What did Iraq ever done to the USA and UK? |
| Posted by: DaveDom | | Can someone please explain to me what Iraq has actually EVER done to the United States to warrant the kind of treatment it has recieved over the last 12 years. I'm not talking about words, I'm talking about ACTIONS that Iraq has taken AGAINST the United States. And we can discount the human rights angle on two counts:
1. America supported Iraq before during and AFTER the Kurds were gassed to death.
2. half a million children died because of sanctions imposed by the UN, and kept in place aggressively by the US and UK. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by DaveDom
Can someone please explain to me what Iraq has actually EVER done to the United States to warrant the kind of treatment it has recieved over the last 12 years. I'm not talking about words, I'm talking about ACTIONS that Iraq has taken AGAINST the United States. And we can discount the human rights angle on two counts:
1. America supported Iraq before during and AFTER the Kurds were gassed to death.
2. half a million children died because of sanctions imposed by the UN, and kept in place aggressively by the US and UK. |
1. First of all, let's not confuse Iraq with Saddam's regime.
2. Saddam's actions and self proclaimed ambitions threatened US (and rest of modern world) interests by putting the stable flow of oil at risk.
3. Saddam invaded a US ally.
4. Saddam is a known direct supporter of terrorist organizations. These terrorists are enemies of the US and our allies. Therefore Saddam is our direct enemy...
5. Saddam is an enemy of UN interests. He became an enemy for many reasons that include the above, plus human rights record, etc. US is a leading member of UN/UNSC.
6. It is in the US interest that a rogue regime NOT be allowed to act with impunity. It would serve as an example to others that they need not fear US or UN retribution.
7. Saddam's regime is incompatible with US/UN human rights minimum standards. Many regurgitate "US support" before and after the gassing of Kurds without a clear understanding of what they are saying. The primary US support for Iraq was in the form of agricultural loan guarantees that the US gov't provided to US exporters of agricultural products in a very competitive global trading environment. As is typical of many government bureaucracies, we have numerous departments, external lobbyists, etc., who are all trying to do their jobs. In Iraq it did take some time for the benefits to some companies/departments from increased exports, to be overshadowed by another department's need for consistent foreign policy. Gov't is a big slow machine. I think it is in fact telling that there was a lot of anti-Saddam activity after Kurds, a drop off trend in support, then direct military action within a few years. This is "light speed" by bureaucratic standards. Regarding our military support for Saddam during the war with Iran, it has been pretty well documented on this site that our military support was minimal, but that consultative support did increase dramatically as Iranian successes put Basra, and Iraq as a whole, at risk. This would have given the US (west) a similar problem of having a fundamentalist regime in charge of a major chunk of world oil that was not acceptable.
8. Sanctions - Caused problems for iraqi's but not Saddam. In a somewhat democratic country it may have been effective, but Saddam was very efficient in handling internal dissent. The obvious conclusion is that sanctions were a waste of time, caused great suffering, and that the UN should have removed Saddam long ago.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: BigUnit | | In what way did the U.S. support Iraq? I saw the Iraqi army using Russian equipment. I saw no American weapons at all during the conflict. Can you please list the weapon systems that were American and used by the Iraqi Army? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DaveDom | | Charles,
Confuse Saddam's regime with Iraq? It's the Iraqi people that have suffered for 12 years not Saddam. And one reason why the Iraqi people have suffered so much is because we have been looking after our own selfish western interests. But that is not the story we the public have been told. That is not what we are still being told this war was about. If we can't be told the truth because the public would not support war for reasons of self-interest then that's democracy. But instead we get bs about WMD, and threats to national security and Iraq is a terrorist threat.
Well as for Iraq and terrorism this looks like being a self-fullfilling prophecy, but that was never the case before this war, despite the lies. And it is disengenous to say Saddam supported terrorism because he supported the Palastinians. Saddam was infact as James Baker said after after he gassed the Kurds, a moderating influence in the region, the reason being his regime was both secular and he never supported the more radical Islamic fundamentalism that leads to anti-westernism and the kind of terrorism we are now facing.
So we're there in Iraq, we can't just leave because the country would most likely slip into civil war. I see that America will eventually have no choice - either put in more US troops or do what the UN wants and allow UN troops in under UN control.
Vietnam lumbered on for years because politicians didn't want to lose face. It seems once again soldiers and ordinary people are going to have to pay the price.
BigUnit,
Are you saying that the US has not supported Saddam's regime? America was helping both sides in the Iran Iraq war. In fact Kissinger once said something like - it's a shame both sides can't lose. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
1. First of all, let's not confuse Iraq with Saddam's regime.
2. Saddam's actions and self proclaimed ambitions threatened US (and rest of modern world) interests by putting the stable flow of oil at risk.
3. Saddam invaded a US ally.
4. Saddam is a known direct supporter of terrorist organizations. These terrorists are enemies of the US and our allies. Therefore Saddam is our direct enemy...
5. Saddam is an enemy of UN interests. He became an enemy for many reasons that include the above, plus human rights record, etc. US is a leading member of UN/UNSC.
6. It is in the US interest that a rogue regime NOT be allowed to act with impunity. It would serve as an example to others that they need not fear US or UN retribution.
7. Saddam's regime is incompatible with US/UN human rights minimum standards. Many regurgitate "US support" before and after the gassing of Kurds without a clear understanding of what they are saying. The primary US support for Iraq was in the form of agricultural loan guarantees that the US gov't provided to US exporters of agricultural products in a very competitive global trading environment. As is typical of many government bureaucracies, we have numerous departments, external lobbyists, etc., who are all trying to do their jobs. In Iraq it did take some time for the benefits to some companies/departments from increased exports, to be overshadowed by another department's need for consistent foreign policy. Gov't is a big slow machine. I think it is in fact telling that there was a lot of anti-Saddam activity after Kurds, a drop off trend in support, then direct military action within a few years. This is "light speed" by bureaucratic standards. Regarding our military support for Saddam during the war with Iran, it has been pretty well documented on this site that our military support was minimal, but that consultative support did increase dramatically as Iranian successes put Basra, and Iraq as a whole, at risk. This would have given the US (west) a similar problem of having a fundamentalist regime in charge of a major chunk of world oil that was not acceptable.
8. Sanctions - Caused problems for iraqi's but not Saddam. In a somewhat democratic country it may have been effective, but Saddam was very efficient in handling internal dissent. The obvious conclusion is that sanctions were a waste of time, caused great suffering, and that the UN should have removed Saddam long ago. |
... but none of those arguments can justify a "single" casualty.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: ickle | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
... but none of those arguments can justify a "single" casualty. |
I think they justify the a lot of the casualties. I'll start with Uday and Qusay, then throw in members of Iraqi Baath regime and members of the Iraqi military.
From everything I can tell, Iraqis sufffered as a result of Saddam's rule, not the sanctions. Have you read reports of how Saddam would orchestrate funeral processions of dead babies, strangely having signsin English at these concocted processions? Or how the claims of how many people supposedly died as a result of the sanctions don't gibe with Iraq's own census data?
By the way, Charles, you left out the fact that Iraq (Saddam) attempted to have a former US president assassinated.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: ickle | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by DaveDom
Are you saying that the US has not supported Saddam's regime? America was helping both sides in the Iran Iraq war. In fact Kissinger once said something like - it's a shame both sides can't lose. |
Kissinger was right.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: scottc | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by ickle
I think they justify the a lot of the casualties. I'll start with Uday and Qusay, then throw in members of Iraqi Baath regime and members of the Iraqi military.
