Current USA Europe relations

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Treyjun
I dont believe for one moment that any country misunderstood or had any illusions on how the current Bush admin would interpret the phrase "serious consequences" after all did not the UN spend somes weeks crafting the language of 1441. In diplo speak so that each country involved could take those words an sell im back home to the general public as supporting their *position*, nothing new here its a time honered tradition of dipolmacy. And make no mistake those words where chosen for their ambiguity.

yes, maybe, but thats why only the security council can define how to interpret them.
most people want to see a new un-resolution before the war starts and most members of the security council dont see any need for such a resolution right now.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i would guess they can carry conventional ammo aswell

Not in that configuration. Hussein agreed to destroy them and their 17,982 brothers. He did not do so. And he has no proof he destroyed the rest either.


and now tell me, why should saddam cooperate if bush wants to bomb him anyway? that doesnt make sence

All of those other things add up. There are more, I just have not bothered to memorize them all. You can just shrug your shoulders, and say that does not prove anything.

Hussein could have cooperated at any time in the last 12 years, but he refused to do so. He could have recently moved to Moscow or Saudi Arabia with a couple of billion euro. He chose not to do so. Now he realizes he is about to die, and he is afraid. Do you think he is afraid of Hans Blix or the 140,000 troops staged on his borders? He spit in the face of the United Nations over and over again. Without a credible display of force Hussein would continue to laugh at the United Nations and urinate on their inspectors. Now he says he is going to be all goody two shoes. Of course, he has lied before. If the United States pulls its troops out of the region. He will start up his old tricks again. It's all just a game to him, until it looks like he might be the one to die.

I am taking my girlfriend to valentine's dinner now. Have a nice evening everyone.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
All of those other things add up. There are more, I just have not bothered to memorize them all. You can just shrug your shoulders, and say that does not prove anything.

Hussein could have cooperated at any time in the last 12 years, but he refused to do so. He could have recently moved to Moscow or Saudi Arabia with a couple of billion euro. He chose not to do so. Now he realizes he is about to die, and he is afraid. Do you think he is afraid of Hans Blix or the 140,000 troops staged on his borders? He spit in the face of the United Nations over and over again. Without a credible display of force Hussein would continue to laugh at the United Nations and urinate on their inspectors. Now he says he is going to be all goody two shoes. Of course, he has lied before. If the United States pulls its troops out of the region. He will start up his old tricks again. It's all just a game to him, until it looks like he might be the one to die.

I am taking my girlfriend to valentine's dinner now. Have a nice evening everyone.

does it matter if he is scared of the us troops?
if those weapons can be destroyed without starting a war, that is exactly what should be done, ESPECIALLY in the current situation in the world. end of story.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
if those weapons can be destroyed without starting a war, that is exactly what should be done

OK, how do we do that?

After 12 years of inspections we have not been able to destroy those weapons, or to find proof that they have been destroyed, or to be convinced that new weapons aren't being built.

If your only answer is 'well let's do more inspections' then I have to believe you're not serious about eliminating those weapons.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
OK, how do we do that?

After 12 years of inspections we have not been able to destroy those weapons, or to find proof that they have been destroyed, or to be convinced that new weapons aren't being built.

If your only answer is 'well let's do more inspections' then I have to believe you're not serious about eliminating those weapons.

those inspectors destroyed far more weapons in the time they were there than all of your bombing.
what will happen to these weapons (if they exist) when you start your invasion? obviously you dont have any idea where they are neither, so what makes you think you will get them once the invasion started?
another point:
what will happen to iraq after you finished your invasion ?? i didnt hear any clear concept for that yet.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by wu_trax
those inspectors destroyed far more weapons in the time they were there than all of your bombing.

Nice misdirection, but no one is suggesting that those weapons can be eliminated through aerial bombardment.

what will happen to these weapons (if they exist) when you start your invasion?

I don't know. What will happen to them if we don't invade? When and where will they be used? And against who?

obviously you dont have any idea where they are neither, so what makes you think you will get them once the invasion started?

