Printable View
France, Belgium and Germany have vetoed NATO's preparations to defend Turkey in case of a war with Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2747443.stm
America has responded in anger and sees it as a betrayal. France say they are just trying to give the UN inspectors more time.
Could this mark the end of NATO?
.Quote:
The three countries opposing the move argue that sending Nato military equipment to Turkey would imply that diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq and avert war had already failed.
Diplomatic efforts have failed, they were doomed to fail from the
start.
The whole thing was just a charade a military attack was and is the only outcome.
"If they find weapons we'll attack, if they don't find weapons they're hiding them so we'll attack"
I completely agree with honeybee's comment.
In my opinion, Iraq won't start a war with anyone.
They just want to be left alone.
So the only reason a nearby country would need reinforced defenses would be if someone (ie. the US) launched an offensive.
So by allowing the country's defenses to be upgraded, anyone who doesn't veto the decision, is agreeing that an attack is imminent, and in my opinion, they're nearly giving the go-ahead to the US.
Some would argue that it makes sense to prepare the Turkish defense ahead of time. It doesn't necessarilly mean that the diplomatic efforts have failed.
In my opinion, it is political point scoring by the three countries involved and they are just trying to throw a spanner in the works in the only way that they can.
Who wouldn't do the same.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
and they are just trying to throw a spanner in the works in the only way that they can.
It does make sense to build up Turkeys defences(I'm sure the Turkish think so)
And yes I'd say there is the element playing political games.
But if Turkish defences are bolstered it should not be by American or British troops or weapons, because it will be seen a launchpad for any attack.
But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminentQuote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
It does make sense to build up Turkeys defences
The biggest deployment of British troops since World War 2.Quote:
Originally posted bu plenderj
But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent
Do you honestly think there is not going to be an attack?
plenderj
What, bolstering Turkish defenses means an attack is innevitable? Doesn't it make sense to be prepared for the worst?Quote:
But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent
At the end of the day, France, Belgium and Germany are, if not violating the terms of the NATO treaty, going against it in spirit.
Whether or not the weapons inspectors are given more time and NATO preparing to defend it's members are two completely seperate issues and should not be confused for the purposes of political point scoring.
We don't want them all to be like sheep someone has to stand up for what they believe.Quote:
France, Belgium and Germany betrayed NATO?
But the thing is, its "us" that are deciding when to attack.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
plenderjWhat, bolstering Turkish defenses means an attack is innevitable? Doesn't it make sense to be prepared for the worst?
We're not trying to second-guess a mad dictator*.
Its the US&UK that will be attacking - not them being attacked first.
* well we're trying to second guess bush, but I was originally referring to sadam.
Anyway, at the end of the day, they're doing the only thing in their power to avert, or at least delay, war.
That's an admirable thing.
Whilst I don't fully agree with the arguments brought forth I'm glad that, for whatever reason provided, not ALL countries bend over and let themselves be manhandled by the london-washington axis.
Since when should we shut up and put up to please all the others ?
Of course in the end we will cave in (probably after the report of Drs. Blix and Elbaradei), we will fall in line but the abuse is plain disgusting. As if we're traitors for thinking differently. Does this mean we won't support Turkey as a NATO member ? Not at all. Does this mean we're not commited to the cause ? Of course not.
Does this mean we're anti-NATO ? Of course not.
Meanwhile the France-German-Russia alternative plan is shot out of the water without being thoroughly considered or even brought before the UN.
Perhaps it would do the rest a bit of good to actually listen to us before branding us traitors. At least we're honest in saying we want to avert war until no longer possible.
This is what the world is coming to : we can disagree as long as we agree.
If I got it right, these three nations don't say that Turkey be left to fend for itself in the event of a war. But there's been no formal declaration of war as yet, and in this particular case, because there's no concrete evidence for starting a war, every effort must be made to stop a war. If Turkey's defences are bolstered through the NATO channels, it means NATO has resigned to the possibility of war as the only possibility, indirectly meaning NATO is bracing itself for war. Exactly what the three nations don't agree to.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
plenderj
What, bolstering Turkish defenses means an attack is innevitable? Doesn't it make sense to be prepared for the worst?
At the end of the day, France, Belgium and Germany are, if not violating the terms of the NATO treaty, going against it in spirit.
Whether or not the weapons inspectors are given more time and NATO preparing to defend it's members are two completely seperate issues and should not be confused for the purposes of political point scoring.
.
It won't be long before we're all called un-american.Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Whilst I don't fully agree with the arguments brought forth I'm glad that, for whatever reason provided, not ALL countries bend over and let themselves be manhandled by the london-washington axis.
Since when should we shut up and put up to please all the others ?
Of course in the end we will cave in (probably after the report of Drs. Blix and Elbaradei), we will fall in line but the abuse is plain disgusting. As if we're traitors for thinking differently. Does this mean we won't support Turkey as a NATO member ? Not at all. Does this mean we're not commited to the cause ? Of course not.
Does this mean we're anti-NATO ? Of course not.
Meanwhile the France-German-Russia alternative plan is shot out of the water without being thoroughly considered or even brought before the UN.
Perhaps it would do the rest a bit of good to actually listen to us before branding us traitors. At least we're honest in saying we want to avert war until no longer possible.
This is what the world is coming to : we can disagree as long as we agree.
Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
But that's just like admitting there's an attack imminent
so your also admitting there's an attack imminent or at least inevitable?Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Its the US&UK that will be attacking
plenderj
The preparations in Turkey will be defensive in nature. They are being setup in case of an Iraqi counter attack into Turkey and are not part of the planned invasion of Iraq. Therefore there is no basis for fellow NATO members to veto this plan.Quote:
But the thing is, its "us" that are deciding when to attack.
We're not trying to second-guess a mad dictator*.
Its the US&UK that will be attacking - not them being attacked first.
Wally Pip
As far as I am concerned, there are two seperate issues being too easilly muddled. I think that all NATO countries are perfectly entitled to voice their objections to invading Iraq and even vote agaisnt it.Quote:
Whilst I don't fully agree with the arguments brought forth I'm glad that, for whatever reason provided, not ALL countries bend over and let themselves be manhandled by the london-washington axis.
Since when should we shut up and put up to please all the others ?
However, the issue that has lead to these countries being branded as traitors to the NATO alliance is the issue of defending Turkey. It is the way this issue is being exploited by Germany/France/Belgium to make their political point is what I find detestable. Not the fact that they are voicing their objections to a war with Iraq.
As it happens, I actually think the French/German/Russian plan to increase the number of weapons inspectors and introduce U2 spy planes is a good proposal and needs to be given a chance. I just don't think that they should suspend their mutual defense obligations to NATO to make their point. Indeed, it only detracts from their point.Quote:
Meanwhile the France-German-Russia alternative plan is shot out of the water without being thoroughly considered or even brought before the UN.
Perhaps it would do the rest a bit of good to actually listen to us before branding us traitors. At least we're honest in saying we want to avert war until no longer possible.
Honeybee
Why wait until war is declared? What if Iraq launch an immediate and desperate attack into Turkey as soon as war is declared? It will be too late then.Quote:
If I got it right, these three nations don't say that Turkey be left to fend for itself in the event of a war. But there's been no formal declaration of war as yet, and in this particular case, because there's no concrete evidence for starting a war, every effort must be made to stop a war. If Turkey's defences are bolstered through the NATO channels, it means NATO has resigned to the possibility of war as the only possibility, indirectly meaning NATO is bracing itself for war. Exactly what the three nations don't agree to.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/3..._bush150ap.jpg
He doesn't understand. He forms an opinion. This is "LOL"Quote:
"I don't understand that decision. It affects the alliance in a negative way," said US President George W Bush.
Something needs to be very clear here : We DO NOT say that we're denying our obligations to NATO, the issue here is timing. That's the only issue. When friday comes and the report is read to the UN we'll fall in line with NATO.
Political agenda or not, we never said we disagreed with NATO's policy. Not at one point have we indicated we're not going to fulfill our obligations.
Besides all, German and Dutch patriots are already underway, American and British units are already in place. In the event of a strike they're more than ready to respond.
This all is internal rethoric of NATO. It's apparently a reprehensible idea that some member state is voicing its concerns over general policy.
So we should just bend over and let them have their way ? Like Mrs. Straw, Hoon and Blair who are rapidly becoming the private toy boys of Washington ?
Oh, and I wouldn't call it betrayal. This is just the same thing as 'democracy,' only on a larger scale.
Wally Pip
Well, that remains to be seen...Quote:
Something needs to be very clear here : We DO NOT say that we're denying our obligations to NATO, the issue here is timing. That's the only issue. When friday comes and the report is read to the UN we'll fall in line with NATO.
As I said, on this issue, with the high likelyhood of war, bolstering the defenses of hte only NATO country bordering Iraq in advance of any possible conflict makes sense.Quote:
So we should just bend over and let them have their way ? Like Mrs. Straw, Hoon and Blair who are rapidly becoming the private toy boys of Washington ?
Whatever the lofty intentions of Belgium/Germany/France are, all they have done is detract from their very good efforts to make the inspection programme work. Paradoxically, I think they have lessened the likelyhood of America giving the inspectors more time.
That's why I don't agree fully with the arguments provided by the three. I also think that we may be doing harm to the inspections.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wally Pip
Well, that remains to be seen...
As I said, on this issue, with the high likelyhood of war, bolstering the defenses of hte only NATO country bordering Iraq in advance of any possible conflict makes sense.
Whatever the lofty intentions of Belgium/Germany/France are, all they have done is detract from their very good efforts to make the inspection programme work. Paradoxically, I think they have lessened the likelyhood of America giving the inspectors more time.
On the other hand : documents are handed over and spy planes are being allowed. So I'd say there's some progress don't you think ? If we were not objecting what would be the point of asking these concessions from Iraq ?
On the other hand my major gripe is that all of a sudden we're dumped into the contra camp. Our intentions may be lofty but the real issue here is what it was all along : some countries dared to counterargue the hardline from London and Washington and they don't like it.
What they really want (cfr. the new Europe according to Rumsfeld) is that we Europeans agree with them without the merest whiff of criticism and/or comments.
We all know that when push comes to shove we'll fall in line and we'll fulfill our obligations. It's just because we've jumped off the war bandwagon that we're being lambasted. You know it and I know it.
Wally
Perhaps, but this incident has given them so much amunition to really lay into you three countries.Quote:
We all know that when push comes to shove we'll fall in line and we'll fulfill our obligations. It's just because we've jumped off the war bandwagon that we're being lambasted. You know it and I know it.
