddem was spending huge amounts of resources to dismantle the coalition since 1991. In 1998, Russia even introduced into the UN security council to stop all inspections and remove the sanctions even though Iraq has never fully complied. This would have been a huge political and strategic mistake if Saddem was allowed to continue again with the weapon programs.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Do you sovtek just make this stuff up as you go along or are you a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

I will say this once - attack the post and not the poster.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
As for Saddem's money, have you seen the lavish lifestyle the palaces engraved. Take Buckingham palace and multiply it by ten fold. To make that ignorant statement shows you really not paying attention in class.

What ignorant statement? That it was a small fraction of the oil proceeds? I see no figures from you showing that it was a significant fraction, so your argument would appear no more solid - simply more abusive.

If you did not have the sanctions, bright eyes, how in the hell do you expect Saddem to comply. That is what the sanctions were for.

And the entire pretext behind the war was that the sanctions had failed. I find it amusing that now, with the failure to find WMDs etc. you are somehow alleging that the sanctions were a good idea that worked while still defending the war that was instigated on the allegation that the sanctions were a total failure.

Indeed, I would challenge you to name a single nation where sanctions (without incentives in tadem) were effective in achieving their aims if you wish to suggest that the sanctions were in any way useful, smart, or even just "the right thing" to do.

When a policy has failed time and time and time again - as sanctions have - then one really has to question the wisdom of applying sanctions at all, unless the intention is that they will fail.

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Do you sovtek just make this stuff up as you go along or are you a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

A sure sign of a weak and insecure position is to attack the person and not the argument.

Let me see, when Saddem left Bagdad, the primary electrical facility suddenly and unexpectedly shut down and no explosions near the facilitiy.

I see, it's not America's fault that no one has electricity.

As for Saddem's money, have you seen the lavish lifestyle the palaces engraved. Take Buckingham palace and multiply it by ten fold. To make that ignorant statement shows you really not paying attention in class.

There have been reports that alot of Saddams palaces were not so grand upon close inspection.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0414/p01s02a-woiq.htm

"There, Captain Smith rummaged through the rubble of fallen chandeliers and broken mother-of-pearl table tops to look for "a souvenir" to take home to Baton Rouge. There were brass urns, and statues of lions and deer, and gold-plated fixtures in the bathrooms. In Saddam Hussein's bedroom, the floors are inlaid with marble. "Most of this stuff is pretty cheap," he says. "Everything is fake, mostly kitsch and lots of plastic. But just to be here walking on this pool deck is a thrill."

That's besides the fact that Saddam doesn't have access to the funds. They are administered by the UN.

Here's some educational reading
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

Of interests here might be this...

The applications for export of goods to Iraq under resolution 986 (1995) and for which payment is to be made from the United Nations Iraq account are submitted to the Office of Iraq Programme (OIP) by the relevant permanent or observer missions and UN agencies.

So, I take it you are aganst the sanctions. If you did not have the sanctions, bright eyes, how in the hell do you expect Saddem to comply.

Member countries were turning against sanctions because they were seen not producing results and were greatly harming the Iraqi population as a whole. Albright expressed that America's goal was "regime change" which would be consistant with keeping in place sanctions that would supposedly force the people to overthrow Saddam. Instead the sanctions made the people more reliant on Saddam and therefore less likely to overthrow him. This ignores the fact that overthrowing the leader of a soveign nation is itself a violation of the UN charter.
There were proposals to impliment "smart" sanctions that would only effect Saddam personally. The American government rejected these proposals.
Further agitation by the US in the form of CIA spies amongst weapons inspectors meant that he would be less likely to fully comply. The US also sought the removal of Blix in the first round of inspections in favor of a more compliant (to their own aims) Richard Butler.
Take it all in and it just shows that disarmorment was never an aim of the American government in regards Iraq but, as stated before, regime change.

As for the bombing, they were targeting air defense installations targeting coalition aircraft.

Which were violating Iraqi air-space after a cease fire that never states nor approves such violations.

This was in direct association with the cease fire accord. Any violation would be considered hostile and deemed with appropiate force.

I challenge you to point out any part that states that the "Allies" were allowed to continually violate Iraqi airspace.