From everything I can tell, Iraqis sufffered as a result of Saddam's rule, not the sanctions. Have you read reports of how Saddam would orchestrate funeral processions of dead babies, strangely having signsin English at these concocted processions? Or how the claims of how many people supposedly died as a result of the sanctions don't gibe with Iraq's own census data?
By the way, Charles, you left out the fact that Iraq (Saddam) attempted to have a former US president assassinated. |
The sanctions were responsible for 500,000 children under 5 dying from malnutrition and lack of medicine. This comes from UNICEF, who calculated the infant mortality rate before and after sanctions. Obviously, I should bow down to your superior knowledge of Iraqi infant mortality over UNICEF.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by scottc
The sanctions were responsible for 500,000 children under 5 dying from malnutrition and lack of medicine. This comes from UNICEF, who calculated the infant mortality rate before and after sanctions. Obviously, I should bow down to your superior knowledge of Iraqi infant mortality over UNICEF. |
Once again, s-crotch, this was a direct result of Saddam keeping food and medicine away from those who needed it. Anyway you slice it, s-crotch, it will come out D I C K - T A T O R.
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/about_us/
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: scottc | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Americaaah
Once again, s-crotch, this was a direct result of Saddam keeping food and medicine away from those who needed it. Anyway you slice it, s-crotch, it will come out D I C K - T A T O R.
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/about_us/ |
Saddam did not have a choice of keeping food and medicine away, since they could not get any. Since the food for oil resolution came into place the mortalities stabilised. They did not dramatically decline, however, since the USA decided to classify the majority of medicines as potential chemical weapons, so the Iraqi children continued to die.
God bless the deserting murderer.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by scottc
Saddam did not have a choice of keeping food and medicine away, since they could not get any. Since the food for oil resolution came into place the mortalities stabilised. They did not dramatically decline, however, since the USA decided to classify the majority of medicines as potential chemical weapons, so the Iraqi children continued to die.
God bless the deserting murderer. |
SPIN all you want, s-crotch. Food and medicine was NOT part of the sanctions. Nevertheless Saddam kept it from his people to make it look like they were being sanctioned. LOL
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | TV showed a lot of iraqis having potatos and rice as their only food. At best! Did USA ban meat, diary products, other vegetables from Iraq? Did USA disallow iraqis from making their own meat? It's a hot country with possibilities to develop agriculture. I am sure they could produce their own food and use export money on something else.
BUT! They did not. Who's fault is it, what do you think, scottc? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: ickle | | Don't pay any attention to scottc. He has proven himself to be a bitter delusional alcoholic. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sayzak | | Saddam had what, 18 palaces? He could have saved EACH of those 500,000 malnurished children desembling 2 of those palaces. Those kids could have been fed for life.
Imagine had Hussien actually CARED about his people? What that country could be like... | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Why is it that you think America did anything?
What you should be asking is why Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Iran or France did nothing? Why is that American has to feed the world?
Saddam FORCED his country to suffer for his greed. It's that simple. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by ickle
I think they justify the a lot of the casualties. |
?! C'mon mate!!!
Would you dare explaining one of those famillies who lost a son in this war that it was because of a dictator somewhere in middle east, who could poddibly have WMD, and possibly have the technology, and could possibly use missilles, possibly against USA or another western country? Please stop it!!!Be pragmatic! All of this crap is ridiculous!
Whatever was said or written-war means business, specially for medias-, it is clear that Saddam is an *******, but it is also clear that he never was a threat to western civilization. I's all about oil, politics and familly's business...Whole Europe is now convinced: wake up mate.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: ickle | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
?! C'mon mate!!!
Would you dare explaining one of those famillies who lost a son in this war that it was because of a dictator somewhere in middle east, who could poddibly have WMD, and possibly have the technology, and could possibly use missilles, possibly against USA or another western country? Please stop it!!!Be pragmatic! All of this crap is ridiculous!
Whatever was said or written-war means business, specially for medias-, it is clear that Saddam is an *******, but it is also clear that he never was a threat to western civilization. I's all about oil, politics and familly's business...Whole Europe is now convinced: wake up mate. |
That was a very cute oversimplification of the war.
If "he never was a threat to western civlization," why did the UN spend so much damn time and effort trying to control him? Was that just a UNSC hobby?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by ickle
That was a very cute oversimplification of the war.
If "he never was a threat to western civlization," why did the UN spend so much damn time and effort trying to control him? Was that just a UNSC hobby? |
Oversimplification according you.
Manipulation, lies and demonization according others. Where are those WMD? Where are the links with Al Quaida? Where is Ben Laden? In Iraq?!?!?? I thought it was a war afgainst terrorism...please explain me again the final goal, because I might have misunderstood something.
Oooopps, another scandal in UK. Blair's councillor resigned a few seconds ago..sounds like another watergate coming, isn't it?
This war is a mess and a huge scandal. Sadly, you still refuse to admit it...
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: ickle | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Oversimplification according you.
Manipulation, lies and demonization according others. Where are those WMD? Where are the links with Al Quaida? Where is Ben Laden? In Iraq?!?!?? I thought it was a war afgainst terrorism...please explain me again the final goal, because I might have misunderstood something.
Oooopps, another scandal in UK. Blair's councillor resigned a few seconds ago..sounds like another watergate coming, isn't it?
This war is a mess and a huge scandal. Sadly, you still refuse to admit it... |
I'll be happy to answer your questions after you answer mine. (Probably won't be until Tues though as I'm heading out for labor day weekend.)
If he wasn't a threat to Western civilization, then why did the UN seem to care so much about him and his WMDs?
Here's what your oversimplification missed:
Past use of WMDs on Kurds.
Invasion if Kuwait.
War with Iran - more WMD use.
Oppressive regime.
Tried to have a president assissinated.
12 years of taunting definace to UN regarding inspections.
Known WMD stockpiles unaccounted for.
Your oversimplification ignored all of these factors and makes it sound as though George Bush dreamed this up 6 months ago. Yes, a gross oversimplfication.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DaveDom | | or why the UN got involved...
Saddam could have tortured to his heart's content but he stupidly invaded Kuwait. Now that hurts the oil, and it's not just the US that wants all that lovely oil, so we all jumped on him and let everyone know what a monster he was to justify the killing of 300,000 conscripts and god knows how many civilians in the first Iraq war.
Then we crusify the Iraq people for 12 years and the guys still there and this is pissing the neo-cons off no end. Then 3000 people are killed in New York and the Americans want to kick someone and Afghanistan is just not enough so who's next in line - Saddam, even though everyon knows he had nothing to do with 9/11 or anything to do with terrorism.
By this time Bush, now in personal contact with God, is on a mission to rid the world of "evil". So while everyone else outside the UK and USA have realised that Iraq has been desimated and no threat to the region, let alone the world, Bush sends in the boys again for one final push, killing christ knows how many more conscripts and civilians and destroying what's left of the Iraqi infrastructure.
Happy ending to follow shortly I presume.
I hope this isn't too much of an over simplification. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by DaveDom
or why the UN got involved...