Has anyone heard this devestating attack on the French by republican congressman Pete King: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listen/listen.shtml
Quote:
The only thing the French can advise on is how to surrender
The real issue here is that there are a few countries who have chosen the peaceful path with inspectors. They are largely ignored, ridiculed, insulted and placed on a sidetrack in favour of the war caravan riding to Baghdad.
These countries dared to defy the will of the Great Partners instead of caving in to them in the hope that the economical rewards, diplomatical advantages and political horsetrading comes in favour of them.
Therefore we're considered persona non grata. Maybe not the smartest move (which is why don't fully agree) but at least we have the balls to tell the world that (whatever our reasons may be).
What we really ought to do is take on a unified European point of view but that's not interesting enough to talk about eh ?
Once again this is the result of Europe's inability to reach a common decision and other's arrogance in insisting to force the decision for the Europeans upon them.
That's the real issue here. That's where all the rift stems forth. Not the man in Baghdad, he's a convenient target but rather the political tug-of-war over the Atlantic.
They weren't being ridiculed until now. Now it has been unleashed in earnest (from some key American figures).Quote:
The real issue here is that there are a few countries who have chosen the peaceful path with inspectors. They are largely ignored, ridiculed, insulted and placed on a sidetrack in favour of the war caravan riding to Baghdad.
Perhaps, or perhaps they actually agree that Iraq is a serious threat that that needs to be dealt with by whatever means are necessary.Quote:
These countries dared to defy the will of the Great Partners instead of caving in to them in the hope that the economical rewards, diplomatical advantages and political horsetrading comes in favour of them.
If you can't credit America's supportive allies with the possibility that they may genuinely believe they are in the right rather than just capitulating to the will of America for economic gain, why should anyone credit Belgium/France/Germany with any motivations outside of their own vested interests?
Well, the majority of the European Union countries support America's line. But what are the chances of the EU ever unanimously agreeing on anything?Quote:
What we really ought to do is take on a unified European point of view but that's not interesting enough to talk about eh ?
Once again this is the result of Europe's inability to reach a common decision and other's arrogance in insisting to force the decision for the Europeans upon them.
Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
They weren't being ridiculed until now. Now it has been unleashed in earnest (from some key American figures).
I remember the "Old Europe" comments from Rumsfeld and they were from already 2 weeks ago
Perhaps, or perhaps they actually agree that Iraq is a serious threat that that needs to be dealt with by whatever means are necessary.
If you can't credit America's supportive allies with the possibility that they may genuinely believe they are in the right rather than just capitulating to the will of America for economic gain, why should anyone credit Belgium/France/Germany with any motivations outside of their own vested interests?
That is also a possibility but still we're in every right to frown upon evidence provided, the rationale and motives behind it and the rethoric used.
What these other countries do is entirely up to them but why should we allow being branded as 'traitors' ?
There are multiple sides to a story, certainly this story and most sides aren't seriously explored or conveniently forgotten.
We will certainly follow the majority's decision, such is democracy, but voicing your opinions and exercising your given rights is also democracy and that's what's being forgotten here (not by Mendhak I note).
So, whatever rethoric behind it, we've exercised our democratic right within the NATO. If they don't like it then they should abolish the veto rights in favour of a majority voting.
I'm sure if that was in place no-one would have made it such a big deal.
Are we not entitled to doubt ? Should we, because everyone else thinks it's supposed to be the way, keep our mouths shut and waive our rights because it's against the interests of all the others ? You as a staunch advocate of rights should understand that.
Well, the majority of the European Union countries support America's line. But what are the chances of the EU ever unanimously agreeing on anything?
Be that as it may there's always room for compromise. Should we all agree with the biggest bully on the block jsut because he pretends to be calling the shots ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin//radio4...gID=1044956954Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Has anyone heard this devestating attack on the French by republican congressman Pete King: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listen/listen.shtml
Holy mary and joseph.
What right do the americans have to decide who is and is not important in europe ?
France, Germany and belgium can **** off because the real people in power are coming to town.
Jesus christ.
How can american politicians get away with spouting such bull**** ?
Lets not forget that the only reason France/Germany/Russia are opposed to the war is because IRAQ owes them multi millions of dollars in OIL. These countries are disgracing themselves in front of the entire world and all over OIL money. I find it really hard to believe France cares sooo much about the IRAQI soldiers. There is obviously a hidden agenda that even a blind man could see.
Why is it France fights so hard against it's allies but bows down to it's enemys? They have a very long history of being nothing but cowards and trouble makers. IMO they should be banned from NATO and the UN.
Also, these "New Documents" should have been released when we first asked for them not 3 months later. And Hans Blix said the "New Documents" contain no new information..so what good were they? It's just IRAQ's usual stall tactics. As far as the U2 spy planes being allowed, Sadam has now come out and demanded that certain conditions be met in order for those flights to be allowed, something along the lines of we can not fire on IRAQI military sights in the no fly zones or something...just more bullcrap. He is in no position to be trying to demand anything.
The world has given Sadam enough chances to be a good boy and cooperate... it's obvious he never will.
Well I must be far-crippled beyond that of a blindman.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
There is obviously a hidden agenda that even a blind man could see.
Of course, America, who's fast using more and more oil as the weeks go by, has no hidden agenda for oil.
plenderj
Yeah, it's a bit over the top to say the least.Quote:
Holy mary and joseph.
What right do the americans have to decide who is and is not important in europe ?
