Topic awaiting preservation: Stop the war against Iraq II (Page 1 of 3)

Old thread here

Sorry, the old thread was getting a bit long...so I'll post the last post from Emps here...

Some quick points:

quote:

---

Would it be fair to say that you think it unlikely we will be attacked by any weapons emanating from Iraq then? Because if you think that is possible now or in the near future, while we are waiting, then are you suggesting that is a risk should be willing to take?

---

I would say that with inspections teams on the ground we are currently safer than we were when there were no teams. If we are going to go after high risk areas then there are others (some of which are putting us at much greater risk):

a) The nuclear and biological facilities in the former Sovier Union which due to underfunding (part of which promised by the international commnunity) are leaking the very WoMD that we are attacking Saddam over.

b) The arms bazaars on the Pakistan/Afghanistan borders where anything can be bought.

c) Libya and Syria which have both been notorious for training terrorists in the past.

d) Pakistan's nuclear programme which is directly reponsible for 'rogue states' (specifically North Korea) acquiring the means to start a nuclear programme of their own).

e) Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, etc. which are breeding grounds for the kind of radical Islam which motivated the 911 terrorits, etc.

but, of course, some in that list happen to be people we have allied ourselves with.

I find your reply to point 3 the one that makes me the most nervous but I'm glad you have said it as it probably explicitly says something which the US administration are thinking but are not prepared to say out loud.

I would also ask when does this pre-emptive action become meddling in other countries/regions politics. Tony Blair has said there are a dozen other states that need to be addressed are we going to go sticking our noses in there?

This article is interesting in that regard:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,888443,00.html

during the Cold War it was the 'War Against Communism', in the eighties and nineties it was the 'War Against Drugs' and now (post-911) it is the 'War Aginst Terror' but nothing seems to change - we seem to be supporting one group of evil and corrupt people largely because they are 'Our Men' holding back the tides of whatever we have deemed the enemy this decade. The biggest irony is that Saddam and Bin Laden were Our Men when it suited us and now they have bitten the hand that fed them we find it expedient to remove them. In the end nothing ever changes except tens (hundreds) of thousands of people get killed.

Would a better strategy being to stop this Neo-imperial political meddling that we have been doing for so long (and which has brought us nothing but problems) and actually work through organisations like the UN to work to promote things that might have longer term benefits e.g. addressing isssues equality, environmental change, etc.?

Hmmmm those quick points turned into longer ones - more later.........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Just got to admire the Australians full story

quote:

---

John Howard and his Conservative-Liberal coalition were censured for deploying troops to the Gulf ahead of a possible war against Iraq.

John Howard has let this nation down



Senator Bob Brown

Opposition and minor parties joined forces to pass the motion against Mr Howard by 33 to 31 votes.

The motion has no legislative clout, but is considered an important symbolic gesture as it is the Senate's first no-confidence vote in a serving leader in its 102-year history.

Mr Howard - a staunch US ally - has said the deployment of troops does not mean that Australia has decided to support any war with Iraq.

--BBC News

---

And one has to admire Jacques Chirac full story

quote:

---

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Washington's staunchest ally and the greatest European champion of an eventual war with Iraq, failed today to persuade President Jacques Chirac of France to endorse military action through the United Nations Security Council.

--New York Times

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-05-2003).]

John Howard's right...the deployment of troops does not mean that Australia has decided to support the war. What he didn't say is that it doesn't mean the he (as the leader of the Australian governement) hasn't decided to support it.

This article is interesting as it deals with some of the longer term concerns (as well as a whole host of ethical issues):
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,888882,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok...this just in on North Korea...and it is a doozy...especially this part

quote:

---

When North Korea confirmed U.S. intelligence about the program in October, the Bush administration said it would pursue multilateral diplomacy and avoid direct talks that it feared would reward bad behavior. U.S. officials have dropped an earlier precondition for discussions, but have said they prefer international pressure to a risky military strike or formal negotiations over North Korea's ambitions for diplomatic recognition and economic aid.

Testifying after Armitage, Korea specialist Ashton B. Carter called the events at Yongbyon "a huge foreign policy defeat for the United States and a setback for decades of U.S. nonproliferation policy." He said the United States should consider threatening the use of force to prevent North Korea from moving the fuel rods, which could disappear into the world market.

"As this loose nukes disaster unfolds and the options for dealing with it narrow, the world does nothing," said Carter, who conducted a review of U.S. policy for the C*****n administration. "This is especially ironic as the world prepares to disarm Iraq of chemical and biological weapons, by force if necessary."

Senators pressed Armitage to explain why the administration would resist signing a nonagression treaty with North Korea, particularly because President Bush has said repeatedly that the United States has no intention to attack. Armitage said there would be "zero chance" of getting such a treaty through the Senate.

