Old Europe to New Europe: Shut up [Archive]

Roadtoad

17th February 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by aerocontrols

Maybe so. But hey... it's my head and it's not your wall ;)

What do you think about Chirac's outburst?

It's about what I would have expected. France, as usual, is looking to take the easy way out, no matter who gets hurt in the long run. He's a racist and a coward, when all is said and done. Someone else has to come in and save civilization, just not the French.

I don't want war, either, but it's becoming more and more evident that Powell was correct: this has less to do with oil, but everything to do with compliance. We can call for inspections until there's inclement weather in the netherworld, but until we back this bastard into the corner, we'll never know what he's done with his WMDs, including chemical and biological agents, which he's used on his own people (!), and that's the real issue here.

I've explained it this way on another forum:

You're a police officer in a major metropolitan area. You get a call to come disarm a dangerous man with a handgun on a subway train. (For the sake of argument, let's just say it's me. And, for the record, I'm roughly 240, and 6'0" tall.)

So there you are, entering the train, and you see at least two people who have already been shot. I'm standing in the middle of the car, waving a .357 Magnum, which, by the way, I've reloaded. How likely is it, Officer, that you will allow me to leave that train with that loaded gun?

You draw your pistol, aim it at me and insist that I freeze, and keep my hands in plain sight. What do I do? I tuck the pistol in a pocket, THEN I put my hands up. "It's all good!" I say, waving to folks in the car.

What will you and your backup do once you're on the car? If you're French, it would seem to me that you're going to say, "Hey, no gun, no problem! Right?" That's Chirac.

Bush and Blair, on the other hand, along with several of our European allies, are intent on jumping the bad guy, taking the weapon from him, and making sure that it is never used again.

(Oddly enough, some of the most cogent analysis you'll find on this is on the Enya fan forum. Go fig!)

crackmonkey

17th February 2003, 07:48 PM

God... Europe is largely for taking military action. France and Germany are the notable exceptions. For action so far - UK, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Poland... it's easier to say who's against, actually. France, Germany.... the self-styled 'leaders' of the EU. It sounds liek they have managed to unite the EU. Against them.

Roadtoad

17th February 2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

you should pull your head out of the sand. In east timor, there was a situation where rampant militias were killing thousands who wanted independence from Indonesia.

Australia went in, no protesters anyware, and save thousand's of lives more. The US was asked to help out, but was nowhere to be seen, as it didn't want to offend Indonesia.

Who is rascist and opportunist?

Under the Clinton Administration, as I recall, but I could easily be wrong. You're right: we should have helped out, and I'd forgotten about East Timor in the current crush.

But I don't see the average Australian's opposition in this as being either racist or opportunistic. Unnerved, rightfully so, and dealing with difficulties which are far closer to home, so I would think that Australia has valid reasons to oppose becoming entangled in Iraq. Quite the opposite from Chirac, and his paternalistic attitude towards the rest of the world.

Doctor X

17th February 2003, 09:34 PM

Great! I can post this!

The Complete Military History of France

. Gallic Wars - Lost

In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

. Hundred Years War - Mostly lost

Saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertency creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

. Italian Wars - Lost

France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

. Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

. Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

. War of Devolution - Tied.

Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpot as chapeaux.

. The Dutch War - Tied

. War of the Augsburg League King William's War/French and Indian War Lost, but claimed as a tie.

Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

. War of the Spanish Succession- Lost

The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

. American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

. French Revolution - Won

Primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

. The Napoleonic Wars - Lost

Temporary victories (remember the First rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

. The Franco-Prussian War - Lost

Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night

. World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States.

Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

. World War II - Lost Conquered

French liberated by the United States and
Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

. War in Indochina - Lost

French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

. Algerian Rebellion - Lost

Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non- Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of
Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

. War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to
Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese
ambassador fail after he takes revenge in a McDonald's. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France collapses?"

Sorry, do not know the author.

--J.D.

Roadtoad

18th February 2003, 07:43 AM

Dr. X strikes again! (Something to copy and stick on the fridge!)

BTW: Got this sad note from a friend. (Yeah, I know it's off topic...)

What with all the sadness and trauma going on in the world at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the death of a very important person which almost went unnoticed last week. Larry La Prise, the man who wrote "The Hokey Pokey" died peacefully at the age of 93.The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin.They put his left leg in....and then the trouble started.

NoZed Avenger

18th February 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

you should pull your head out of the sand. In east timor, there was a situation where rampant militias were killing thousands who wanted independence from Indonesia.

Australia went in, no protesters anyware, and save thousand's of lives more. The US was asked to help out, but was nowhere to be seen, as it didn't want to offend Indonesia.

Who is rascist and opportunist?

First (and on topic), let me say that I do not give the 'racist' claim against opponents of the war any more credence than in other times that it has been charged against the US or European countries. Not to say that some people might not factor that in, but I personally do not believe that it is a significant factor for most of the opponents, and certaInly have seen no evidence regarding the posters on this forum.

Second, (and slightly off topic), I would like to know whether this action by Australia was put to the UN and whether there was any authorization of force from the UN for it?

If not, is everyone prepared to condemn it?

NA

aerocontrols

18th February 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Second, (and slightly off topic), I would like to know whether this action by Australia was put to the UN and whether there was any authorization of force from the UN for it?

If not, is everyone prepared to condemn it?

It's my understanding that Australian forces moved in, (September, 1999) and later (October, 1999) got UN authorization.

I should note here that I don't believe Australia should be condemned for moving without UN approval, nor should France be condemned for moving into Ivory Coast without UN approval, etc.

MattJ

Roadtoad

18th February 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

First (and on topic), let me say that I do not give the 'racist' claim against opponents of the war any more credence than in other times that it has been charged against the US or European countries. Not to say that some people might not factor that in, but I personally do not believe that it is a significant factor for most of the opponents, and certaInly have seen no evidence regarding the posters on this forum.

Second, (and slightly off topic), I would like to know whether this action by Australia was put to the UN and whether there was any authorization of force from the UN for it?

If not, is everyone prepared to condemn it?

NA

No, most posters on this forum have more sense than that. I don't think you'll find racism involved with most people who post here, with a couple of notable exceptions. (I don't think I need to mention who.) But I find the protests odd, if nothing else. Arab lives are already being lost, and there are phenomenal abuses of human rights going on even as I write this. No one seems to give a rat's ass about that, but by God, all Hell broke loose when Milosevic was killing Europeans.

I would find it strange that anyone would condemn Australia for its actions. To borrow from my earlier example, you might view Australia as the cop coming down the stairs to back up the cop on the subway, only to see someone charging in with a large knife drawn. I would ask, what would anyone expect Australia to do?

Kodiak

18th February 2003, 11:28 AM

NoZed Avenger

18th February 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad

I would find it strange that anyone would condemn Australia for its actions.

But don't they have to condemn Austalia for acting without international approval -- if they are consistent?

And don't they have to condemn the US for its actions in Bosnia -- intervening where there was no threat the US or its interests and without UN approval?

NA

Jon_in_london

18th February 2003, 02:42 PM

I think peoples are letting their nationalism get in the way of common sense. Theres a massive difference between a peace keeping operation (Australia) and a pre-emptive and unprovoked attack (US & UK).

18th February 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I think peoples are letting their nationalism get in the way of common sense. Theres a massive difference between a peace keeping operation (Australia) and a pre-emptive and unprovoked attack (US & UK).

Dunno. How many people is Saddam killing annually? But of course, that is not why the US wants to go in, is it?

Jedi Knight

18th February 2003, 03:42 PM

I can't believe that Chirac had the igorance to say that today. Well, he did a great job of sending those countries clearly into our camp ;).

But to tell them all to shut up was so....leftist. Chirac has got to be a commie.

JK

Goshawk

18th February 2003, 07:25 PM

Nope, sorry, JK, you're dead wrong, but hey, thank you for playing!

His election last June was actually seen as a great triumph for the French right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2048880.stm
Monday, 17 June, 2002, 01:22 GMT 02:22 UK
Analysis: French right triumphs

It has played out perfectly for President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and their newly created Union for the Presidential Majority (UMP).

Right on cue, the electorate has overturned the left-wing majority in the National Assembly and ensured that the supporters of the president have a clear five-year run in which to modernise the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2485613.stm
Sunday, 17 November, 2002, 20:40 GMT
Chirac's party holds first congress

France's main centre-right party, has held its first ever congress on Sunday, six months after it was founded.

The UMP - which renamed itself the Union for a Popular Movement - elected former prime minister, Alain Juppe, as its president.

It was founded in April, under the name the Union for the Presidential Majority (UMP), when the spectre of the far right haunted France and focused the minds of the country's usually fractious right-wing politicians.

National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen's strong showing in the first round of the presidential election achieved what Jacques Chirac had failed to do.

It led to the formation of a broad-based, centre-right bloc.

On the back of the president's re-election, the UMP performed strongly in June's parliamentary elections and holds the majority of seats in the National Assembly.

Elind

18th February 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

you should pull your head out of the sand. In east timor, there was a situation where rampant militias were killing thousands who wanted independence from Indonesia.

Australia went in, no protesters anyware, and save thousand's of lives more. The US was asked to help out, but was nowhere to be seen, as it didn't want to offend Indonesia.

Who is rascist and opportunist?

You are!

If the Australians did what was necessary why do you think the US had to, or should be condemned when no one else, like you, has the guts to do so?

When was the last time you demonstrated against anything, other than the USA? Plenty of opportunity left in the case of North Korea for example, as there has been for the last 50 some years while your head has been up your ass.

Jedi Knight

18th February 2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Goshawk
Nope, sorry, JK, you're dead wrong, but hey, thank you for playing!

His election last June was actually seen as a great triumph for the French right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2048880.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2485613.stm

Chirac is one of the premier socialists of the newly formed EU. He is so far on the left, Stalin himself would probably recognize him.

France is still reeling from Chirac's policies last decade. Le Pen was the true definition of a right-wing candidate. Chirac was elected as the lesser of two evils, but as a leftist socialist, Chirac has done more damage to France than any other French leader I can recall in recent memory.

He continues to damage France every day the instant he opens his mouth to the media.

BTW, every article you read by the leftist media has to be handled with skepticism.

JK

Shane Costello

19th February 2003, 12:50 AM

JK is sort of right. While Chirac is on the right in European terms, in the economic sense he's somewhere to the left of Ted Kennedy. The only free market candidate in the French presidential election recieved only 3.5% of the vote.

Chirac's comments convince me even more that France and Germany see the EU as nothing more than a vehicle for furthering their own interests. At last it seems the rest of Europe is starting to tell them where to shove it.

Imagine if Bush came out with something like this. Imagine if a meeting of the EU security council didn't go his way and he reacted like Chirac? Imagine the howls of self-righteous indignation! Can you imagine some of the posts here?

glee

19th February 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I don't want war, either, but it's becoming more and more evident that Powell was correct: this has less to do with oil, but everything to do with compliance. We can call for inspections until there's inclement weather in the netherworld, but until we back this bastard into the corner, we'll never know what he's done with his WMDs, including chemical and biological agents, which he's used on his own people (!), and that's the real issue here.

If it's not about oil, but about saving lives, why didn't the US go in when Saddam gassed the Kurds?
Do you think major US oil companies have made plans once the new leader of Iraq is announced?

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I've explained it this way on another forum:

You're a police officer in a major metropolitan area. You get a call to come disarm a dangerous man with a handgun on a subway train. (For the sake of argument, let's just say it's me. And, for the record, I'm roughly 240, and 6'0" tall.)

So there you are, entering the train, and you see at least two people who have already been shot. I'm standing in the middle of the car, waving a .357 Magnum, which, by the way, I've reloaded. How likely is it, Officer, that you will allow me to leave that train with that loaded gun?

You draw your pistol, aim it at me and insist that I freeze, and keep my hands in plain sight. What do I do? I tuck the pistol in a pocket, THEN I put my hands up. "It's all good!" I say, waving to folks in the car.

....

Alternatively (and far more accurately):

You're a police officer in a major metropolitan area. You get a call that a man has shot people on a subway train.
You do nothing.

Later you get another call that the same man, who is carrying a lot of money, is back. (For the sake of argument, let's just say it's me. And, for the record, I'm roughly 240, and 6'0" tall.*).

So there you are, without authorisation, entering the train, and you see the money. I'm standing in the middle of the car, being searched by colleagues, who are authorised to do so.

You draw your pistol, aim it at me and insist announce you're going to shoot. What do I do? I put my hands up. At this point you get a radio call, reminding you that you have no authorisation, and your colleagues tell you they have found no gun. The other passengers ask you not to shoot.

What do you do?

(Blam! Blam!)

*Which would you rather face - a tall unarmed man, or a short man with a gun? :confused:

Jon_in_london

19th February 2003, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Dunno. How many people is Saddam killing annually? But of course, that is not why the US wants to go in, is it?

You are right Ed, it certainly isnt.

Nitpick

19th February 2003, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
(...)
Imagine if Bush came out with something like this. Imagine if a meeting of the EU security council didn't go his way and he reacted like Chirac? (...)

While I'm pretty sure you meant the UN Security Council, I still think your analogy doesn't work: The UN is an institution in wich practically all countries have to (well, at least should) get along with each other simply because they share a planet, whereas the EU is a (restricted) association of states wich have (and were) chosen to become members of the club for (allegedly) also other reasons than just political or economic ones.
And some of the east european countries wishing to join the EU would probably much rather join an American Union, if there was one and if they were allowed to. Don't know, blame it on TV and Hollywood if you like. I am (or at least I imagine to be) familiar enough with one of these countries to know what I'm talking about. It's the same kind of partly unspoiled, partly highly materialistic affection large areas of Western Europe showed towards the US after WWII and which, as we all know, is mostly gone. It will probably fade over time in Eastern Europe too, but hey, even if it does, the US-Americans (at least those among them who love to be not-so-critically loved - and I'm told there are quite a few ;) ), should enjoy it while it lasts.
I think Chirac's tone was too rude with these countries: they'd like the whole Western World to be happy with them (I'm not talking about the nationalists in these countries - thery're as no-nice as the ones in any other part of the world). These countries have surely found out already that "the West" isn't just a happily united, wealthy familiy but rather a bunch of normally selfish and pragmatical (and sometimes ill tempered) individual states. But some of the "new Europeans" :rolleyes: still refuse to really accept the idea.

