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

lili

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

The Beer Baron

I think it was basically all blown out of proportion and deliberatly so by the US media. I can't remember which one but wasn't it a US paper originally printed a "why do they hate us?" article that started the whole thing off- it became a story, which became the story of the week which became Freedom Fries and **** France bumper stickers overnight.

All the while the dumbed-down masses were prepared to send troops into France- and had Bush wanted to I'm sure he would have support for it.

I can just picture them sitting around a table- we need a country that is against our war (lot to choose from) that we can shove around and make little of in front of the whole world. "The Russians?" "Ehh no bad idea Mr President."
"What about France?"

in the blink of an eye the entire nation suddenly realised they HATE THE FRENCH.

As for the French themselves?
Well it's very easy to hate the US.
But following the schoolyard-mentality and, let's face it, one of the wost diplomactic blunders that was the WE HATE THE FRENCH movement of course they hate you.

This silly tit-for-tat crap has come to typify what I see as an administration playing toy soldiers for profit.

Jesse Ventura proved that a WWF wrestler can get into politics.
US foreign policy of late has proved that you can quite easily turn politics into wrestling.

lili

hmm...
you must be right, cause USA didn't have the same attitude toward the germans.
us, the french, were really asthoned by such hate. i think ruppert murdock has conducted a really dirty campaign against us.
it's really amazing to see that the inhabitants of the country who got the most newspapers, are that manipulated by corrupt medias.

Biffa Bacon

US anger towards France was due to the fact that the French despicably did everything they could to protect the interests of a vile genocidal dictatorship rather than aid a liberal democratic ally in a project vital to their national security.

In the light of all the money, sweat and blood spent by Americans over half a century to save Europe from the threat of fascism and communism this came across as being somewhat ungrateful.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
US anger towards France was due to the fact that the French despicably did everything they could to protect the interests of a vile genocidal dictatorship rather than aid a liberal democratic ally in a project vital to their national security.

Not vital, Iraq could barely defend itself, never mind attack the USA.

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
In the light of all the money, sweat and blood spent by Americans over half a century to save Europe from the threat of fascism and communism this came across as being somewhat ungrateful.

After screwing the British for every last penny and only getting involved when it threatened their own interests (thier empire in the Pacific).

mike65

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
US anger towards France was due to the fact that the French despicably did everything they could to protect the interests of a vile genocidal dictatorship rather than aid a liberal democratic ally in a project vital to their national security

In the light of all the money, sweat and blood spent by Americans over half a century to save Europe from the threat of fascism and communism this came across as being somewhat ungrateful.

I think this is the nub of the anger, the Frenchies were out to protect thier own interests while pretending they had principles.

The French establishment proberly still resents the fact it needed the Yanks/Brits to save thier bacon in WW2.

Whats that joke?
"For Sale. French Army Rifle Never Fired Dropped Once" Okay its a cheap shot but the fact its funny means its resonates which means ppl feels there's an essential truth in it...

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
I think this is the nub of the anger, the Frenchies were out to protect thier own interests while pretending they had principles.

And the whole matter of international law and the double standards used by the USA.

French dead in WWI 2,000,000

American dead in WWI and WWII 1,000,000

So who gave the greater sacrafice?

Oh yes, wasn't it nice that the Americans got to play away both times and didn't have to suffer their cities beign turned into ruins?

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
And the whole matter of international law and the double standards used by the USA.

French dead in WWI 2,000,000

American dead in WWI and WWII 1,000,000

So who gave the greater sacrafice?

Oh yes, wasn't it nice that the Americans got to play away both times and didn't have to suffer their cities beign turned into ruins?

The latter matter is just geographic luck...maybe if the Nazis had been allowed to thrive long enough they'd have found a way of blitzing the US with missiles.

On the first point, the French painted themselves as upstanding defenders of the UN when it just happend to suit thier needs to do so. Nothing more. As for numbers of dead in two world wars, I don't think a pissing contest is appropriate...