--Washington Post - on politics

---

And of real importance, this [quote]"...they prefer international pressure to a risky military strike or formal negotiations over North Korea's ambitions for diplomatic recognition and economic aid."

Ahhh...so we are threatening Iraq with war because it is not risky...but if he had nukes, we wouldn't be?

Does anyone see the danger in that? It encourages others, to obtain Nukes ASAP.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-05-2003).]

An interesting read:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair asserted Wednesday that Iraq has some links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, despite a British Broadcasting Corp. report claiming British intelligence discounted any ties.

Apparently Blair does not really trust his own Defense Intelligence Staff... http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/05/sprj.irq.blair.alqaeda.ap/index.html

I'm sure we'll hear more about this...

Nice article, Emps...very interesting.

So...Hobbes...or Kant. Personally, I'm for Kant.

As for Mr. Blair...well, if your political future was at stake, would you 'trust' anything that threatened to bring it down? Such as lack of evidence? Think about it...

WS: Tony Blair is positioning himself for some kind of international statesman position (pos. as the only man to have the US' ear).

Sooooooooooo I have just watched Colin Powell's 1 hour 20 minutes of evidence and it was interesting. I was impressed by him but some of his links, both implicit (the mention of the anthrax in the letters) and explicit (the UK 'cell' and the murder of the British policeman) to be rather tenuous.

The main evidence that Saddam has been hiding weapons seemed good although there was an awful lot of satelitte photoraphs which only an expert could interpret and an over reliance of computer generated images of what things would look like. The intercepted messages were interesting although a little 'thin' but I suspect that whole case here will have to be analysed in more detail as his report obviously contained more evidence than he could properly cover.

The link between Saddam and al Qaeda was poor - the first batch of evidence linking Zaqawi (sp?) to Saddam was weak although the second set covering evidence from a senior al Qaeda member was interesting.

Initial analysis on BBC Radio 4 is pretty scathing but I think we'll have to wait and see what the reaction of the international community is - after all he isn't trying to convince me (although that would be nice) he is trying to convince countries like France and various Arabic states. I would imagine with a bit of extra horse trading behind the scenes that that might be enough.

One thought - Colin Powell did a great job and I suspect we'd all be happier if he was president.

One silly thought - I'm disappointed his Powerpoint presentation didn't make use of "Dad's Tie", fancier transitions or little tinkling noises

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

Tony Blair is positioning himself for some kind of international statesman position

---

Don't mean international 'ass-kissing' position?

Colin Powell Transcripts from Today's speech

Here you go.

Cell 816~ teamEarth ~Asylum Quotes

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 02-05-2003).]

quote:

---

One thought - Colin Powell did a great job and I suspect we'd all be happier if he was president.

---

I really would like to know exactly what you mean by that.

Also, he made an excellent case for the Iraqis not cooperating with the inspectors which raises this question. What exactly do all of you think is the proper role and purpose of the UN inspectors? Especially in light of the latest UN resolution.

Bugs:

quote:

---

I really would like to know exactly what you mean by that.

---

I mean that Bush is perceived to be both stupid and (to all intents and purposes) owned by the oil industry and big business. Colin Powell appears to be a highly intelligent man with few clear previous owners (although, of course, these perceptions may be false at the moment part of the war is a public relations war based on people's perception both of America, Americans and the current administration)

Powell delivered a good hour and 20 minute speech to the UN which was prefectly coherent, with little showboating or arm twisting and I can't imagine Bush being able to do the same.

quote:

---

What exactly do all of you think is the proper role and purpose of the UN inspectors?

---

Essentially I perceive them to be a tool with which to apply pressure on Saddam until enough evidence has been accumulated to satisfy doubters like France and Russia. While they are in the country they will also force Saddam to make mistakes which the US intelligence gathering machine seems adept at scooping up As I said it isn't about convincing me that war with Iraq is a good idea. I am looking forward to seeing

I also suspect Tony Blair's shuttle diplomacy has been to find out the 'price' of cooperation in terms of levels of proof and other 'concessions' (like extra money to stablisie Russian NBC facilities). I'm not sure what game the french are playing - their invitation to Mugabe to visit a conference in France (breaking EU rules) is also a move in this game. The Russians can be bought, the Germans won't move very far but the French....... that is the interesting one.

As I say we need more time.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

We need more time in your estimation to do what we both agree needs doing. I can live with that. I believe we will be going in before the end of March. I think France is going to sign on at the eleventh hour.

I just heard a report that Al Qaeda may be waiting for our attacks to unleash many sleeper cells all over the world. Economic targets will be their priority. I certainly hope that is not the case but I believe we need to be prepared for it. I think it is important to keep in mind that if this happens, attacking Iraq will not be the cause as much as it will be one of many times chosen for them to make the next move.

I honestly don't know what is motivating the Germans on this. Any thoughts on that? I am inclined to think they are just on the far edge of the pendulum swing after their recent history but how does that explain their involvement in Afghanistan?