In case you are wondering bright eyes, UN resolution accepted the cease fire accord in full and without any reservations nor admendments.

Resolution 687 IS the cease fire.

Apparently Arms control association does not agree with your assertion that Iraq was in full compliance.

UNSCOM and IAEA are only bodies authorized to determine Iraqi compliance.
Besides the fact that ACA can hardly be seen as an objective source of information.

Instead key outstanding issues remained from 1991 through 2003. And although there were some accomplishments by the UN inspections, not all the issues were addressed and became like a game when Iraq was going to comply when force is about to be used and not comply when force is not going to be used.

Well overwhelming force has been used and it's quite obvious that they had complied.

Some "objective" analysis from that article.

Iraq repeatedly violates the international norm against using chemical weapons during its eight-year war with Iran, which began with Iraq’s invasion of Iran in September 1980."

America encouraged Saddam to attack Iran and supported Iraq throughout said war.

But wait...theres more...

Iraq also uses chemical weapons against some of its own villages, most notably against Halabja in a March 16, 1988, attack that kills an estimated 5,000 people.

When it was learned that he used biological weapons "against his own people" (not that it makes it any less horrible but the Kurds were not Saddam's own people and they consider themselves seperate from Iraq) the American government tried to blame it on the Iranians at the time. Then Rumsfeld went and met with Saddam afterward to secure more military aid and trade with Iraq.

Iraq is also suspected by some countries of pursuing nuclear weapons, prompting Israel in June 1981 to bomb and destroy Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear research reactor

I guess it's ok for Israel to secretly produce nuclear weapons and lie to the world about it and not Iraq.

So much for objective analysis.

Third, and this is where I disagreed with President Bush, you never use intelligence as evidence. You use intelligence as part of a mosaic or part of the bigger picture.

Selective intelligence that supported a decision that was made on Sept 12 th 2001 to invade Iraq.

The fact is Saddem was spending huge amounts of resources to dismantle the coalition since 1991.

The big bad evil Iraq is throwing its weight around again against us poor little ol' downtrodden Americans.

In 1998, Russia even introduced into the UN security council to stop all inspections and remove the sanctions even though Iraq has never fully complied.

When America pronounces that its aim is not disarmorment but regime change one wonders why any country would then continue sanctions much less sanctions that weren't in it's national interests to do so.

This would have been a huge political and strategic mistake if Saddem was allowed to continue again with the weapon programs.

What weapons programs? They were dismantled before '98.
IAEA has made this clear already and confirmed it when they went back at the begining of this year.

Geromino

Originally posted by sovtek
A sure sign of a weak and insecure position is to attack the person and not the argument.

Nothing like high school circular reasoning to make your argument seem more valid Sovtek.

There have been reports that alot of Saddams palaces were not so grand upon close inspection.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0414/p01s02a-woiq.htm

"There, Captain Smith rummaged through the rubble of fallen chandeliers and broken mother-of-pearl table tops to look for "a souvenir" to take home to Baton Rouge. There were brass urns, and statues of lions and deer, and gold-plated fixtures in the bathrooms. In Saddam Hussein's bedroom, the floors are inlaid with marble. "Most of this stuff is pretty cheap," he says. "Everything is fake, mostly kitsch and lots of plastic. But just to be here walking on this pool deck is a thrill."

That's besides the fact that Saddam doesn't have access to the funds. They are administered by the UN.

Most Iraqis, except for those closely associated with Saddam, had no clude of Saddam's palaces were located much less had access at them, this is very laughable. However, here is some educational reading for you:
http://www.redding.com/newsarchive/20030421world031.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/ 2002-10-03-iraq-palaces_x.htm
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030820/325/e6kaz.html
http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/23939.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2288895.stm
[rul]http://on.starblvd.net/cgi-bin/ bbsmsg?jonathan_king2&tr=53[/url]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/863736.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021117-iraq01.htm
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0403/151.html

One link comes from an architectual magazine with no political affiliation. I have also given you a wide variety from US and UK sources as well as one intelligence source. Now, you are going to reply that these are biased conservative papers "out ot destroy the world" argaument. My god it must be a conspiracy. In fact

Here's some educational reading
http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/

Of interests here might be this...

The applications for export of goods to Iraq under resolution 986 (1995) and for which payment is to be made from the United Nations Iraq account are submitted to the Office of Iraq Programme (OIP) by the relevant permanent or observer missions and UN agencies.

You gave the theoretical perspective for the Oil for Food program, however, realistically, the exact opposite was true. This goes again to how Saddam had money to continue with the construction of the many palaces, as well as other programs, that were off limits to the Iraqis (and most did not even know where they were located exactly). Now, I wonder if you have ever heard of the following terms: off shore banks, money laundering, skimming from the top, A report by Coalition for International Justice, a Washington based human rights monitor, titled, "Sources of Revenue for Saddam and Sons," examined the oil for food program had found gross mismanagemet, graft, and Saddam's influence.

Member countries were turning against sanctions because they were seen not producing results and were greatly harming the Iraqi population as a whole. Albright expressed that America's goal was "regime change" which would be consistant with keeping in place sanctions that would supposedly force the people to overthrow Saddam. Instead the sanctions made the people more reliant on Saddam and therefore less likely to overthrow him. This ignores the fact that overthrowing the leader of a soveign nation is itself a violation of the UN charter.
There were proposals to impliment "smart" sanctions that would only effect Saddam personally. The American government rejected these proposals.
Further agitation by the US in the form of CIA spies amongst weapons inspectors meant that he would be less likely to fully comply. The US also sought the removal of Blix in the first round of inspections in favor of a more compliant (to their own aims) Richard Butler.
Take it all in and it just shows that disarmorment was never an aim of the American government in regards Iraq but, as stated before, regime change.

First of all, just how were you going to try to limit Saddam's money and power when 1) the Islamic banks are not part of the IMF programs for money laundering (there is little info on how Islaminc banks function on various activities of prohibited transactions), 2) the enourmous energy it would need to be spent to maintain such an action (this is the renewed military containment policy set forth in 1991), and 3) the geopolitical climate in which the surrounding countries did not comply with the first set of sanctions and one would be reasonably assured no compliance on the new "smart sanctions." Jordon did not want "smart sanctions" according to an Arabic news article in 2001. The complexity would make such a program unmanageable for the UN and would require all nations to comply with all smart sanctions. Yet, the US tried to implement "smart sanctions" in 2002, 2000, and 1998. The idea of smart sanctions split the UN security council on several occasions yet you make the claim that US is not for new smart sanctions. However, if Saddam fully complied in the beginning, which he did not, then the sanctions would not have lasted so long. But then again, this is only a theoritical argument and could not be proven either way.

Further, the only time in which there was any link to CIA involvement was with John Ritter, remember him? Since then, it has been the standard line by Iraq. Yet, there has been no evidence of CIA involvement directly. This is the "conspiracy" theory that dwells in the minds of minions with no basis in fact or supposition, just heresay and inuendo. Finally, regime change was first used by President Clinton in 1998. President Bush continued the policy from Clinton. However, this was not the original policy of senior Bush who organized the sanctions in the first place. The sanctions were designed to compel Saddam with the cease fire accord.

Geromino

Which were violating Iraqi air-space after a cease fire that never states nor approves such violations.
AND
I challenge you to point out any part that states that the "Allies" were allowed to continually violate Iraqi airspace.

UN resolution 688, Apr 5, 1991 or 678, Nov 29, 1990. Both authorize the use of force and 688 establish the no fly zones.

Resolution 687 IS the cease fire.

Resolution 687 ACCEPTED the US led coalition cease fire accord and was accepted in full and without reservation.

UNSCOM and IAEA are only bodies authorized to determine Iraqi compliance.
Besides the fact that ACA can hardly be seen as an objective source of information.

ACA is probably more balanced than I have seen. Yet they were not in favor of the invasion per their own analysis. Their chronology is concrete, precise, and accurate. Further, brighteyes, who do you think where the experts for disarmenant come from? Try England and the US. France, Russia, and Japan have some experts as well. Yet they are all members of ACA. ACA has had several former IAEA members for their own analysis staff and have wrote a majority of the work you see in the web site. Finally, IAEA may have the "authority" but it does not exactly provide accurate analysis. The politics of the IAEA is staggering by any means, especially when you had Iraq heading the council in 2001 (while it was on UN sanctions and noncompliance). Now, talk about a conflict of interest.

Well overwhelming force has been used and it's quite obvious that they had complied.

Again, what world are you living in. This has to be the understatement of the year for the dumbass award. There were a great number of accomplishment but there were still a great number of objectives to yet be completed. Iraq never fully complied with the inspections and the numerous UN resolutions that condemned Iraq testifies to that event. Further, Iraq kicked out the inspectors at least seven times from 1991 through 1998.

Some "objective" analysis from that article.

Iraq repeatedly violates the international norm against using chemical weapons during its eight-year war with Iran, which began with Iraq’s invasion of Iran in September 1980."

America encouraged Saddam to attack Iran and supported Iraq throughout said war.

Brighteyes, America did not encourage Saddam to invade Iran, nor there is any direct evidence. That is a figment of your "objective analysis." However, there was a slow process to change the "official" position of US policy. President Carter was President when Iraq invaded in 1980. Reagan was elected in Nov 1980 but did not officially take office until Jan 1981. The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on. Second, you had a war in a region where the world depended on oil, not just the US. What do you think would happen if oil ceased to come into Europe? The mass transit system would cease to function, not to mention electrical supply for the consumers and govenment. The same would go for the US. Third, the Iran-Iraq War was multifaceted and included religious schisms, border disputes, and political differences. Forth, the Iraqis also perceived revolutionary Iran's Islamic agenda as threatening to their pan-Arabism. Fifth, Iranian military gains inside Iraq after 1984 were a major reason for increased superpower involvement in the war. Yet I have not mentioned the reasons why US became involved. One, accoding to the NSDD 99, which was signed on 7/12/99, which the US wanted peace between Israel and the Arab states, and the other was not have an Iranian victory. All sides agreed that would have been a major political fiasco for both the US and the USSR. Having fundamentalist islamic states, like the Taliban, provides less security to a world than any invasion by the US on another country.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

Iraq also uses chemical weapons against some of its own villages, most notably against Halabja in a March 16, 1988, attack that kills an estimated 5,000 people.

When it was learned that he used biological weapons "against his own people" (not that it makes it any less horrible but the Kurds were not Saddam's own people and they consider themselves seperate from Iraq) the American government tried to blame it on the Iranians at the time. Then Rumsfeld went and met with Saddam afterward to secure more military aid and trade with Iraq.

Iraq is also suspected by some countries of pursuing nuclear weapons, prompting Israel in June 1981 to bomb and destroy Iraq’s Osiraq nuclear research reactor

I guess it's ok for Israel to secretly produce nuclear weapons and lie to the world about it and not Iraq.

So much for objective analysis.

You seem to jump ships a couple of times on this analysis. First of all, the Osiraq nuclear facility was in the process of building nuclear weapons. Even though the US condemned the attack, weapon experts now agree that without the destruction, Iraq would have had weapon materials by 1990. This does not even begin to analyze implications of someone like Saddam having nuclear weapons and Israel. That would have been the start of WWIII in which the US will defend Israel. But this would digress into another discussion in which the right of Israel to exist or not to exist. If they have a right to exist, then any attack by a surrounding nation would justify Israel to defend itself. If Israel does not have the right to exist, then the 400 plus UN resoltuions have no power because a resolution or sanction is against a nation, not an individual or group. The UN will never nor could make any resolution condemning specific terrorist groups because it would give the legitimacy of their cause (the exat opposite effect the UN wants). That is why it only can give sanctions or condemnations on member states only (according to the UN charter).
http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/m91/m91albright1.html

The Kurds live within the border of Iraq and were under the protectorate of the Iraqi government just like the Palestinians in Jordon are under the Jordonian protection or palestinians who are living in Syria are under Syrian protection. To make that callous statement, "not that it makes it any less horrible but the Kurds were not Saddam's own people and they consider themselves seperate from Iraq," shows your real intentions and which comes from the manifesto of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Kurds do want their own independent state, which Turkey does not want, but no such state exists. In fact, the current Iraqi council has both Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites on the council. Iraq could become a model for other arab nations with multiple nationalities that a multiethnic, Arab democratic government can work with the Muslim religion.

Finally, you go back to the argument which Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush jr are at fault, but no direct evidence is there to support. However, although there is evidence that Fumsfeld went to Iraq in 1984, years before the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and years after Iraq gassed the Iranians in 1981-1982, there is little evidence of any secret handshake, document, or MOU which Rumsfeld would have given approval for such an event. This is mind-boggling, and a stupid gesture, to make any such accusation. What was at stake however, was not to allow Iran to have a clear victory in the gulf. This would have some serious implications in the region in which Israel would be the least of your worries. To have not one, but an entire region, full of regimes that resembled the early days of Iran and the Taliban, would have been a quadmire of unprecedented results. We would all either become Muslims or dead, IMO if Iran won and created a second fundamentalist Islamic State. Also keep in mind that US and Iraq relations were on ice since the 1967 war and the 1984 meeting was to restore diplomatic relations. But again, there is no evidence that Rumsfeld authorized or even suggested that Iraq use chemical agents in the War. That was a decision on Saddam and Saddam only. To try to link a political figure based on a meeting in which you know nothing about (none of us do) and to make a conspiracy theory supposition only shows your lack of objective reasoning.

Geromino

Selective intelligence that supported a decision that was made on Sept 12 th 2001 to invade Iraq.

The intelligence was going way back before 1980, brighteyes. You do not simply "flip the switch" and have the intelligence agenies starting to make a change of heart on its analysis. Government simply does not work that way, whether in America or Ireland because the analysts have extreme pride in their work, especially the intelligence community. The evidence about Iraq, whether you agree or disagree with their assessment, have at least fifteen years of complex analysis and observation. In addition, it is built upon initial claims by the observers and field operatives followed by a continued evaluation of the topic or subject. Furthermore, intelligence always looks at everything, but narrows to what is possilble and probable. I can probably design several attack and terrorist schemes which could provide an excellent result for the designed objective. However, it wiould have more success in hollywood than in real life. If the terrorists are smart, they would attack LLoyds of London computer and paper files as well as its lines of communication. Such a result would devesate the world that cannot be fanthomed. But the likelihood for a successful attack is near zero. A lot of things would have to go right and several major military blunders would have to occur for this to work. But I can tell you with reasonable assurance that this has been discussed and dismissed as a possible attack alternative.

The big bad evil Iraq is throwing its weight around again against us poor little ol' downtrodden Americans.

Who said anything that you were an American or are you one of those exestentialists "who think they are American," or "i am a real American," or "everyone is American." I probably would guess you are now going to state "I was born there" or something to that affect.

What weapons programs? They were dismantled before '98.
IAEA has made this clear already and confirmed it when they went back at the begining of this year.

If they were dismantled, brighteyes, then why does the IAEA state more needs to be done. Or are they being controlled by little green men from outer space or in men in dark black suits named Agent K and Agent M. Again, you are living in a dream world. There are no more fairies anymore Sovtek and the heroes of this world are not known nor want to be known to the rest of the world.

lili

Having fundamentalist islamic states, like the Taliban, provides less security to a world than any invasion by the US on another country.
____________________________________________________

if it was not so sad, i would say it was the funnier part of your post.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
What ignorant statement? That it was a small fraction of the oil proceeds? I see no figures from you showing that it was a significant fraction, so your argument would appear no more solid - simply more abusive.

Donkey, see my response to Sovtek. You will find it interesting a Washington based human rights monitor released a report testifying that Saddam was increasing his wealth through the oil for food program. To paraphrase the report, the numbers are staggering. Also keep in mind that the Iraqi people did not improve their lives with the oil for food program but actually became worse. The number of tortures, beatings, executions, extortions, etc is staggering and it will take several years for the full knowledge to be known.

And the entire pretext behind the war was that the sanctions had failed. I find it amusing that now, with the failure to find WMDs etc. you are somehow alleging that the sanctions were a good idea that worked while still defending the war that was instigated on the allegation that the sanctions were a total failure.

Indeed, I would challenge you to name a single nation where sanctions (without incentives in tadem) were effective in achieving their aims if you wish to suggest that the sanctions were in any way useful, smart, or even just "the right thing" to do.

When a policy has failed time and time and time again - as sanctions have - then one really has to question the wisdom of applying sanctions at all, unless the intention is that they will fail.

jc

No, donkey, I stated that the sanctions failed eventually. I was willing to give sanctions a reasonable chance, but apparently it did not work. When you have Iraq keep kicking out the inpectors, then what is the next step? To just go home, to put further sanctions, or use military force. If you chose the option to go home, donkey, then what is Iran or NK to fear of UN sanctions if no nation is willing to go through or abide by the sanctions. I seem to recall you fear NK having nuclear weapons but just want to count the daisies as the solution. Sometimes, hard decisions call for hard choices that do not appear popular. I agreed with the war because the sanctions were like a bad rerun. I actually wrote to my congressman, senator, and President to abide by UN resolution 686. They all wrote back with various responses of we should not.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
I will say this once - attack the post and not the poster.

jc

Do your bloody job or get the hell off as monitor. I have taken notice of your selective use in this. You seem to be more acceptable to this type with certain posters than with others. Either do it equally or not at all.

lili

geronimo, could you tell me please, why if iraq was a such threat for the world, bush didn't get the the support of the major part of other countries?
USA is the champion of democracy, but it went to this war by an undemocratic way (as your president has been elected by the way).

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Really, how about Colin Powel as a source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2729525.stm

And the Watergate scandal was all a liberal conspiracy, no doubt :rolleyes:

It’s been a while since I’ve heard anyone openly defend ignorance as a virtue...

First of all, the Watergate scandal did not break until some students used their research skills and posted their findings in the Washington Post. The established journalists at that time did not even consider it a major story much less the accusations the students made. You just made my statement about journalists absolutely correct.

Second, having a full spectrum of analytical news provides more intelligence than simply quoting from a simple idealogue newsppaer, Corinthian. With respect to your response that I was agreeing with Lili, I was partially. I also was pointing out the international politics involved in the middle east. If those groups decide to use Ireland as a nuclear waste dump, then that is what Ireland would become when they find another power with the same objective. The groups would use whatever political capital to achieve their means with their counterpart doing the same. If you fail to see this, then you are more lost than a lost sheep.

Third, I said President Bush made no such statement. Yes, Powell made the statement, but that was Powell and not President Bush. I have a great respect for Gen Powell. Obviouvly you do not. However, Zarqawi is still a terrorist and had links with Iran than with Iraq. Yet, he was located primarily in Iraq not Iran. Again, you have not disspelled that Iraq did not support terrorists. What is known is that Iraq and Al Queda have very little in common. But the intelligence is not complete as of yet. Are we now going to choose between "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists. Or are we only going after Al Queda? Or are not going after anybody?

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
Having fundamentalist islamic states, like the Taliban, provides less security to a world than any invasion by the US on another country.
____________________________________________________

if it was not so sad, i would say it was the funnier part of your post.

Actually Lili, I was deadly serious. Take a look at Nigeria, Afganistan, and Iran. They each have or did have an islamic state where oppression on non muslim sections of the society is tantamount. It is not the religion but the individuals who interpret that religion I have a problem with.

lili

but geronimo, don't you know that the taliban got the support of USA?
that ben laden was one of CIA agents?

gandalf

Originally posted by Geromino
Do your bloody job or get the hell off as monitor. I have taken notice of your selective use in this. You seem to be more acceptable to this type with certain posters than with others. Either do it equally or not at all.

Geromino as I have warned you in a PM watch your attitude on this forum. Bonkey is perfectly entitled to remind you not to break one of the most basic rules on this forum.

Now we don't read all the posts on this forum so if you spot something that you feel is being personally abusive towards you or another poster you are perfectly entitled to report the post and the problem you have with it.

If your not happy the mod dealt with it you can then go to the Admins via PM or in the Admins/Support forum.

Gandalf.

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
but geronimo, don't you know that the taliban got the support of USA?
that ben laden was one of CIA agents?

I have yet to see any evidence to support your assertion. However, I have seen the "conspiracy theories" that the CIA was behind the taliban, bin laden and 9/11. One even boldly states that the hijackers were not even Arabs but men in black suits. Another stated that special designed missles, not aircraft hit the building and even one that stated only a couple of hundred firefighters died and no one else. But there is no direct evidence to support such a suggestion.

Bin Laden came to Afganistan to fight the Russians in 1985 or 1986. Although the US did help him (he was not an agent) with fighting the Soviets (we taught him how to shoot a stinger, a rifle, and throw a hand granade but not the offensive use of chemical or biological warfare. We did teach him how to spot and defend against a chemical or biological attack), the ties were immediately cut when the Soviets were withdrawn. Bin Laden did not start to attack the US until after US troops came upon holy soil in Saudi Arabia to fight Saddam. Bin Laden has maintained that only Arabs should fight Arabs and an asssertion that was quickly dimissmed by all Arab states. Even his own family tried to kill him in 1996 after they banned him from Saudi Arabia and took away his citizenship. A couple of years elapsed until he formed his little group out of Egypt and Sudan in 1992 and in 1996 attacked his first US target in Tanzania.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Do your bloody job or get the hell off as monitor.

OK. I'll do my job :

One week ban, effective immediately. If you choose to return, and indicate that you still refuse to control yourself, it will be permanent.

I deal with every single complaint I receive. I deal with every single offence I perceive. There is nothing more I can do, and if you have a problem with that, then you take it up with the admins.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
First of all, the Watergate scandal did not break until some students used their research skills and posted their findings in the Washington Post. The established journalists at that time did not even consider it a major story much less the accusations the students made. You just made my statement about journalists absolutely correct.

Don’t be ridiculous. Last time I checked, Woodward and Bernstein were journalists and they managed to do some rather successful investigative journalism.

Second, having a full spectrum of analytical news provides more intelligence than simply quoting from a simple idealogue newsppaer, Corinthian.

I referenced the raw text of Powel’s speech, not any single article or opinion piece. There was no commentary and was fairly black and white in it’s meaning.

With respect to your response that I was agreeing with Lili, I was partially. I also was pointing out the international politics involved in the middle east. If those groups decide to use Ireland as a nuclear waste dump, then that is what Ireland would become when they find another power with the same objective. The groups would use whatever political capital to achieve their means with their counterpart doing the same. If you fail to see this, then you are more lost than a lost sheep.

Have you ever asked why they would do something like this?

Third, I said President Bush made no such statement. Yes, Powell made the statement, but that was Powell and not President Bush.

The Bush administration, regardless of the fact that half the cabinet hates the other half, is responsible for its actions and comments. As its leader, Bush is responsible for the actions and comments of his subordinates. Anything else is a ludicrous sidestep.

I have a great respect for Gen Powell. Obviouvly you do not.

Quite incorrect. You’re jumping to conclusions again.

Again, you have not disspelled that Iraq did not support terrorists.

But the onus was not to dispel such an accusation, but to prove it, were it to be used as a pretext for invasion. It is not proven.

What is known is that Iraq and Al Queda have very little in common.

Circumstantial evidence that would tend to disprove the above.

But the intelligence is not complete as of yet.

With respects, the US has had far more opportunity that it seemed willing to give the UN.

Are we now going to choose between "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists. Or are we only going after Al Queda? Or are not going after anybody?

But there are “good” terrorists - They’re called freedom fighters. Remember the Contras and the Mujahideen? The US armed and trained them.

Sparks

I have a great respect for Gen Powell. Obviouvly you do not.

A "great respect" for a man whose career started with an attemped whitewashing of the My Lai massacre, and which then went on to be involved in every underhanded covert military action the US was involved in, and quite a few of the overt ones, and which included one of the largest, most blatent, most outrageous deliberate and malicious and premeditated breaches of the Geneva Convention in '91 (the massacre on the Basra Highway), which he then actually managed to best after 9/11 with Guantanamo Bay?

Well, that pretty much gives me my opinion of your analytical abilities...

mr_angry

One week ban, effective immediately.

Thank God! I've never had to wade through so many long-winded, self-righteous posts! I just can't believe that Geronimo was accusing people of naivity with respect to Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions, and then dismissing any evidence of the US supporting Iraq's war with Iran and their training of Bin Laden.

How are we supposed to respect this person's opinion? I'm just glad it's over, even if its only for a week...

The Saint

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."



Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

pilger.carlton.com/print/133099


It seems like the administration changes its tune when convenient to do so.