Saddam could have tortured to his heart's content but he stupidly invaded Kuwait. Now that hurts the oil, and it's not just the US that wants all that lovely oil, so we all jumped on him and let everyone know what a monster he was to justify the killing of 300,000 conscripts and god knows how many civilians in the first Iraq war.
Then we crusify the Iraq people for 12 years and the guys still there and this is pissing the neo-cons off no end. Then 3000 people are killed in New York and the Americans want to kick someone and Afghanistan is just not enough so who's next in line - Saddam, even though everyon knows he had nothing to do with 9/11 or anything to do with terrorism.
By this time Bush, now in personal contact with God, is on a mission to rid the world of "evil". So while everyone else outside the UK and USA have realised that Iraq has been desimated and no threat to the region, let alone the world, Bush sends in the boys again for one final push, killing christ knows how many more conscripts and civilians and destroying what's left of the Iraqi infrastructure.
Happy ending to follow shortly I presume.
I hope this isn't too much of an over simplification. |
Tried the Metamusil yet, DaveDumb, to get rid of all that crap you have bottled up?
______
"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."
We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!
http://www.ddaymuseum.org
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by ickle
I'll be happy to answer your questions after you answer mine. (Probably won't be until Tues though as I'm heading out for labor day weekend.)
If he wasn't a threat to Western civilization, then why did the UN seem to care so much about him and his WMDs?
Here's what your oversimplification missed:
Past use of WMDs on Kurds.
Invasion if Kuwait.
War with Iran - more WMD use.
Oppressive regime.
Tried to have a president assissinated.
12 years of taunting definace to UN regarding inspections.
Known WMD stockpiles unaccounted for.
Your oversimplification ignored all of these factors and makes it sound as though George Bush dreamed this up 6 months ago. Yes, a gross oversimplfication. |
I'll answer your question.
Because Saddam was getting dangerous a few years ago. I repeat, a few years ago. Since the 1st Gulf war, Saddam was under control.
Ever wonder why it's army did not fight? Isn't it because they just couldn't fight ? How can this country be a danger to the world, when not able to attack Israel, or just able to defend itself?!?
Shall l remind you that not only UN's inspections were permanently done, but that US and British troops were always there, shootings from time to time some radars? Your argumentation was acceptable 8 years ago, but is now no more up to date and needs to be seriously reconsidered. Awaiting your answer and enjoy your week end mate.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DaveDom | | Iraq - a threat to Israel???
Israel is the only nation in the region that America happily allows and supports the armourment of with more WMD than the rest of the region put together, including biological, chemical and NUCLEAR weapons. None of this is done openly.
America gives Israel $5billion dollars a year. Israel is a US satelite and "friend" to America acting as a permenant heavily armed military base in one of the most strategically important areas of the world.
Iraq a threat to Israel? More ridiculous propoganda.
I just hope Israel stays friends with the US because as everyone knows, the US has a habit of arming groups, countries and all kinds of lunatics that eventually won't do as they are told. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Because Saddam was getting dangerous a few years ago. I repeat, a few years ago. Since the 1st Gulf war, Saddam was under control.
Ever wonder why it's army did not fight? Isn't it because they just couldn't fight ? How can this country be a danger to the world, when not able to attack Israel, or just able to defend itself?!?
|
Hey french-fried, do you consider al Qaida a danger to the world? They have no military to speak of. Is al Qaida a threat or not? The answer is YES, YES—you genius, you. Are you that blinded by your anti-U.S. fury or just that stupid? It's not the Iraqi military that was a threat, you french-fried, cheese-eating appeasement monkey, you—it was the WMD and the fact that Saddam would not provide evidence that he had gotten rid of them. REMEMBER res. 1441? Ahhh, how easily you Euro-leftists like to brush that little detail aside. We in the U.S remember, however. We in the U.S. like to hold lawless dictators accountable for their attrocities and their violations. We're just funny that way. We prefer to f u c k 'em before they can f u c k us. Got it now, french-fried?
Oh, and remember.....
...JUST A THANK YOU WILL DO.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Sayzak | | What if America hadn't stepped in to help kill hitler? Would we be calling you? Germanfries? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by sayzak21
What if America hadn't stepped in to help kill hitler? Would we be calling you? Germanfries? |
ooops, is that another one to ignore?..
We are perfectlty aware of what we owe, but once again, what was done 60 years ago is not a blank document. USA were the good guys in 1945. Sadly, they are now they are the invaders, looking for oil.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Curley Joe
Hey french-fried, do you consider al Qaida a danger to the world? They have no military to speak of. Is al Qaida a threat or not? The answer is YES, YES—you genius, you. Are you that blinded by your anti-U.S. fury or just that stupid? It's not the Iraqi military that was a threat, you french-fried, cheese-eating appeasement monkey, you—it was the WMD and the fact that Saddam would not provide evidence that he had gotten rid of them. REMEMBER res. 1441? Ahhh, how easily you Euro-leftists like to brush that little detail aside. We in the U.S remember, however. We in the U.S. like to hold lawless dictators accountable for their attrocities and their violations. We're just funny that way. We prefer to f u c k 'em before they can f u c k us. Got it now, french-fried?
Oh, and remember.....
...JUST A THANK YOU WILL DO. |
Sorry moron, no time to waste 4 u.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by DaveDom
Iraq - a threat to Israel???
Israel is the only nation in the region that America happily allows and supports the armourment of with more WMD than the rest of the region put together, including biological, chemical and NUCLEAR weapons. None of this is done openly.
America gives Israel $5billion dollars a year. Israel is a US satelite and "friend" to America acting as a permenant heavily armed military base in one of the most strategically important areas of the world.
Iraq a threat to Israel? More ridiculous propoganda.
I just hope Israel stays friends with the US because as everyone knows, the US has a habit of arming groups, countries and all kinds of lunatics that eventually won't do as they are told. |
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by DaveDom
Iraq - a threat to Israel???
Iraq a threat to Israel? More ridiculous propoganda.
|
Thanks mate, this is exactly what I am trying to point out.!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | What do you understand by 'threat'? Yes Iraq could send couple of missiles with some gas and kill a few thousand. That is a threat. Iraq could sell couple of missiles to SOME terrorist organization that could use them to attack Eiffel tower. Oh, they won't touch France - since you hate americans just like they do. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | Israel is the only nation in the region that America happily allows and supports the armourment of with more WMD than the rest of the region put together, including biological, chemical and NUCLEAR weapons. None of this is done openly.
If Israel has WMDs it does not mean they are gonna us them. A lot of countries around the globe possess WMD much more powerfull that Israel - Russia for example.
America gives Israel $5billion dollars a year. Israel is a US satelite and "friend" to America acting as a permenant heavily armed military base in one of the most strategically important areas of the world.
I would say the only democratic country in the region and a close ally to USA. Country that won't use WMD on it's own population only because it's able to. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DaveDom | | Originally posted by MrJukoVette
If Israel has WMDs it does not mean they are gonna us them. A lot of countries around the globe possess WMD much more powerfull that Israel - Russia for example.
Altenatively because they've got them they could use them. And saying it's okay to continue arming and training and supporting Israel is okay because Russias got more WMD is hardly logical or sensible.
I'm sure when America supported, armed and trained the Mujahadeen/Al Quida it never crossed the US government's mind that these same people would a few years on bite the hand that fed them.