Emps, I just don't know what can be done to change your view of Bush. I don't really care to try. But I think the time of calling him stupid is past. I know you didn't say he was but it is obvious a lot of people still think that. All I can say is that it's a terribly ill-informed position now that we know more about him and his administration. And here is another thing about that. C*****n was considered one of our most intelligent presidents but look at what he did! I'm not sure why having an intelligent leader is required as opposed to a quite competent one who is also a very good leader. Your thoughts?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-06-2003).]

I want to examine this whole thing, from another perspective...from a purely strategic one. This is in no way factual, nor represents necessarily my view, but I put it together as a military exercise. From this viewpoint, it is interesting (and a bit scary).

Treatise on effectively using military means to combat Global Terrorism

Secure resources for a military campaign (Oil)

Iraq is the easiest way, to secure an easily accessable oil resource for a military campaign against Global Terrorism. The actual threat level is low, the military strength of Iraq is weak, and the objective is easy to reach in a relatively small time frame. Points to be aware of :

1. No real democratic government should be set up (threatens a ready supply of cheap Oil, the stationing of military bases in Iraq).

2. An interm 'democratic' stewardship should be set up, that is sympathetic to American concerns.

3. Having control over this Oil, gives great leverage among the worlds nations, decreasing the chance of resistance and/or actual threat of resistance militarily. All countries of the world rely on Oil to power their war machines...and economies. Being able to control this, is paramount to success. Not only does Iraq have huge Oil resources, but is in a strategically important position to the access of other Oil resources, giving control to whoever holds power there, to the straits.

4. It lies directly on the border to the next target, Iran.

Removing the fundamental Islamic Central 'authority' (and instigator of Global Terrorism)

Iran is the main supplier of funds and dogma for many international terrorists groups, and a leader of the fundamental Islamic movement. Also, it very well may have nuclear weapons, and has at least nuclear research facilities. With the control of Iraq, the replacing of the fundamental Islamic leadership of Iran is easy to accomplish. Iran also has large Oil resources, further fixing the control of Oil. Again, militarily, a weak threat to American forces, the actual battle would not last long. The Iranian military is weak and poses no real difficulty for American forces.

Fazit : The Oil resources of the region are secured, and the central authorities for the Fundamental Islamic movement under control. With this secured, we can then turn our attention to other threats.

Removal of the threat of WMD coming into the hands of Global Terrorists

With the middle-east firmly under control, and the rest of the world held hostage through control of Oil, the hunt can begin. No nation dare resist the demands of America, to co-operate in finding and destroying Global Terrorists.

Next up, control of the pacific. The first target is North Korea. Removal of the threat of WMD falling into the hands of Global Terrorists. Containment of Pakestan, so that WMD (and the capability to build them) are not spread to undesirable countries or groups. Neutralization of places for Global Terrorists to hide.

Colin Powel
As for Colin Powel, I really have to respect the way he dealt with the task that was laid before him. IMHO, he did the best one could have done, with what he had to work with. His presentation was very well done.

However, as he said beforehand, he could not show evidence of a 'smoking gun'. The present was very well wrapped, but there was nothing in it, that we didn't already 'know'. One thing that surprised me, was the labeling of those bunkers as chemical weapon storage facilities. From space, there is no way to really tell that (unless you got photos of markings on weapons being moved, or vehicles, or people in protective suits, identifying such as chemical weapons). In other words, from those photos presented, there is no way to draw the conclusion, that they are storage areas for chemical weapons. The only conclusion to be drawn (without the before mentioned evidence) is that the buildings are bunkers. It would be possible to detect whether or not Nuclear materials were stored there, depending on the thickness of the bunker walls, and the depth the Nuclear material is stored.

Mobile laboratories. Well, that's interesting...so what? The chemical and biological agent 'threat', is not something that I am really worried about from Iraq...these types of agents, are easy to produce, and many countries around the world have them. Global Terrorists could therefore get them from just about any country, really. We saw in Japan how easy that is...as that Sect released gas in the U-ban.

Nuclear material is different. And Colin Powel did not present a case, that Iraq actually has nuclear weapons.

The link to Al Quaida...with that evidence, just about every country in the world then has 'links' to Al Quaida...well presented, but...lacking in actual evidence.

My opinion - smoke and mirrors. In that regard, I was terribly dissappointed. I really wanted Colin Powel to present the 'Smoking Gun'. Or at least, something of equal weight. I think that just about everyone wanted that.

Mr. Bush
As for Mr. Bush...anyone, that makes decisions based on their 'gut feelings', and being in a position of great responsibility, but are so arrogant as to think that they don't have to explain anything about their actions, is not being smart, IMHO. Mr. Bush has apparently forgotten, that he is nothing more than a Public Servant, a representative of a democratic nation. Therefore, not only can the people ask for an explanation, or demand one, but they are entitled to one. He will find this out, come election time...