Mike.

swiss

France may have had it's own (less than altrusitic) reasons for not supporting the Iraq war effort, but regardless of motive, I applaud their efforts. Iraq was no more a threat to US mainland security than Saudi Arabia or North Korea to mention but two examples, and the US have not decided to bomb the crap... er I mean liberate these countries. The old axiom that in war, the first casualty is truth was proved yet again with Iraq. It is unsurprising that diplomatic relations between the US and France would cool given Frances "despicable" crime of not agreeing to go to war with a country when the reasons cited for doing so were at best dubious.

What was surprising however, was the sheer vitriol displayed by the American people towards France after this disagreement. It reflects exceptionally badly on a society when respected statesmen and media resort to flinging insults and abuse at a historically close ally.

Zombrex

The French reject the US plan to invade Iraq because it was a stupid plan

The French aren't idiots, they were not going to stand back and let the US f**k up the Middle East even more than it already was. You could see the long term problems of a US lead invasion coming a mile off (unless you are named Blair or Bush)

I think the French have been very good about not saying "we bloody told you so" to the Americans and the English, and have been quite good natured about still willing to work with the coalition to help sort out the mess the US and UK have made in Iraq

They want it done under the UN because they know that is the only way that it can possible work and make the Iraqi people happy (which was supposed to be the whole point in the first place)

It is about time the UK and US stood back from Iraq and admitted they really don't have a clue what they are doing.

mr_angry

I think it was all perfectly fine. The French government did what the French people wanted them to do, according to French public opinion.

Smells of democracy to me. How ironic...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I think it was all perfectly fine. The French government did what the French people wanted them to do, according to French public opinion.

Smells of democracy to me. How ironic...

And because most of the French populace support the death penalty I suppose the government should oblige them?

Or how about lynching Arabs + asylum seekers? That'd get the Front National votes AND be popular with a majority of the populace- 2 birds with one stone, how about that.

Not to mention a French occupation of Algeria would get at least 50+% of the vote in a poll, most of the older generation don't feel they should ever have left.

Anyone with a grain of sense knows that running a government by opinion poll is counterproductive. Opinion polls are a useful indicator sometimes, often they are just unhelpful and not predictive in any sense. The number of times political parties, presidents and others have been far ahead in the polls yet trounced in an election is impossible to count.

The French aren't idiots, they were not going to stand back and let the US f**k up the Middle East even more than it already was.

Really Wicknight? Then you might explain to me why the French sold Iraq BOTH of their Osirak nuclear breeder reactors, and about 40 modern gas centrifuges in the 70s and 80s. Furthermore, why were the French supplying a murderous dictator with hard cash for oil right up until the *day* before their own troops were committed in 1991.

Oh they don't need the US to f**k up the Middle East as you put it- they've been doing it themselves for decades. Algeria springs to mind, as do Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco and Yemen. Not forgetting selling 2 full fighter squadrons of Mirages to Iran whilst supplying Iraq with air defence missiles.

Don't mistake me, I am by no means saying that two wrongs make a right- just pointing out that anyone who thinks that *any* of the Permanent 5 members dipping their fingers into Iraq are doing so out of compassion for Iraqis is deluding themself. French interests lay with the lifting of sanctions and the restoration of open trade with Saddam's regime. Campaigning for it under the pretence of humanitarian benefit was both ruthless and derisory- their record in Iraq with respect to arms trade is worse than any country. Sarin precursors, numerous biological weapon contracts, the nuclear reactors I mentioned earlier, gas centrifuges, heavy water plants, the list is almost endless.

The resumption of such lucrative trade for the almost failing French defence industry is such a large carrot that it doesn't take a genius to work out how Jacques Chirac found it so easy to renege on his government's promise to back UNSCR #1441 and follow-up resolutions given non-compliance.

As for the question posed by the thread- well, it's difficult to see how a war the UN found illegitimate could receive UN backing even at this stage. I opposed the war vehemently, still think it was a bad idea- yet I don't think the UN can simply rubberstamp the current occupation. If more troops are to be brought in under UN auspices, the commanders on the ground, whether American or not, shared command or not, MUST report to the UNSC, and NOT the Pentagon.