I would say the only democratic country in the region and a close ally to USA. Country that won't use WMD on it's own population only because it's able to.
Stable - how can Israel be stable? It's sits centre stage in one of the most unstable regions of the world, armed to the teeth. You have no idea what Israel is capable of. But don't learn any lessons from the past and carry on giving them money to build ever bigger bombs. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | Originally posted by DaveDom
Altenatively because they've got them they could use them.
They COULD... but they won't.
I'm sure when America supported, armed and trained the Mujahadeen/Al Quida it never crossed the US government's mind that these same people would a few years on bite the hand that fed them.
Actually i think it did cross their minds, but they had no choice but to support opposition to USSR - since american troops in Afghanistan would mean the beginning of USA - USSR war. Possible, WW3.
Stable - how can Israel be stable? It's sits centre stage in one of the most unstable regions of the world, armed to the teeth. You have no idea what Israel is capable of. But don't learn any lessons from the past and carry on giving them money to build ever bigger bombs.
Oh yes i am aware of Israel's military power but you gonna understand that it won't be used without US permission. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Curley Joe | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Sorry moron, no time to waste 4 u. |
Hey french-fried, that's all you DO is waste your time. Do you really think that all the hours you put into these anti-U.S., propagandist posts are going to make an iota of difference in the way America takes care of business? Yeah, hah ha ha hah! You just keep on stroking yourself—rhetoric is all you pathetic appeasement monkeys have left.....
Do you consider al Qaeda a danger to the world? They have no military to speak of. Is al Qaeda a threat or not? The answer is YES, YES—you genius, you. Are you that blinded by your anti-U.S. fury or just that stupid? It's not the Iraqi military that was a threat, you french-fried, cheese-eating appeasement monkey, you—it was the WMD and the fact that Saddam would not provide evidence that he had gotten rid of them. REMEMBER res. 1441? Ahhh, how easily you Euro-leftists like to brush that little detail aside. We in the U.S. remember, however. We in the U.S. like to hold lawless dictators accountable for their atrocities and their violations. We're just funny that way. We prefer to f u c k 'em before they can f u c k us. Got it now, french-fried?
Oh, and remember.....
REMEMBER, JUST A THANK YOU WILL DO.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by MrJukoVette
- since you hate americans just like they do. |
Interesting how u categorize.
Pro WAR? Than you are a friend or a patriot.
Against war: it is simply because you are French and for this reason you hate USA.
A little bit simplistic, no? Or is it a kind binary thinking? 0-1; yes/no, wrong /right; friend/foe?
Thanks God, all Americans are not like u, and use what is between their ears. Or are they stupid frenchies too mate?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DaveDom | |
| quote: |
DaveDom
Altenatively because they've (ISRAEL) got them they could use them. (WMD)
MrJukoVette
They COULD... but they won't.
|
yeah yeah yeah yeah - right - they won't - of course they won't - yes you know this for sure - they won't. Okay, I can't argue with you because well - YOU JUST KNOW.
| quote: |
Davedom
I'm sure when America supported, armed and trained the Mujahadeen/Al Quida it never crossed the US government's mind that these same people would a few years on bite the hand that fed them.
MrJukoVette
Actually i think it did cross their minds, but they had no choice but to support opposition to USSR - since american troops in Afghanistan would mean the beginning of USA - USSR war. Possible, WW3. |
Again you appear to have no clue what happened. America set a trap for Russia in Afghanistan and drew them into it. This has been proudly stated by US government officials who thought the whole thing was masterfully done and was all about giving Russia there very own Vietanam. And it worked better than they could ever have hoped. Nice.
| quote: |
DaveDom
Stable - how can Israel be stable? It's sits centre stage in one of the most unstable regions of the world, armed to the teeth. You have no idea what Israel is capable of. But don't learn any lessons from the past and carry on giving them money to build ever bigger bombs.
MrJukoVette
Oh yes i am aware of Israel's military power but you gonna understand that it won't be used without US permission. [/B] |
Without US permission!? Really and things can't go wrong can they. The unexpected just can't happen, not in Israel, not in safe stable Israel. Oh I forgot - YOUI JUST KNOW so there's no point in arguing.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | Originally posted by frenchfries
Interesting how u categorize.
Pro WAR? Than you are a friend or a patriot.
Against war: it is simply because you are French and for this reason you hate USA.
Come onn frenchfries you know what i am talking about - you hate americans. You do right? Regardless of the war, for long time already - anti-americanism is in your soul.
Thanks God, all Americans are not like u, and use what is between their ears. Or are they stupid frenchies too mate?
LOL I am not american and there are stupid people everywhere - including France.
Originally posted by DaveDom
yeah yeah yeah yeah - right - they won't - of course they won't - yes you know this for sure - they won't. Okay, I can't argue with you because well - YOU JUST KNOW.
I am sure they won't. Are you sure they will? If yes, then why?
Again you appear to have no clue what happened. America set a trap for Russia in Afghanistan and drew them into it. This has been proudly stated by US government officials who thought the whole thing was masterfully done and was all about giving Russia there very own Vietanam. And it worked better than they could ever have hoped. Nice.
So why do you think Russia attacked Afghanistan?
Without US permission!? Really and things can't go wrong can they. The unexpected just can't happen, not in Israel, not in safe stable Israel. Oh I forgot - YOUI JUST KNOW so there's no point in arguing.
What things? Weapons are NOT being launched by their own. US won't let Israel use WMD anywhere. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by MrJukoVette
Originally posted by frenchfries
Come onn frenchfries you know what i am talking about - you hate americans. You do right? Regardless of the war, for long time already - anti-americanism is in your soul.
. |
Oh yes, really? And for a long time already? wow...and Is there anybody else I hate? Please tell me, I REALLY need to know doctor.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | You know better. I am not accusing you of having negative opinion about certain groups of people - hate whomever you want, but when discussing this particular matter you should think rationally and not emotionally. There are smart and stupid, good and bad, carefull and careless, etc. in every nation - we are talking about global politics here, nation's characteristics are irrelevant. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
Interesting how u categorize.
Pro WAR? Than you are a friend or a patriot.
Against war: it is simply because you are French and for this reason you hate USA.
A little bit simplistic, no? Or is it a kind binary thinking? 0-1; yes/no, wrong /right; friend/foe?
Thanks God, all Americans are not like u, and use what is between their ears. Or are they stupid frenchies too mate? |
But honestly frenchy, what is the reason that you do not support the ousting of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq? UNSC resolutions will be enforced, and you have the opportunity to support a new Iraq ---> and a possible change in the ME in general. Its ok if you prefered Saddam and status quo - just come out and say it.
At this stage of the game, when the very impressionable and stressed Iraqi's hear only "US is bad" from all around them, do you think that is productive and will lead to a stable and prosperous Iraq? Throw in nationalism, propaganda, violent provokations - and where will it lead?
Right where you want it...
Excuse me for not saying thanks.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
...At this stage of the game, when the very impressionable and stressed Iraqi's hear only "US is bad" from all around them, do you think that is productive and will lead to a stable and prosperous Iraq? Throw in nationalism, propaganda, violent provokations - and where will it lead?
Right where you want it...
Excuse me for not saying thanks. |
?! Shall I understand that the reason of the complete fail of this war is due to external critics influencing badlythe Iraqis, and compromising all efforts to restore peace, properity and democracy?!!????