To make such remarks, is not what I would call...politically healthy, nor is it smart. As for what Mr. Bush and his administration have done...I'm sorry, but on the domestic front, I'm afraid that I in no way, shape, or form, find it positive. He is amassing huge deficeits, is attacking the Roe vs Wade decision, is trying to make the Supreme Court swing wide to the right, by selection of members...the list goes on. I don't even have to go into the religious stuff...

It is an interesting thing to note, that most good presidents have served two terms...now, we'll see if Mr. Bush will be around next year...I'm betting he won't.

The UN inspecters

Quite frankly, I hold the UN inspecters capable of doing only one thing - witnessing disarmament. IMHO they are in no way, shape, or form capable of tracking down hidden things, somehow spoiling political maneuvering, and interrogating Scientists. They are namely not trained for such activities (well, unless some of them are spies, that is). I have no idea, why the inspecters in Iraq are expected to do such things. IMHO, there should be absolutely no burden on them, other than the task of witnessing disarment.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-06-2003).]

Today, Iraq. Tomorrow, the world.

Well, if a nuclear war starts from all this, I hope someone gives Bush a swift kick up the arse for starting all this. I'll be in my nation's capital, kicking John Howard up the arse for making us a target. Unless, of course, I've been vaporised by then.

quote:

---

But I think the time of calling him stupid is past

- bugs

---

Everytime I see him speak, I am further convinced that Bush is a complete moron.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence to the contrary, and I'd be really interested is what you see as any indication of his intelligence?

Bugs:

quote:

---

I believe we will be going in before the end of March.

---

I suspect so too - the major moves to war will start around the 14th Feb (that date was flagged quite a while ago).

quote:

---

I think France is going to sign on at the eleventh hour.

---

I hope not as relying on that could leave us with egg on our face (in fact going in assuming that might be one of the principle reasons they might not go along with us).

Why are the Germans ploughing such a pacificist path? Well it may be related to their generally non-aggresive stance after WWII but we have plenty of German inmates and I'd be interested in their take on this. I suppose in some ways if they think that war is wrong in any form then why shouldn't they be strong enough to stand by their beliefs - I'm certainly not prepared to say that such and approach is wrong (and don't they have 'freedom of speech'?)

What can we do about the perception of Bush being dim? A brain transplant? OK sorry cheap dig but as DL has said he could start showing us how smart he is by stringing coherent sentences together.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And the BBC has a lot of special reports on recent events.

The Security Council: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/2375499.stm

Colin Powell's speech:

Streaming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events03/world/iraq/powell05feb/evidence.ram

Key points: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2728545.stm

Text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2729525.stm

reaction: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2732123.stm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And some articles from today's Guardian (I haven't had a chance to go through all the analysis today but these stood out as relevant to the debate):

Why Powell is a man that a lot of the world feel/felt is/was someone we can do business with: www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,889811,00.html

Why we should be cautious of 'intelligence' (its not touched on but that was the only factory in Sudan manufacturing some medicines and the country has been really badly hit by outbreaks of easy disease to cure): www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,889641,00.html

And why his mention of some of the links (like the death of the British policeman) are pretty 'wild': www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,889810,00.html

[edit: And although it might be amusing/inaccurate to call Bush stupid (you should never underestimate someone with that power) the issue of him being owned isn't addressed so see:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1887128840/
www.forteantimes.com/review/fortunateson.shtml

[url=http://hallbiographies.com/index.php/Mode/product/AsinSearch/1887128751/name/Fortunate%2520Son%253A%2520George%2520W.%2520Bush%2520and%2520the%2520Making%2520of%2520an%2520Ame rican%2520President/browse/916932/page/1]Big URL[/url]

which actually paints him as a more human figure than the bumbling caricature]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Okay, here´s my take on the german public opinion:

It´s not only WW2 but also how we got there - basically because a leader told us germany and the german people were special, that it was our destiny and duty to attack other countries - because we were told "they´ve got resources we need, and we have the power and the natural right to do what´s best for our great nation".
Of course we were also told that if we wouldn´t attack first, we were going to be attacked - that was not true, but the people believed what they were told.
Sound familiar?

On to the lost war itself. For Americans citizens I think it is hard to believe what an impact loosing a war in the own country has on society. Comparing it to the american history we didn´t "just" have large numbers casualties resulting in a victory (WW2) or defeat (Vietnam). You lost Soldiers. But back home your country was alive and kicking, ready to welcome back your dead and wounded heroes.
Our country was destroyed. Completely. If I want to know how life is when you´re running for the bunker while bombs are raining down all around destroying a whole city, how it feels to spend years of your childhood being moved from fugitive camp to fugitive camp all across the country, I don´t have to read a book. I can ask my mother. Same goes for Gerhard Schröder.