France, Germany and belgium can **** off because the real people in power are coming to town.
Jesus christ.
How can american politicians get away with spouting such bull**** ?
Let's assume for a moment that these three nations, and others which oppose war, are worried about their economic ties with Iraq. So what's wrong with that? The US wouldn't be feeding us oil in case Saddam blew up the oil wells in Iraq. If the US cannot give any convincing proof of Iraq possessing WMDs and intending to use them, it's all crap by GWB. And other nations do have a right to voice their concerns about their own economic problems arising out of a possible war. If the US president cannot do anything about the US economy, it doesn't mean all other nations should do the same.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Lets not forget that the only reason France/Germany/Russia are opposed to the war is because IRAQ owes them multi millions of dollars in OIL. These countries are disgracing themselves in front of the entire world and all over OIL money. I find it really hard to believe France cares sooo much about the IRAQI soldiers. There is obviously a hidden agenda that even a blind man could see.
Apart from Iraq and US, do you have any bloody idea how many economies will be wrecked by a near-inevitable oil crisis in case there's a war against Iraq? All this for not a single credible piece of evidence and you talk of world responsibilities...
.
There's no credible evidence of Iraq having WMDs. All that war-talk by the US wouldn't last a minute if Iraq and US were engaged in a court battle in the international court.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee
Why wait until war is declared? What if Iraq launch an immediate and desperate attack into Turkey as soon as war is declared? It will be too late then.
More than that there is absolutely no proof Iraq harbours intentions of attacking another country. From all the statements being issued from Baghdad, I personally think they will attack neighbouring nations only if the US strikes them, in a desperate attempt to spread the damage they are taking from the US around them. So I can easily discard the assumption of "just in case" again because there's simply no proof whatsoever.
And if we are to assume that Iraq might have secret plans of invading Turkey, private assistance by the US is fine. If NATO has to come into picture, it has to be only when the war is imminent and that is going to be decided only when the NATO nations feel all other options have failed. In short, the NATO bolstering the Turkey defences means only that NATO accepts there's no other means of resolving the dispute. Turkey is free to ask other nations privately for help.
Have there been any reports of any border disturbances or skirmishes between Iraq and Turkey recently, which can be attributed to any secret plans of Iraq to attack Turkey?
.
Just like I said above - Iraq wants to be left alone.
America is forcing saddam into a corner - and that is such a bad idea.
This is interesting.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Well I must be far-crippled beyond that of a blindman.
Of course, America, who's fast using more and more oil as the weeks go by, has no hidden agenda for oil.
Taken from:
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/index.asp
USA's daily oil consumption went down by 0.2 % from 2000 to 2001,
While France went up by 0.9 %,
and Germany went up by 1.4 %
{Three thumbs up to Azerbaijan, who decreased by 25.8 % !!!!
While, conversely, Thumbs down to Qatar and its 19.7 % increase.}
;)
-Lou
The US has resorted to economic warfare whenever its own economic interests have been at the receiving end, so I personally don't see what's wrong with the three nations and others to oppose a war purely based on their oil interests. And I do think they are opposing not just because of the oil issue.Quote:
Originally posted by NotLKH
This is interesting.
Taken from:
http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/index.asp
USA's daily oil consumption went down by 0.2 % from 2000 to 2001,
While France went up by 0.9 %,
and Germany went up by 1.4 %
{Three thumbs up to Azerbaijan, who decreased by 25.8 % !!!!
While, conversely, Thumbs down to Qatar and its 19.7 % increase.}
;)
-Lou
If you do want to single out the oil issue, please conduct a study of how many countries will be facing severe economic crises because of oil shortage during and after the war. That itself should tell you how critical the decision to start or not to start a war is. And for such critical decisions there has to be a proof beyond any doubts. We can't go by rhetoric war talk and mere photographs of vehicles taken from air or loose electronic intercepts which, for all we know, could have been taken completely out of context. This war may push many developing countries back to the starting square.
Not to exclude the possibility that if the US does capture Baghdad, it would be controlling the biggest oil reserves in the world :rolleyes:
.
And tons of chemical and biological weapons supposedly :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Not to exclude the possibility that if the US does capture Baghdad, it would be controlling the biggest oil reserves in the world :rolleyes:
:pQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
And tons of chemical and biological weapons supposedly :rolleyes:
.
Honeybee
What's that got to do with the possibility of Iraq attacking Turkey?Quote:
There's no credible evidence of Iraq having WMDs. All that war-talk by the US wouldn't last a minute if Iraq and US were engaged in a court battle in the international court.
They obviously believe there is a possibility that Turkey might suffer some kind of reprisals from Iraq if war breaks out. Therefore it is logical that NATO (with it's mutual defense treaty) should seek to prepare Turkey for such an eventuality. You don't need proof to prepare your defenses.Quote:
More than that there is absolutely no proof Iraq harbours intentions of attacking another country. From all the statements being issued from Baghdad, I personally think they will attack neighbouring nations only if the US strikes them, in a desperate attempt to spread the damage they are taking from the US around them. So I can easily discard the assumption of "just in case" again because there's simply no proof whatsoever.
