Topic awaiting preservation: Stop the war against Iraq II

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

Someone asked about more US anti-war movement information and this article:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,893120,00.html

points to sites which may be relevant like:
http://moveon.org

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I picked up these links elsewhere but they give a bit more background to the Heathrow moves:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030211/140/dszgq.html
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030211/4/dsy6s.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, the American public is heavily in favor of the war. The protests here have been pretty minimal. In fact, a radio talk show host in Washington state went out with his crew to cover a scheduled protest in Seattle and I am not exagerrating that only four people showed up. Two of them were the organizers themselves. The support becomes overwhelming when UN backing is thrown into the brew.

WS
Finally, I will get back to your direct appeal to me a few posts up.

quote:

---

Stop and think. Now, I know just how difficult that is.

---

Hilarious! I feel like doing a Monty Python impression of Gumby exclaiming "my brain hurts!". Honestly, I have tried my best to keep my emotions out of this one. The other thread about France, et al, has me much more passionate, trust me on that!

I am very reluctant to argue on the basis of the most recent "evidences" that our government are coming out with precisely because there isn't much time to evaluate them and I was *already* convinced this had to be done. I don't need *any* emotional push in this direction because I have very practical and important reasons for taking the position I have.

quote:

---

1. Why are you so strongely supporting Mr. Bush, and his administration on this? 2. Why do you feel, that the points that I and Emps have brought to the subject, are not worthy of considering? 3. Why are you ignoring the advice, and views, of Decorated War Veterans on this?

---

1. Because he is going to do what I firmly believe needs to be done. I'm not marching behind him in lock step because of some blind allegiance but rather because he is very capable of toppling Saddam Hussein *and* giving the Iraqi people a better future than any other proposals I have yet come across. mobrul has predicted the people will just become slaves to the West. I do not agree with that characterization if he is referring to the rebuilding of the oil industry there which will allow the Iraqis to have a viable economy. We must follow up any regime change with massive support, I have always been insistent on that. I don't know if it will happen but I believe Bush plans to do it.

2. Don't think that I haven't considered your opinions. I most certainly have but quite frankly, all I'm hearing is that we should wait and indefinite amount of time to act in this matter. That concerns me greatly because we don't have all the time in the world. Iraqi children are starving right now because of our inaction and our sactions. Remember these were designed to be a peaceful alternative to war but they do not come without a price. I have yet to hear someone say that we should ignore Iraq so *something* must be done *sometime*. You've got to know that sometimes I feel as though you're not listening to me on this.

3. I have heard Hackworth's arguments and they are sound and probably could work but they would only put off the inevitable. He has argued for containment. Containment means more starving and oppressed Iraqis and I'm far too tempted to relieve them of that.

Schwarzkopf has recently backed off from his opposition so what can I say about that? From an article, Richmond unwelcomes Schwarzkopf

quote:

---

Previously, Schwarzkopf expressed criticism of the second Bush administration?s plans for war on Iraq. Richmond activists highlighted his opinion and pressured him to take a tougher position against the war by chanting, ?Yo Schwarzkopf, tell Bush to back off!? But his remarks Wednesday evening echoed the beating drum of the war machine as Schwarzkopf cheered support of war to the Richmonder audience.

---

If you really mean this:

quote:

---

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.

---

Then about what exactly are we disagreeing? Timing? Bush's motives? Fine, but we both agree it has to be done so that still leaves us in agreement on the most prescient point.

Ok, DPRK. This one is quite simple to answer. We must deal with BOTH simultaneously. I believe we have prepared and are capable of handling both problems. I started to talk about the DPRK specifics here but I want to reserve that for the other thread.

But let me tie in why the DPRK problem underscores why what we are doing in Iraq is correct. We simply cannot allow Hussein to get to the point where he can develop the kind of weapons that have us so threatened from the DPRK. You yourself said the action will be very short once started in Iraq and so why pull back now when we are ready to hit him if he continues to oppose 1441?