Maybe this is a reason why we don´t want to inflict the same kind of suffering on other people. Not without a very good reason. The mere POSSIBILITY of a threat is not enough for us to want to do this.

We protected your sorry ass country from that POSSIBLE threat for fifty plus fucking years after WWII.

Ever hear of the cold war?
Probably not.

And if we thought we could've ousted the Russian regime without huge expenditures on containment to liberate the eastern part of your ungrateful country, we would've done it.

Because it was the RIGHT thing to do.

And not to get the kudos of your shitty country, which is the most ungrateful disgrace this world has ever seen.
To speak out against the US in such a manner is not only disgraceful but sadly disappointing.

The least your country could've done for the US is shut the fuck up.
But what have we ever done for you?

The world has become a sickening place.

genis, while I can certainly understand your outrage to an extent, please keep in mind that Emps and I specifically wanted to hear from some of our German friends about why Germany is taking the position it is right now. I don't want MW to get the idea that we were asking him for an explanation just waiting to attack him.

genis: What Bugs said and if you have that kind of attitude I'm unsure how you can possibly start to understand people with divergent viewpoints and see if there is any kind of middle ground in your opinions - it is only that way that you can even start to work on reaching an agreeable solution rather than alienating people.

However, I do appreciate your input as, after discussing things with reasonable people like Bugs who I need not agree with on every point, I do sometimes forget that there are also people out there like you - thanks for the reminder.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

All this chest beating about who did what for who.... Genis, just a quick reminder for you....erm did you happen to forget all the other countries involved in germany........

If i am correct, i think a few other countries were actually stationed there...

also while we were on the subject I think that having living living center of your country reduced to rubble can take the wish to inflict a similar suffering on another nation away...

look at japans stance on n.k. persuing diplomatic channels. Just because everyone isnt jumping on the war wagon, doesnt mean they are ungreatful, and its attitudes like yours that only further alienate possible supporters..

and if it comes to chest beating about history, how many countries can you name that have been invaded, or subject to occupation in over 900 years



[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 02-07-2003).]

Wow, what a way to prove a point genis

It's that kind of attitude that fuels hatred of america, and it's that kind of ignorance that fuels american superiority complexes...which further fuel hatred for america...

*Sigh*

I would like to take this time, to appeal to the reason of my fellow Asylumnites...I suggest that we ignore posts that are ignorant, inflammatory, and irrelevant. I personally feel, that the topic of this discussion is much too important...and therefore we should not allow it to get de-railed into a flamewar...or irrelevancy. I would very much like, and appreciate, if we could continue the discussion without such...to avoid having to close down the thread. I therefore appeal to your reason and grace, to ignore (and refrain from) such posts in the future, within the context of this thread. That said, I will try to answer Bug's question, though strickly speaking, I am not German...though I have lived in Germany for the last 10 years. I will also be translating some of Schoeders remarks in the press, here in Germany (and other remarks, as well). To any inmate, that understands German (and I don't mean running stuff through a translator program) that has spotted a translation error, or mistake, please correct it.

quote:

---

Immerhin förderte die Auskunft des Kanzlers einige bislang unbekannte Details zutage. Zum einen überraschte Schröder mit einem weiteren Hilfeersuchen aus Israel. Nicht nur Patriot-Raketen würden dort gewünscht, sondern auch deutsche ABC-Spürpanzer. Über Einzelheiten und Bedingungen einer Raketenlieferung solle mit der israelischen Seite gesprochen werden, auch gegen die Überlassung von Spürpanzern habe die Bundesregierung "prinzipiell keine Bedenken", so Schröder. Schließlich dienten diese dem Schutz der Zivilbevölkerung. Über die gewünschte Zahl der Panzer liege noch keine Informationen vor. Viel ist aus deutschen Beständen ohnehin nicht zu erwarten. Bei den Patriot-Raketen könne Deutschland zwei Batterien liefern, erklärte Struck.

Washingtons Liste weiter ein Mysterium

Was den US-Brief aus Washington anging, blieb Schröder weiterhin vage. "Im Wesentlichen" gehe es bei dem Ersuchen der USA um Überflug, Bewegungs-, Transit- und für US-Truppen, um ABC-Abwehr, Militärpolizei, regionale Raketenabwehr sowie finanzielle und materielle Hilfen für einen "eventuell notwendigen Aufbau" des Irak, so der Kanzler. Spezifischer wurde Schröder nicht, sagten Teilnehmer des Treffens gegenüber SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Auch Fischer wollte sich zu Details nicht näher äußern. In kleiner Runde räumte er lediglich ein, dass der Schwerpunkt der US-Anfrage nicht auf der ABC-Abwehr liege. Offen war auch, ob der Brief Washingtons bereits beantwortet wurde. Das vermutete der bayerische Ministerpräsident Stoiber am Mittwoch. Vom Außenminister hieß es dazu lediglich, auf verschiedenen Ebenen kommuniziere die deutsche Seite darüber mit den Amerikanern, Eckpunkte der Anfrage seien am Rande des Nato-Rats besprochen worden.