Well, there won't be a hostile government to impede the inspectors, intimidate people into not talking to inspectors, and otherwise moving stuff around to keep it from being found.

another point:
what will happen to iraq after you finished your invasion ?? i didnt hear any clear concept for that yet.

Democracy, peace, and prosperity--I hope. Even just one of those would be an improvement.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Tactitus
Nice misdirection, but no one is suggesting that those weapons can be eliminated through aerial bombardment.

I don't know. What will happen to them if we don't invade? When and where will they be used? And against who?

iraqs military capabilities are 'limited', to say the least. what can saddam do?

Well, there won't be a hostile government to impede the inspectors, intimidate people into not talking to inspectors, and otherwise moving stuff around to keep it from being found.

if i would be saddam i would give these weapons to al quaida in case of an invasion. in that case im dead anyway, so i can aswell kill a few evil americans. im an insane dictator after all.

Democracy, peace, and prosperity--I hope. Even just one of those would be an improvement.

all i read so far was about a military regime by the us-army. that would certainly be the opposite of what the middle east needs atm.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]iraqs military capabilities are 'limited', to say the least. what can saddam do?
[b]
if i would be saddam i would give these weapons to al quaida in case of an invasion. in that case im dead anyway, so i can aswell kill a few evil americans. im an insane dictator after all.


all i read so far was about a military regime by the us-army. that would certainly be the opposite of what the middle east needs atm.

Saddam could kill most of the people in Tel Aviv. I realize you probably would not find that to be a bad thing though. If the United States moved out of the Middle East entirely in order to appease the terrorists, Saddam would kill all the Jews in Israel with the help of the rest of the Arabs. Then the terrorists would think the United States is weak and launch even more attacks.

I suspect Saddam would give the weapons to terrorists whether his life is in danger or not.

The United States has a plan to put in a representative government. No one knows if it will work, but it has to be better than endless inspections and sanctions with Saddam play cat and mouse games with inspectors and the United Nations.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Saddam could kill most of the people in Tel Aviv.

ande then get nuked, pld plan

I realize you probably would not find that to be a bad thing though.

yes, im most certainly a nazi

If the United States moved out of the Middle East entirely in order to appease the terrorists, Saddam would kill all the Jews in Israel with the help of the rest of the Arabs. Then the terrorists would think the United States is weak and launch even more attacks.

Saddam != fundamentalist. today i read his vice president, Tarik Asis, is christian. that hardly qualifies saddam to symphazise with muslim fundamentalists, does it?
i didnt say the us should ignore bin laden for the future or reduce its effort to catch him. the whole point is (as i said at least 20 times before): by attacking iraq things will become worse, support for terrorism will increase, pro western countries will be destabelized and everything will be completly ****ed up.
fix the israel problem by finding a solution that is acceptable to the moderate fraction on both sides and you will solve the terrorism.

I suspect Saddam would give the weapons to terrorists whether his life is in danger or not.

and make it even more likely to get invaded and killed?? (see above)

The United States has a plan to put in a representative government. No one knows if it will work, but it has to be better than endless inspections and sanctions with Saddam play cat and mouse games with inspectors and the United Nations.

with whom in power? some random ex-general who is not at all better than saddam? would people accept that? would people in the countries around iraq accept that?
the whole idea of setting up a pro-us goverment (by whatever methods you want to ) does not seem to work so well in the middle east. it didnt work in iran and made things worse and afganistan is very far away from beeing a stable country.


edit: good night

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]ande then get nuked, pld plan
[b]
yes, im most certainly a nazi

[b]
Saddam != fundamentalist. today i read his vice president, Tarik Asis, is christian. that hardly qualifies saddam to symphazise with muslim fundamentalists, does it?
i didnt say the us should ignore bin laden for the future or reduce its effort to catch him. the whole point is (as i said at least 20 times before): by attacking iraq things will become worse, support for terrorism will increase, pro western countries will be destabelized and everything will be completly ****ed up.
fix the israel problem by finding a solution that is acceptable to the moderate fraction on both sides and you will solve the terrorism.