No, NATO is oblidged to help Turkey defend itself. OK, war has not yet broken out and Turkey has not yet been attacked so technically speaking the NATO treaty has not been breached. The actions of Belgium/France/Germany go against the spirit of the treaty however.Quote:
And if we are to assume that Iraq might have secret plans of invading Turkey, private assistance by the US is fine. If NATO has to come into picture, it has to be only when the war is imminent and that is going to be decided only when the NATO nations feel all other options have failed. In short, the NATO bolstering the Turkey defences means only that NATO accepts there's no other means of resolving the dispute. Turkey is free to ask other nations privately for help.
Not that I have heard but that's not the point. All you need is an intelligence report with the mere suggestion of a threat to prepare defenses.Quote:
Have there been any reports of any border disturbances or skirmishes between Iraq and Turkey recently, which can be attributed to any secret plans of Iraq to attack Turkey?
I can buy the argument about NATO taking pre-emptive measures to protect Turkey. However at this point of time if NATO takes steps to bolster the Turkish border with Iraq, it will send completely wrong signals all over the world. All the opposition which the three nations have been spearheading will become meaningless with this single measure.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee
What's that got to do with the possibility of Iraq attacking Turkey?
They obviously believe there is a possibility that Turkey might suffer some kind of reprisals from Iraq if war breaks out. Therefore it is logical that NATO (with it's mutual defense treaty) should seek to prepare Turkey for such an eventuality. You don't need proof to prepare your defenses.
No, NATO is oblidged to help Turkey defend itself. OK, war has not yet broken out and Turkey has not yet been attacked so technically speaking the NATO treaty has not been breached. The actions of Belgium/France/Germany go against the spirit of the treaty however.
Not that I have heard but that's not the point. All you need is an intelligence report with the mere suggestion of a threat to prepare defenses.
.
LOL is this the same Honeybee that spouted off how this is only about how the US wants to serve their own interests in controlling Iraqi oil? It’s quite obvious that France, Germany, and Russia are opposing war because of their own selfish interests…ohhh but this is OK. When the US looks out for its interests they are evil but its OK for these nations to do so, what a load of BS.Quote:
Let's assume for a moment that these three nations, and others which oppose war, are worried about their economic ties with Iraq. So what's wrong with that? The US wouldn't be feeding us oil in case Saddam blew up the oil wells in Iraq. If the US cannot give any convincing proof of Iraq possessing WMDs and intending to use them, it's all crap by GWB. And other nations do have a right to voice their concerns about their own economic problems arising out of a possible war. If the US president cannot do anything about the US economy, it doesn't mean all other nations should do the same.
Most of the nations in the world have accepted the evidence presented. The only ones who are complaining its not enough are the countries that have the most to lose economically. This isn’t about whether there is enough evidence. There is. Its about what France, Germany, Russia have to lose if the rest of the world takes out Saddam.Quote:
Apart from Iraq and US, do you have any bloody idea how many economies will be wrecked by a near-inevitable oil crisis in case there's a war against Iraq? All this for not a single credible piece of evidence and you talk of world responsibilities...
Wow so you have the inside line on what Saddam is planning inside Iraq. Good to know you are all knowing and all seeing when it comes to Iraqi policy making. Iraq has a history of attacking its neighbors and even residents in their own country. This in and of itself should be proof enough. You really should take the blinders off my friend there is a whole world out there to see.Quote:
More than that there is absolutely no proof Iraq harbours intentions of attacking another country. From all the statements being issued from Baghdad, I personally think they will attack neighbouring nations only if the US strikes them, in a desperate attempt to spread the damage they are taking from the US around them. So I can easily discard the assumption of "just in case" again because there's simply no proof whatsoever.
No the US is doing it all for oil remember :rolleyes:Quote:
The US has resorted to economic warfare whenever its own economic interests have been at the receiving end, so I personally don't see what's wrong with the three nations and others to oppose a war purely based on their oil interests. And I do think they are opposing not just because of the oil issue.
Again the hypocrisy of this statement by you is so evident. This the same person who was complaining about how its only about oil for the US? How the US wants to secure Iraqi oil fields in their own interests? When these other countries are so clearly doing what you charge the US is doing all of a sudden its OK! Give me a break.
Yeah we shouldn’t take out dictators that are a threat to their neighbors and the world if they provide economic stability for everyone. You saying we should base wars on how it will effect the world economy? So if you control enough natural resources and are a stabling effect to the world economy you can do whatever you want! Wow such great logic.Quote:
If you do want to single out the oil issue, please conduct a study of how many countries will be facing severe economic crises because of oil shortage during and after the war. That itself should tell you how critical the decision to start or not to start a war is. And for such critical decisions there has to be a proof beyond any doubts. We can't go by rhetoric war talk and mere photographs of vehicles taken from air or loose electronic intercepts which, for all we know, could have been taken completely out of context. This war may push many developing countries back to the starting square.
And the evidence presented to the UN was conclusive enough for most of the world. As I said the only ones not convinced are those who have the most to lose economically if war does happen in Iraq. That’s a hell of a thing to do to sell out your own allies for oil. Pretty cowardly and selfish if you ask me.
If the US wanted Iraqi oil they would have taken it the last time they were there :)Quote:
Not to exclude the possibility that if the US does capture Baghdad, it would be controlling the biggest oil reserves in the world
And its not only the US that is going in if a war happens, its most of the world in a coalition. So please refrain from referring to this as a solo operation by the US. Most of the world sees Saddam as a threat, why cant you?
Honeybee
Why not? With war as likely as it is, it would be negligent not to. What's your problem with that?Quote:
I can buy the argument about NATO taking pre-emptive measures to protect Turkey.