AP

Unionsfraktionsvize Schäuble: Nichts wesentlich Neues erfahren

Gebetsmühlenartig wiederholte Schröder auch am Mittwoch seine Aussage, die seit Wochen all seinen Erklärungen zum Irak vorausgehen: Dass sich Deutschland nicht an einem Krieg gegen Bagdad beteiligen werde. Auch einen von den USA gewünschten Einsatz der ABC-Spürpanzer in Kuweit gegen den Irak lehnte der Kanzler ab. Sie seien dort im Rahmen der Anti-Terror-Allianz "Enduring Freedom". "Die Bundesregierung hat nicht die Absicht, die
Mandatierung auszuweiten", stellte Schröder klar.

Indirekte Hilfe Deutschlands

Doch ganz so negativ, wie die Opposition das Verhältnis von Deutschland gegenüber den USA zeichnet, ist es nicht. Die US-Regierung darf bei einem Krieg gegen den Irak auf indirekte deutsche Hilfe vertrauen: Überflugrechte für US- und Nato-Staaten wurden von Seiten des Kanzlers genauso zugesichert wie ein reibungsloser Transit von US-und Nato-Truppen sowie die Nutzung von US- und Nato-Stützpunkten in Deutschland. Dazu gehöre auch, so Schröder, der Schutz solcher Einrichtungen.

--Spiegel Online

---

Translation

The information that the Chancelor has given so far, leaves much to be desired, especially the up to this point unknown details. Mr. Schoeder surprised everyone, with a further attempt to help out Israel. Not only are Patriot-rocket batteries wished for, but also German ABC defense vehicles. However, the details and conditions of a rocket exchange are still to be worked out with the israeli side, and the government has in principle nothing against the sending of ABC vehicles, for they protect the civilians. About the number of such ABC vehicles, is not yet known.

More than that, from the German perspective, is not to be expected. The number of Patriot-rocket batteries that could be sent is two, said Struck.

Washingtons list is a further mystery.

Schoeder remains vague, about the contents of the US letter from Washington. "Generally" it covers the use of airspace, movement, transportation and
rights of access for US troops, for ABC defense, Military police, regional rocket defence and financial and material help for an "eventual, necessary re-building" of Iraq, said the Chancellor.

Schoeder was not more specific on this, said participants of the meeting to SPIEGEL ONLINE.

Also, Fischer would not define the details more clearly. However, in a small round, he said that the main point of the US letter did not lay in the ABC defense area. It is also not clear, whether or not the letter from Washington has already been answered. That was the opinon of the Minister-President Stoiber on Wednesday. From the Foreign Minister, came that many different levels of communication were being used between the two countries, with main points being discussed on the edge of the Nato counsel.

From Schaeuble : nothing new to report

Once again, Schroeder has spoken the same thing from Wednesday, that since weeks all of his Explanations on Iraq pivot:
That Germany will not be included in a war against Bagdad. Also, the USA desired employment of the ABC defense vehicles in Kuwait in a war against Iraq was denied by the Chancellor. The vehicles are there because of the Anti-Terror-Alliance "Enduring Freedom". Said Schroeder clearly. "The German government does not have the intention, to expand the Mandate".

Germany's indirect help

However, so negative (like the opposition would like to portray the relationship of the two countries), it is not. The US government can rely on the indirect help of Germany in the event of a war in Iraq: The use of Airspace for US and Nato states have been assured from the Chancellor, as well as a seamless transit of US and Nato troops and usage of US and Nato bases in Germany. To that, Schroeder added, is also the protection of such places.

That, added to what MW has said, pretty much sums up the German position on Iraq. They are more than willing to indirectly support the war, and are willing to provide defense for the civilians in Israel and Kuwait.

Bugs

Also, I am making a direct appeal to you, Bugs. Stop and think. Now, I know just how difficult that is. I have been 'waring' with my own feelings, as well. However, as one can see, I believe that not only I, but Emps as well (and a few others, I would like to include DL in that, but I cannot speak for him) have done our best, to look at this with our reason, instead of our emotions, our feelings. I know that you are a very passonate person, and that your feelings on the subject at hand are strong. However, in the past, you have always managed to present your points (and views) with a very well managed mixture of reason and thought. Of that, I have always had the greatest respect. I feel, however, that in this case, something is lacking. Why are you so strongely supporting Mr. Bush, and his administration on this? Why do you feel, that the points that I and Emps have brought to the subject, are not worthy of considering? Why are you ignoring the advice, and views, of Decorated War Veterans on this?