[b]
and make it even more likely to get invaded and killed?? (see above)

with whom in power? some random ex-general who is not at all better than saddam? would people accept that? would people in the countries around iraq accept that?
the whole idea of setting up a pro-us goverment (by whatever methods you want to ) does not seem to work so well in the middle east. it didnt work in iran and made things worse and afganistan is very far away from beeing a stable country.


edit: good night

Good night. See you tomorrow.

Israel does not have nuclear weapons, or at least they have not said they have nuclear weapons. Let's give Israel and Iraq the same benefit of the doubt shall we?

I did not say Muslim fundamentalists. Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland, FARC or Timothy McVeigh? There are lots of terrorists out there who would love to strike the west and don't give one rat's ass about attacking the Middle East.

Fixing Israel according to the moderates' views will not fix the problem. Hamas will not accept the moderates' fix and will continue suicide operations. You are very naive if you believe Hamas will accept a moderate solution.

Ignoring problems do not make them go away. Being nice to terrorists does not make them into nice guys. You are probably right that attacking Iraq will create more terrorists. I believe that backing down on Iraq will create more terrorists, too. This seems to be a situation where no matter what the United States does, there will be more terrorists. I realize you do not believe this to be true. You think if we pat them on the head and give them lots of money, they will stop wanting to kill us. I do not agree.

Afghanistan is better now than it was. Installing a Shah in Iraq was a mistake. Of course, now it seems that many of the Iranian people think choosing a theocracy was also a mistake. The difference is the United States made a weak Shah that the will of the people could overthrow. The will of the people made a strong Theocracy that the will of the people have, thus far, not been able to overthrow. With that said, there do seem to be many pro-United States governments in the Middle East. I'm not sure who set up Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan. Perhaps it was the British and the French -- the same people who so royally screwed up Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.

Did you know that at one time Yemen had a Jewish king?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Good night. See you tomorrow.

Israel does not have nuclear weapons, or at least they have not said they have nuclear weapons. Let's give Israel and Iraq the same benefit of the doubt shall we?

well, everyone thinks they have them, but that doesnt matter, for some strange reason there is no un-resolution that forbits them to have them.

I did not say Muslim fundamentalists. Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland, FARC or Timothy McVeigh? There are lots of terrorists out there who would love to strike the west and don't give one rat's ass about attacking the Middle East.

yes, but why is saddam one of them ?? i didnt see him burning us-flag or what ever.

Fixing Israel according to the moderates' views will not fix the problem. Hamas will not accept the moderates' fix and will continue suicide operations. You are very naive if you believe Hamas will accept a moderate solution.

it wont help from one day to the other, but on the long run it will strengthen the moderate fractions, the fundamentalists (on both sides) will loose support.

Ignoring problems do not make them go away. Being nice to terrorists does not make them into nice guys. You are probably right that attacking Iraq will create more terrorists. I believe that backing down on Iraq will create more terrorists, too. This seems to be a situation where no matter what the United States does, there will be more terrorists. I realize you do not believe this to be true. You think if we pat them on the head and give them lots of money, they will stop wanting to kill us. I do not agree.

as i already asked in another forum (without getting an answer):
why now ?? 12 years noone gave a **** about iraq, there was no large threat, but certainly the us-administration almost sounds like saddam is able to blow up half of the planet and is even willing to do it.
im sorry, but meanwhile i think its not about oil, its not about terrorism, its just about finding a replacment for bin laden.

Afghanistan is better now than it was.

kabul is better now than it was. thats it.

Installing a Shah in Iraq was a mistake. Of course, now it seems that many of the Iranian people think choosing a theocracy was also a mistake. The difference is the United States made a weak Shah that the will of the people could overthrow. The will of the people made a strong Theocracy that the will of the people have, thus far, not been able to overthrow. With that said, there do seem to be many pro-United States governments in the Middle East. I'm not sure who set up Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan.

i wouldnt call a corrupt military dictatorship, strongly support by the us-goverment 'weak'. (and im certain the iran will reform sooner or later, just leave them alone)
and ofc, there are countries in the middle east which are pro-usa now, but will these goverments stay in power once the us occupied iraq? i think it will end up in total chaos

Perhaps it was the British and the French -- the same people who so royally screwed up Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.

did the french have any colonies in the middle east?