Shane Costello

19th February 2003, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Nitpick:
While I'm pretty sure you meant the UN Security Council...

Whoops, my bad! :o

....I still think your analogy doesn't work: The UN is an institution in wich practically all countries have to (well, at least should) get along with each other simply because they share a planet, whereas the EU is a (restricted) association of states wich have (and were) chosen to become members of the club for (allegedly) also other reasons than just political or economic ones

Completely beside the point I was trying to make. I was contrasting the reaction of some people to what they see as American arrogance with their lack of reaction to French arrogance.

These countries have surely found out already that "the West" isn't just a happily united, wealthy familiy but rather a bunch of normally selfish and pragmatical (and sometimes ill tempered) individual states. But some of the "new Europeans" :rolleyes: still refuse to really accept the idea.

Which is why I believe the notion that 25 European countries could ever forge a common foreign or domestic policy to be fantasy.

Giz

19th February 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by glee

Alternatively (and far more accurately):

You're a police officer in a major metropolitan area. You get a call that a man has shot people on a subway train.
You do nothing.

Later you get another call that the same man, who is carrying a lot of money, is back. (For the sake of argument, let's just say it's me. And, for the record, I'm roughly 240, and 6'0" tall.*).

So there you are, without authorisation, entering the train, and you see the money. I'm standing in the middle of the car, being searched by colleagues, who are authorised to do so.

You draw your pistol, aim it at me and insist announce you're going to shoot. What do I do? I put my hands up. At this point you get a radio call, reminding you that you have no authorisation, and your colleagues tell you they have found no gun. The other passengers ask you not to shoot.

What do you do?

(Blam! Blam!)

Alternatively, perhaps even more accurately:

You're a police officer in a major metropolitan area. You get a call that a man has shot people on a subway train.
You do nothing.

Later you get another call that the same man, who is carrying a lot of money, is back. And that he will be using some of the money to buy more and bigger illegal weaponry.

So there you are, without authorisation, entering the train, and you see the money. I'm standing in the middle of the car, being searched by colleagues, who are authorised to do so. Of course when I say searched I don't mean frisked or anything like that! Nope, it's more like interminable haggling followed by a sneaky peak at one of my pockets. Never fear, I keep them well away from my shoulder holster!

You draw your pistol, aim it at me and insist announce you're going to shoot. What do I do? I put my hands up. At this point you get a radio call, reminding you that you have no new authorisation (which you thought is OK because according to law/ceasefire agreements I shouldn't have a gun), and the "inspectors" tell you they have found no gun (of course they haven't looked up my sleeves!). The other passengers (call them Pierre and Ivan for a bit of personality) ask you not to shoot (You know however that part of the money is also going to them) or I might shoot back with the gun "I don't have!".

What do you do?

(Blam! Blam!)

(did you shoot Pierre?)

glee

19th February 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by Giz
Alternatively, perhaps even more accurately:

You're a police officer in a major metropolitan area. You get a call that a man has shot people on a subway train.
You do nothing.

Later you get another call that the same man, who is carrying a lot of money, is back. And that he will be using some of the money to buy more and bigger illegal weaponry.

So there you are, without authorisation, entering the train, and you see the money. I'm standing in the middle of the car, being searched by colleagues, who are authorised to do so. Of course when I say searched I don't mean frisked or anything like that! Nope, it's more like interminable haggling followed by a sneaky peak at one of my pockets. Never fear, I keep them well away from my shoulder holster!

You draw your pistol, aim it at me and insist announce you're going to shoot. What do I do? I put my hands up. At this point you get a radio call, reminding you that you have no new authorisation (which you thought is OK because according to law/ceasefire agreements I shouldn't have a gun), and the "inspectors" tell you they have found no gun (of course they haven't looked up my sleeves!). The other passengers (call them Pierre and Ivan for a bit of personality) ask you not to shoot (You know however that part of the money is also going to them) or I might shoot back with the gun "I don't have!".

What do you do?

(Blam! Blam!)

(did you shoot Pierre?)

Well yours was certainly better than the original.

I note that you concede the US did nothing when the Kurds were gassed (I'm not saying they should have - just that it removes the pretence that Bush is 'protecting' Iraqi civilians).

I notice you concede that that Iraq is oil rich, and that American oil companies (who have close links to the Bush Administration) are looking forward to their new billion dollar contracts after the war.

I notice you admit that the weapons inspectors have found no evidence of illegal weapons. (Still we all 'know' they are there, so invasion is 'justified', and the US can apparently say that the current UN resolutions 'apply'.)

I know Russia and China have asked the US to keep searching, but by passengers I meant Iraq's neighbours - who will have to cope with refugees and cross-border incidents.

Obviously I approve of the US getting a mandate from the UN and removing a brutal dictator. (I look forward to them doing the same in countries without oil.)

But the original comparison of Saddam and a subway mugger was absolutely pathetic.

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 05:50 AM

19th February 2003, 05:57 AM

Kodiak,

You aren't seriously trying to argue that Bush is motivated by the need to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam are you?

Nobody seriously believes that do they? Saddam had been terrorizing his people for years. Bush only decided to attack Iraq after the Al-Qaeda attacks in New York. If they had not happened, then this war would not be happening. It has got Sweet Fanny Adams to do with protecting the Iraqi people and you know it. It's about political control of the middle east, (misplaced) revenge for 9/11 and possibly oil supplies.

Giz

19th February 2003, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by glee

Well yours was certainly better than the original.

I note that you concede the US did nothing when the Kurds were gassed (I'm not saying they should have - just that it removes the pretence that Bush is 'protecting' Iraqi civilians).

I notice you concede that that Iraq is oil rich, and that American oil companies (who have close links to the Bush Administration) are looking forward to their new billion dollar contracts after the war.

I notice you admit that the weapons inspectors have found no evidence of illegal weapons. (Still we all 'know' they are there, so invasion is 'justified', and the US can apparently say that the current UN resolutions 'apply'.)

I know Russia and China have asked the US to keep searching, but by passengers I meant Iraq's neighbours - who will have to cope with refugees and cross-border incidents.

Obviously I approve of the US getting a mandate from the UN and removing a brutal dictator. (I look forward to them doing the same in countries without oil.)

But the original comparison of Saddam and a subway mugger was absolutely pathetic.

Well, just a couple o' quibbles with the above;

1 "I note that you concede the US did nothing when the Kurds were gassed" - Clinton did nothing. Bush seems to be mae of sterner stuff.

2 "I notice you concede that that Iraq is oil rich, and that American oil companies (who have close links to the Bush Administration) are looking forward to their new billion dollar contracts after the war." - Whooah! What happened after Gulf War 1? Did Saudi and Kuwait become stooges of the USA? Or did they have their independence restored?
Perhaps it's France and Russia's procrastination which is based on oil and the need to pander to a brutal dictator.

3 "you admit that the weapons inspectors have found no evidence of illegal weapons. (Still we all 'know' they are there, so invasion is 'justified', and the US can apparently say that the current UN resolutions 'apply'"
- Saddam has (as per 1) gassed the Kurds [ad hom mode on] thats one short attention span you got there [ad hom mode off] [sorry]. I know Iraq stalled for 12 years, then the US got serious and lo and behold Iraq managed to co-operate even(?!) more fully than it had been doing. It appears (who would have guessed) that saddam only respects force or the credible (read: not France) threat of force.

BillyTK

19th February 2003, 06:44 AM

Some quibbles myself:
Originally posted by Giz

1 "I note that you concede the US did nothing when the Kurds were gassed" - Clinton did nothing. Bush seems to be mae of sterner stuff.
The Kurds were gassed in 1988. Clinton did nothing because he wasn't president then?
2 "I notice you concede that that Iraq is oil rich, and that American oil companies (who have close links to the Bush Administration) are looking forward to their new billion dollar contracts after the war." - Whooah! What happened after Gulf War 1? Did Saudi and Kuwait become stooges of the USA? Or did they have their independence restored?
Perhaps it's France and Russia's procrastination which is based on oil and the need to pander to a brutal dictator.
Saudi and Kuwait were already stooges of the USA. But Iraq didn't invade Saudi Arabia, so Saudi didn't need its independence restored?

3 "you admit that the weapons inspectors have found no evidence of illegal weapons. (Still we all 'know' they are there, so invasion is 'justified', and the US can apparently say that the current UN resolutions 'apply'"
- Saddam has (as per 1) gassed the Kurds [ad hom mode on] thats one short attention span you got there [ad hom mode off] [sorry]. I know Iraq stalled for 12 years, then the US got serious and lo and behold Iraq managed to co-operate even(?!) more fully than it had been doing. It appears (who would have guessed) that saddam only respects force or the credible (read: not France) threat of force.
You carry on there and mind how you go! ;)

Giz

19th February 2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Some quibbles myself:

The Kurds were gassed in 1988. Clinton did nothing because he wasn't president then?

We'll, he's called slick willy cause no charge ever sticks!

"Saudi and Kuwait were already stooges of the USA. But Iraq didn't invade Saudi Arabia, so Saudi didn't need its independence restored?" - I think if Saudi were really stooge-like it wouldn't be spreading such an extreme form of whatjamacallit, wassabi, Islam. The deployal of US troops stopped Saddam from invading AND didn't lead to it getting annexed. S korea wasn't annexed. France wasn't annexed. In fact apart from Hawaii what has been annexed? (And who could resist annexing Hawaii?)

Jon_in_london

19th February 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Giz

We'll, he's called slick willy cause no charge ever sticks!

I thought he was called slick willy because he liked to wet his knob.

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Kodiak,

You aren't seriously trying to argue that Bush is motivated by the need to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam are you?

CovertPachyderm (meant in jest, not as an attack... ;) ), you aren't seriously trying to argue that Bush is in no way motivated by the need to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam, are you?

While there are many other reasons for invading Iraq (which we can honestly disagree on and debate), you cannot tell me that you know for a fact that the well-being of the Iraqi people plays no part what-so-ever in President Bush's (or the other heads of the coalition nations) consideration of the Iraq issue.

kittynh

19th February 2003, 07:48 AM

OK, lots of American children know about the Australian action in East Timor because the Croc Hunter himslef was called in by the Army to save 2 really sad little corcs. They built a couple of nice little pools for them, while the East Timorians kind of looked on like, "They're crocs, why are you building them a swimming pool???"
Still, to my daughter and her friends, the Australian military is the greatest because they saved those crocs!

19th February 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

CovertPachyderm (meant in jest, not as an attack... ;) ), you aren't seriously trying to argue that Bush is in no way motivated by the need to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam, are you?

While there are many other reasons for invading Iraq (which we can honestly disagree on and debate), you cannot tell me that you know for a fact that the well-being of the Iraqi people plays no part what-so-ever in President Bush's (or the other heads of the coalition nations) consideration of the Iraq issue.

I can't prove what goes on in the chimps head. I'm not sure that anything goes on in its head.

I do not believe that the welfare of the Iraqi people is of any relevance to whether or not Iraq gets attacked. I base this on the fact that there are oppressed people all over the world and that the United States has NEVER intervened before for any reason other than to safeguard its own interests. Am I expected to believe that the chimp has suddenly started acting on its previously hidden humanitarian convictions? Blech! I don't think so.

Jon_in_london

19th February 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by kittynh
OK, lots of American children know about the Australian action in East Timor because the Croc Hunter himslef was called in by the Army to save 2 really sad little corcs. They built a couple of nice little pools for them, while the East Timorians kind of looked on like, "They're crocs, why are you building them a swimming pool???"
Still, to my daughter and her friends, the Australian military is the greatest because they saved those crocs!

I watched that. It was cool. I wonder if they have made handbags out of them yet?

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I can't prove what goes on in the chimps head. I'm not sure that anything goes on in its head.

That was my only point...

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I do not believe that the welfare of the Iraqi people is of any relevance to whether or not Iraq gets attacked. I base this on the fact that there are oppressed people all over the world and that the United States has NEVER intervened before for any reason other than to safeguard its own interests. Am I expected to believe that the chimp has suddenly started acting on its previously hidden humanitarian convictions? Blech! I don't think so.

I position you're entitled to have, but...

The US never intervened for reasons other than self-interest?? Never!?

Beirut?

Somalia?

That point made, self-interest is the single best reason to threaten and/or use military force.

BillyTK

19th February 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Giz

We'll, he's called slick willy cause no charge ever sticks!

"Saudi and Kuwait were already stooges of the USA. But Iraq didn't invade Saudi Arabia, so Saudi didn't need its independence restored?" - I think if Saudi were really stooge-like it wouldn't be spreading such an extreme form of whatjamacallit, wassabi, Islam. The deployal of US troops stopped Saddam from invading AND didn't lead to it getting annexed. S korea wasn't annexed. France wasn't annexed. In fact apart from Hawaii what has been annexed? (And who could resist annexing Hawaii?)

Saddam had no intention of invading Saudi Arabia, so they didn't exactly need defending; Saddam's gripe was with Kuwait and their slant-drilling into Iraqi oil. Anyhoo, the Saudi rulers are definitely US stooges, so as a monarchic dictatorship Saudi is to all intents a US stooge, various estranged royals, terrorists and fundamentalists notwithstanding.