I don't see why...:confused:...What's wrong with trying for peace but being prepared for war just in case? Your objections are hollow and there is no good reason for NATO countries to object to this action.Quote:
However at this point of time if NATO takes steps to bolster the Turkish border with Iraq, it will send completely wrong signals all over the world. All the opposition which the three nations have been spearheading will become meaningless with this single measure.
I've just read a report now that China is backing France, Germany & Russia on Iraq
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.p...ang=e&dir=news
http://www.ireland.com (14:08)
Yeah we all know protecting your allies is the wrong thing to do :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I can buy the argument about NATO taking pre-emptive measures to protect Turkey. However at this point of time if NATO takes steps to bolster the Turkish border with Iraq, it will send completely wrong signals all over the world. All the opposition which the three nations have been spearheading will become meaningless with this single measure.
And France, Belgium, and Germany's opposition is already meaningless. It's clearly to serve their own selfish self-interests. You dont sell out your allies for money. Even if its just to make a point. What a bunch of cowards.
X
Xanith - read my post above.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah we all know protecting your allies is the wrong thing to do :rolleyes:
And France, Belgium, and Germany's opposition is already meaningless. It's clearly to serve their own selfish self-interests. You dont sell out your allies for money. Even if its just to make a point. What a bunch of cowards.
X
It's not a war Iraq has brought on itself. It's a war the US has broght upon Iraq and the neighbouring region, that's why. It's not the same situation as during Gulf War.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Honeybee
Why not? With war as likely as it is, it would be negligent not to. What's your problem with that?
I don't see why...:confused:...What's wrong with trying for peace but being prepared for war just in case? Your objections are hollow and there is no good reason for NATO countries to object to this action.
I don't know if my objections, or the three countries' reasons ar hollow (which I doubt. The governments in these three countries can think definitely deeper than me alone :p) but I do know that if Turkey forces NATO to bolster its defences at this point of time, it will worsen the situation, probably beyond anybody's control.
The only reason these nations have opposed the NATO move at this point is because it will send completely wrong signals. Either you ignored it or you don't understand the significance of it.
.
But it's not selfish to try and bring everybody in your own war for oil:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah we all know protecting your allies is the wrong thing to do :rolleyes:
And France, Belgium, and Germany's opposition is already meaningless. It's clearly to serve their own selfish self-interests. You dont sell out your allies for money. Even if its just to make a point. What a bunch of cowards.
X
Turkey on the other hand has been remarkably calm in its reactions which leads me to believe that this is a non-issue and only serves to bully everyone in line and show once again who's in charge.
So it is selfish to exercise your rights given by NATO.
But it isn't selfish to state that whatever the UN decides you hold the right to do as you see fit even if the UN doesn't agree.
Must be those double standards at work again.
Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
It's not a war Iraq has brought on itself. It's a war the US has broght upon Iraq and the neighbouring region....
That is where you are sooo wrong.. and it proves your lack of knowledge of what is actually going on.
When IRAQ attacked Kuwait, a coalition of nations ganged up and attacked IRAQ. We agreed to a cease fire on the grounds that IRAQ disposes of ALL of it's WMD's, as well as many more stipulations. For 13 years now IRAQ has refused to comply with these Cease fire agreements. So, we are not starting a NEW war we are continuing the war that was already started 13 years ago because IRAQ has not held up to their end of the deal.
IRAQ is 100% bringing this upon themselves. The world has given them YEARS of chances. 17 U.N resolutions against IRAQ already and we will probably have to get another one before war actually starts... All this time IRAQ is refusing to do what is right and cooperate and disarm. IRAQ could very easily avoid war.. it is in thier hands.
Oh yeah? That you can hold the international community out of your own hallucinations and war-hunger is I think perfectly justifiable.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Yeah we all know protecting your allies is the wrong thing to do :rolleyes:
And France, Belgium, and Germany's opposition is already meaningless. It's clearly to serve their own selfish self-interests. You dont sell out your allies for money. Even if its just to make a point. What a bunch of cowards.
X
And it's news to me that three veto-powered nations and some of the other major European nations are against a US-led war is meaningless. Would you kindly expand on your definition of "meaning" here?
Nobody is out to help mankind through this war, not even the US. Can you vouch for the motives of Mr. Bush? Are you dead sure the US does not want the extra influence it will have over the world if it succeeds in pressing for a war?
The US claimed the Taliban regime was their enemy because it harboured Al Qaeda. So they bombed Afghanistan. What did they achieve? A better set of parties to rule, but hardly any infrastructure to rule over. And the Afghan warlords definitely don't want a US-led government in their regions. You could just be pushing Afghanistan towards a new chaos. And after going to such great lengths, you have had absolutely zero success in eliminating Al Qaeda or the Talibans.
Even earlier the US tried to dislodge Saddam from power during the Gulf War, but failed. Only then it was Saddam's initiative.
This time around, too, the US doesn't seem to be helping anybody but its own desire of showing off its military supremacy by trying to force an enemy out of Iraq. So if the US decides to pamper itself at the cost of the economies of many other nations, these many other nations have an equal right to turn selfish and tell the US go tuck themselves with an F.
.
If it's not ok for Iraq to ignore 17 U.N resolutions, why is it okay for Israel to ignore 60+ U.N. resolutions. All I'm saying is that is if the U.S. would stop the double standard they would gain more credibility.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
That is where you are sooo wrong.. and it proves your lack of knowledge of what is actually going on.
When IRAQ attacked Kuwait, a coalition of nations ganged up and attacked IRAQ. We agreed to a cease fire on the grounds that IRAQ disposes of ALL of it's WMD's, as well as many more stipulations. For 13 years now IRAQ has refused to comply with these Cease fire agreements. So, we are not starting a NEW war we are continuing the war that was already started 13 years ago because IRAQ has not held up to their end of the deal.
IRAQ is 100% bringing this upon themselves. The world has given them YEARS of chances. 17 U.N resolutions against IRAQ already and we will probably have to get another one before war actually starts... All this time IRAQ is refusing to do what is right and cooperate and disarm. IRAQ could very easily avoid war.. it is in thier hands.
If you think you are only taking Gulf war a little further after a gap of 13 years, in which I have yet to see evidence that Iraq posed any kind of threat to its bordering nations, I must say the Indian Air Force should launch an air strike over Great Britain for the 150-year old British regime over India, don't you agree? Perhaps I could convince our foreign minister to moot a proposal to this effect in the next UN session?Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
That is where you are sooo wrong.. and it proves your lack of knowledge of what is actually going on.
When IRAQ attacked Kuwait, a coalition of nations ganged up and attacked IRAQ. We agreed to a cease fire on the grounds that IRAQ disposes of ALL of it's WMD's, as well as many more stipulations. For 13 years now IRAQ has refused to comply with these Cease fire agreements. So, we are not starting a NEW war we are continuing the war that was already started 13 years ago because IRAQ has not held up to their end of the deal.
IRAQ is 100% bringing this upon themselves. The world has given them YEARS of chances. 17 U.N resolutions against IRAQ already and we will probably have to get another one before war actually starts... All this time IRAQ is refusing to do what is right and cooperate and disarm. IRAQ could very easily avoid war.. it is in thier hands.
If you think you are continuing a 13-year old war, I want you to explain why the US in the first place supplied WMDs to Iraq, of which ample evidence has been posted here so I won't do it for you. The US has found it fit to supply Iraq with WMDs. The US finds it fit today for Iraq to get rid of them. In short the US wants to make a puppet out of Iraq, and has been taken aback because Mr. Saddam does not wish to be a puppet. Is it so?
If Iraq indeed provided proof today that they simply don't hold any WMDs, the US is of course not going to buy that. The matter has reached such heights that the US might actually twist the facts (and I am not sure they have not already done so :rolleyes: ) to literally force a war.
.
+ 30-odd US vetoes on behalf of Israel
Yeah, if the US is so keen on restoring world peace, it should also declare war with Israel and also with Pakistan. It's surprising that the US courts with the leading supporter of Taliban without any sense of shame and morality. If you do know or recall history, Pakistan and I think Saudi Arabia were the only two nations which officially recognized the Taliban government when it came to power in Afghanistan. I would love to hear your President explain their political intercourse with Pakistan on the backdrop of this.Quote:
Originally posted by maxl
If it's not ok for Iraq to ignore 17 U.N resolutions, why is it okay for Israel to ignore 60+ U.N. resolutions. All I'm saying is that is if the U.S. would stop the double standard they would gain more credibility.
.
No one wants war. But you can’t sit on your hands and close your eyes and hope all of the world’s dictators go away ala Neville Chamberlain. Iraq has been give chance after chance after chance. There comes a time when enough is enough. Appeasement and inspections are not going to work. I think that fact is quite obvious to most of the world.Quote:
Oh yeah? That you can hold the international community out of your own hallucinations and war-hunger is I think perfectly justifiable.
Sure the US and its allies don’t need France or Germany. Quite to the contrary they still need the US and its allies such as the UK more. France and Germany are slowly making the UN irrelevant. They are putting their own personal interests before the safety of the world. Not supporting their allies in NATO, not wanting to act on a country that has clearly violated UN sanctions for their own selfish reasons. Who is really the villain in all this? If you ask me it’s France and Germany.Quote:
And it's news to me that three veto-powered nations and some of the other major European nations are against a US-led war is meaningless. Would you kindly expand on your definition of "meaning" here?
Don’t you think if the US wanted to control Iraqi oil they would have done it during the Gulf War? Iraq was beaten and demoralized it would have been easy to just take control then. Not to mention leaving an occupying force in Kuwait to see that their oil was “secure”. But that didn’t happen. The US pulled out of Iraq because they didn’t have a mandate from the UN to topple Saddam. It was only to get Iraq out of Kuwait. And the US didn’t seize control of Kuwaiti oil fields either. Control went back to the people who were running Kuwait before the war. If you believe the US so sinister why didn’t they do something like this during the Gulf War when it would have been easy?Quote:
Nobody is out to help mankind through this war, not even the US. Can you vouch for the motives of Mr. Bush? Are you dead sure the US does not want the extra influence it will have over the world if it succeeds in pressing for a war?
There wasn’t and infrastructure to begin with in Afghanistan. And I recently saw the newly elected president of Afghanistan on television in an interview thanking and praising the US for setting them free from the brutal Taliban regime. And as far as I know from everything I have heard the US seriously cripped Al Qaeda and ran the Taliban out of power unless of course that interview with the president of Afghanistan was just US propaganda :).Quote:
The US claimed the Taliban regime was their enemy because it harboured Al Qaeda. So they bombed Afghanistan. What did they achieve? A better set of parties to rule, but hardly any infrastructure to rule over. And the Afghan warlords definitely don't want a US-led government in their regions. You could just be pushing Afghanistan towards a new chaos. And after going to such great lengths, you have had absolutely zero success in eliminating Al Qaeda or the Talibans.
You’re right though they haven’t completely eliminated either. There is still a lot of work to do in stopping terrorism around the world.
Ok so now the US’s sole reason for attacking Iraq is to show off their cool military toys? You’re kidding right? And when last I heard the US economy would be effected as well. Like I said I find it amusing that all of a sudden you find it’s OK to be selfish and not care about anything but your own self-interests. The same thing you have been railing against the US for. Ohhh the smell of hypocrisy.Quote:
This time around, too, the US doesn't seem to be helping anybody but its own desire of showing off its military supremacy by trying to force an enemy out of Iraq. So if the US decides to pamper itself at the cost of the economies of many other nations, these many other nations have an equal right to turn selfish and tell the US go tuck themselves with an F.
But why attack this dictator when you have supported other deadly dictator especially in south and latin america in the past ???Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
No one wants war. But you can’t sit on your hands and close your eyes and hope all of the world’s dictators go away ala Neville Chamberlain ...
Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
No one wants war. But you can’t sit on your hands and close your eyes and hope all of the world’s dictators go away ala Neville Chamberlain. Iraq has been give chance after chance after chance. There comes a time when enough is enough. Appeasement and inspections are not going to work. I think that fact is quite obvious to most of the world.
Unless the US presents solid and undeniable proof, which it has failed to do till date that Iraq holds WMDs, it's all your President's nightmares and imaginations.
You have also not answered the charges against Israel. How many times has the US vetoed in the UN so Israel could benefit? How many times the US has supplied arms and military equipment to Israel which have been then used against the Palestines? Hell, even the financial aid to Pakistan has been going to the militants in the J&K and to Talibani forces in the past. The US simply turned a blind eye to these things because it suited their foreign policy at the time. If you think otherwise, tell me why the US has failed to take a similar action against Israel or Pakistan.
Sure the US and its allies don’t need France or Germany. Quite to the contrary they still need the US and its allies such as the UK more.
That certainly puts the US in a dictatorial position, don't you think? :)
Don’t you think if the US wanted to control Iraqi oil they would have done it during the Gulf War? Iraq was beaten and demoralized it would have been easy to just take control then. Not to mention leaving an occupying force in Kuwait to see that their oil was “secure”. But that didn’t happen. The US pulled out of Iraq because they didn’t have a mandate from the UN to topple Saddam. It was only to get Iraq out of Kuwait. And the US didn’t seize control of Kuwaiti oil fields either. Control went back to the people who were running Kuwait before the war. If you believe the US so sinister why didn’t they do something like this during the Gulf War when it would have been easy?
Oh, I think I just didn't factor in the influence of the surrounding Islamic nations in the Gulf war :D
There wasn’t and infrastructure to begin with in Afghanistan. Which is why you can just go and tear whatever is there apart :)
And I recently saw the newly elected president of Afghanistan on television in an interview thanking and praising the US for setting them free from the brutal Taliban regime. And as far as I know from everything I have heard the US seriously cripped Al Qaeda and ran the Taliban out of power unless of course that interview with the president of Afghanistan was just US propaganda :).
If Mr. Karzai knows what's good for him, he would definitely praise the US for the efforts. He can't afford to be in line after Saddam :)
You’re right though they haven’t completely eliminated either. There is still a lot of work to do in stopping terrorism around the world.
And the US is doing a pretty miserable job of it, I am sure :rolleyes:
Ok so now the US’s sole reason for attacking Iraq is to show off their cool military toys? You’re kidding right? And when last I heard the US economy would be effected as well. Like I said I find it amusing that all of a sudden you find it’s OK to be selfish and not care about anything but your own self-interests. The same thing you have been railing against the US for. Ohhh the smell of hypocrisy.
Yeah, the difference being the US is trying to force a war on the world for its own selfish interests (I am not entirely sure Mr. President understands the need or the reasons behind this war too well, for that matter) and the other nations are trying to stop the war for their own interests. Both are being selfish, but the France, Germany and co. are avoiding a war too :rolleyes:
The U.S./ the rest of civilized world have things called Allies. And there are sometimes allies who arent very good people, but they are better than your enemy.. Ever heard the saying "The enemy of my Enemy is my Friend?" Well that's the way things work. the U.S. is NOT going to attack Isreal becasue Isreal is America's Allie, DUH! Isreal is a FREE, peace loving nation, and they were living in peace untill all their phsyco muslim neighbors decided to kill them all. Well Isreal didnt fold like they thought, in fact Isreal kicked thier ass and took some of thier land.. and to that i say tough **** palastine.Quote:
Originally posted by maxl
But why attack this dictator when you have supported other deadly dictator especially in south and latin america in the past ???
This is the same reason the U.S. supplied IRAQ with some weapons during their war with IRAN... At the time IRAN was our enemy and IRAQ was IRAN's enemy, that therefore made IRAQ our friend. As we can now see, that eventually came back to bite us.
Maybe one day when you understand how the world works we can have a more intelligent conversation.
So Arc, you're basically saying that an ally is any country or group that is an enemy of one's enemy.
That's quite a loose interpretation of what an ally is.
And quite insulting to those considered allies too.