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by MrJukoVette
You know better. I am not accusing you of having negative opinion about certain groups of people - hate whomever you want,..... |
you desperatly expect me to hate somebody mate!!!
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | Originally posted by frenchfries
?! Shall I understand that the reason of the complete fail of this war
Since when did this war completely fail???
is due to external critics influencing badlythe Iraqis, and compromising all efforts to restore peace, properity and democracy?!!????
Depends on whether iraqis are aware of world-wide anti-war moods. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
| ?! Shall I understand that the reason of the complete fail of this war is due to external critics influencing badlythe Iraqis, and compromising all efforts to restore peace, properity and democracy?!!???? |
Well, since everyone likes simple solution of painting things in black/white, success/fail, let's choose a more complicated route, shall we?
My point is that support for status quo in Saddam's Iraq, and anti-US propaganda, is a huge factor in how this will play out. Unfortunately, there is no set result, just a process of destruction and suffering that could be longer, or shorter.
The intentions of many anti-US countries is to see the US suffer for being a big bad bully and evil empire. They care little for Iraq.
Let's look at the positions of anti-US camp before, during, and after war, and how their positions have influenced outcome (of course they would like to think that since they did not participate, they are not accountable).
Prewar.
Saddam violates resolutions repeatedly and blatantly for over a decade. This is the unanimous opinion of UNSC members in 1441. It is clear even to French FM that Saddam could never be trusted.
Instead of leveraging all available means to pressure Saddam, UNSC leading members immediately move to reduce pressure by sending mixed signals - the ultimatum really wasn't ultimatum, we will not authorize force, immediate means later, unconditional except for any conditions you may have, etc. Meanwhile US/UK soldiers build up on border posturing for attack. Acting without support, and against a wave of popular outcry around the world that was not countered by anyone, the US/UK continue trying to convey to Saddam that this is big time serious. France says they will veto use of force even though even Blix admits that the only concessions from Saddam based upon threat of US/UK force. Saddam smug once again. Evil US prepares for invasion.
US invades, anti US camp doesn't raise a peep to calm wave of outcry against evil empire.
Military campaign overwhelmingly successful. Iraqi army melts away. There is tangible rejoicing by many Iraqis (not all of course).
Still no support for US. Still no "balance" to world opinion. Its good that Saddam is gone but... (and the murmers fade away). US is evil empire is the word of the day. Forces dedicated to opposing US continue propaganda campaign that is readily absorbed by ME. No one in ME condemns Saddam but instead condemn US.
Power vacuum ensues, no moral/verbal support for overthrow of Saddam - no actions to back US and stability in Iraq. The "Stressed" Iraqi's hear one side and one side only. what happens? Provocations ensue, inviting retaliation, descreasing stability, feuling fire for more provocations.
I am absolutely convinced that if UNSC had supported their own ultimatum, getting rid of Saddam would have been inevitable (because he could never be trusted to comply) and less costly to all involved. The process of stabilization and reconstruction would be much quicker, and the chances of success much higher.
So to answer your question - YES absolutely. I posted this opinion before the war even started.
Your thinly veiled hostility to US, while achieving goal of getting more US soldiers killed, is also directly responsible for increased death and destruction in Iraq. To put it another way, if you had done the right thing and supported enforcing 1441 and the overthrow of Saddam, it would have impacted world opinion, pressure could have been put on ME regimes to provide a more balanced assessment, and there would be less death/destruction and more stability paving the way for reconstruction and transfer of power back to Iraqi's.
Excuse me for not saying thanks.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
Well, since everyone likes simple solution of painting things in black/white, success/fail, let's choose a more complicated route, shall we?
My point is that support for status quo in Saddam's Iraq, and anti-US propaganda, is a huge factor in how this will play out. Unfortunately, there is no set result, just a process of destruction and suffering that could be longer, or shorter.
The intentions of many anti-US countries is to see the US suffer for being a big bad bully and evil empire. They care little for Iraq.
Let's look at the positions of anti-US camp before, during, and after war, and how their positions have influenced outcome (of course they would like to think that since they did not participate, they are not accountable).
Prewar.
|
I will only answer partly to your mail today, as I am running out of time today. Iwill anser the 2nd part later.
Well, since everyone likes simple solution of painting things in black/white, success/fail, let's choose a more complicated route, shall we? [/QUOTE]
yes , definitely. Iraq is a bit too complicated for binary thinking.
My point is that support for status quo in Saddam's Iraq, and anti-US propaganda, is a huge factor in how this will play out. Unfortunately, there is no set result, just a process of destruction and suffering that could be longer, or shorter.
[/QUOTE]
No status quo, because it solves nothing.
USA and allies made an error , and just can't get out of this trap.
UN needs to be consulted.
Perhaps Iraqis will support a true international force. But first of all, ressources will have to be given back to them.
Now you can-t blame other nations of this failure. Those nations tried to warn you that reasons were still lacking, proofs were lies and plans were rubbish.
Despite those warnings-of western nations beeing pro democracy- , your president decided to go to war.
Result: no Saddam, no links with Al Quaida established, no WMD, nothing!
You can-t blame others for that: it's your mistake !!!! Stop seeing western evil nations : It is pure non sense, and is more hysterical than rational mate.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by MrJukoVette
Originally posted by frenchfries
?! Shall I understand that the reason of the complete fail of this war
Since when did this war completely fail???
. |
Please...be pragmatic: where are the WMD, Saddam and Al quaida link?
Is the death toll increasing?
Is the situation improving?
Did this War achieved something against terrorism
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
| Now you can-t blame other nations of this failure. Those nations tried to warn you that reasons were still lacking, proofs were lies and plans were rubbish. |
My contention is that before, during, and after the war, the position of the French in direct opposition to the US (not just disagreement) has significantly impacted the results of each of those phases.
Before the war: 1441 ultimatum agreed to, but rendered worthless by France's public position not to enforce. Since even Blix admitted that the only procedural progress made was due to real threat of force, the undermining of that threat sent mixed signals to Saddam as to the possible outcome. Saddam never convinced anyone, and certainly not the French FM who stated that Saddam cound NEVER be trusted, that he had undergone a "sea change" and was ready to completely, unconditionally, and immediately comply with all UNSC resolutions. It is reasonable to assume that until the end, Saddam thought that he could sneak by once again because of the mixed signals being sent by key UNSC members (French).
What was the alternative? The French could have at least postured, sent troops, publicly stated that the game was up, and to guarantee compliance 1441 would be enforced without question. Who else would have taken this line? What impact would it have had on world opinion, ME opinion? Would a wave have started in the opposite direction? Is it too far a stretch of the imagination that Saddam would have prostrated himself before the world community, apologized, come clean, changed his ways, opened his doors, disclosed everything, etc?
During the war: Public opposition to US. US acting illegally and illegitimately. No efforts to stem anti-US propoganda mob mentality waves spreading through world opinion. No efforts to publicly denounce absurd propaganda in the ME - all the while knowing that it was a load of crap. All the while knowing that this only led to Saddam continuing to hope he could get away again, boosting the moral of his supporters against the evil US, increasing again the wave of support for Saddam in ME with all propaganda repurcussions. All of this increasing resistance and casualties on both sides.