I cannot speak for Emps, when I say, that I am not to be included in the 'peace lover' camp. I do feel (and strongely believe) that Saddam must go. I have recognized, that it will most probably have to be with force, as all peaceful means seem to be exhausted. With that said, I strongely believe, and all evidence points to, the fact that North Korea is a greater danger at the moment. Because of this (and the very real danger, of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Global Terrorists), it is my stronge opinion, that Iraq can wait. Because it is a decision, between facing a real danger now, against facing a real danger later (North Korea has Nukes now, Saddam later). We have already got a taste, of what could happen...9/11 is still fresh in my memory. Also, be aware that North Korea also has other WMD...and in just about every area (with the exception of Oil), North Korea overshadows all that Iraq threats. This is my main point, and main argument. It is also the agument of many of my comrades, Veterans of previous wars. In my opinion, North Korea is much more of a problem, and needs to be dealt with now...every day that we wait, is a day that a global terrorist group gets nearer to obtaining a nuclear weapon. They may already have one. I fail to see, why this is not more important, than Iraq.

Rumsfield

Another thing - Rumsfield. His 'remarks' on Germany, are intolerable, nasty, mean, uncalled for, and dangerous. I can not, for the life of me, understand why this is being tolerated by Mr. Bush. An immediate apology must be issued. I would go so far, as to call for Mr. Rumsfield's retirement. There is no reason (as one can see, from my translated piece) for this type of crap. This is the type of 'evironment' that Mr. Bush has spawned...and it is grossly distorted, and wrong. It is grossly irresponsible. Such things, cannot be declared in public. We are alienating one of our staunchest of allies, that has stood with us throughout the cold war, has helped us in The Gulf War, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. I'm absolutely sure they would support us on North Korea. They are still staunch allies in Nato. But because they do not directly support a war with Iraq, they are now, in the words of Rumsfield, in the same league as Lybia and Cuba? That this ally, and friend, is 'worth nothing'? I can hardly believe, what is happening. I am shocked, ashamed, and truly amazed. I did not go to war for my country, serve in the military for 11 years, for it to do something like this. Treating friends and staunch allies publicly like dirt, is despicable, malicious, and point to a very disturbed mentality. Mr. Rumsfield should be made to apologize immediately. And if this came from higher up, it leaves me then speechless. I haven't seen this type of stuff before, in my 11 years of service for my country. I would also like to point out the amount of hostility that I am being affronted with, at the moment. Things are really stirred up right now...I see (and feel) hatred and hostility directly directed in my direction...just because I am American. This is wrong. This is so wrong. These people are angry, and for good reason. And I have little to defend myself with.




[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-07-2003).]

WS, do you propose we go to war with NK right now?

immediate pre-emptive?

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to propose anything.

I, however, do feel, that the international community must demand the complete dis-armament of all nukes in North Korea now. Also, the de-activation of the nuclear facilities there. And a full accounting of the Nukes that North Korea has. This must be done yesterday. Failing that, there is really little other choice, other than a complete blockade of North Korea...complete and utter isolation along all borders, land, sea, air. Because I think that would entice North Korea to attack (possibly with nuclear weapons), we may have no other choice, but to pre-emp them. Sadly, this does seem to be the only alternative.

No one can demand anything of NK.

They are a sovereign country over which we hold no claim due to their past agressions.
Except for some tunneling under the DMZ, they have upheld their end of the Korean War outcome.
(as far as we can prove)

Therefore, I believe a pre-emp on NK would be a much harder sell to the world community than Iraq, as it has broken multiple UN resolutions as well as having broken our ceasefire agreement.

NK has done nothing but threaten us from within its own borders and broken an economic pact, which we upheld already by ceasing economic aid.

Interesting stance...and one I strongely disagree with. But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

An interesting piece slamming the British report on Iraq published last month whic Powell entioned favourably in his talk to the UN:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,890917,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hmm things are certainly heating up - the French and Germans have developed their own plan for Iraq's disarmament and I thought Rumsfeld was going to explode live on TV (heres hoping):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2740777.stm

I have to say refusing to discuss it with the US is certainly 'irresponsible' but it may be part of a larger plan and Iraq may go along with this if it is seen as one in the eye for Great Satan (it strikes me as a highly risky move but I'm not sure what has been discussed between parties behind doors).

The Iraqi's have handed over more documents but it is unlikely that Blix will be fully satisified by this (and why should he as they are probably still playing games?):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2740847.stm

His report next week could be the start of the main push for war.

It looks like we are reaching some kind of crux point in this and I honestly can't see how everything will fall - I suspect Tony Blair will have to be back o his jet zipping betwen Europe and the US doing deals.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It appears the Russians are supporting the Franco-German plan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2742191.stm

and he is going to be visiting a lot of European countries in an attempt to gain more support for the more cuatious approach:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2741617.stm

My concern is that this plan will get a lot of support because it will be the diplomatic equivalent of giving the US a bloody nose or it will be used as a way for countries to show their displeasure in what they feel is the American-British forcing of the pace and if we are trying to come up with plans that will give us the greatest possibility of the best long term outcome I'd like to think that people were making this choice on for better thought out reasons (that said I've already said my piece on my concerns about the American motive for the pace and their eagerness for a war).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

If one believes America has less than noble motives then I think it would be very safe to assume France, Russia, and Germany also have their "reasons". Billions of dollars of lost oil deals has to be a factor to Russia and France. Germany on the other hand? I'm still not sure what that's all about.