Did you know that at one time Yemen had a Jewish king?

so what ??

[Archi]

did the french have any colonies in the middle east?

Actually Syria was a French colony ( I think Lebanon was too but I am not sure). They got it when Britain got Palestine from the Ottoman Turks after WW1.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
Israel does not have nuclear weapons, or at least they have not said they have nuclear weapons. Let's give Israel and Iraq the same benefit of the doubt shall we?

Excuse me? Are you on crack? Israel most certainly DOES have nuclear weapons, has not and will not sign the no-proliferation treaty, and has not and will not allow the IAEA inspectors in. Why do you think there was so much panic during Desert Storm?

Perhaps it was the British and the French -- the same people who so royally screwed up Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.

I think you'll find...

The British position in Palestine at the end of World War II was becoming increasingly untenable. Hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors temporarily housed in displaced persons camps in Europe were clamoring to be settled in Palestine. The fate of these refugees aroused international public opinion against British policy. Moreover, the administration of President Harry S Truman, feeling morally bound to help the Jewish refugees and exhorted by a large and vocal Jewish community, pressured Britain to change its course in Palestine. Postwar Britain depended on American economic aid to reconstruct its war-torn economy. Furthermore, Britain's staying power in its old colonial holdings was waning; in 1947 British rule in India came to an end and Britain informed Washington that London could no longer carry the military burden of strengthening Greece and Turkey against communist encroachment.

In May 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry unanimously declared its opposition to the White Paper of 1939 and proposed, among other recommendations, that the immigration to Palestine of 100,000 European Jews be authorized at once. The British Mandate Authority rejected the proposal, stating that such immigration was impossible while armed organizations in Palestine-- both Arab and Jewish--were fighting the authority and disrupting public order.
Source: Library of Congress

...that it was pretty much the US and Britain actually. With pressure from Truman being one of the prime causes.

[Gerbie]

Originally posted by Texan
Good night. See you tomorrow.

Israel does not have nuclear weapons, or at least they have not said they have nuclear weapons. Let's give Israel and Iraq the same benefit of the doubt shall we?

No. I'm not sure about Iraq. But I'm pretty sure about Israel. They are reasons why Iraq wants to have them. Israel has attacked Iraq before, Hussein simply wants the means to defend himself in the future. Biological and chemical weapons are a weak replacement for his lack of nuclear weapons.

Fixing Israel according to the moderates' views will not fix the problem. Hamas will not accept the moderates' fix and will continue suicide operations. You are very naive if you believe Hamas will accept a moderate solution.

The hardliners on neither side will accept a moderate solution. But if it was created they would loose support fast and the problem would be made manageable.

Ignoring problems do not make them go away. Being nice to terrorists does not make them into nice guys. You are probably right that attacking Iraq will create more terrorists. I believe that backing down on Iraq will create more terrorists, too. This seems to be a situation where no matter what the United States does, there will be more terrorists. I realize you do not believe this to be true. You think if we pat them on the head and give them lots of money, they will stop wanting to kill us. I do not agree.

There will be terrorism with and without an invasion. The difference: 100.000-400.000 dead Iraqi's. And a few thousand American/Brittish.

Afghanistan is better now than it was. Installing a Shah in Iraq was a mistake. Of course, now it seems that many of the Iranian people think choosing a theocracy was also a mistake. The difference is the United States made a weak Shah that the will of the people could overthrow. The will of the people made a strong Theocracy that the will of the people have, thus far, not been able to overthrow. With that said, there do seem to be many pro-United States governments in the Middle East. I'm not sure who set up Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Egypt, and Jordan. Perhaps it was the British and the French -- the same people who so royally screwed up Israel, Palestine, and Iraq.

Saudi Arabia was formed when Sultan 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn Sa'ud defeated the Turks and later the Rasjids and the Sultan of Mekka.
Bahrein was formed by the Al Khalifa family.
Qatar was formed by the Al-Thani family.
Kuwayt was formed when local tribes chose a Sheikh who organized their succesfull defence against the Turks.
Egypt was colonized after building op too massive financial debts. They became independ from the British in 1922
Jordan had become a British colony after the defeat of the Turks in the Great war. They became independend in 1923.