What was the alternative? Again, UNSC consensus, public denouncing of Saddam, public denouncing of stupid propaganda. Nice try Saddam but you are finished. You failed to comply. Now everyone lay down their arms and allow the UN assume its responsibility of verifying compliance that no longer is dependent upon the whims of Hussein. He had his chance. He is no longer part of the discussion. Shift in world opinion eroding mortal of Saddam's supporters. Clear deliniation between supporting Saddam against will of UNSC, and support for a new Iraq. All leading to Saddam giving up, less resistance, less death and destruction on both sides. Smoother transition, less provocation and escalation.
After the war: French straddle fence by continuing to denounce US occupation as illegitimate, reluctant to provide any support for new regime, but agreeing that getting rid of Saddam is good. No efforts to counterbalance anti-US propaganda in world and especially ME, knowing full well that US isn't going to steal oil for Isreal, etc. Lack of firm position denouncing Saddam and supporting new Iraq continues to fuel fires, still gives Saddam and radical elements hope, increases escalation, death, destruction.
What was the alternative? Again, clear public support for getting rid of Saddam. Clear public commitment to helping Iraq. Clear public commitment to denouncing extremists and stabilizing a new Iraq for the Iraqis. Clear public statements denouncing provocative rhetoric and working to shape world/ME opinion to accept the reality that getting rid of Saddam is good (already admitted quietly), and that Iraq has a strong future and should be patient while country stabilizes and transition to new government. Etc., etc.
So where are we now? Do you really believe that France had no role to play in all this? Do you really believe that France bears no responsibility?
| quote: |
| Result: no Saddam, no links with Al Quaida established, no WMD, nothing |
Well, to skip over a few of your sound bites...
Saddam is out of power.
Saddam was repeatedly condemned by UNSC for support of terrorists (do you deny links???),
and a new Iraq will be far less likely to use or threaten with WMD.
| quote: |
| You can-t blame others for that: it's your mistake !!!! Stop seeing western evil nations : It is pure non sense, and is more hysterical than rational mate. |
I do blame some countries including France for promoting policies (to this day) that directly impact situation and lead to more violence and destruction and less stability.
France admitted that getting rid of Saddam was good. If in your opinion doing a good thing is a mistake, then this whole discussion is rather pointless.
I don't think other western nations are "evil." I do think some are acting incorrectly and cynically in an effort to counter the US, just for the sake of making a name for themselves in opposition to the US, to cater to whimsical public opinion, and in contradiction to the basic fact that our true interests coincide.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
My contention is that before, during, and after the war, the position of the French in direct opposition to the US (not just disagreement) has significantly impacted the results of each of those phases.
Before the war: 1441 ultimatum agreed to, but rendered worthless by France's public position not to enforce. Since even Blix admitted that the only procedural progress made was due to real threat of force, the undermining of that threat sent mixed signals to Saddam as to the possible outcome. Saddam never convinced anyone, and certainly not the French FM who stated that Saddam cound NEVER be trusted, that he had undergone a "sea change" and was ready to completely, unconditionally, and immediately comply with all UNSC resolutions. It is reasonable to assume that until the end, Saddam thought that he could sneak by once again because of the mixed signals being sent by key UNSC members (French).
What was the alternative? The French could have at least postured, sent troops, publicly stated that the game was up, and to guarantee compliance 1441 would be enforced without question. Who else would have taken this line? What impact would it have had on world opinion, ME opinion? Would a wave have started in the opposite direction? Is it too far a stretch of the imagination that Saddam would have prostrated himself before the world community, apologized, come clean, changed his ways, opened his doors, disclosed everything, etc?
During the war: Public opposition to US. US acting illegally and illegitimately. No efforts to stem anti-US propoganda mob mentality waves spreading through world opinion. No efforts to publicly denounce absurd propaganda in the ME - all the while knowing that it was a load of crap. All the while knowing that this only led to Saddam continuing to hope he could get away again, boosting the moral of his supporters against the evil US, increasing again the wave of support for Saddam in ME with all propaganda repurcussions. All of this increasing resistance and casualties on both sides.
What was the alternative? Again, UNSC consensus, public denouncing of Saddam, public denouncing of stupid propaganda. Nice try Saddam but you are finished. You failed to comply. Now everyone lay down their arms and allow the UN assume its responsibility of verifying compliance that no longer is dependent upon the whims of Hussein. He had his chance. He is no longer part of the discussion. Shift in world opinion eroding mortal of Saddam's supporters. Clear deliniation between supporting Saddam against will of UNSC, and support for a new Iraq. All leading to Saddam giving up, less resistance, less death and destruction on both sides. Smoother transition, less provocation and escalation.
After the war: French straddle fence by continuing to denounce US occupation as illegitimate, reluctant to provide any support for new regime, but agreeing that getting rid of Saddam is good. No efforts to counterbalance anti-US propaganda in world and especially ME, knowing full well that US isn't going to steal oil for Isreal, etc. Lack of firm position denouncing Saddam and supporting new Iraq continues to fuel fires, still gives Saddam and radical elements hope, increases escalation, death, destruction.
What was the alternative? Again, clear public support for getting rid of Saddam. Clear public commitment to helping Iraq. Clear public commitment to denouncing extremists and stabilizing a new Iraq for the Iraqis. Clear public statements denouncing provocative rhetoric and working to shape world/ME opinion to accept the reality that getting rid of Saddam is good (already admitted quietly), and that Iraq has a strong future and should be patient while country stabilizes and transition to new government. Etc., etc.
So where are we now? Do you really believe that France had no role to play in all this? Do you really believe that France bears no responsibility?
Well, to skip over a few of your sound bites...
Saddam is out of power.
Saddam was repeatedly condemned by UNSC for support of terrorists (do you deny links???),
and a new Iraq will be far less likely to use or threaten with WMD.
I do blame some countries including France for promoting policies (to this day) that directly impact situation and lead to more violence and destruction and less stability.
France admitted that getting rid of Saddam was good. If in your opinion doing a good thing is a mistake, then this whole discussion is rather pointless.
I don't think other western nations are "evil." I do think some are acting incorrectly and cynically in an effort to counter the US, just for the sake of making a name for themselves in opposition to the US, to cater to whimsical public opinion, and in contradiction to the basic fact that our true interests coincide. |
Thanks for your -long- answer.
First of all, Let me be clear on this point: I do not like Chirac. But nevertheless, except for the veto threat, I agree with France's position not to go to war.
Perhaps u will understand that not to be agree with USA does not mean beeing anti USA.(it seems that this fact is extremely hard to understand for some people, or is a very pretty convenient mean to escape criticisms). If u can understand that, then discussion will be possible.
I still not understand why SUDDENLY, Iraq was an issue. What is the link with the 9/11?!!? I would be glad if you could explain me, as nobody never answered me on this issue...
You mentionned that France was systematically against USA. Where is the interest? What is more worth it? Business with Iraq, or with USA?!!??
Ever thought of the huge economical interest that we have in USA?!
furthermore, please remember: what happend immediately after the 9/11 attack? Did France -and other western countries-send troops to Afghanistan to support USA? Who was the 1st foreign president on ground base?!
Chirac refused that French soldiers got killed on Iraq, because this war was never not justified. NOT IN Afghanistan, i.e. not against terrorism, whre this war is justified. Once again, awaiting your answer regarding link between Iraq and 9/11...