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Saddam had no intention of invading Saudi Arabia, so they didn't exactly need defending; Saddam's gripe was with Kuwait and their slant-drilling into Iraqi oil. Anyhoo, the Saudi rulers are definitely US stooges, so as a monarchic dictatorship Saudi is to all intents a US stooge, various estranged royals, terrorists and fundamentalists notwithstanding.

And you have personal knowledge of Saddam's intentions how??

Saddam could've addressed the slant drilling either through OPEC or the UN. In fact, Saddam considered Kuwait to be long lost Iraqi property that he wanted to return to the fold.

I can't argue with you characterization of Saudi Arabia, however... ;)

Doubt

19th February 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

....United States has NEVER intervened before for any reason other than to safeguard its own interests.

I just love gross generalities. So easy to make fun of.

UCE,

What did the US gain in Bosnia?

I don't see any vital natural resources or economic benefit. Must have just been a PR campaign.

What was the reason for going into Somalia?

I have heard about supposed oil interests. But I have seen no evidence of oil reserves.

What was the reason for US intervention in Haiti?

Just so the troops could warm themselves on the beach I guess.

hammegk

19th February 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
....It's about political control of the middle east,
Maybe, at what 70%, and so what?

(misplaced) revenge for 9/11
Time will tell on the "misplaced". Would you prefer continuing "sanctions"? So maybe 20%, again, so what?

and possibly oil supplies.
10% for that, maybe?

What course of action do you prefer that makes any sense?

Giz

19th February 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally not posted by BillyTK

Anyhoo, the East German rulers were definitely US stooges, as a dictatorship E Germany was to all intents a US stooge, various estranged defectors, ideologies and warsaw pact membership notwithstanding.

"Notwithstanding estranged royals, terrorists and fundamentalists"
- shhhh, doesn't matter i'm sure. 100% Stooge.

19th February 2003, 08:40 AM

What course of action do you prefer that makes any sense?

I would personally give the wepaons inspectors much more time than the two weeks they are going to get.

The thing that has wound me up the most about this whole business is not the fact that there is going to be a war, but the blatant intelligence-insulting propaganda that we have been subjected to. I simply do not believe that the war is about Al-Qaeda, about humanitatian concern for Iraqis, or about WMDs. Most of the population of Europe apparently agrees with me. I hate the attitude of "we live in the free world", whilst people are fed a continual stream of transparent lies. Executing this war on the grounds that the US wants regime change in Iraq would be truthful. It would also be, IMO, illegal.

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I would personally give the weapon's inspectors much more time than the two weeks they are going to get.

Yeah...its not as though the inspectors had 7 YEARS or something! :mad:

:rolleyes:

edited thanks to correction from BillyTK

BillyTK

19th February 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally not posted by Giz

Wibble.

Well, by that measure, the US is communist state innit, 'cos there's lots of communists living there*?

*Well, according to certain posters there is...

hammegk

19th February 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I would personally give the wepaons inspectors much more time than the two weeks they are going to get.
Sorry, without cooperation (from people most of who have probably been killed so they can't talk) finding tunnels full of gear will not happen, at least imho.

The thing that has wound me up the most about this whole business is not the fact that there is going to be a war, but the blatant intelligence-insulting propaganda that we have been subjected to...

Until human nature changes -- to include a nice increase in average IQ -- politicians will continue to use what works.

Art of the "doable" don't ya know.

You are no more like the average UK dweller -- or 1st world citizen -- than is a Ubangi (er, other extreme for him of course ;) ) . The people on this particular board are mostly -- I'd say -- far away from any "average", and opinions here are a very very tiny fraction of what "the world" thinks or says.

BillyTK

19th February 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Yeah...its not as though the inspectors had 12 YEARS or something! :mad:

:rolleyes:

Seven years--UNSCOM inspectors were pulled out in 1998. And too busy spying whilst they were there to find any WMDs. Allegedly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/379458.stm).

NoZed Avenger

19th February 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
I think peoples are letting their nationalism get in the way of common sense. Theres a massive difference between a peace keeping operation (Australia) and a pre-emptive and unprovoked attack (US & UK).

There may be a number of distinctions that can be made between these operations, but if the criticism is military action in another country without UN approval, then the criticism applies to both equally.

I am just trying to point out that the real criticism appears to be something else -- these distinctions -- and not the use of force without seeking or obtaining UN approval.

NA

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Seven years--UNSCOM inspectors were pulled out in 1998. And too busy spying whilst they were there to find any WMDs. Allegedly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/379458.stm).

Edited my post >> thanks.

BillyTK

19th February 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

And you have personal knowledge of Saddam's intentions how??

Saddam could've addressed the slant drilling either through OPEC or the UN. In fact, Saddam considered Kuwait to be long lost Iraqi property that he wanted to return to the fold.

I can't argue with you characterization of Saudi Arabia, however... ;)

Sorry Kodiak, missed yr question first time round. As a pinko commie Saddam-appeasing steak-dinner-for-Al Queda-making pacifist traitor, me and Saddam are always ringing each other for matey chats. ;) :D

But seriously, I have knowledge of Saddam's intentions towards Kuwait because he asked the US for permission first (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm). 'Course slant-drilling was only part of it; and Saddam was already in dispute with OPEC over increased production and the resultant fall in oil prices anyway.

Roadtoad

19th February 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by glee
If it's not about oil, but about saving lives, why didn't the US go in when Saddam gassed the Kurds?
Do you think major US oil companies have made plans once the new leader of Iraq is announced?

I am quite certain that the wolves at Union Oil, Shell, Standard Oil and other energy companies are salivating at the thought of having an inroad into Iraq.

I think you've forgotten something, though:

(1.) George H.W. Bush put a great deal of importance in working with the coalition forces from Gulf War I. There was no interest in 1992 in protecting the Kurds, (in '91, we were at war, partly to protect the Kurds, as I recall, though I'm sure if I'm wrong, someone will correct my error). We had the No-Fly Zones, which supposedly were sufficient to protect these people. I've no idea if Hussein was running death squads through the area on the ground, but it would almost make sense, given his and Turkey's refusal to allow the Kurds a homeland. (Unlike Turkey, Hussein was the one who was actively killing Kurds.)

(2.) In '93, the political climate in D.C. changed dramatically. Instead of defending the U.S. Constitution as he swore to do, Clinton seemed to be more interested in getting Hoovered in the Oval Office. When he got caught lying about it, he bombed an aspirin factory. He gutted the U.S. Military, then did everything he could to wreck the morale of our nation's troops. As a result, we have a force which is largely untested, young, and inexperienced. Bad combo, babe. Worries me, especially since I know a few folks that are there, right now.

(3.) For all the claims that Bush is going to give belated Christmas gifts to his buddies in the oil industry, my suspicion is that if he tries that, he'll not only wind up a one-term president, the Republicans will also be buried up to their @$$es in $hit for the next 10-20 years. NO ONE will ever forget something that blatantly stupid or impolitic.

Just a thought or two.

And frankly, I thought the image of Hussein as a mugger was rather appropriate...

Kodiak

19th February 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK
But seriously, I have knowledge of Saddam's intentions towards Kuwait because he asked the US for permission first (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm). 'Course slant-drilling was only part of it; and Saddam was already in dispute with OPEC over increased production and the resultant fall in oil prices anyway.

From the source you cited:

In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave [Ambassador] Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction."

Supercharts

19th February 2003, 04:22 PM

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion."
D. Rumsfield (maybe...)

Reginald

19th February 2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Supercharts
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion."
D. Rumsfield (maybe...)

and how, may I ask. Are you going to have the post "we just shot a big/small furry animal" sing-song around the camp fire without an accordian?

;)

BillyTK

20th February 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

From the source you cited:

In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave [Ambassador] Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction."

Um, yeah, I know, I read it... ;)

Regardless, do you agree or disagree that I was correct in my assertions about Saddam's intentions? A simple yes or no or screw you, you pinko commie Saddam-appeasing steak-dinner-for-Al Queda-making pacifist traitor will suffice!

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Um, yeah, I know, I read it... ;)

Regardless, do you agree or disagree that I was correct in my assertions about Saddam's intentions? A simple yes or no or screw you, you pinko commie Saddam-appeasing steak-dinner-for-Al Queda-making pacifist traitor will suffice!

The point I was originally making is that you can't know what Saddam's intentions were or are.

My hope was that you would admit that you were only making suppositions...

P.S. I'm not JK, so you'll not see me posting that "pinko-commie" label you seem so endeared with... ;)

BillyTK

20th February 2003, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

The point I was originally making is that you can't know what Saddam's intentions were or are.

My hope was that you would admit that you were only making suppositions...

P.S. I'm not JK, so you'll not see me posting that "pinko-commie" label you seem so endeared with... ;)

Hey, I admitted it was an assertion, albeit one supported by evidence. However, you're quite correct, I cannot know Saddam's past, present or future intentions, just as you cannot know that "Saddam considered Kuwait to be long lost Iraqi property that he wanted to return to the fold". But if we're going to indulge in that level of solipsism, we're not going to have a lot to talk about, 'cos really, we carnt know anything about anyone, including ourselves. :p

Now we could begin all our statements with qualifiers such as "I believe that, according to the evidence I have read..." or "I infer that..." but it'd be a bloody dull place to post ;)

glee

20th February 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by glee

I note that you concede the US did nothing when the Kurds were gassed (I'm not saying they should have - just that it removes the pretence that Bush is 'protecting' Iraqi civilians).

Originally posted by Kodiak
How so? The Kurds were gassed while a different administration was in office.

And even if the administration had been the same...are you saying that because a president took no action in one instance, that he can never take legitimate and genuine action for some different incident later on???

I was refuting the facile post by Roadtoad who seems to think (amongst other ludicrous claims) that Iraq is showing the World its weapons of mass destruction and that the US must attack now or watch millions die.
Obviously it was difficult to be completely accurate while refuting his preposterous analogy.

I agree that the US tried to do the humanitarian thing over e.g. Somalia.
Unfortunately, after the violent reaction by the locals, killing a few brave US troops, all war effort ceased.
By comparison, an entire army / navy / air force (plus any allied troops Bush can get) is set to go into Iraq.
What makes the difference?
Why doesn't the US help the occupied Tibetans?

Principally Iraq has oil, the others don't.

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Hey, I admitted it was an assertion, albeit one supported by evidence. However, you're quite correct, I cannot know Saddam's past, present or future intentions, just as you cannot know that "Saddam considered Kuwait to be long lost Iraqi property that he wanted to return to the fold". But if we're going to indulge in that level of solipsism, we're not going to have a lot to talk about, 'cos really, we carnt know anything about anyone, including ourselves. :p

Now we could begin all our statements with qualifiers such as "I believe that, according to the evidence I have read..." or "I infer that..." but it'd be a bloody dull place to post ;)

I can only go by the words you posted, not by what you meant to post. If you don't want your assertions to be confused for statements of fact (and refuted, as I did to your post of Saddam's supposed intentions), just add the woulds "I think..." to the beginning of such sentences. Such a small thing can avoid tons confusion and misunderstanding. I would have never argued the point if you had said you were just posting a hypothesis... :)

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by glee
Why doesn't the US help the occupied Tibetans?

Invading China is waaayyyy different than invading Iraq.

Drooper

20th February 2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by glee

Principally Iraq has oil, the others don't.

Actually, it is because Iraq has a "Q", while the others do not.

This war is all about Qs. Iraq has 'em and GW wants 'em.

glee

20th February 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Giz
Well, just a couple o' quibbles with the above;

1 "I note that you concede the US did nothing when the Kurds were gassed" - Clinton did nothing. Bush seems to be mae of sterner stuff.

So the Kurds are under attack now, are they?
Was saving the Kurds one of Bush's election pledges? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Giz
2 "I notice you concede that that Iraq is oil rich, and that American oil companies (who have close links to the Bush Administration) are looking forward to their new billion dollar contracts after the war." - Whooah! What happened after Gulf War 1? Did Saudi and Kuwait become stooges of the USA? Or did they have their independence restored?

Saudi and Kuwait were and are allies of the US. (I don't have a cite, but I'm confident much of their oil reaches the US via US companies.)
The US never planned to overthrow their Governments (even though they are highly undemocratic).

Do you not know that one reason for the atrocities of Bin Laden is the US military bases in Saudi?

Originally posted by Giz
Perhaps it's France and Russia's procrastination which is based on oil and the need to pander to a brutal dictator.

Sadly you may have a point (but only over the oil - I don't see either country worried by Saddam's threats).

OF course if the US goes into Iraq and installs a new President, most oil contracts will have to be renegotiated. To US oil companies (who make healthy donations to the Bush campaign).

Originally posted by Giz
3 "you admit that the weapons inspectors have found no evidence of illegal weapons. (Still we all 'know' they are there, so invasion is 'justified', and the US can apparently say that the current UN resolutions 'apply'"
- Saddam has (as per 1) gassed the Kurds [ad hom mode on] thats one short attention span you got there [ad hom mode off] [sorry]. I know Iraq stalled for 12 years, then the US got serious and lo and behold Iraq managed to co-operate even(?!) more fully than it had been doing. It appears (who would have guessed) that saddam only respects force or the credible (read: not France) threat of force.

Yes, I know Saddam had chemical weapons 12 years ago.
Is that what this is about?
No, the inspectors are looking for current weapons.

Incidentally North Korea has nuclear weapons now (and is making threats against South Korea).
What is the US doing about them?
Of course Korea doesn't have Iraq's oil...

P.S. You have the politest way of insulting people! :)

Shane Costello

20th February 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Drooper:
Actually, it is because Iraq has a "Q", while the others do not.

This war is all about Qs. Iraq has 'em and GW wants 'em.

As soon as Saddam is taken care of, something should be done about the dastardly Quebecois.

Drooper

20th February 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Drooper:

As soon as Saddam is taken care of, something should be done about the dastardly Quebecois.

And you can be sure where old Jacques will stand on that issue as well.

He too wants the Qs, something else that everyone has overlooked. It is just that Jacques thinks he has the natural historical right to them.

glee

20th February 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Invading China is waaayyyy different than invading Iraq.

It certainly is!

Now both Iraq and China:

- have invaded neighbouring countries
- are undemocratic
- have killed their own citizens (search for 'Cultural Revolution' if you want truly appalling civilian casualties)

On the other hand:

- China has a much bigger army (and nuclear weapons)
- China doesn't have as much oil
- China doesn't appeal to the US electorate as an opponent in the 'war' against terrorism

So is Bush a humanitarian who wants to protect innocent civilians?
Or is he a politician sponsored by oilmen facing a re-election problem over not doing anything after Sep 11?

Drooper

20th February 2003, 06:56 AM

So you are saying that the US should start a war with China???

Now wonder the anit-war movement is getting such bad press.

BillyTK

20th February 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I can only go by the words you posted, not by what you meant to post. If you don't want your assertions to be confused for statements of fact (and refuted, as I did to your post of Saddam's supposed intentions), just add the woulds "I think..." to the beginning of such sentences. Such a small thing can avoid tons confusion and misunderstanding. I would have never argued the point if you had said you were just posting a hypothesis... :)

'Cos I wasn't? No, I'm not a mind-reader, but yes, I think it reasonable to infer (or attempt to infer) from available evidence, and make an assertion based on that inference without having to signpost that a statement is such, otherwise we end up with unnecessarily verbose posts. :)

Now, I must have missed you refutation of my post of Saddam's intentions; I'll go back and check, but if you could indulge me and remind me what your main points of that refutation were? And what is a fact, anyway? ;)

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

'Cos I wasn't? No, I'm not a mind-reader, but yes, I think it reasonable to infer (or attempt to infer) from available evidence, and make an assertion based on that inference without having to signpost that a statement is such, otherwise we end up with unnecessarily verbose posts. :)

By adding the words "I think"???

Originally posted by BillyTK

Now, I must have missed you refutation of my post of Saddam's intentions; I'll go back and check, but if you could indulge me and remind me what your main points of that refutation were? And what is a fact, anyway? ;)

I didn't refute what you ascribed as "Saddam's intentions". I refuted you knowing them for a fact.

You don't know what Saddam's plans were (or weren't) for Saudi Arabia, and your slant-drilling theory for the subjugation of Kuwait doesn't hold up either, for the reasons I already posted.

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by glee
So is Bush a humanitarian who wants to protect innocent civilians?
Or is he a politician sponsored by oilmen facing a re-election problem over not doing anything after Sep 11?

Nice false dilemma, but to answer your questions...

Ignoring your "sponsored by oilmen" propaganda (which is telling) and your "not doing anything after Sep 11" straw man fallacy, I would have to say a little bit of both, mixed in with other considerations as well.

glee

20th February 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by glee
So is Bush a humanitarian who wants to protect innocent civilians?
Or is he a politician sponsored by oilmen facing a re-election problem over not doing anything after Sep 11?

Originally posted by Kodiak
Nice false dilemma, ...

No, it was sarcasm!

Originally posted by Kodiak
... but to answer your questions...

Ignoring your "sponsored by oilmen" propaganda (which is telling) and your "not doing anything after Sep 11" straw man fallacy, I would have to say a little bit of both, mixed in with other considerations as well.

I'm in the UK. Over here I had heard that Bush and several of his top advisers were well-connected in the oil industry, and that there had been some controversy over e.g. permits for drilling in various places already.
Please feel free to correct me!

Of course I know about the correct action Bush took (supported by the UN) in Afghanistan.

Of course it's extremely difficult to deal with terrorism (the violence in Northern Ireland has been going on for decades).

My point was I believe that Bush is using Iraq to satisfy the US electorate that he is 'doing something about terrorism'.

Why do you think Bush is concerned about innnocent foreign civilians, when e.g. he doesn't challenge China over Tibet?

Supercharts

20th February 2003, 09:19 AM

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an
accordion."
Anon

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by glee
I'm in the UK. Over here I had heard that Bush and several of his top advisers were well-connected in the oil industry, and that there had been some controversy over e.g. permits for drilling in various places already.
Please feel free to correct me!

Bush and Cheney did both have past involvement with the US oil industry, with Cheney even being investigated by the SEC, which found the allegations against him groundless.

Individuals and corporations are allowed by law to contribute both to any and all political parties and/or candidates. That hardly makes the Bush administration "sponsored by oil"...

By any chance, did you have equal vehemence when it was discovered that Gore took campaign money from Chinese nationals?

Giz

20th February 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by glee

Incidentally North Korea has nuclear weapons now (and is making threats against South Korea).
What is the US doing about them?
Of course Korea doesn't have Iraq's oil...

North Korea is a good example of why we don't want these Axis types getting WMD.

I think we aren't touching North Korea because it's simply not practical (not least because of the nukes). It's more than likely the US would love to do something if it could, putting them on the original Axis-of-evil hardly qualifies as unconcerned!

Unfortunately, big oil and the US sabre rattling (no matter what the cause) is an irresistable target for some folks.

I doubt seizing the oil on behalf of his chums is a major part of Bush's agenda. It would be impossible to cover up and the fallout would dwarf Watergate when it did come out. Nah, too implausible to take seriously (unless you want to believe!)

Jedi Knight

20th February 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Invading China is waaayyyy different than invading Iraq.

Hey Kodiac, a pal of mine just picked me up a copy of Command and Conquer "Generals". It is the most hilarious videogame I have ever seen in a long time.

In this game you can carpet bomb Chinese Communists using JDAM munitions, use nuclear weapons, anthrax bombs on troops and civilians in the open, blow up cities, build flame tanks (the screaming really starts then) and build regular armaments.

If you get a chance and if you play video games, you have to check this game out. You need a P4 to really play it to spec but the game is hilarious. In one of the missions you get to take 3 captured Chinese nuclear warheads converted into truck-bombs and drive them and detonate them inside your opponent's base. It is a hilarious video game and the best I have seen in a long time.

JK

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hey Kodiac, a pal of mine just picked me up a copy of Command and Conquer "Generals". It is the most hilarious videogame I have ever seen in a long time.

In this game you can carpet bomb Chinese Communists using JDAM munitions, use nuclear weapons, anthrax bombs on troops and civilians in the open, blow up cities, build flame tanks (the screaming really starts then) and build regular armaments.

If you get a chance and if you play video games, you have to check this game out. You need a P4 to really play it to spec but the game is hilarious. In one of the missions you get to take 3 captured Chinese nuclear warheads converted into truck-bombs and drive them and detonate them inside your opponent's base. It is a hilarious video game and the best I have seen in a long time.

JK

I don't spend much time computer gaming, but I recently had my Playstation 2 surgically attached.

I'm currently playing "Ghost Recon" every spare moment, but just bought PTO (Pacific Theater of Operations) 4 and look forward to soon playing that. I also highly recommend Ace Combat 3.

Roadtoad

20th February 2003, 10:04 AM

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad

Wussies...

My kids play Starcraft. :p

Will somebody please throw this peanut an elephant? ;)

:D

BillyTK

20th February 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I didn't refute what you ascribed as "Saddam's intentions". I refuted you knowing them for a fact.

um... okay--you win that one (I think :p )

You don't know what Saddam's plans were (or weren't) for Saudi Arabia, and your slant-drilling theory for the subjugation of Kuwait doesn't hold up either, for the reasons I already posted.

Respectfully, I've already refuted one of the reasons you gave to refute my assertion. You said that Saddam could've gone to OPEC to settle the slant drilling issue, I explained why he couldn't (or more accurately, why that was highly unlikely). You said:
In fact, Saddam considered Kuwait to be long lost Iraqi property that he wanted to return to the fold
Which, whilst I actually agree with this, I have to refute on the basis that you cannot know what Saddam considered for a fact, and therefore does not constitute sufficient evidence for the refutation of my statement. However, even if I let that slip by (which I'm happy to do, because I'm willing to deduce from your statement that you do not claim to know what Saddam was thinking, but that you arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the evidence available to you ;) ), in and of itself it is a reason why Iraq invaded Kuwait, but not the reason, so it does not follow that this negates the reason I gave.

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
I have to refute on the basis that you cannot know what Saddam considered for a fact, and therefore does not constitute sufficient evidence for the refutation of my statement. However, even if I let that slip by (which I'm happy to do, because I'm willing to deduce from your statement that you do not claim to know what Saddam was thinking, but that you arrived at this conclusion on the basis of the evidence available to you ;) ), in and of itself it is a reason why Iraq invaded Kuwait, but not the reason, so it does not follow that this negates the reason I gave.

Refute away...

Saddam publicly stated that he was reclaiming Iraq's "19th Province", since the current boundries were imposed during colonial times.

As reported by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/07/sproject.irq.saddam.kuwait/)

From the web article:

"Saddam's forces invaded Kuwait in August 1990, claiming it as Baghdad's 19th province and sparking a crisis that led to the Persian Gulf War in January 1991."

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
Respectfully, I've already refuted one of the reasons you gave to refute my assertion. You said that Saddam could've gone to OPEC to settle the slant drilling issue, I explained why he couldn't (or more accurately, why that was highly unlikely).

What about the UN?

Jedi Knight

20th February 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

I don't spend much time computer gaming, but I recently had my Playstation 2 surgically attached.

I'm currently playing "Ghost Recon" every spare moment, but just bought PTO (Pacific Theater of Operations) 4 and look forward to soon playing that. I also highly recommend Ace Combat 3.

Kodiac, you have to get Command and Conquer Generals. I am telling you, it is the game. It is a Starcraft-type strategy game but 100% more fun. As you are carpet bombing Communist Chinese troops with your B-52's and launching nuclear weapons into their bases, their screams are hilarious. They also attack your base with endless human waves, so flame tanks used to support a few obstacle tied-in bunkers gives you hours of anti-Communist enjoyment. lol.

JK

Kodiak

20th February 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Kodiac, you have to get Command and Conquer Generals. I am telling you, it is the game. It is a Starcraft-type strategy game but 100% more fun. As you are carpet bombing Communist Chinese troops with your B-52's and launching nuclear weapons into their bases, their screams are hilarious. They also attack your base with endless human waves, so flame tanks used to support a few obstacle tied-in bunkers gives you hours of anti-Communist enjoyment. lol.

JK

Are you sure you weren't a Viking berzerker in a previous life???

hammegk

20th February 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

What about the UN?

Hmm, we could discuss the technical niceties involved in demonstrating a slant hole location.

I think you would have better luck explaining a given situation to a group of chimpanzees as you would to the General Assembly delegates. :(

Roadtoad

20th February 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Will somebody please throw this peanut an elephant? ;)

:D

Hey, I resemble that remark...

To get to another point on this:

I'm still trying to figure out what Chirac's goal was in making his remark. If he's trying to build a stronger base of support for his views, wouldn't alienating those very nations which share the continent with him defeat his efforts?

It's already been shown that Hussein is in violation of 1441, the WMD's we know he had in the early '90s have not been accounted for, and if anything, the raw materials for creating new ones have been imported and stashed, we just don't know where. This is what's on record. I'm still trying to figure out why Chirac et Cie are hell bent on not keeping Hussein to what Hussein himself agreed to in 1991. (Please, no strawmen again about how the U.S. has more WMDs than anyone. We're getting rid of ours. Others are not.)

(To connect with another post I made, it's like the guy who goes into the store and buys bullets, even if he's not showing you a gun.)

The French keep saying that this has to do with their long memories of the misery brought about by war, especially WWI and WWII. I would say, given those memories of the horrors of mustard gas, why wouldn't you use whatever means are necessary to get rid of such weapons, particularly in light of an obstinate and dangerous opponent like Saddam Hussein? (I find it hard to believe that Spain's memories are any dimmer than France's.) If military might is the only thing he respects, then, unfortunate as it is, that's what you use, I would think. I'm not happy with how it's being used, nor am I overjoyed at what I'm seeing in diplomatic circles, but this may be the only way we gain security in the region.

I'll admit, this is becoming more and more confusing each day. I sometimes feel as though I need a program to keep up with who's doing what, and why. Even Google searches are becoming a morass of conflicting evidence and views. Maybe now would be a good time to step back and reread what's available.

I came here to learn, and for the most part, I'm gaining a lot, but there are sure times...

glee

20th February 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak
Bush and Cheney did both have past involvement with the US oil industry, with Cheney even being investigated by the SEC, which found the allegations against him groundless.

I worry if the connection is so close that an investigation is needed (though I'm glad nothing was found).

Originally posted by Kodiak
Individuals and corporations are allowed by law to contribute both to any and all political parties and/or candidates. That hardly makes the Bush administration "sponsored by oil"...

Are there limits to donations in US elections? (There are some in the UK.)
Don't US presidential candidates have to raise millions to have a chance of winning?
The problem is when companies give vast amounts of money to a campaign - what do they expect in return?

Originally posted by Kodiak
By any chance, did you have equal vehemence when it was discovered that Gore took campaign money from Chinese nationals?

If Gore had won and announced an invasion of Taiwan, I would certainly have been out on the streets protesting.

glee

20th February 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Giz
North Korea is a good example of why we don't want these Axis types getting WMD.

If it's so bad they have them, why don't we insist that North Korea disarm?

Originally posted by Giz
I think we aren't touching North Korea because it's simply not practical (not least because of the nukes). It's more than likely the US would love to do something if it could, putting them on the original Axis-of-evil hardly qualifies as unconcerned!

Are you saying that the US can't take North Korea? :confused:
At least they start with a base in South Korea - at present the US are busy bribing ... errr... subsidising Turkey to get some bases for the Iraq war.
Actually announcing a country is evil, then refusing to do anything about them does sound a little ...unconcerned.

Originally posted by Giz
Unfortunately, big oil and the US sabre rattling (no matter what the cause) is an irresistable target for some folks.

Don't get me wrong - I'm proud that my country is allied with the US.
I just think that you've elected a president who is more concerned about oil than justice, and who is ignorant of foreign affairs.
The world needs a strong democracy, but not one that does whatever it wants.

Originally posted by Giz
I doubt seizing the oil on behalf of his chums is a major part of Bush's agenda. It would be impossible to cover up and the fallout would dwarf Watergate when it did come out. Nah, too implausible to take seriously (unless you want to believe!)

1. The US is preparing to invade Iraq and overthrow the Government.
2. It has already announced the sort of replacement chappie it wants.
3. If this new President immediately signs contracts with (say) US oil companies, this would be another Watergate?

I don't think so.

hammegk

20th February 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by glee

I worry if the connection is so close that an investigation is needed (though I'm glad nothing was found).

LOL. Have you ever looked at the "synergy" between BP & every meaningful politician you limeys have had for about the last 90 years?

What is it about "Big Oil" and world geopolitics you don't understand?

glee

21st February 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
LOL. Have you ever looked at the "synergy" between BP & every meaningful politician you limeys have had for about the last 90 years?

Oh we know all about political 'influence'.
Bernie Ecclestone, the boss of Formula 1 car racing, gave £1,000,000 to the Government.
The Government then announced that some restriction (I think it was on cigarette advertising) wouldn't apply to Formula 1.
Coo.
After a fuss, they gave the money back. (So they are both stupid and venal.)

Originally posted by hammegk
What is it about "Big Oil" and world geopolitics you don't understand?

What is it about protesting about the US invading other countries to get their oil that you don't understand?

glee

21st February 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'm still trying to figure out what Chirac's goal was in making his remark. If he's trying to build a stronger base of support for his views, wouldn't alienating those very nations which share the continent with him defeat his efforts?

I think it's domestic. Last election, the far right made a strong showing in France. Chirac is right wing, so he is concerned about being seen as a 'strong' leader, and regaining those votes.
So he goes all bolshie - just for his electorate.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
It's already been shown that Hussein is in violation of 1441...

:confused:
Are you certain of that?
Then why is the US seeking a new UN resolution?

Originally posted by Roadtoad
...the WMD's we know he had in the early '90s have not been accounted for, and if anything, the raw materials for creating new ones have been imported and stashed, we just don't know where. This is what's on record. I'm still trying to figure out why Chirac et Cie are hell bent on not keeping Hussein to what Hussein himself agreed to in 1991.

Alas the UN weapon inspectors have failed to find your WMDs 'on record'.
And the UN didn't pass a resolution saying "unless you prove where the stuff the West sold you 10 years ago went, you're dead."
Also Chirac isn't 'hell-bent' on anything (except getting re-elected).

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(Please, no strawmen again about how the U.S. has more WMDs than anyone. We're getting rid of ours. Others are not.)

You are saying that the US is going to reduce its nuclear arsenal below some other countries?
The US is going to give up its stock of smallpox?

I hasten to add that the US are good guys - but they have to behave like the guys in white hats.
Making wild claims is not going to get you any respect.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(To connect with another post I made, it's like the guy who goes into the store and buys bullets, even if he's not showing you a gun.)

Actually it's not.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
The French keep saying that this has to do with their long memories of the misery brought about by war, especially WWI and WWII.

Cite?

Originally posted by Roadtoad
...I would say, given those memories of the horrors of mustard gas, why wouldn't you use whatever means are necessary to get rid of such weapons, particularly in light of an obstinate and dangerous opponent like Saddam Hussein?

How many Iraqi civilians are you prepared to kill to get rid of such weapons?

Originally posted by Roadtoad
...If military might is the only thing he respects, then, unfortunate as it is, that's what you use, I would think. I'm not happy with how it's being used, nor am I overjoyed at what I'm seeing in diplomatic circles, but this may be the only way we gain security in the region.

Did you know that the evil Osama Bin Laden gets support partly because there are US military bases in Saudi Arabia?
Do you think that some people in the Middle East will misinterpret the US invading Iraq without UN agreement? Do you think these people will then believe propaganda about the US and help terrorist groups attack the US?
Do you still think an unauthorised invasion will bring security to the region?
(Bonus question - what is the current relationship between Turkey and the US? Include the Kurds in your answer.)

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I'll admit, this is becoming more and more confusing each day. I sometimes feel as though I need a program to keep up with who's doing what, and why. Even Google searches are becoming a morass of conflicting evidence and views. Maybe now would be a good time to step back and reread what's available.

I came here to learn, and for the most part, I'm gaining a lot, but there are sure times...

If more people had this sensible attitude, there would be far less violence in the World.

Roadtoad

21st February 2003, 11:43 AM

Thanks for your response, Glee. I'll try and take this one bit at a time...

I think it's domestic. Last election, the far right made a strong showing in France. Chirac is right wing, so he is concerned about being seen as a 'strong' leader, and regaining those votes.

Hadn't thought of that angle, and should have.

Are you certain of that?

That Hussein is in violation of 1441? A couple of other threads have covered this already. Rikzilla and Randfan have done a far better job than I can in discussing this, so any attempt by me to even summarize what they've discussed would be an insult to them. I perhaps should have said "I believe he is in violation, since I have no firsthand knowledge, save for what I'm getting here. (Which, oddly enough, is better news than you'd get from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and -- God help us all! -- Fox.)

Alas the UN weapon inspectors have failed to find your WMDs 'on record'.

1991, they found and destroyed several warheads designed to hold biological and chemical weapons. Ditto a few weeks ago. Big problem here is that Hussein isn't supposed to have anything like this in the first place.

If I left you with the impression that I thought the UN had resolved that unless Hussein proved he had no WMDs, he'd be barbecued in a thermonuclear oven, I apologize. That was not my intent.

You are saying that the US is going to reduce its nuclear arsenal below some other countries?
The US is going to give up its stock of smallpox?

I hasten to add that the US are good guys - but they have to behave like the guys in white hats.
Making wild claims is not going to get you any respect.

Not a wild claim. No, I don't believe the US will reduce stockpiles below anyone. That's not likely anytime soon. (I could wish it were possible, but I've never seen any evidence of that.) We have, however reduced significantly the number of warheads in our inventory.

As far as our stockpile of Smallpox, the claim I've heard is we supposedly need active strains of this to develop defensive measures, (whatever they're supposed to be). (Sorry, I've lost the source. If you could see our office here in our house, or the pile of books and magazines beside my bed, you'd understand. Drives my wife to distraction....)

Dude, we haven't had white hats in this country in a very long time. Remember that damned aspirin factory? For that matter, remember how we turned our backs on the Kurds? Or go even further back: remember how we ignored what was being done to Iran, during the Iran/Iraq war? I could, and probably should, go on, but I think you get the idea. Our white hats are looking awfully dark and gray these days.

As far as the French claim of long memories of mustard gas, that was from an ABC News report from about two weeks ago, I think. (An unnamed source, which, now that I think about it, makes it somewhat suspect. Probably not a good citation on my part...)

How many Iraqi civilians are you prepared to kill to get rid of such weapons?

Ideally, you don't want to kill any.

Realistically, the scary part is that Hussein has already been moving troops into civilian areas. Plus, there's that group of voluntary "Human Shields."

If it were me, and only me, I'd look for ways to move in far more covertly, and over time, sabotage all WMDs. Use CIA Officers and Army Ranger/SF, Navy SEALs, and Recon Marines to first locate the weapons, then develop the agent base to short circuit such equipment so it couldn't be used. At other times, even stealing the weapons themselves. As soon as they're developed, take them out. Eventually, even a crazy man would get the message.

(But that's my idealistic, James Bond fan side speaking...)

Did you know that the evil Osama Bin Laden gets support partly because there are US military bases in Saudi Arabia?

No surprise there. His family made its money in the construction business. They have lots of friends in very high places, too.

Do you think that some people in the Middle East will misinterpret the US invading Iraq without UN agreement? Do you think these people will then believe propaganda about the US and help terrorist groups attack the US?

Will they misinterpret our actions? Absolutely. (They already are.)

Will they help terrorists? Probably. (They already are.)

Do you still think an unauthorised invasion will bring security to the region?

I suppose we ought to define "security."

If you mean all terrorism will cease, and Americans will be safe wherever they go, no, that's not even reasonable.

If you mean there's less likelihood of a conflict involving the use of WMDs, then yes, that's possible.

Unfortunately, our appearance of taking a cavalier attitude in this showdown with Iraq is not winning us friends. If anything, it's setting us up for greater problems down the road. (This includes our relationship with Israel.) If we're going to count on working with these people any time in the future, we'd better start mending fences NOW.

(Bonus question - what is the current relationship between Turkey and the US? Include the Kurds in your answer.)

We've already sold out the Kurds, when it comes to Turkey. I can't help but wonder if Arabs aren't looking at this and making comparisons to Poland at the end of WWII, and Stalin's decision that Poland couldn't have back the land the Soviet Union took from them, but they could have the land the Germans took. Considering how the Turks have generally treated the Kurds, (which if I recall correctly, and if I haven't, would someone please correct me, wasn't much better than Hussein and Iraq), I would have hoped we'd have been able to operate from a position of strength, both moral and economic, to try and change things for the better, not just for the Kurds in Iraq, but in Turkey as well.

The US is over a barrel with Turkey. We're needing the bases, but we've made promises in the past to Turkey that we've not honored. Needless to say, they're rather irritated with us. (To put it mildly...) Add to this the formentioned attitude, and there's little question about how and why there's tension between us.

The real question now becomes: "How do we repair the damage?" Clinton did not fulfill what the US had agreed to after the first Gulf War. Bush now has to try and pick up the pieces. If I had to give this administration a grade for it's performance on this, I'd give them maybe a C. (Still need more info, though. That grade can change.)

If more people had this sensible attitude, there would be far less violence in the World.

Thanks for the compliment. I do try, but sometimes, I fail miserably. It's good to find places where issues can be discussed rationally, and, in general, where you can interact intelligently with people. Makes it easier to pick yourself up and try again.

Roadtoad

21st February 2003, 08:52 PM

Got this from the ABC News site. Interesting...

The Saudis are proposing that after Saddam Hussein's fall, Saudi Arabia should lead a coalition of Islamic nations to occupy Iraq while a transitional Iraqi government is established, with Turkey playing the leading role in the Islamic force.
Senior government officials told ABCNEWS that according to the Crown Prince, an Islamic occupation force would defuse the anti-American hostility that is sweeping the Middle East and putting pressure on moderate Arab governments that are allied with the United States.

The Saudis would then be free to crack down on the extremist Jihadis in the Kingdom who are allied with al Qaeda or are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden.

Right now, Saudis feel a full scale crackdown would look like the Kingdom is doing American bidding, at a time when President Bush is very unpopular there.

(1.) What if Bush accepts this? Would this in fact be a wise move, when Bush has stated he's wanting a democratically elected leader put in place of Saddam Hussein?

(2.) If he doesn't, would this create greater friction than already exists?

Doctor X

22nd February 2003, 12:50 PM

So many "ifs."

Will the Saudis suppress the Shiites in the South?

Will the Turks screw the Kurds who have been enjoying a better life with the NFZs?

Of course, if I had the answers I would not be here, I would, to steal from an old teacher, "be sitting behind a big mahogany desk saying, 'Mmmmmyeeeessss?'"

--J.D.

hammegk

22nd February 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by glee

What is it about protesting about the US invading other countries to get their oil that you don't understand?

What I understand is the high probability the protestors just wish they had the power to invade a country for some oil for themselves to control.

Either that or they are warm-hearted/soft-headed. Whatta ya think?

glee

22nd February 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Thanks for your response, Glee. I'll try and take this one bit at a time...

I think it's domestic. Last election, the far right made a strong showing in France. Chirac is right wing, so he is concerned about being seen as a 'strong' leader, and regaining those votes.

Hadn't thought of that angle, and should have.

No worries, mate!

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Are you certain of that?

That Hussein is in violation of 1441? A couple of other threads have covered this already. Rikzilla and Randfan have done a far better job than I can in discussing this, so any attempt by me to even summarize what they've discussed would be an insult to them. I perhaps should have said "I believe he is in violation, since I have no firsthand knowledge, save for what I'm getting here. (Which, oddly enough, is better news than you'd get from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and -- God help us all! -- Fox.)

Well if Saddam is in violation, why is Bush asking for another UN resolution?

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Alas the UN weapon inspectors have failed to find your WMDs 'on record'.

1991, they found and destroyed several warheads designed to hold biological and chemical weapons. Ditto a few weeks ago. Big problem here is that Hussein isn't supposed to have anything like this in the first place.

I'm sorry, but when lives are at stake, I believe you need to be precise. Finding delivery systems is suspicious, but not the same as finding the weapons.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You are saying that the US is going to reduce its nuclear arsenal below some other countries?
The US is going to give up its stock of smallpox?

I hasten to add that the US are good guys - but they have to behave like the guys in white hats.
Making wild claims is not going to get you any respect.

Not a wild claim. No, I don't believe the US will reduce stockpiles below anyone. That's not likely anytime soon. (I could wish it were possible, but I've never seen any evidence of that.) We have, however reduced significantly the number of warheads in our inventory.

As far as our stockpile of Smallpox, the claim I've heard is we supposedly need active strains of this to develop defensive measures, (whatever they're supposed to be). (Sorry, I've lost the source. If you could see our office here in our house, or the pile of books and magazines beside my bed, you'd understand. Drives my wife to distraction....)

...

As far as the French claim of long memories of mustard gas, that was from an ABC News report from about two weeks ago, I think. (An unnamed source, which, now that I think about it, makes it somewhat suspect. Probably not a good citation on my part...)

You said (bolding mine):

"Please, no strawmen again about how the U.S. has more WMDs than anyone. We're getting rid of ours. Others are not."

You can claim the US are the good guys, but not that they are getting rid of their WMDs (e.g. you have nukes and smallpox stocks).

Originally posted by Roadtoad
How many Iraqi civilians are you prepared to kill to get rid of such weapons?

Ideally, you don't want to kill any.

Realistically, the scary part is that Hussein has already been moving troops into civilian areas. Plus, there's that group of voluntary "Human Shields."

So I repeat, how many Iraqi civilians are you prepared to kill to get rid of such weapons?
(Because there WILL be civilian casualties in any war.)

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If it were me, and only me, I'd look for ways to move in far more covertly, and over time, sabotage all WMDs. Use CIA Officers and Army Ranger/SF, Navy SEALs, and Recon Marines to first locate the weapons, then develop the agent base to short circuit such equipment so it couldn't be used. ...

I hope your boys have a Middle Eastern appearance and speak the local dialect.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Did you know that the evil Osama Bin Laden gets support partly because there are US military bases in Saudi Arabia?

No surprise there. His family made its money in the construction business. They have lots of friends in very high places, too.

Yes, but my point is that the US invading an Arab country (especially without UN authorisation) will lead to more terrorists like Bin Laden.

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Do you think that some people in the Middle East will misinterpret the US invading Iraq without UN agreement? Do you think these people will then believe propaganda about the US and help terrorist groups attack the US?

Will they misinterpret our actions? Absolutely. (They already are.)

Will they help terrorists? Probably. (They already are.)

You're not a diplomat, are you? (You tar the whole region with the brush of terrorism!)
Don't you think telling Middle East people that "the US invaded an Arab country without authorisation, set up a puppet dictator and stole the oil" isn't going to cause a violent reaction?!

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Do you still think an unauthorised invasion will bring security to the region?

I suppose we ought to define "security."

If you mean all terrorism will cease, and Americans will be safe wherever they go, no, that's not even reasonable.

If you mean there's less likelihood of a conflict involving the use of WMDs, then yes, that's possible.

Unfortunately, our appearance of taking a cavalier attitude in this showdown with Iraq is not winning us friends. If anything, it's setting us up for greater problems down the road. (This includes our relationship with Israel.) If we're going to count on working with these people any time in the future, we'd better start mending fences NOW.

And invading Iraq will "mend fences" how?!

glee

22nd February 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
What I understand is the high probability the protestors just wish they had the power to invade a country for some oil for themselves to control.

Either that or they are warm-hearted/soft-headed. Whatta ya think?

I think you're insulting millions of people.

Perhaps you could study some history.
Britain gave independence to India, Canada, Australia etc. We had one of the greatest Empires ever seen, but we learnt how to live in friendship instead (see the Commonwealth).
You admit the US is going to invade for the oil, and think everyone protesting is equally power-hungry or just stupid.

Some of us know the lessons of war, and the importance of global relations.
Why do you think b*st*rds like Bin laden get funding and recruit martyrs?
Because of attitudes like your one above.

Shane Costello

22nd February 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by glee:
Britain gave independence to India, Canada, Australia etc. We had one of the greatest Empires ever seen, but we learnt how to live in friendship instead (see the Commonwealth).

Northern Ireland, the Suez crisis, Palestine, India and Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe?

hammegk

22nd February 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by glee

I think you're insulting millions of people.
More likely billions, but who's counting?

Perhaps you could study some history.
Britain gave independence to India, Canada, Australia etc. We had one of the greatest Empires ever seen, but we learnt how to live in friendship instead (see the Commonwealth).
Yeah, and some of us didn't wait for you wusses to abandon manifest destiny, and kicked your sorry butts out long before you went soft-headed.

You admit the US is going to invade for the oil, and think everyone protesting is equally power-hungry or just stupid.
Not "control" per se; rather better geopolitical input into availability, price, and profit centers.

Some of us know the lessons of war, and the importance of global relations.
Why do you think b*st*rds like Bin laden get funding and recruit martyrs?
Because of attitudes like your one above.
And you are a dunce. You nearly got your asses kicked over your oily spat in the Falklands.

Richard G

22nd February 2003, 04:23 PM

Since the subject of games came up, these two are historicaly accurate, and highly addicting. "Combat Mission", and "Combat Mission 2" (WW2 ground combat). Great for you history and WW2 buffs.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm

Roadtoad

23rd February 2003, 12:36 PM

Thanks for the input, Glee. It's good to talk with you...

Well if Saddam is in violation, why is Bush asking for another UN resolution?

When you said I'm not a diplomat, you're right. This confuses me, too. Why we would need another resolution to enforce the one that's already in place make little sense. But, Hell, if it gets positive action going, resolve away...

I'm sorry, but when lives are at stake, I believe you need to be precise. Finding delivery systems is suspicious, but not the same as finding the weapons.

Why would you need the weapon delivery system if you didn't have the weapons? But, your point is well taken.

You can claim the US are the good guys, but not that they are getting rid of their WMDs (e.g. you have nukes and smallpox stocks).

One of the last projects my dad was working on before he died in 2000 was a report on the efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to destroy smallpox stocks, as well as our stash of nerve agents.

Good point, though. We still have some nukes, and the smallpox stocks we have could, in the hands of a President hell bent on it, be weaponized, supposedly for "the good of the Nation." (Geez, that's damned unnerving...)

So I repeat, how many Iraqi civilians are you prepared to kill to get rid of such weapons?

I wish I had an answer. The best anyone can hope for is that we can keep civilian casualties below 5% of the local population surrounding any site, would be an extremely rough guess. (That's based primarily on trying to figure through what I've been trying to read on this. So, this figure is almost certainly wrong.)

I hope your boys have a Middle Eastern appearance and speak the local dialect.

(I'd comment, but then I'd have to kill ya!:D )

In all seriousness, when I was in the military, I got to know the MI people extremely well. Some of what they could do would absolutely astonish you.

But the operative word is "could." It almost seemed as though the military was doing everything it could to keep these people from doing what they were training them to do. It almost seems the same way with the CIA; rather than putting them to work doing what they should be doing best, they had them involved with all manner of screwball actions, including, possibly, (supposedly?) helping Manuel Noriega move drugs into the U.S. Instead of intercepting threats to the U.S., they were involved in this penny ante crap.

You're not a diplomat, are you? (You tar the whole region with the brush of terrorism!)

Not at all. There's active support, (providing funds, volunteering for service), and passive support, (withholding information, political support for those opposed to American interests). I would say we're going to face far more passive support than active. That is opposition, but it's not terrorism.

Don't you think telling Middle East people that "the US invaded an Arab country without authorisation, set up a puppet dictator and stole the oil" isn't going to cause a violent reaction?!

That's one reason why I think Bush needs to take a long, hard look at the proposal recently advanced by the Saudi government. We'd better get it through our heads that this is not the time to play the same game that we did in other nations in the past, particularly as we did in Iran with the Shah. That will come back to bite us in the ass, and damned quick.

And invading Iraq will "mend fences" how?!

That won't. (See immediately above.)

Seems to me most of the mistakes the State Department and the White House are making could easily have been avoided if someone had just cracked the cover of some back issues of National Geographic once in a while. I realize in this country, there's a sort of admiration for Henry Ford's quip, "History is bunk." The problem is, it's history that winds up nailing you through the heart. To borrow from a popular phrase, "Those who do not do history, will be done in by history..." (Yes, I know, it was originally "politics.")

Hope the time comes when we can have a stout together, Dude.

rikzilla

23rd February 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by glee

Well if Saddam is in violation, why is Bush asking for another UN resolution?

Stupid you agree? GWB made assurances to Germany and Belgium that it would seek yet another UN res....in return for which they agreed to "let" NATO defend Turkey in case of Saddam launching an attack in that direction during the soon to be war.

BTW...the UN resolution GWB is seeking...is merely an instrument for the UN to agree that Saddam is already in violation of 17 other resolutions! Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Due to the stark nature of what GWB is seeking from the UN, it should be in hand by the 7th of March. Look for ground combat to commense on the first moonless night thereafter.

Glee,....you appear to be something of a late-comer to this debate on this forum. I posted a selection of reasons Iraq was in violation of UNSC res 687 (The original cease fire agreement)

Here's the link (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904)

I thereafter invited anyone who wished to attack this evidence to go ahead and do it. So far no takers...and I have to continually rescue the thread from oblivion...(I guess I'll go bump it again)

Remember....the info there was gleaned from 6 or 7 different sources...all properly cited. My posting of this info pre-dated Colin Powell's speech to the UN....although Mr. Powell did a fine job bringing more info to the table, the info I have dug up stands on it's own just fine.

Regards,
-zilla

BillyTK

24th February 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Refute away...

Saddam publicly stated that he was reclaiming Iraq's "19th Province", since the current boundries were imposed during colonial times.

As reported by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/07/sproject.irq.saddam.kuwait/)

From the web article:

"Saddam's forces invaded Kuwait in August 1990, claiming it as Baghdad's 19th province and sparking a crisis that led to the Persian Gulf War in January 1991."

1. I'll accept that Saddam made this public statement if you can show me proof--according to the article it's Saddam's forces who made that claim;

2. Regardless of what Saddam says, you cannot know that this is what he actually thinks, unless you are telepathic;

3. It's a post hoc rationalisation (Saddam's forces made the claim after the decision to invade was made) which at best is a justification of the invasion, not an explanation of why they invaded.

Sorry for taking so long to respond to you, and I'm afraid there'll be another gap as I'm off on holiday for a week. Have fun! :)

glee

24th February 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by glee
Britain gave independence to India, Canada, Australia etc. We had one of the greatest Empires ever seen, but we learnt how to live in friendship instead (see the Commonwealth).

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Northern Ireland, the Suez crisis, Palestine, India and Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe

1. The British have been in Northern Ireland for about 1000 years.
There is a 'double minority' situation - a minority of Protestants in all Ireland, but a minority of Catholics in Northern Ireland.
The situation needs a separate thread (and there have been some here) but you may like to consider two points: there is full democracy in both countries and it's 'Christians' killing each other.

2. Suez was a shameful episode where a Great Power invaded a foreign country on a pretext to grab a natural resource.
(So no relevence to the present situation then :rolleyes: )

3. Palestine is also a region where the historical roots of conflict go back in time (thousands of years). I'm not sure what you think the British are currently responsible for - we left soon after Israel formed.

4. India was ruled by a British company (how sick is that?), but after Gandhi's peaceful protests (if only more troubles could be resolved that way) we left. We now have an amicable relationship.

5. Pakistan was formed because of religious conflict (which sadly still continues). Again I'm not sure what you think the British are currently responsible for in that region.

6. South Africa saw some unpleasant behaviour by the British (far more by the Boers). Again a great man, Mandela, saved the country. There is still plenty of residual violence, but this seems to be the case everywhere following decades of discrimination.

7. Zimbabwe is a real mess, with the threat of starvation and the rigging of elections.

My point was not that the British had always behaved well but that we had given up control of much of the World and seen democracy flourish in much of our former colonies.
We also know that conflicts can breed resentment lasting for centuries.
I really hope the US learns this lesson.

Kodiak

24th February 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

1. I'll accept that Saddam made this public statement if you can show me proof--according to the article it's Saddam's forces who made that claim;

2. Regardless of what Saddam says, you cannot know that this is what he actually thinks, unless you are telepathic;

3. It's a post hoc rationalisation (Saddam's forces made the claim after the decision to invade was made) which at best is a justification of the invasion, not an explanation of why they invaded.

Sorry for taking so long to respond to you, and I'm afraid there'll be another gap as I'm off on holiday for a week. Have fun! :)

The announcement (http://www.jajz-ed.org.il/juice/media/week4.html) about Kuwait becoming Iraq's 19th Province can from the government and therefore came from Saddam. Do you think the announcement was made without his express permission??

From the source cited and linked above:

"Six days following the invasion, the Provisional Government was disbanded and Iraq announced the annexation of Kuwait. On the 28th August 1990, Kuwait was declared Iraq's 19th Province whilst the border area was incorporated as an extension of the province Basra. Al- Hassan al Majid, Iraq's Minister of Local Government and cousin of Saddam Hussein was appointed Governor of Kuwait."

Shane Costello

24th February 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Glee:
1. The British have been in Northern Ireland for about 1000 years.

Not actually true. Norhtern Ireland was the one part of Ireland relatively untouched by Norman/British influence until the 16th Century. The current tensions there are the sole fault of past British policy.

2. Suez was a shameful episode where a Great Power invaded a foreign country on a pretext to grab a natural resource.
(So no relevence to the present situation then :rolleyes:)

1. The Suez crisis showed that the UK was far from being a "great power".
2. Your evidence for the present situation vis a vis Iraq being about an attempted "grab" of Iraqi oil reserves is?

4. India was ruled by a British company (how sick is that?), but after Gandhi's peaceful protests (if only more troubles could be resolved that way) we left. We now have an amicable relationship.

Gandhis peaceful protests got him shot dead. Britain may have ana amicable relationship with India and Pakistan, but they did leave behind a colony at odds with itself.

My point was not that the British had always behaved well but that we had given up control of much of the World and seen democracy flourish in much of our former colonies.

True. However democracy has only been able to flourish anywhere because American military and economic might acted as a counterweight to Communism, and eventually brought it to it's knees. Britain probably wouldn't have been in a position to grant any of it's colonies independence were it not for American entry into World War II.

glee

28th February 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Not actually true. Norhtern Ireland was the one part of Ireland relatively untouched by Norman/British influence until the 16th Century. The current tensions there are the sole fault of past British policy.

My Irish mate told me that English barons first grabbed land in Ireland around 1100. But the point is that there have been centuries of involvement between England and Ireland.

It is wonderful that you can simplify the sad troubles of the entire island to just 'British policy'.
You don't think religion has anything to do with the conflict?
You wouldn't include the opposing beliefs on abortion as relevant?
And of course no financial contributions from misguided US citizens have ever been used to buy arms and bombs for terrorists.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
1. The Suez crisis showed that the UK was far from being a "great power".
2. Your evidence for the present situation vis a vis Iraq being about an attempted "grab" of Iraqi oil reserves is?

All depends on your definition of 'Great Power', doesn't it?
(Why did the US flee Somalia?)
Personally I think the possession of nukes goes a long way to establishing a country as a 'Power'.

As for the oil, I could repeat some of my earlier arguments, but I can let hammegk speak for me:

Originally posted by hammegk
LOL. Have you ever looked at the "synergy" between BP & every meaningful politician you limeys have had for about the last 90 years?

What is it about "Big Oil" and world geopolitics you don't understand?

Originally posted by hammegk
What I understand is the high probability the (anti-war) protestors just wish they had the power to invade a country for some oil for themselves to control.

Originally posted by hammegk
Not "control" per se; rather better geopolitical input into availability, price, and profit centers.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Gandhis peaceful protests got him shot dead. Britain may have ana amicable relationship with India and Pakistan, but they did leave behind a colony at odds with itself.

What is this incessant desire to criticise the UK?
Gandhi achieved independence for his people with a brilliant non-violent campaign.
If you want shootings, who was responsible for Martin Luther King, the Kennedys etc?
And you think India and Pakistan were at peace before we took over?
You don't know about the religion conflicts in that area, then?
And why is any of this relevant?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
True. However democracy has only been able to flourish anywhere because American military and economic might acted as a counterweight to Communism, and eventually brought it to it's knees. Britain probably wouldn't have been in a position to grant any of it's colonies independence were it not for American entry into World War II.

That's funny, I thought Communist Russia was pretty much on our side in World War 2 (e.g. suffering millions of casualties to hold up the Germans while the US stayed neutral.)

And you might like to reconsider your laughably ignorant statement about democracy flourishing only through American might.
Chile? Allende? CIA?

Again I don't see what you trying to say.

aerocontrols

28th February 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by glee
That's funny, I thought Communist Russia was pretty much on our side in World War 2 (e.g. suffering millions of casualties to hold up the Germans while the US stayed neutral.)

Gonna have to object here...

How would you compare American 'neutrality' prior to when we were attacked by the Axis powers to Soviet 'neutrality' prior to when they were?

MattJ

Shane Costello

28th February 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by glee:
What is this incessant desire to criticise the UK?

There isn't any.

It is wonderful that you can simplify the sad troubles of the entire island to just 'British policy'.

Well it was "British policy" to settle Ulster with Lowland Scots and London guilds. I'm not trying to excuse IRA terrorism, but that is the root of the problem in Northern Ireland, not the whole island (and believe me, the Irish are well able to shoot themselves in the scrotum without any help from the English).

My Irish mate told me that English barons first grabbed land in Ireland around 1100.

Those "English" barons were actually Normans from South Wales. Where do you think the thoroughly Irish surnames of Fitzgerald, Burke, Walsh, Dillon, Barry and Costello originated? Did the English as a nation even exist in 1100? Anyway the Norman "invasion" (they were actually invited in by an Irish nobleman) didn't occur until 1170.

And you never thought about researching all this for yourself, instead of relying on the say-so of your Irish pal?
And you think India and Pakistan were at peace before we took over?

They didn't even exist then.

You don't know about the religion conflicts in that area, then?
And why is any of this relevant?

Yes, and all of this is relevant because you claimed the Commonwelath was at peace with itself.

You don't think religion has anything to do with the conflict?

No, since the terrorists consist of lapsed Catholics and Protestants who haven't opened the book of Common Prayer in their lives.

You wouldn't include the opposing beliefs on abortion as relevant?

Abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland. About the only policy emanating from the Vatican that Ian Paisley could find common ground with is on abortion.

And of course no financial contributions from misguided US citizens have ever been used to buy arms and bombs for terrorists.

Of course not, but then the IRA also had to rely on drugdealing, bank robbery and Colonel Ghaddafi to maintain their campaign of terror.

Gandhi achieved independence for his people with a brilliant non-violent campaign.

Perhaps. There's also the fact that Britain simply couldn't afford it's Empire anymore. Neither did Gandhi's brilliant non-violent campaign prevent the region degenerating into violence thereafter.

That's funny, I thought Communist Russia was pretty much on our side in World War 2 (e.g. suffering millions of casualties to hold up the Germans while the US stayed neutral.)

Yes they were. Doesn't change the fact that the ultimate aim of the Soviet Union was worldwide communism, nad that they would have extended this throughout Europe were it not for the US military presence.

And you might like to reconsider your laughably ignorant statement about democracy flourishing only through American might.
Chile? Allende? CIA?

Given your woefully ignorant reading of Irish history, this is a bit rich.

I'm not denying that the US has done questionable things and made some serious mistakes with it's foreign policy. What I am saying is that overall and all things considered the US has been a benevolent superpower. Would we be better off if Communism prevailed? What would the world be like if France was a superpower, given recent French arrogance and threats towards European countries that begged to differ from French foreign policy?

Mike B.

28th February 2003, 07:13 PM

Speaking of the troubles...

By the 1990s at least, were the IRA and the UVF and other groups simply thugs who left all political idealogy to the wayside?

I mean were they people using a cause to justify their nihilism and brutality as freedom fighters or protecting against the "papists?"

I mean the vast majority of the people in NI, Ireland and Britian rightfully wanted nothing to do with these people.

There is talk about needing to understand why there is terrorism and the need to mollify the causes and thus get rid of recruits. Did that happen in NI?

Did John Major give a lot of concessions to the IRA?
or did the hotheads on both sides realize that the people were sick of the killing and the violence turned enough people off to make these people pariahs?

glee

1st March 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by glee (to Shane)
What is this incessant desire to criticise the UK?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
There isn't any.

Well let's see.
You stated about Northern Ireland (bolding mine):

"The current tensions there are the sole fault of past British policy."

I challenge with:

You don't think religion has anything to do with the conflict?

and you reply:

"No, since the terrorists consist of lapsed Catholics and Protestants who haven't opened the book of Common Prayer in their lives."

Perhaps you could give cites proving how all terrorist groups in Ireland are lapsed Christians?!

I challenge further with:

And of course no financial contributions from misguided US citizens have ever been used to buy arms and bombs for terrorists.

and you reply:

"Of course not, but then the IRA also had to rely on drugdealing, bank robbery and Colonel Ghaddafi to maintain their campaign of terror."

So US citizens funding the IRA , IRA drug dealing, IRA bank robbery and Libyan support of terrorism are all examples of 'past British policy' to you?
And you don't think your bias is showing?

Originally posted by glee
My Irish mate told me that English barons first grabbed land in Ireland around 1100.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Those "English" barons were actually Normans from South Wales. Where do you think the thoroughly Irish surnames of Fitzgerald, Burke, Walsh, Dillon, Barry and Costello originated? Did the English as a nation even exist in 1100? Anyway the Norman "invasion" (they were actually invited in by an Irish nobleman) didn't occur until 1170.

So the people who have ruled England in succession since 1066 (apart from a brief loss due to a Civil War), including compiling an countrywide inventory of their possessions, don't count as English to you. :rolleyes:
When exactly did the Normans stop ruling England then?! :confused:

And I did say about 1100. You claimed the 16th century!

Originally posted by glee
And you think India and Pakistan were at peace before we took over?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
They didn't even exist then.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you fail to understand me because I didn't write 'the regions where now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are'?
Or are you just nitpicking because I'm from England?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
... all of this is relevant because you claimed the Commonwelath was at peace with itself.

Here's the original:

Originally posted by hammegk
What I understand is the high probability the protestors just wish they had the power to invade a country for some oil for themselves to control.

...

Originally posted by glee
I think you're insulting millions of people.

Perhaps you could study some history.
Britain gave independence to India, Canada, Australia etc. We had one of the greatest Empires ever seen, but we learnt how to live in friendship instead (see the Commonwealth).
You admit the US is going to invade for the oil, and think everyone protesting is equally power-hungry or just stupid.

Some of us know the lessons of war, and the importance of global relations.
Why do you think b*st*rds like Bin laden get funding and recruit martyrs?
Because of attitudes like your one above.

So my point was mainly to refute hammegk's stupid slur.

But perhaps you can explain why numerous countries are in the Commonwealth, compete in the Commonwealth games, invite the Monarch to lavish State visits etc, if they are so hostile to the UK and its past policies.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Neither did Gandhi's brilliant non-violent campaign prevent the region degenerating into violence thereafter.

If there was a Gandhi on each side today, I predict the conflict would be resolved.
You blame one man for only being able to achieve independence from an occupying Power, rather than then sorting out a deeply split fanatically religious region with about a billion people in it?!
You think the military dictatorship in Pakistan is a good thing? They may not have the military might of the US, but they certainly have the gung-ho attitude (and the nukes).

Originally posted by glee
That's funny, I thought Communist Russia was pretty much on our side in World War 2 (e.g. suffering millions of casualties to hold up the Germans while the US stayed neutral.)

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Yes they were. Doesn't change the fact that the ultimate aim of the Soviet Union was worldwide communism, nad that they would have extended this throughout Europe were it not for the US military presence.

Ah, the Red menace (as explained by Reagan).
Did you notice the full military might of the Soviet Union failing to cope with ... Afghanistan?
Do you think this was a success for the Red Army?
And you're sure only the US stopped an invasion of Europe?

Look, I know that NATO is a great alliance for the UK. I'm just trying to stop your hyperbole that the US military might is the only hope for freedom in the World. As personified by:

Originally posted by glee
And you might like to reconsider your laughably ignorant statement about democracy flourishing only through American might.
Chile? Allende? CIA?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Given your woefully ignorant reading of Irish history, this is a bit rich.

So let's sum up your premise.
You claim democracy flourishes only through American might.
I mention Chile, which completely refutes that.
You then say because I had an inaccuracy on another topic (which I challenge above anyway), this is 'a bit rich'.
What? :confused:
Withdraw your silly claim!

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I'm not denying that the US has done questionable things and made some serious mistakes with it's foreign policy. What I am saying is that overall and all things considered the US has been a benevolent superpower. Would we be better off if Communism prevailed? What would the world be like if France was a superpower, given recent French arrogance and threats towards European countries that begged to differ from French foreign policy?

This is much more sensible, and I agree.
I think that friends of the US should advise when a possibly disastrous mistake is going to be made.
I also think blanket statements which are demonstably untrue should be challenged.

Shane Costello

1st March 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by glee:
Perhaps you could give cites proving how all terrorist groups in Ireland are lapsed Christians?!

1. Sinn Fein taike a pro-choice line on abortion.
2. The loyalist paramilitaries regularly flout a number of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" being the most notable.

So US citizens funding the IRA , IRA drug dealing, IRA bank robbery and Libyan support of terrorism are all examples of 'past British policy' to you?
And you don't think your bias is showing?

No, but I stand by my claim that the plantation of Ulster by hte British crown is the root cause (if not the sole one) of tensions in the North of Ireland. That's historical fact, not bias. If the plantation never occured then there wouldn't be a problem in the North.

So the people who have ruled England in succession since 1066 (apart from a brief loss due to a Civil War), including compiling an countrywide inventory of their possessions, don't count as English to you.

What's this got to do with anything? What I'm saying is that the "English" barons as you described them were Normans from South Wales.

So the people who have ruled England in succession since 1066 (apart from a brief loss due to a Civil War), including compiling an countrywide inventory of their possessions, don't count as English to you.

When exactly did the Normans stop ruling England then?!

How is this relevant? In any event, arent the present ruling dynasty German? Isn't Prince Phillip Greek?

And I did say about 1100. You claimed the 16th century!

Yes. The Normans didn't penetrate into Ulster at all, and by the 16th century the Normans had been completely hibernicised.

If there was a Gandhi on each side today, I predict the conflict would be resolved.

How do you know there haven't been countless Gandhis in Iraq, only for them to meet an horrific demise at the hands of Saddam?

You blame one man for only being able to achieve independence from an occupying Power, rather than then sorting out a deeply split fanatically religious region with about a billion people in it?!

This is a strawman, I never blamed Gandhi for religious violence in the Indian sub-continent. I said that his non-violent methods failed to prevent this. Gandhi's campaign of non-violence was only possible because the British were a relatively benign colonial power. Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative commentator originally from India, recalls a history teacher of his pointing out that if India was under German, rather than British, control Gandhi would've ended up as a lampshade. Laying on train tracks is only an effective means of protest if you're confident the trian will actually stop. Gandhis campaign for independence has to be seen in this context, IMO.

You think the military dictatorship in Pakistan is a good thing? They may not have the military might of the US, but they certainly have the gung-ho attitude (and the nukes).

I don't think military dictatorships are good things, but there undeniably better than fundamentalist regimes, especially when there's nukes involved. We rarely ever have the choice between good and bad regimes, more often than not it's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. The alliance with the USSR against the Nazis in WWII is an example of this.

Ah, the Red menace (as explained by Reagan).
Did you notice the full military might of the Soviet Union failing to cope with ... Afghanistan?

I'm sure Reagan noticed, which might explain why he embarked on an expansionary defence program, which the Soviets couldn't match and that contributed to their collapse.

Are you suggesting that Communism was anything other than a menace?

Do you think this was a success for the Red Army?
And you're sure only the US stopped an invasion of Europe?

Backtrack a few decades to the end of WWII. With the military defeat of the Third Reich by the Soviets in the East, what was there to prevent the Red Army marching to Calais? The French, the Italians, the Belgians?

So let's sum up your premise.
You claim democracy flourishes only through American might.
I mention Chile, which completely refutes that.

I don't know the full facts about Chile, but I said that on balance the US has been a force for good and democracy in the world. Chile doesn't "completely refute" this in light of the establishment of democracies in West Germany and Japan after WWII, Marshall Aid that helped stabalise democracy in Europe after WWII, as well as the American military presence that acted as a bulwark against Soviet military aggression in Europe. I stand by my assertion that had the Soviet Union been the world's only superpower in the aftermath of WWII then very few, if any, nations would now be democratic.

I also think blanket statements which are demonstably untrue should be challenged.

Statements such as "My Irish friend told me English Barons grabbed land in Ireland around 1100".

Thumper

1st March 2003, 03:22 PM

Regarding Ireland and its present troubles. Let us not forget there are two Irelands currently.

Yes, Norman barons did come over to Ireland (Leinster for the most part). They spread inland to eastern Munster. At that point they ceased their westward expansion for a variety of reasons. The greatest reason being that they were doing this on their own. It was not a policy of the English Crown to invade Ireland at this point. This was in the period approximately from 1160 until the late fifteenth century.

In the mid-sixteenth century, religion enters the picture. Ireland is Catholic. England is a new religion called the Church of England, headed by the King.

Now, let's turn our thoughts to Ulster, which until this point is the most Catholic province. Mary (later Elizabeth, then James I) created plantations in Northern Ireland. In the matter of a generation or two, Ulster changed from the most Catholic province to the least.

It was a part of a greater plan from Britain. Catholic landowners and underclass alike were moved west to the least desireable part: Connacht.

We'll stop here, before the famine, with the history of Ireland. This is all fact.

To say that the problem in Ireland is all religious in nature is true and false at once. It's true that all British policy since Henry VIII (well, until the middle of last century) has been aimed at keeping the Catholics under control. This was done through legal and religious means. Since members of Parliament had to take oaths to the King as head of the CoEngland, Catholics couldn't be members of Parliament, thus they had no say in the government, etc.

Anyways, I guess this post is done. I just wanted to clear up a few things.

Shane Costello

1st March 2003, 04:27 PM

Excellent post, Thumper! :cool: Permit me to add a few points of my own.

Yes, Norman barons did come over to Ireland (Leinster for the most part). They spread inland to eastern Munster. At that point they ceased their westward expansion for a variety of reasons. The greatest reason being that they were doing this on their own. It was not a policy of the English Crown to invade Ireland at this point

One reason being that most of them had become hibernicised, "More Irish than the Irish themselves" as the saying goes. By the beginning of the 16th Century, only the hinterland of Dublin, "The Pale", pledged allegiance to the English crown.

The Normans also settled extensively in Connacht, which explains why the surnames Burke and Walsh and indeed Costello are so common around here.

Now, let's turn our thoughts to Ulster, which until this point is the most Catholic province. Mary (later Elizabeth, then James I) created plantations in Northern Ireland. In the matter of a generation or two, Ulster changed from the most Catholic province to the least.

Queen Mary started the first plantation in the midlands, not the North. Elizabeth II started a plantation in Munster, while the Stuart Monarchs and Cromwell attempted plantations themselves, the most notable one being the Ulster plantation which started about 1610. It must be noted that the plantation process began under a fiercely Catholic monarch, Mary, which suggests that religion didn't play as large a role in English expansion in Ireland as might appear at first.

It was a part of a greater plan from Britain. Catholic landowners and underclass alike were moved west to the least desireable part: Connacht.

Well I kinds like it here! :D

To say that the problem in Ireland is all religious in nature is true and false at once. It's true that all British policy since Henry VIII (well, until the middle of last century) has been aimed at keeping the Catholics under control. This was done through legal and religious means. Since members of Parliament had to take oaths to the King as head of the CoEngland, Catholics couldn't be members of Parliament, thus they had no say in the government, etc.

IIRC Catholic emancipation came around 1832, while the Church of Ireland was disestablished as Ireland's national church around 1870 (prior to this everyone, not just church adherents, had to support the Church). The Irish parliamentary party played an increasingly important role in British parliamentary affairs thereafter.

glee

2nd March 2003, 09:10 AM

And I have to do some work (blast!).

So just a few qiuck points:

Originally posted by Shane Costello
1. Sinn Fein taike a pro-choice line on abortion.
2. The loyalist paramilitaries regularly flout a number of the 10 commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" being the most notable.

You claimed "all terrorist groups in Ireland are lapsed Christians".
Therefore you have to show they were all Christian and have now given that up.

Loyalist paramilitaries (which I disapprove of) presumably claim the Bible says 'thou shall not murder'. Otherwise how come there are Christian Army Chaplains?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
No, but I stand by my claim that the plantation of Ulster by hte British crown is the root cause (if not the sole one) of tensions in the North of Ireland. That's historical fact, not bias. If the plantation never occured then there wouldn't be a problem in the North.

I agree it was the root cause.
But that's not what you said.

Originally posted by Shane Costello (bolding mine)
The current tensions there are the sole fault of past British policy.

That looks like bias to me (or sloppy English).

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What I'm saying is that the "English" barons as you described them were Normans from South Wales.

By then the Normans had been ruling England for nearly a century. Perhaps you could say when these Normans became English in your eyes?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
In any event, arent the present ruling dynasty German? Isn't Prince Phillip Greek?

Part-German - yes indeed. That's why I said English above, since it was the people in control of England. (Would you prefer Anglo-Saxon-Norman?)
But I should have said Ireland, not Northern Ireland (thanks to you and Thumper for the correction).

Originally posted by Shane Costello
How do you know there haven't been countless Gandhis in Iraq, only for them to meet an horrific demise at the hands of Saddam?

Alas the burden of proof lies with you, who made the suggestion.
It is historical record that Gandhi , Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela achieved much against powerful regimes with non-violence.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
... I never blamed Gandhi for religious violence in the Indian sub-continent. I said that his non-violent methods failed to prevent this.

You said "Gandhis peaceful protests got him shot dead."
This totally belittles his magnificent achievements, and his immortal moral example.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I don't think military dictatorships are good things, but there undeniably better than fundamentalist regimes, especially when there's nukes involved. We rarely ever have the choice between good and bad regimes, more often than not it's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. The alliance with the USSR against the Nazis in WWII is an example of this.

I think it is very unwise to deal with either type of regime, especially for short-term gains. I expect Donald Rumsfeld regrets selling Iraq chemical and biological weapons (to use against Iran).

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Backtrack a few decades to the end of WWII. With the military defeat of the Third Reich by the Soviets in the East, what was there to prevent the Red Army marching to Calais? The French, the Italians, the Belgians?

The fact we were allies?

Originally posted by Shane Costello
I don't know the full facts about Chile, but I said that on balance the US has been a force for good and democracy in the world. Chile doesn't "completely refute" this in light of the establishment of democracies in West Germany and Japan after WWII, Marshall Aid that helped stabalise democracy in Europe after WWII, as well as the American military presence that acted as a bulwark against Soviet military aggression in Europe. I stand by my assertion that had the Soviet Union been the world's only superpower in the aftermath of WWII then very few, if any, nations would now be democratic.

Chile elected a democratic left-wing government. The CIA funded and organised a military coup, leading to years of terror, torture and death.

You didn't say 'on balance the US has been a force for good and democracy in the world.' I would fully agree with that.

You said 'democracy has only been able to flourish anywhere because American military and economic might acted as a counterweight to Communism.'

I'm a teacher - let's see some accuracy!

Thumper

2nd March 2003, 12:56 PM

What was there to stop the Soviets from taking all of Europe?

Sorry, but he's right. It was only the United States military. The fact that we were allies had nothing to do with it. Our "Ally-ship" with the USSR was solely based upon the maxim 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' The entire Cold War can be understood from those grounds. (IMHO, which isn't always that humble.)

Wait. What is the topic of this thread anyway? =)

crackmonkey

2nd March 2003, 10:53 PM

What chemical weapons - specifically - did the US sell to Iraq? I know France and Germany sold them all they could buy, but I wasn't aware of any from the US. In fact, the US supplied Iraq with very little other than a few Hughes helicpoters and satellite intelligence to use against Iran. Do you have some sources? Links?

glee

3rd March 2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
What was there to stop the Soviets from taking all of Europe?

Originally posted by glee
The fact we were allies?

Originally posted by Thumper
Sorry, but he's right. It was only the United States military. The fact that we were allies had nothing to do with it. Our "Ally-ship" with the USSR was solely based upon the maxim 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' The entire Cold War can be understood from those grounds. (IMHO, which isn't always that humble.)

1. Is it just your opinion that being allied meant nothing?
2. Of course the US had the most powerful forces at the end of WW2. But the UK still had some troops left...
3. The Soviet Union had millions of casualties in WW2 (both military and civilian). St. Petersburg (for example) was nearly destroyed.

I know they received most of Eastern Europe in the negotiations between the US, UK and the Soviets after the war, but I still don't accept your scenario.

glee

3rd March 2003, 01:05 AM

ZeeGerman

3rd March 2003, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What chemical weapons - specifically - did the US sell to Iraq? I know France and Germany sold them all they could buy, but I wasn't aware of any from the US. In fact, the US supplied Iraq with very little other than a few Hughes helicpoters and satellite intelligence to use against Iran. Do you have some sources? Links?
Just to set it straight once and for all...
Germany (that is with support from the government) didn't sell ANY chemical weapons to Iraq. Germany has no WMD and it produces no WMD. Some german companies though sold dual use components to Iraq. If these deals were illegal due to international embargos/treaties etc. they have been investigated and dealt with in court accordingly.
I don't say that dealing dual use stuff is just fine (even if completely legal), but it is something completely different from government backed selling of obvious WMD components like Don Rumsfeld did in th 80's.

Zee

Shane Costello

3rd March 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by glee:
You claimed "all terrorist groups in Ireland are lapsed Christians".
Therefore you have to show they were all Christian and have now given that up.

Martin McGuiness, Gerry Adams et al were baptized Catholics educated in Catholic schools, but the ethos of Sinn Fein is far from Catholic in ethos. In terms of the loyalist paramilitaries I can't remember John Calvin or John Knox ever endorsing drugdealing or bloodfeuds.

Otherwise how come there are Christian Army Chaplains?

Well there's a wealth of Catholic theolgy on when taking a life is justified. The Catholic Church also endorsed the death penalty, and enthusiastically until recently, and even now hasn't ruled it's use entirelay immoral. Catholic masses end with "Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in the hour of conflict" and Saint Michael is depicted in military garb.

That looks like bias to me (or sloppy English).

I've also pointed out on other threads that the IRA had been virtually eliminated due to the actions of successive Irish governments, and were almost extinct by the 1960's. However Unionist bigotry and stupidity towards the Catholic minority (done with the full acquiesence of successive British governments, even those consisting of bleeding heart labour politicians) meant things eventually came to a head in 1969/70, and the IRA got the kiss of life.

By then the Normans had been ruling England for nearly a century. Perhaps you could say when these Normans became English in your eyes?

This is irrelevant. The Norman barons who were invited into Ireland spoke French and came from Wales. They weren't English.

Alas the burden of proof lies with you, who made the suggestion.
It is historical record that Gandhi , Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela achieved much against powerful regimes with non-violence.

Saddam Hussein is undeniably reponsible for the deaths of large numbers of his own people. He is a bloodthirsty thug. Call it presumptious but I doubt he would be moved by passive resistance.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King campaigned in parts of the world governed by democratic, ultimately benevolent regimes whose every action could be questioned by a free press. Mandela was in prison for three decades, and the ANC were far from passive and peaceful.

You said "Gandhis peaceful protests got him shot dead."
This totally belittles his magnificent achievements, and his immortal moral example.

I'm not trying to bellitle his achievements, just saying they should be seen in the light of the retreat of colonialism the world over.

I think it is very unwise to deal with either type of regime, especially for short-term gains.

So what 's your solution?

The fact we were allies?

Didn't stop them stealing A-bomb secrets, or funding communist insurgents in places like Greece.

Chile elected a democratic left-wing government. The CIA funded and organised a military coup, leading to years of terror, torture and death.

You didn't say 'on balance the US has been a force for good and democracy in the world.' I would fully agree with that.

You said 'democracy has only been able to flourish anywhere because American military and economic might acted as a counterweight to Communism.'

Any links to Chilean history?

What I said was (and you quoted me on it) was "I'm not denying that the US has done questionable things and made some serious mistakes with it's foreign policy. What I am saying is that overall and all things considered the US has been a benevolent superpower. Would we be better off if Communism prevailed? What would the world be like if France was a superpower, given recent French arrogance and threats towards European countries that begged to differ from French foreign policy?"[/I]

[B]1. Is it just your opinion that being allied meant nothing?

If it is his opinion then I have to agree with it. The USSR was under the sole rule of Joseph Stalin, a man who thought nothing of slaughtering millions of his own people to consolidate his position. Double crossing erstwhile allies was well within his reasoning.

Of course the US had the most powerful forces at the end of WW2. But the UK still had some troops left...

The UK was also broke, and was unable to fulfill obligations to fight the communists in Greece, and requested the US fulfill this role. This was the beginning of Marshall aid, IIRC.

The Soviet Union had millions of casualties in WW2 (both military and civilian). St. Petersburg (for example) was nearly destroyed.

How is this relevant?