Did you know that at one time Yemen had a Jewish king?

No, i didn't.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Gerbie
No, i didn't.

I shouldn't worry about it, it was 1500 years ago and hence hardly relevant to now.

[Grind]

why the hell shouldn't israel have weapons? their arabic neighbors have tried to take over the damn country 3 times in the past 50 years. without those weapons (or us support) israel wouldn't exist. and im sure that disappoints you euros so much

[BetrayerOfHope]

Originally posted by Texan
The United States has a plan to put in a representative government.

yeah a nice new dummie goverment who listens to what uncel sam says to have control about the nice oil ^^

but yeah i know oil isn't a reason for that i always lack in remembering that fact

[Sub]

Originally posted by Grind
why the hell shouldn't israel have weapons? their arabic neighbors have tried to take over the damn country 3 times in the past 50 years. without those weapons (or us support) israel wouldn't exist. and im sure that disappoints you euros so much

Why shouldn't Iraq have weapons? The Americans have been trying to invade their country for the past 10 years.

[Grind]

Originally posted by Sub
Why shouldn't Iraq have weapons? The Americans have been trying to invade their country for the past 10 years.

iraq invaded a country, and he signed a cease fire agreement to end the war.

now, since when has america tried to invade iraq in the last ten years? bushy's dad could have easily gone in, but, we didn't.

ten years have gone by, can you tell me where in the past 10 years that we tried to invade iraq?

ofc we will now, under international law, and rightfully so.

[Archi]

but yeah i know oil isn't a reason for that i always lack in remembering that fact

The interesting thing about the oil debate is that the French have 60 billion dollars invested in Iraqi oil (which will go up in smoke if Saddam blows up his oil wells). So I guess it is about oil after all but not with the country everyone thinks.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Archi
The interesting thing about the oil debate is that the French have 60 billion dollars invested in Iraqi oil (which will go up in smoke if Saddam blows up his oil wells).

Hardly. Saddam blew up Kuwait's oil wells and apart from burning off a few months' worth of production the vast bulk of Kuwait's reserves remained safe--underground.

The wells, pumps, pipelines and terminals can be destroyed; but their worth is small compared to the oil itself.

And it's not clear to me that Saddam's military would obey orders to torch their own oil fields. It's one thing to burn someone else's oil wells when you're retreating; but another to burn your own (which your country will need after the war--regardless of who "wins").

[BetrayerOfHope]

Originally posted by Archi
The interesting thing about the oil debate is that the French have 60 billion dollars invested in Iraqi oil (which will go up in smoke if Saddam blows up his oil wells). So I guess it is about oil after all but not with the country everyone thinks.

let it be this way it still don't change the fact that the french are right while i only hear unproofen **** from the usa.
when they are so sure they should bring real proofs not that jokes they delivered the world so far. if they can bring it i'm sure the uno will not hold them back from clearing that. but they always failed so far and only spreading out propaganda and simply saying "we are sure they have that and that" is no proof in my eyes and thank god there are people in the world who see it that way too. and its not like i would realy care about the health of sadam but in fact it are the normal people who only had the bad luck to be born in that country who suffers most from a war.

i found it also entertaining that the usa speaker yesterday brought as argument vs the iraq that he invaded 2 countrys in the middle east. ok the kuwait thing is clear. but it seems the usa forgot the little fact that sadam was supported with intel, know how, money and weapons in the war vs the iran.
but well i'm sure that the "good" usa would never support somebody evil only because it would bring a use for them

Originally posted by BetrayerOfHope
let it be this way it still don't change the fact that the french are right while i only hear unproofen **** from the usa.
when they are so sure they should bring real proofs not that jokes they delivered the world so far. if they can bring it i'm sure the uno will not hold them back from clearing that. but they always failed so far and only spreading out propaganda and simply saying "we are sure they have that and that" is no proof in my eyes and thank god there are people in the world who see it that way too. and its not like i would realy care about the health of sadam but in fact it are the normal people who only had the bad luck to be born in that country who suffers most from a war.

i found it also entertaining that the usa speaker yesterday brought as argument vs the iraq that he invaded 2 countrys in the middle east. ok the kuwait thing is clear. but it seems the usa forgot the little fact that sadam was supported with intel, know how, money and weapons in the war vs the iran.
but well i'm sure that the "good" usa would never support somebody evil only because it would bring a use for them

I will agree that evidance presented to the UN by the Bush admin takes a leap of faith.

Being born in Iraq right now may indeed be a bit of bad luck.

I do agree that in the Iran Iraq war the USA played a roll to ensure that neither side would win. But then that is just statecraft being practiced to achive a desired result. Its nothing new, Nations have been doing this since nations existed. But perhaps the USA is somewhat at fault for trying to cast many conflicts as a moral imperatives, It opens the door for to many accusations of hypocrisy.

I think the Bush admin has not done a very good job of statecraft. Again the thing that really bothers me is not the war on Iraq but potential damage this entire episode could cause between the USA an countries in Europe an related alliances. That I think is probly more an important issue than Iraq.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Treyjun
I will agree that evidance presented to the UN by the Bush admin takes a leap of faith.

Being born in Iraq right now may indeed be a bit of bad luck.

I do agree that in the Iran Iraq war the USA played a roll to ensure that neither side would win. But then that is just statecraft being practiced to achive a desired result. Its nothing new, Nations have been doing this since nations existed. But perhaps the USA is somewhat at fault for trying to cast many conflicts as a moral imperatives, It opens the door for to many accusations of hypocrisy.

I think the Bush admin has not done a very good job of statecraft. Again the thing that really bothers me is not the war on Iraq but potential damage this entire episode could cause between the USA an countries in Europe an related alliances. That I think is probly more an important issue than Iraq.

i can only fully agree on the whole posting.
all of our goverments should stay completly out of the buisness of other countries and get only envolved if it is wished by these countries to ensure peace or whatever. we should do buiness with whoever wants to and thats about it. all western countries already took a large enough share in ****ing up the world, we dont need to make it any worse (this doesnt mean we should stop fighting terrorism, neither should we stop promoting freedom and democracy in the world, its just the question of how to do it)

[Archi]

Hardly. Saddam blew up Kuwait's oil wells and apart from burning off a few months' worth of production the vast bulk of Kuwait's reserves remained safe--underground.

That money is not invested in the oil "in the ground". The money is invested in those oil wells, pumping stations, pipelines, and all the support facilities needed to operate. So yes that money will go up in smoke.

let it be this way it still don't change the fact that the french are right while i only hear unproofen **** from the usa.

I see, when it comes to America making it's case everyone says it is about the oil or they are obviously lying. Yet heaven forbid the French have no ulterior motives and are doing all of this out of the goodness of their hearts for the concern of the Iraqi people. No bias here.

Besides that;

Iraq lost Gulf War 1, the conditions of the cease fire were clear. Allow UN inspectors UNFETTERED access to everything. This obviously did not happen as Iraq kicked out the inspectors 1998 after they bullied and harrased them everywhere they went. They tried this game again when the UN went back in November 2002. The only reason that Saddam is willing to give in now to SOME (not all) UN demands is because he has a gun to his head. Do you honestly think that if all those US/British troops went home today Saddam will continue to allow inspectors in his country?

I know a lot of Euro's (and Americans too) dont trust Bush. However do you really trust a dictator that is cut from the same mold as Adolph Hitler, Poh Phot and Stalin more?

I cannot emphasize enough that Saddam is still not complying to all of UN resoloution 1441. For instance he says he is allowing overflights by U2's and other recon aircraft, BUT only on the condition that they divulge their flight plans, airspeed of the planes and altitudes. This does not sound very much like he is complying to me. I dont know about you guys, but I think 12 years is quite enough to play this stupid cat and mouse game, with these inspections. Either he complies TOTALLY right now (how hard could that possibly be?) to UN resoloution 1441 or he suffers the consequences. It is as simple as that.

[wu_trax]

does it really matter? the whole thing is 'wrong'
is the iraq a larger thread today than it was lets say 5 years ago?
what is all this about ??
the us / uno / international antiterror alliance should rather focus on bin laden and his network

as far as i can see there are only three possible options for that war:
a) economical interests
b) a 'replacement' for bin laden
c) bush really is that stupid and actually belives what he says

PS if france wants peace to fullfill their economical interest in iraq, then thats a big difference.

[Archi]

c) bush really is that stupid and actually belives what he says

Well it depends on whether you believe what Colin Powell told the UN Security council on Feb 5th. I personally trust Powell more than I do Saddam Hussein. Especially as he is the biggest "dove" in the administration.

PS if france wants peace to fullfill their economical interest in iraq, then thats a big difference.

You should say "If France wants to pump money and technology to Saddam (not the Iraqi people) then that's a big difference". In my opinion that is the same form of imperialism that they did in in the good old Victorian days. You make friends with the local despot and take the resources. Remember imperialism is not a US monopoly.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Archi
Well it depends on whether you believe what Colin Powell told the UN Security council on Feb 5th. I personally trust Powell more than I do Saddam Hussein. Especially as he is the biggest "dove" in the administration.

does it really?
the whole idea is completly counterproductive on the war on terror. thats it.
i dont see how iraq is a bigger thread today than before gulf war II. (and that one looked fairly easy to win for the us)

You should say "If France wants to pump money and technology to Saddam (not the Iraqi people) then that's a big difference". In my opinion that is the same form of imperialism that they did in in the good old Victorian days. You make friends with the local despot and take the resources. Remember imperialism is not a US monopoly.

why does do french reasons matter, as long as their is no war? its not like they support him to stay in power or something like that

[Grind]

Originally posted by wu_trax

why does do french reasons matter, as long as their is no war? its not like they support him to stay in power or something like that

ah but they are.

and i think the point archi is trying to make that france is not against the war for the right reasons, if it wasn't for the money they would have given the okay by now.

as years go on, threats can grow. weapons can be built. it's different now cause we have a different admissistration.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Grind
ah but they are.

and i think the point archi is trying to make that france is not against the war for the right reasons, if it wasn't for the money they would have given the okay by now.

why do reasons matter, if these reasons cause the right decision??
if france would bomb iraq to get their oil i would certainly protest against their goverment, friendship or not

as years go on, threats can grow. weapons can be built. it's different now cause we have a different admissistration.

yes, but did iraq's military power acutally grow in the last years?
quite a lot of their wmds have been destroy by the last inspections and if saddam is now forced to cooperate even more will be. his conventional army is no match at all for the us-army.
i dont see any more danger in him than in lets say that guy in pakistan (who already has the nuke)

[Archi]

why does do french reasons matter, as long as their is no war? its not like they support him to stay in power or something like that

That is EXACTLY what it means. The French proposal will not have Blix back before the security council until the end of March. Isnt that convienient. It also happens to be a time when the window of attacking Iraq will be pretty much closed until next Autumn. Then Saddam will play more of his "hide the ooze games" and we will be back to square one. The French will keep their pocketbooks safe and Saddam will be a happy camper. I am sorry but I hear all this about how the US argument is bogus because they want Iraqi oil. Yet we are supposed to trust French good intentions even though they have real money there invested at stake. That dont fly in my book.

[Grind]

Originally posted by wu_trax

i dont see any more danger in him than in lets say that guy in pakistan (who already has the nuke)

pakistan is our ally. he's cooperated extrodinary since 9/11 with us government.

if he's our ally, and we are allies with him, how the hell is he a threat to us?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Grind
pakistan is our ally. he's cooperated extrodinary since 9/11 with us government.

if he's our ally, and we are allies with him, how the hell is he a threat to us?

and how long do you think he will stay in power once your war started? and what will happen to his nukes??

that flashgame which was posted here a few times is not that unlikely (according to some islam and middle east expert who is permanently on TV here)