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
coming back to your second part
[B]
...Prewar.
Saddam violates resolutions repeatedly and blatantly for over a decade. This is the unanimous opinion of UNSC members in 1441. It is clear even to French FM that Saddam could never be trusted.
Instead of leveraging all available means to pressure Saddam, UNSC leading members immediately move to reduce pressure by sending mixed signals - the ultimatum really wasn't ultimatum, we will not authorize force, immediate means later, unconditional except for any conditions you may have, etc.
|
What's the point? Internal discussions were mediatised, that's all. Shall the world obey to Bush?
Meanwhile US/UK soldiers build up on border posturing for attack.
[/QUOTE]
- Refused to listen to reason, despite all...
Acting without support, and against a wave of popular outcry around the world that was not countered by anyone, the US/UK continue trying to convey to Saddam that this is big time serious.
[/QUOTE]
Because USA-and not UK- decided that whatever the reasons are, Bush Jr would finish Dad's job.
France says they will veto use of force even though even Blix admits that the only concessions from Saddam based upon threat of US/UK force. Saddam smug once again. Evil US prepares for invasion.
[/QUOTE]
Evil? Why evil?
US invades, anti US camp doesn't raise a peep to calm wave of outcry against evil empire.
[/QUOTE]
Evil again? Isn-t it an easy way to avoird and escape criticisms? Why are they ALL against me?! Feeling persecuted?
Military campaign overwhelmingly successful. Iraqi army melts away. There is tangible rejoicing by many Iraqis (not all of course).
[/QUOTE]
melted? Iraqis NEVER resisted. They were too glad to get rid of Saddam...But now, because US and allies failed to establish security and democracy, they are fighting, with guerilla war, to be more precise. As you know, guerilla is extremely hard to fight, especially without population's support.
Still no support for US. Still no "balance" to world opinion. Its good that Saddam is gone but... (and the murmers fade away). US is evil empire is the word of the day. Forces dedicated to opposing US continue propaganda campaign that is readily absorbed by ME. No one in ME condemns Saddam but instead condemn US.
Power vacuum ensues, no moral/verbal support for overthrow of Saddam - no actions to back US and stability in Iraq. The "Stressed" Iraqi's hear one side and one side only. what happens? Provocations ensue, inviting retaliation, descreasing stability, feuling fire for more provocations.
[/QUOTE]
Why should the world support an agression?!
I am absolutely convinced that if UNSC had supported their own ultimatum, getting rid of Saddam would have been inevitable (because he could never be trusted to comply) and less costly to all involved. The process of stabilization and reconstruction would be much quicker, and the chances of success much higher.
[/QUOTE]
USA never intended to help Iraqis. They are not stupid, neiver we are!
So to answer your question - YES absolutely. I posted this opinion before the war even started.
Your thinly veiled hostility to US, while achieving goal of getting more US soldiers killed, is also directly responsible for increased death and destruction in Iraq. To put it another way, if you had done the right thing and supported enforcing 1441 and the overthrow of Saddam, it would have impacted world opinion, pressure could have been put on ME regimes to provide a more balanced assessment, and there would be less death/destruction and more stability paving the way for reconstruction and transfer of power back to Iraqi's.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry mate, but accusing me of beeing anti USa is just stupid.
Nevertheless, I can-t understand and support your position.: does this make of me a communist or a foe?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: DaveDom | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Charles
My contention is that before, during, and after the war, the position of the French in direct opposition to the US (not just disagreement) has significantly impacted the results of each of those phases.
Before the war: 1441 ultimatum agreed to, but rendered worthless by France's public position not to enforce. Since even Blix admitted that the only procedural progress made was due to real threat of force, the undermining of that threat sent mixed signals to Saddam as to the possible outcome. Saddam never convinced anyone, and certainly not the French FM who stated that Saddam cound NEVER be trusted, that he had undergone a "sea change" and was ready to completely, unconditionally, and immediately comply with all UNSC resolutions. It is reasonable to assume that until the end, Saddam thought that he could sneak by once again because of the mixed signals being sent by key UNSC members (French).
What was the alternative? The French could have at least postured, sent troops, publicly stated that the game was up, and to guarantee compliance 1441 would be enforced without question. Who else would have taken this line? What impact would it have had on world opinion, ME opinion? Would a wave have started in the opposite direction? Is it too far a stretch of the imagination that Saddam would have prostrated himself before the world community, apologized, come clean, changed his ways, opened his doors, disclosed everything, etc?
During the war: Public opposition to US. US acting illegally and illegitimately. No efforts to stem anti-US propoganda mob mentality waves spreading through world opinion. No efforts to publicly denounce absurd propaganda in the ME - all the while knowing that it was a load of crap. All the while knowing that this only led to Saddam continuing to hope he could get away again, boosting the moral of his supporters against the evil US, increasing again the wave of support for Saddam in ME with all propaganda repurcussions. All of this increasing resistance and casualties on both sides.
What was the alternative? Again, UNSC consensus, public denouncing of Saddam, public denouncing of stupid propaganda. Nice try Saddam but you are finished. You failed to comply. Now everyone lay down their arms and allow the UN assume its responsibility of verifying compliance that no longer is dependent upon the whims of Hussein. He had his chance. He is no longer part of the discussion. Shift in world opinion eroding mortal of Saddam's supporters. Clear deliniation between supporting Saddam against will of UNSC, and support for a new Iraq. All leading to Saddam giving up, less resistance, less death and destruction on both sides. Smoother transition, less provocation and escalation.
After the war: French straddle fence by continuing to denounce US occupation as illegitimate, reluctant to provide any support for new regime, but agreeing that getting rid of Saddam is good. No efforts to counterbalance anti-US propaganda in world and especially ME, knowing full well that US isn't going to steal oil for Isreal, etc. Lack of firm position denouncing Saddam and supporting new Iraq continues to fuel fires, still gives Saddam and radical elements hope, increases escalation, death, destruction.
What was the alternative? Again, clear public support for getting rid of Saddam. Clear public commitment to helping Iraq. Clear public commitment to denouncing extremists and stabilizing a new Iraq for the Iraqis. Clear public statements denouncing provocative rhetoric and working to shape world/ME opinion to accept the reality that getting rid of Saddam is good (already admitted quietly), and that Iraq has a strong future and should be patient while country stabilizes and transition to new government. Etc., etc.
So where are we now? Do you really believe that France had no role to play in all this? Do you really believe that France bears no responsibility?
Well, to skip over a few of your sound bites...
Saddam is out of power.
Saddam was repeatedly condemned by UNSC for support of terrorists (do you deny links???),
and a new Iraq will be far less likely to use or threaten with WMD.
I do blame some countries including France for promoting policies (to this day) that directly impact situation and lead to more violence and destruction and less stability.
France admitted that getting rid of Saddam was good. If in your opinion doing a good thing is a mistake, then this whole discussion is rather pointless.
I don't think other western nations are "evil." I do think some are acting incorrectly and cynically in an effort to counter the US, just for the sake of making a name for themselves in opposition to the US, to cater to whimsical public opinion, and in contradiction to the basic fact that our true interests coincide. |
America's problems stems from just pissing off too many nations and I put that charge straight at the feet of George Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheyne etc. Their whole gung-ho approach to world politics is both dangerous and embarrassing.
Plus the US has consistently vetod UN resolutions when it suited it's own interests so what's the point in constantly bringing up 1441, especially when you know that that was not the final resolution that sanctioned war. There was supposed to be another.
But the US would not wait for Blix. France has once again stated that if Blix had been given the time he said he needed to finish his work and there was still problems, France would have supported the US.
Ultimately the US were never interested in the UN anyway and everyone knew this. It was actually the UK that had to drag the UN into the conflict to legitamise British action. It failed.
If things had gone smoother in Iraq, Bush, Rummie etc would now be unbearable and more than likely planning there next invasion. They have screwed up big-time in Iraq and I don't feel one bit of sympathy for them. This could all have been handled better by smarter politicians. What we don't need now is another 4 years of these idiots thinking they can solve the worlds problems alone.
Maybe it's a lesson for all of us.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by DaveDom
America's problems stems from just pissing off too many nations and I put that charge straight at the feet of George Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheyne etc. Their whole gung-ho approach to world politics is both dangerous and embarrassing.
Yeah we didn't piss off any nations prior to 2001. Everyone was our friend and nobody wanted to kill Americans. Do you believe this?
Plus the US has consistently vetod UN resolutions when it suited it's own interests so what's the point in constantly bringing up 1441, especially when you know that that was not the final resolution that sanctioned war. There was supposed to be another.
What resolutions has the US vetoed and why?
But the US would not wait for Blix. France has once again stated that if Blix had been given the time he said he needed to finish his work and there was still problems, France would have supported the US.
We waited 12 years prior to Blix, we waited 6 or 9 months with Blix. It was clear that Saddam wasn't going to cooperate
Ultimately the US were never interested in the UN anyway and everyone knew this. It was actually the UK that had to drag the UN into the conflict to legitamise British action. It failed.
Yeah we didn't care if the UN gave their stamp of approval but we figured if they wanted in on it we'd give them a chance. I guess they blew it.
If things had gone smoother in Iraq, Bush, Rummie etc would now be unbearable and more than likely planning there next invasion. They have screwed up big-time in Iraq and I don't feel one bit of sympathy for them. This could all have been handled better by smarter politicians. What we don't need now is another 4 years of these idiots thinking they can solve the worlds problems alone.
Maybe it's a lesson for all of us. |
What makes you think that things aren't going smoothly, the reports from the left wing media? It's only been a few months and I think things are going better than expected.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | Originally posted by frenchfries
Please...be pragmatic: where are the WMD, Saddam and Al quaida link?
I dont know where are WMDs and Saddam. Regarding Al Qaida, i repeat again that Bush didnt say about Al Qaida exactly when referring to supporting terrorism.
Is the death toll increasing?
Yes. So? This is a WAR!
Is the situation improving?
Yes.
Did this War achieved something against terrorism
What do you expect? All terrorist were supposed to disappear right after Saddam got overthrown?
You demand too much from the US. Remember frenchfries that YOUR country didnt even try to force Saddam to comply or to liberate Iraq. Not even a try, only opposition. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Edward Teach | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by MrJukoVette
Originally posted by frenchfries
Please...be pragmatic: where are the WMD, Saddam and Al quaida link?
I dont know where are WMDs and Saddam. Regarding Al Qaida, i repeat again that Bush didnt say about Al Qaida exactly when referring to supporting terrorism.
Is the death toll increasing?
Yes. So? This is a WAR!
Is the situation improving?
Yes.
Did this War achieved something against terrorism
What do you expect? All terrorist were supposed to disappear right after Saddam got overthrown?
You demand too much from the US. Remember frenchfries that YOUR country didnt even try to force Saddam to comply or to liberate Iraq. Not even a try, only opposition. |
Let's see what David Kaye has to say when he makes his report about the WMD and Saddams WMD programs. Just because they aren't reporting to the world doens't mean that they are not accomplishing anything.
Look at the death toll as compared to other wars. They are now going days between coalition casulties. It will continue to drop. We are still at war and in war people die.
Of course this war achieved something against terrorism, it appears to have drawn the terrorist to Iraq. I guess if you can't send an Army to the terrorist then bring the terrorist to the Army. But really, terrorist are finding that there are less places to hide. We will find them!!!!!!! It also showed other countries that they shouldn't let terrorist into their country or they may suffer the same fate as Iraq.
No the UN tried to get Saddam to comply, He chose not to.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: frenchfries | | [QUOTE]Originally posted by MrJukoVette
Originally posted by frenchfries
Please...be pragmatic: where are the WMD, Saddam and Al quaida link?
I dont know where are WMDs and Saddam. Regarding Al Qaida, i repeat again that Bush didnt say about Al Qaida exactly when referring to supporting terrorism.
Is the death toll increasing?
Yes. So? This is a WAR!
I thought it was over! Or isn't it what Top Gun Bush said a few months ago, from the bridge of a carrier??
Is the situation improving?
Yes.
Really? Why are you calling for UN for help then??
Did this War achieved something against terrorism
What do you expect? All terrorist were supposed to disappear right after Saddam got overthrown?
You demand too much from the US. Remember frenchfries that YOUR country didnt even try to force Saddam to comply or to liberate Iraq. Not even a try, only opposition.
This war was supposed to be against terrorism. So I expect that a few of them will be caught, and not only ressources.
Again, why should we support an agression?!? Please refer to my previous mail. Apparently, u missed it.blue | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Americaaah | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by frenchfries
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrJukoVette
Originally posted by frenchfries
[B]Please...be pragmatic: where are the WMD, Saddam and Al quaida link?
I dont know where are WMDs and Saddam. Regarding Al Qaida, i repeat again that Bush didnt say about Al Qaida exactly when referring to supporting terrorism.
Is the death toll increasing?
Yes. So? This is a WAR!
I thought it was over! Or isn't it what Top Gun Bush said a few months ago, from the bridge of a carrier?
Is the situation improving?
Yes.
Really? Why are you calling for UN for help then?
Did this War achieved something against terrorism
What do you expect? All terrorist were supposed to disappear right after Saddam got overthrown?
You demand too much from the US. Remember frenchfries that YOUR country didnt even try to force Saddam to comply or to liberate Iraq. Not even a try, only opposition.
This war was supposed to be against terrorism. So I expect that a willbe caught, not only ressources. Aagin, why should we support an agression?!? Please refer to my previous mail. Apparently, u missed it. |
Hey Frenchie, this bud's for you:
THE WORD OUT of the State Department is that Colin Powell and his troops are feverishly working to get a new U.N. resolution to get the U.N. involved in postwar Iraq. All I can say is, good luck! Why? Because the U.N. is filled with countries who simply hate America. And I got to tell you something else. Not only do they hate America. They would love to see nothing more than America fail in Iraq.
France, they’ve got their reasons. They had lucrative financial deals with Saddam Hussein and the United States‘ victory cost them billions and billions of dollars. And, of course, then there was Syria, a fellow Baathist regime who sat in judgment of America on the United Nations Security Council. Do you think they want us to succeed? And what about Libya, why, that famous arbiter of human rights who sits as a chairman of the U.N. Human Rights Council? Oh, but by the way, they just admitted to blowing up hundreds of civilians on a commercial airplane.
And let’s ask a bigger question. Why do we really w
|
|