I'll have more to say, particularly to answer WS above but I wanted to make sure I keep up with this thread.

i was actually thinking that today after hearing a few things on fox news that i wasn't previously familiar with. it seems that france has a lot more economically invested in iraq than they let on. more info here.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Well.

Let's be frank for a moment - it's not really about the actual conflict...that will with most probability be very quickly ended. It's what happens afterwards, that is indeed, the point, is it not?

Moral way - rebuild Iraq, help install a real democractic system, with a working infrastruckture - the Iraqi people finally get their country back, living conditions, and quality of life standards rise.

Hydraulic Empires - The US (UN) installs an 'interm democratic system' until oil runs out, builds military bases, controls not only Iraq, but the entire region...a 'hydraulic Empire', build on oil, with the entire world as hostage. Scary? Only if you are not American...

Now, if you were France, or Germany, which one would you like to see? How can a 'United Europe' even suffer the idea of # 2? The EU is competition (of an economic sort) to the US...if we assume this is mostly about national interests, then # 1 is out. Surely Russia and China are viewing the situation uneasily...

I really think this is the main point of the issue...or reluctance, to give a go ahead, for the war. Remember Tibet? China took it...nobody cared. Oh, there were a few 'voices raised', but in the end, the major powers of the world conviently 'forgot' about it, as China hinted at opening it's borders to trade...and now, those very same powers stand slobbering at the border of China, imagining the wealth to be made there...a modern 'gold rush', if you will...human rights be damned.

So why the big 'bruhaha' over Iraq? Because of point # 1? Somehow, I don't think so...

Oh,and just to provide some 'support' for the issue US on Iraqi Oil Future

quote:

---

The magazine said the rift emerged during two meetings of a working group of Iraqi opposition leaders and oil industry experts in Washington, hosted by the United States.

The State Department, backed by the Treasury and Justice Departments, argued that the industry should be kept public, the Iraqi national oil company made more effective and that links should be created with foreign oil companies.

But the Pentagon, backed by the White House, has argued that the United States must adopt a more hands-on approach to controlling the Iraqi oil and energy industry by supervising its privatization, Petrostrategies said.

--The Globe and Mail

---

Oh, and those wondering what Hydraulic Empires are, this

quote:

---

Hydraulic Empires

In ancient times, the first empires were based upon control of water supplies. Those who controlled the irrigation systems controlled the land, and thereby the populace. Anyone attempting to move away would face starvation.

---

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-10-2003).]

Bugs: I agree - is no one out there trying to do something without ulterior motives!!!

Anyway this article describes the US reaction to the plan:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,892464,00.html

The only light point in that is where they have to explain 'stiffed'

I hadn't mentioned that France and Belgium are moving to veto defending Turkey if they assist in any attack on Iraq:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,892726,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2743661.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2744491.stm

I think that is an awfully bad idea and is potential extremely divisive.

I really despair - anyone fancy building a big Space Ark filling it with sensible people and leaving the bunch of children behind to squabble over the 'toys' and goodies?

I suppose in the end I don't really care about the underlying motives (we can attempt to address them later) as long as we get the best possible long term outcome (tearing apart the UN, NATO, etc. probably isn't going to help this long term outcome).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yup. Stresses in Nato are definitely showing...a bad thing, IMHO. Why they would veto defending Turkey, I have no idea...*shrugs* Maybe some kind of deal, the US had with Turkey?

All in all, things are really getting chaotic...guess many countries are really thinking about the dangers of point # 2...

'It's like a bad nightmare...it just keeps getting worse, and worse'

Came across these links at another forum:

http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
http://www.blackcommentator.com/27/27_commentary.html
http://www.defensegroupinc.com/war_rdpaper.cfm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/war-j30_prn.shtml

The heat is certainly being turned up here (and in the US). Heathrow airport now has 450 troops with light tanks and 1,000 police (a lot of them armed) guarding it. There are also troops and police stationed at unspecified locations around London at key financial and transport areas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2747677.stm

The last time this was done was 1991 when we were gearing up for the Gulf War - the cynical amongst us might interpret this as an attempt by the government to ramp up paranoia amongst the population and influence people's view of the war.

I see a similar thing is happening in the US:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2738059.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2739373.stm

and the news reported that people have been advised to lay in 3 days of drinking water and food and tape for the windows.

This seems to come from some specific information received (allegedly) as well as fears that the end of the Eid festival will be some kind of signal for the start of a series of attacks.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor