USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Cheveyo, Feb 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JangoFettClone Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2002
    star 4
    For your reading pleasure

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=7&cid=514&u=/ap/20030311/ap_on_go_co/freedom_fries
  2. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    *reads story*

    Jesus... [face_plain]

    I'm ticked at the French, but this is ridiculous!
  3. BlueMules Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    May 30, 2002
    star 3
    For your reading pleasure:
    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030311/pl_nm/iraq_usa_resignation_dc_2

    U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq War Plans
    1 hour, 52 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. diplomat resigned from government service on Monday in protest of President Bush (news - web sites)'s preparations to attack Iraq (news - web sites), the second to do so in less than a month.

    John H. Brown, who joined the U.S. diplomatic corps in 1981 and served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and Moscow, said in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) made available to the media: "I cannot in good conscience support President Bush's war plans against Iraq.


    "Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president's disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century," the diplomat added.
  4. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    When Colin Powell read it odds are he was wishing he could do the same. Colin Powell would go down in history as a hero if he resigned over this issue.

    Tony Blair is facing the same problem. If he takes GB to war without a second UN resolution, his political career will be over.
  5. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    Um, Colin Powell is all for the war, else he would have resigned by now.
  6. the-JEDI-are-NO-more Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 10, 2002
    star 2
    Who says Bush's carrier is down the drain if he goes without the UN? I think it's the UN's credibility on the line (with the public, I have never believed in it).
  7. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The NYT/CBS poll has the following results:

    58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago.

    55 percent would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.

    52 percent, say inspectors should be given more time to search for evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons on the ground in Iraq.

    A majority of Americans say the White House has failed to tell them what they need to know about the justification for a pre-emptive attack.

    45 percent of Americans believe that their president enjoys the respect of world leaders.

    35 percent of Americans disapprove of how Mr. Bush is handing the situation with North Korea

    35 percent of the respondents say the economy is the most important problem facing the nation, compared with 23 percent who pointed to Iraq.

    44 percent of respondents said the United States should take military action against Iraq soon, compared with 36 percent just two weeks ago.

    Although a majority of respondents still support giving weapons inspectors more time, that number has decreased to 52 percent from 62 percent two weeks ago.
  8. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Apparently, Iraq will be given a little more time beyond the 17th.

    Time is short though.

    There is a coalition forming in the UN calling for another 4-6 weeks for Iraq to completely and unambiquously disclose its weapons.

    4 weeks would be reasonable.
  9. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Frankly, I'd be surprised to see Bush blinking. To have his administration actually worried about the consequences of going to war not only without UN support but with most of the people of the world opposed to it would betray a level of sophistication I don't really expect to see.

    But come to think of it, the Bush administration must be quaking about now. Tony Blair is signalling that he is about to fold under all the pressure from his own party, his own administration, most of the EU, and the entire population of his nation. It was clear last week that this was going to happen.

    So much for the coalition of the willing.
  10. Dean Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2002
    star 1
    Frankly, I'd be surprised to see Bush blinking. To have his administration actually worried about the consequences of going to war not only without UN support but with most of the people of the world opposed to it would betray a level of sophistication I don't really expect to see.

    Bush apparently believes that disarming Iraq is a vital interest of the US. Under those circumstances, the question is why Bush, or any American president for that matter, should get too worked up if the UN or indeed the entire world were opposed to military action. The US has unilaterally used military force numerous times since 1945 without the support of the world or the UN. Letting your country be dictated to by others in the area of national security is a sign of weakness and loss of sovereignty, not "sophistication." No other country acts this way, why should we?
  11. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Tony Blair is facing the same problem. If he takes GB to war without a second UN resolution, his political career will be over.

    There appears to be some exageration over the position of Tony Blair. Although this crisis is hurting him badly it probably will not finish him unless the war goes badly.

    But come to think of it, the Bush administration must be quaking about now. Tony Blair is signalling that he is about to fold under all the pressure from his own party, his own administration, most of the EU, and the entire population of his nation. It was clear last week that this was going to happen.

    Despite this, Blair will back Bush. You are deluding yourself to think overwise. He has committed himself, there is no turning back.
  12. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    Frankly, I'd be surprised to see Bush blinking. To have his administration actually worried about the consequences of going to war not only without UN support but with most of the people of the world opposed to it would betray a level of sophistication I don't really expect to see.

    Apparently you've only started paying attention to world politics in the last 2 years cause Clinton had several military actions where he acted unilaterally, and while not widely appreciated, no one batted an eye like they are with Bush.

    Partisan politics, people.
  13. KaineDamo Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2002
    star 5
    Doesn't Tony Blair have to get his position through the house of Commons before he can send any soldiers into the Iraqi conflict?? People in his own party are resigning over this. I agree that Tony Blair is in this waaaaaaaaaaaay too deep to be changing his mind now, but dear God i wish he would. The British public would hail him as a hero if he did. I suspect Tony Blair wishes he could change his mind, judging from a recent television interview, hes under such incredible pressure. I've never seen him look so tired, and he was sweating like a pig. I kinda feel sorry for him.
  14. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    I think this petty reaction to the French resistance is unbelievable - what are these people, kids?

    Questioning French motives? How about American motives for war with Saddam? And I'm not talking about Oil (simplistic reasoning from simple people).

    The US is not the world. They cannot arbitarily decide what and how things are done.

    Iraq a threat? Please. The Bush administration is using the American public fears about 9/11 to justify an attack against a third world country that couldn't possibly win in a war. There was no and never will be any threat from Iraq against the US - but now thanks to Bush's blundering Foreign Policy he has increased those chances hundred-fold.

    If you keep calling someone your enemy, they will become one.

  15. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Doesn't Tony Blair have to get his position through the house of Commons before he can send any soldiers into the Iraqi conflict??

    No.

    redxavier I agree with all of your points entirely.
  16. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    I think this petty reaction to the French resistance is unbelievable - what are these people, kids?

    The whole "freedom fry" thing is stupid, but not unheard of. Hot dogs used to be called Frankfurters before WWII. I don't want to rename french fries, and I'll never call them freedom fries.

    However France's motives do need to be called into question. Their economic ties to the Iraqi regime hardly qualify them as an unbiased country in the whole matter. They stand to loose monetarily if the Baath party is removed. Take that, and France's desire to use the EU as a counterweight to the US and the alleged (cause I've yet to see any offical charges or admissions) sale of aviation parts to Iraq. Their actions in the past few years have grown much to advesarial to mark them in the "friend" category.

    I don't expect them to go along with the US on every instance because an ally is still an autonomous state, but they've gone out of their way to impede the US on several occasions. They're an ally by title alone it seems.


    Iraq a threat? Please. The Bush administration is using the American public fears about 9/11 to justify an attack against a third world country that couldn't possibly win in a war

    In an all out war, Iraq does not stand a chance. However they have drones that can disperse chemical and biolgical weapons from 500 miles away. They have WOMD to kill millions and they do still pose a risk to the region if left unchecked. Now the risk the continental US is low, and only through the Iraq/Al Queda connection which I personally find rather weak, but they're still a danger to strategic targets, Israel and US overseas interests.

    I think we could contain Iraq for another 12 years, but containment was never apart of the cease-fire, it was disarmament.
  17. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    You know, in every other English-speaking country, french fries are called chips. Why not just call them that? oh, right... we Americans wouldn't want to show any conformity, now would we? What happens next, conversion to the metric system?? Holy cripes!

    C'mon people, please. Changing the name of a food because you disagree with them? Sorry, can you say petty? don't politicians have more important things to do than come up with new names for french toast?

    I love this quote from the article:
    The French Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment, except to say that french fries actually come from Belgium.

    [face_laugh]

    To Representatives Ney and Jones, I say...

    DOH!!! [face_laugh]

  18. tenorjedi Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 2000
    star 5
    What about spanish rice? It comes from spain right?
  19. darthkevin954 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Am I the only one who sees the logic in pounding the crap out of ANY dictator, let alone Saddam? Countries under dictator rule ARE NOT subject to the same rights and freedoms of liberal democaracies. Why do you ask? Why should these countries not be taken as bodies capable of making decisions? Because they are'nt capable. They have a milatiristc DICTATOR, DICATATING the views of the country. The US has a REPRESENTATIVE of US views. BIG #@$@ing difference. I think its so god danm smug\ironic for us to sit back and use our freedom of speech to support a dictator who denies freedom of speech to his people. Not that I wouldn't die (as my uncle did in WW2) to defend there right to have that opinion. Bottom line : dictators suck.

    P.S.

    Here's something I found down right hilarious. My best friend's step-sister immigrated to Canada from Iraq two years ago but still has contact with her family there. Her family was attempting to buy an American flag so they could welcome US troops into Bahgdad. Of course you can't buy a US flag in Bahgdad. Guess what there doing instead? Buying a french flag. They aren't going to be waving it though. Iraqis don't want the war. But they don't want Saddam either. And they will welcome liberation with open arms.
  20. Jansons_Funny_Twin Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 31, 2002
    star 6
    You know, in every other English-speaking country, french fries are called chips. Why not just call them that? oh, right... we Americans wouldn't want to show any conformity, now would we? What happens next, conversion to the metric system?? Holy cripes!

    I still think of fries as pommes fritz, thanks to living in Germany for 3 years. Confuses the hell out of the cashier at McDonalds. :p

    As for the metric system, I'm used to it already.

    C'mon people, please. Changing the name of a food because you disagree with them? Sorry, can you say petty? don't politicians have more important things to do than come up with new names for french toast?

    As much as we disagree about Iraq, I agree with you on this. It's petty and stupid. How must this look to other countries?
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    You're right, J_F_T, it looks petty and stupid! ;)

    E_S
  22. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    What about spanish rice? It comes from spain right?

    That's okay, though because Spain is one of the good guys (that is to say, it backs a US war). But I don't think Spanish rice is spanish... I thought it originated in the Ottoman Empire (ironically enough)

    Countries under dictator rule ARE NOT subject to the same rights and freedoms of liberal democaracies. Why do you ask? Why should these countries not be taken as bodies capable of making decisions? Because they are'nt capable.

    Thank you so much for bringing this up! I hadn't thought of that before! we should do away with all non-democratic nations! First Iraq, then N. Korea, then... ohhhh let's see, umm:
    - Burma
    - Chechnya, a disputed territory controlled by Russia
    - Cuba
    - Libya
    - Saudi Arabia
    - Sudan
    - Syria
    - Tibet, a disputed territory controlled by China
    - Turkmenistan

    And let's not forget all the other countries who are not considered "free":
    - Abkhazia, a disputed territory controlled by Georgia
    - Algeria
    - Angola
    - Bahrain
    - Belarus
    - Bhutan
    - Brunei
    - Burundi
    - Cambodia
    - Cameroon
    - Chad
    - China
    - Congo (Kinshasa)
    - Egypt
    - Equatorial Guinea
    - Eritrea
    - Gambia
    - Guinea
    - Iran
    - Israeli-administered disputed territories
    - Kashmir, a disputed territory controlled by India
    - Kazakhstan
    - Kenya
    - Kosovo, a disputed territory controlled by Yugoslavia
    - Kurdistan, a territory of Iraq
    - Kyrgyz Republic
    - Laos
    - Lebanon
    - Liberia
    - Maldives
    - Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory disputed between Armenia and Azerbaijan
    - Oman
    - Pakistan
    - Palestinian Authority-administered disputed territories
    - Qatar
    - Rwanda
    - Somalia
    - Swaziland
    - Tajikistan
    - Transdneister, a disputed territory controlled by Moldova
    - Tunisia
    - United Arab Emirates
    - Uzbekistan
    - Vietnam
    - Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco
    - Yemen
    - Zimbabwe

    Wow. There's no way Bush could wage a war against all these undemocratic governments in just two terms! I think (in order to banish all these evil-doers) Bush will just have to name himself Emperor, take control of the Senate, and impose Democracy. you know, building a Death Star wouldn't hurt either. ;)

    They have a milatiristc DICTATOR, DICATATING the views of the country. The US has a REPRESENTATIVE of US views. BIG #@$@ing difference.

    But by forcing them into a democracy, wouldn't we be "dictating" to them what kind of government to have? Where's the logic in that?

    Nice potty mouth, by the way.
  23. darthmalt16 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 25, 2000
    star 4
    "I honestly believe we have "scared" saddam enough. He KNOWS that if he were ever to attack us, that we'd nuke him to death"

    He's more likely to attack israel make them retaliate and plunge the entire middle east into war.

    "IT is the US inflicted casualties.. WITHOUT tanks and bombs. In Somalia, the civilian casualties ranged from 4,000 to 5,000 in a span of 2 days."


    Let's not forget Somalia was the U.N.'s faullt.
    Plus The whole city was trying to kill them!
    The fact that that is all the civilians that died should be praised. As for the American deaths well clinton was an idiot.
    SO it has no bearing on the Iraq situation.


    "only love can conquer hate" well if this isn't cliche' I don't know what is.

    In a related report the newest and most terrible weapon in the U.S. arsenal is the new love bomb.


    Good point Genghis

    ""Unfortunately for Iraq, Saddam is not willing to do things diplomatically, at least not in an acceptable manner." "how do you know"

    12 years isn't long enough?


    "I much rather have a cow-boy as president over a cow-ard."

    nice to have a cowboy after 4 years of cow-ard


    "ANd did he do any harm to his neighbours? "

    Kuwait doesn't count?


    "So much for the coalition of the willing."
    No, we only have 30 other countries backing us last I heard



    The French are the ones saying they're gonna veto no matter if we get every other country onour side. now who's acting unilaterally?



    Ah let's just bomb france. surprise the heck out of those people.


    Has anyone seen the test of the U.S. military's new toy? Shame we can only use it in the desert.


    ONce again I have to say isn't 12 years of last chances enough? If your parents kept telling you to do something or else without doing anything about it. would you respect them

  24. darthkevin954 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Thanks Chevy, I DO have a nice potty mouth.

    Notice the condition of the people in those countries you listed? Oppressed, starving, poor strike a cord. Should we take them all over and liberate them? Yes. Is it feasable? Of course not.

    That said, liberal democratization and globalization are INEVITABLE. Superior ideaology throughout history has conquered the weaker. Our way of life will dominate. Not our culture mind you. Our freedom, democracy, etc..

    We would NOT be forcing these countries to be democratic. These countries have no consesus. They are not nation-states as we with our spoiled hyprocrite pansy @$$ed western eyes think of them. We would be forcing there leaders to be democratic.

    Fantasy situation for me :

    The middle class of liberal democracies realize they are exploiting 3rd world countries under dictatorships to fatten the profit margins of the upper class. The middle class reject socialist\pacifist elitism and prop up leaders truly of the people. UN reveals US is far beyond missle defence shield then ever before revealed to the public. Announces NATO, Russia, other free countries under the 'umbrella'. All other countries must begin making progress towards democratic institions (civil society instutions especially) or face anhilation. Once everyone is free, destroy all the weapons in the world and put some remaining nukes on an island in control of the UN in case anybody decides to be a loser.

  25. redxavier Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2003
    star 4
    America needs a boogey man.

    I say, if you want a pick a fight with someone, pick on someone your own size. Like China. But the US would never do that because there's the possibility that they'd lose.

    "Their economic ties to the Iraqi regime hardly qualify them as an unbiased country in the whole matter."

    A good point but I must point out that there's a massively strong link between AlQueda and Saudi Arabia - but because the US has a good relationship with the Saudi government and the latter is an ally of the US in a region that almost universally hates their guts, the United States won't pursue that line.

    Instead they're drumming up support for their invasion of Iraq by making up all these riduculous stories, terrorist links, demonisation of Saddam and his regime and making an outrage of any illegal weapons he has - Who has more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than the US? That's the irony. There's so much that the US government keep secret from their own people, what kind of WOMD does the US armed forces have stowed away? There's the brand new MOAB!!!!!! a 10 ton bomb that makes a VERY big hole.

    The foreign policy isn't consistent, and that's what all these nations are getting tired of.

    "ow the risk the continental US is low, and only through the Iraq/Al Queda connection which I personally find rather weak, but they're still a danger to strategic targets, Israel and US overseas interests."

    If that were true, he'd have done it a LONG time ago. He's had chemical weapons since the war with Iran. It's been 12 years since his defeat (and that long for him to seek revenge). And he's only going to attack if he's given a reason to. He's not a madman. He's just a brutal dictator.

    Saddam clings to Power like velcro. He will do anything to maintain his control over the people of Iraq. Even with all his 'supposed' inventory of WOMD he'd do so little damage to the US as to be negligable - and the retribution would be swift and decisive. In other words, he steps out of line, he's a gonner. And he knows that! He'd do nothing to jeopardise that position, and playing games with inspectors and foreign leaders is what politics is all about!

    The genius of the whole situation is something that I call the 'Henry V factor'. There's a belief in Britain that Henry V was perhaps one of the greatest Kings of England. But in reality, he did nothing for England domestically, he just popped over the channel and beat up the French and nicked their country. But you know what? It kept the English people occupied on something that was outside the identity. The best way to rule a community is to keep them distracted from the problems, whilst focusing their negative emotions on another community. It works on the familiar level to the national level.

    Bush (and Blair) are doing precisly the same thing now. Think of all the problems that the US and Britain have. They're all unsolvable problems (or at least problems that are difficult for which to find solutions). Those issues have all been depriotised in light of the crisis in Iraq, a crisis manufactured by the government.

    "The US has a REPRESENTATIVE of US views"

    I find it interesting that contrary to the spirit of the 'revolution', Presidents can now bring the US into wars without the approval of Congress (the last war to be approved by Congress was WW2). Not only that, but the fact that the present government isn't a reflection of the views of the US people as half didn't vote for it.

    "Bottom line : dictators suck."

    The fact is that we have little understanding of the middle eastern lifestyle. The climate, the history and the religion all come together to create a brutal environment dominated still by uneducated primitives, primitives who're willing to cut out women's clitoris' to curtail their sexual pleasures so as to keep them faithful.

    The bottom line is that theirs is a completely different culture and society. And in theirs, they need control to keep things in order. Without Saddam you've got potentially hundreds of small clans waging a never-
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.