This is the sore sticking point currently, and it's difficult to see it being resolved. The last thing that Rumsfeld wants are his generals having to explain themselves to a body he deemed irrelevant as far back as 9/14 of 2001. The problem is not unity of command on the ground- plenty of UN peacekeeping operations are under US command. BUT, they report to the UN via NATO or directly, and that is not something the PNAC hawks would like to see happen.

Their public reason is that nations such as Syria, Libya etc would hamper or restrict operations via the security council. In reality the fear is more likely to be that political pressure from the 3 Perm 5 that opposed 1442 + Germany would lead to a collapse of UN authority. It would be a power play gambit not seen since the Cuban missile crisis, is entirely plausible and near impossible to avoid once the Rubicon has been crossed.

This is why the war should not have gone ahead- the rifts and divisions over Iraq's future are more damaging than any 10 UN HQ bombs, than any 10 suicide car-bombers shattering the Jordanian embassy. Trade has suffered across the Atlantic (contracting 9% just this quarter), jobs are being lost in shipping, basic commodities are being traded as inelastic goods.

The only way out of it is a bridge across the diplomatic chasm I've outlined- it'll take some tough talking, a lot more than the bare 1 and half hours the perm 5 foreign ministers spent in Geneva with Kofi Anan. More to the point, it'll take a radical U-turn in the Bush administration's attitude to the UN. Here's hoping we won't have that to worry about come 2004- new man in the job, new ideas. It's about time we got a regime change ourselves, at the ballot-box :P

Geromino

Originally posted by swiss
What was surprising however, was the sheer vitriol displayed by the American people towards France after this disagreement. It reflects exceptionally badly on a society when respected statesmen and media resort to flinging insults and abuse at a historically close ally.

Politically, France was never a historically a close ally of the US. For example, both countries opposed the Soviet Union in cold war confrontations but went through another crisis in 1956 when French, British, and Israeli forces attacked Egypt and Eisenhower forced them to withdraw. After Charles de Gaulle became president he clashed with Americans over France's building of her own nuclear weapons, Britain's admission to the European Economic Community, and France's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (nato). There are other examples which portray the on again off again relationship of France.

France may have had it's own (less than altrusitic) reasons for not supporting the Iraq war effort, but regardless of motive, I applaud their efforts. Iraq was no more a threat to US mainland security than Saudi Arabia or North Korea to mention but two examples, and the US have not decided to bomb the crap... er I mean liberate these countries. The old axiom that in war, the first casualty is truth was proved yet again with Iraq. It is unsurprising that diplomatic relations between the US and France would cool given Frances "despicable" crime of not agreeing to go to war with a country when the reasons cited for doing so were at best dubious.

If you assume traditional methods of attacking, then yes. However, the nonconventional methods, Iraq was as deadly as Hamas and OBL. The foreign efforts it used to disrupt the inspection process, the wealth accumulated and payments shipped to suicide bombers families as well as some. However, the main reason for the war is not its threat, but Iraq's failure of UN resolution 686 and subsequent resolutions. It is ironic that Iraq will only cooperate when either threat of force was going to be used or force was actually used.

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
Not vital, Iraq could barely defend itself, never mind attack the USA.

Given the fact that Iraq could still send massive amounts of money to do its bidding, I would not make such a conclusion.

After screwing the British for every last penny and only getting involved when it threatened their own interests (thier empire in the Pacific).

Totally inaccurate. America was primarily isolationists in first part of the 20th century. In your temrs, this means we had our own problems; we do not need yours. Other common attitudes include the Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ocean (ever heard of the U-boat), or even that It is Europes problem and not ours.

However, you also fail to mention the infamous Eagle Squadron of the RAF. It flew with great distinction. You can also add the AFG, or more commonly known as the "Flying Tigers." These were unofficial attachments to those conflicts without the full acknowledgement of the American Government.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Furthermore, why were the French supplying a murderous dictator with hard cash for oil right up until the *day* before their own troops were committed in 1991.

And what and you think the US and UK didn't? Saddam was an American puppet put in place to serve Western interests in the Middle East up until the day he disobayed US orders and invaded Kuwiat. All the US are doing now is trying to bring that corner of the Middle East back under US control.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Oh they don't need the US to f**k up the Middle East as you put it- they've been doing it themselves for decades. Algeria springs to mind, as do Lebanon, Palestine, Morocco and Yemen. Not forgetting selling 2 full fighter squadrons of Mirages to Iran whilst supplying Iraq with air defence missiles.

I never said the French were saints, I said they weren't stupid. The French have a long history of f**king up countries, just like the US and the UK (Vietnam anyone) ... but at least they seem to have learnt something in the last 100 years about not rushing into a war with no clear plan for the aftermath or clean up. What ever their motives the French knew that Bushes war was going to be a long term disaster.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Just pointing out that anyone who thinks that *any* of the Permanent 5 members dipping their fingers into Iraq are doing so out of compassion for Iraqis is deluding themself.

Oh believe me I am under no illusion that any of this is being done for the benifit of the Iraqi people. Iraq, as it has been for years, is still a puppet country being fought over by out side interests.

The sooner the UN get in and the US gets out the sooner Iraq can be returned to the Iraqis. But I don't see the US giving up control of their new prize anytime soon.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
I think this is the nub of the anger, the Frenchies were out to protect thier own interests while pretending they had principles.

And the US were outraged that someone as well as themselves was taking such a stance???

jc

mr_angry

Or how about lynching Arabs + asylum seekers? That'd get the Front National votes AND be popular with a majority of the populace- 2 birds with one stone, how about that.

I don't think you can compare a pacifist stance agaianst war with this kind of behaviour. I seriously doubt the French population feel this way. I'm know the French people are unhappy with immigrants, and would like to see their entry to France controlled, but I think the term "lynching" is exaggeration on your part. I'm sorry, but I just don't agree.

Politically, France was never a historically a close ally of the US.

You are taking the p*ss, right? History didn't begin in 1900, although I appreciate that what went before has much less relevance.

Given the fact that Iraq could still send massive amounts of money to do its bidding, I would not make such a conclusion.

I don't know about you Geronimo, but I have yet to see ANY evidence of that being the case. We're told again and again that it is, but I'd prefer to see some proof, before obliterating a country. Yes, they had money, but when did they attack the US? Only after being invaded...

And the US were outraged that someone as well as themselves was taking such a stance???

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE! Thank you for pointing that out Bonkey. Of course France had their own agenda, but who in this conflict didn't?

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Other common attitudes include the Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ocean (ever heard of the U-boat)

Oh thats priceless.

Thats like saying the US doesn't need international bases to project its force around the globe because it has subs, planes, and carrier groups.

Do you even know what the capabilities of a U-boat were? Its range? Its armanent?

The absolute most that could have been done was sink some boats that were on their way to Europe...which is exactly what was done.

Anything else was too far to be in range of the "force projection" capability of the German Navy.

Germany in WW2 attacking the US...what a priceless notion.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by Wicknight
And what and you think the US and UK didn't? Saddam was an American puppet put in place to serve Western interests in the Middle East up until the day he disobayed US orders and invaded Kuwiat. All the US are doing now is trying to bring that corner of the Middle East back under US control.

Incorrect! US did not get involved with Saddem until 1984, and reluctently I might add. The principle reason being that Iraq would be the counterweight of Islamic extremists of Iran. The official policy was neutrality; however unofficially the US was providing intelligence to Iraq with its war. There are confirmed reports that US intelligence agencies helping the Ba'ath party in the 60's, but not Saddem directly. Declassified KGB reports indicate that the Soviets were also trying to install a regime friendly to the USSR, hence US involvement at that time. Further, Saddem was a little more than a blip on the radar screen in the 60's and not very popular of the moderates of the Ba'ath party. The US intelligence agencies were trying to hedge their bets with all known cards (major players of the Ba'ath), but would only be involved in limited capacity. In 1978, Saddem went to Moscow to receive the blessings from them in order to take control in 1979. Why do you think USSR let Saddem buy the Soviet tanks and other military equipment in the 1970's and 80's? They did not do it for humanitarian reasons, that I can assure you. When Saddem came to power in 1979, he executed every Ba'ath party member that could be a threat to his taking power, put them on public display in the street and took away the little freedoms the Iraqi poeple had at that time. He outlawed Shiite religious ceremonies. And the rest is history.

I never said the French were saints, I said they weren't stupid. The French have a long history of f**king up countries, just like the US and the UK (Vietnam anyone) ... but at least they seem to have learnt something in the last 100 years about not rushing into a war with no clear plan for the aftermath or clean up. What ever their motives the French knew that Bushes war was going to be a long term disaster.

No, the French thought that their lucrative contracts would be in jeapordy if Saddem was removed at this time. France has occassionally wanted a regime change, but only on its terms. Sound familiar. But going back to the origianal reason, the UN resolutions became a joke because the UN inspectors were equal to the Iraqis. Further, the inconsistent and hesitant use of force to get the Iraqis to comply made the inspections further useless. 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.

Oh believe me I am under no illusion that any of this is being done for the benifit of the Iraqi people. Iraq, as it has been for years, is still a puppet country being fought over by out side interests.

The sooner the UN get in and the US gets out the sooner Iraq can be returned to the Iraqis. But I don't see the US giving up control of their new prize anytime soon.

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! If you think it is for some blood thirsty quest, then you are wrong! In case you have not noticed, who is the most significant player in the UN, in terms of money, food aid programs, and such? It is the US. You may disagree with the reasons why my country went in. That is fine. But to make a statement that the UN is to help other counties is about as ludicrous as this statement was. The UN has more self interests than the US independently.

lili

so geronimo, in your opinion, why USA went in iraq?

mr_angry

You know, I'm actually glad someone is taking up the American's side in all of this, and promoting balanced argument, instead of just America-bashing. Now if only it made sense, and there was some sort of clear logic...

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I You are taking the p*ss, right? History didn't begin in 1900, although I appreciate that what went before has much less relevance.

No history did not start before 1900; howver, those clashes became even more apparent after WWII. But for your enjoyment, six years later the revolution that toppled the Bourbon monarchy dissipated some of the American warmth for France. In February 1793, at war again with Britain, France viewed George Washington's policy as partial to the enemy. It also regarded as hostile Jay's Treaty of November 1794 between Britain and America. To overcome this resentment John Adams in 1797 sent a special mission to Paris. When Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, the French foreign minister, demanded a bribe, Adams exposed the episode, known as the xyz Affair, and two years of hostilities at sea, or the Quasi-War, followed. It ended in September 1800 with the Treaty of Morfontaine which rid the United States of the "entangling" French alliance. We also had Adrew Jackson demanding payment and France severing all diplomatic ties. You had Napoleon III siding with the Confederacy and intervening in Mexico. President Lincoln objected and through judicious threats pressured them to leave in 1867. It has been an on again, off again relationship for nearly two hundred years. Depending on the mood and the circumstances, the US could be a close ally of France or it could be an agitator of France.

I don't know about you Geronimo, but I have yet to see ANY evidence of that being the case. We're told again and again that it is, but I'd prefer to see some proof, before obliterating a country. Yes, they had money, but when did they attack the US? Only after being invaded...

The question is not about attacking the US, the question is not complying with the UN resolutions. That is the evidence I am talking about.

lili

Originally posted by mr_angry4
You know, I'm actually glad someone is taking up the American's side in all of this, and promoting balanced argument, instead of just America-bashing. Now if only it made sense, and there was some sort of clear logic...

me, i would like to know, what was the logic of this war.
WDMs?
we know now that it was a fake reason. and the intelligencies of every countries knew that before the war.

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

put down a tyran?
that's the only point acceptable to my eyes, but under which rights a country can invade another?

finally iraq is free, so? do you think that a country in a complet chao and not far to a civilian war might be reconizing to their liberators?

and now, the must of the must, after have pissed on UN, USA call to an help with their conditions?
my word! but they mocke us!!!

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Oh thats priceless.

Thats like saying the US doesn't need international bases to project its force around the globe because it has subs, planes, and carrier groups.

Do you even know what the capabilities of a U-boat were? Its range? Its armanent?

The absolute most that could have been done was sink some boats that were on their way to Europe...which is exactly what was done.

Anything else was too far to be in range of the "force projection" capability of the German Navy.

Germany in WW2 attacking the US...what a priceless notion.

jc

I know you misunderstood my post. The common belief was that Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ociean (this was in 1939, not 2003). This was one of the reasons Americans had not to get involved at that time (it was one of the reasons for isolationism). Yes I know the capabilities of the German U-Boat, but judging from you post, I guess you don't, but that is besides the point!

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
me, i would like to know, what was the logic of this war.
WDMs?
we know now that it was a fake reason. and the intelligencies of every countries knew that before the war.

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

put down a tyran?
that's the only point acceptable to my eyes, but under which rights a country can invade another?

finally iraq is free, so? do you think that a country in a complet chao and not far to a civilian war might be reconizing to their liberators?

and now, the must of the must, after have pissed on UN, USA call to an help with their conditions?
my word! but they mocke us!!!

For me, it was in violation of UN resolution 686 and others and thus, a violation of the cease fire accord in 1991.

lili

Originally posted by Geromino
For me, it was in violation of UN resolution 686 and others and thus, a violation of the cease fire accord in 1991.

so, why don't USA applie the same traitment to israel?

mr_angry

As far as I'm aware, Resolution 1441 super-seeded Resolution 686 as a means to better enforce weapons inspections.

Resolution 1441 stated that the Iraqis must fully comply with weapons inspectors, and destroy any weapons of mass destruction (or face "serious consequences"). The Iraqi government said that they were complying fully, and possessed no weapons of mass destruction other than those already seen and deemed decomissioned by UN weapons inspectors.

To this day, no such weapons have been found, and it has not been proved that the Iraqis lied in any way. I fail to see how this was a justification of the invasion.

No history did not start before 1900

I'm presuming this is a mis-print, or a Charlie's Angels 2-style attempt at humour. I apologise for even bringing it up, but I think you should edit that one.

Germany could not attack the US because of the Atlantic Ociean (this was in 1939, not 2003).

The Germans were operating a war on 3 fronts (East, West, and in North Africa, having already taken Denmark and Norway) at this stage. Hitler, mad as he was, wouldn't have opened a war on another front whether the Atlantic ocean was there or not. I assume he'd have at least finished off Europe before moving onto America, if he even would have got around to it at all. The Atlantic ocean is pretty much irrelevant.

Why are we talking about this anyway, that's besides the point.

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

put down a tyran?
that's the only point acceptable to my eyes, but under which rights a country can invade another?

Lilli, your spelling and capitalisation are incredibly bad! In any case, I feel democracy is possible in Muslim countries - I think its a bit of an insult to suggest otherwise. People have an image of Islam as projected by fundamentalists. Most ordinary muslims are well able to govern themselves without any problems.

If the Americans and British had gone in in order to free the Iraqi people, whom I believe had been asking for their help for years, I would have been perfectly behind the war. However, the hidden agendas, the lies, the sheer disregard for human life - I mean they blew up entire streets just to try to kill Saddam in a restaurant for God's sake - it just totally put me off.

But what does this have to do with the French? Lets face it, the whole "Freedom Fries" malarchy just showed what kind of society America has become under George Bush. I suggest everybody should see Neil Young's "Greendale" film - its a great example of the way things have gone in America. I feel kind of sorry for them.

lili

yes, i know, my english is really bad, but i keep the hope to speak it without grammar mistakes one day:D

well, do you know a democratic muslim country where the people are free to go in the streets for a manifestation?

mr_angry

Indonesia - the largest Muslim country in the world. Pure democracy. Of course, they do have the odd fundamentalist terrorist trying to kill foreigners, but we have the IRA and the UDA trying to kill themselves and each other on various occasions.

Geromino

Originally posted by lili
so, why don't USA applie the same traitment to israel?

Do not confuse the situation with Israel with that of Iraq or NK or Lybia, or East Timor.

mr_angry

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?

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?