And I know I sound like a broken record here but isn't it clear that it is only because of our military build up that Iraq has agreed to anything asked of it by the UN? Perhaps our build up is working in concert with the inspections and it just might convince Hussein to choose exile? And this makes me all the more disappointed in the Franco-Russo-Germanic (can I do that?) position. If *all* the countries involved would be unified and insist on disarmament and promise military action if isn't done immediately, Hussein would be far more motivated to step down *without* getting any of his people killed. It could happen because it is more about his survival than anything else but he knows he can work the nations reluctant to back up the UN resolution with force.

Your turn.

My turn??

No. I already served my country, as has past generations of my family. We have a very proud record of serving, having been in every war fought by America. In the coming war (should it take place), no-one from my family will be participating. We are against it. The reactions of our many of our fellow Americans, Mr. Bush and his administration, and other information that we have managed to exchange (stuff you will not hear about), have led us to the conclusion, that it would be wrong.

I did my best, to reach you. I'm sure, that you have done yours, to reach me. I occupy a ground, that in many ways, you cannot climb to. You have things, beliefs, opinions, that differ from mine. My family fought, members died, so that this is possible. I believe in the principles of America, very deeply. So does my entire family. We have always been active in those beliefs. Where others talk, voice their opinons, we have acted. So too, have we acted this time. With a resounding no.

That said, I will abandom my attempts to reach you. I feel that it has no chance of changing anything. This is one of the hardest decisions that I have had to make, lately. It saddens me greatly. It is one thing, to debate, and to express opinons and beliefs. It is quite another, to actually impliment them. Though I respect you, I feel that somehow, we have gone astray. What is left, are bitter crumbs...everything that my family has fought for, is being negated in a swift change of the winds...I would be lying, if I said that I was happy about it. I guess, the only thing to do now, is to wait, and see what happens. If this thing does go down the tubes, though, and the future brings worse things to come, because of what is now happening, I would hope, that you will accept part of the blame for it. I know that I will.

Though in principle we both agree on the removal of Saddam, I guess it is on the how as to where we differ. And what happens after. Well, we will see.

I would hope, that afterwards, we will have the opportunity to talk again...

Agreeing to disagree? How very sporting

Anyway for everyone else:

The latest poll on the war (ICM for the BBC) doesn't look too good for Tony Blair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2751471.stm

90% are against a war without a second UN resolution and even then 45% of people in the UK would against any war even then.
[edit] - just correcting your percent number - WebShaman [/edit]

Around half the country support the Franco-German plan.

George Bush may have an easy ride at home but Tony Blair is going to have to do something special to not come out of this with his reputation in tatters (some of the biggest anti-war voices are coming from inside his party and he doesn't have the backing of most of the Cabinet).

[edit: And this discusses the risk Blair is taking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2750983.stm ]

It doesn't seem to have got to the BBC website yet but the BBC report that the Chancellor has allotted £750 million (on top of £1billion) to the army for improving their security provisions - this is separate from the estimated £4 billion cost of a war in the Gulf (it seems to be ring fenced money they can call on if things get nasty here at home). That strikes me as an awful lot of money that could be used to combat poverty and inequality and actually address root causes of anti-western resentment.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hardly sporting I'm afraid and I think I understand all to well what he means.

Sign the Peace Petition. I already have.

And Bugs - nothing to worry about...my respect for you is still there. I just feel that everything that can be said, has been said...you have your view, I have mine. Despite all the attempts, on both sides, to convice the other, it has had little effect, other than to push us apart...I find that scary, and do not wish to continue it.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, I believe that debating it is fruitless. And as America thinks about trade sanctions against France, and pulling troops out of Germany, the Bush administration is starting to move from words, to deeds...I shudder to think, of what is next. It is time to stand up and do something about it, instead of debating.

On a side note, my personal situation here in Germany is not getting better...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 02-13-2003).]

WS, we don't have to agree to be close. I never for a second felt you moving away until that last post that really scared the crap out of me. If we cannot have open and frank discussions about this topic then I am greatly saddened HOWEVER if that is what is required to maintain our friendship, then that is what I desire more than any debate.

I am going to bow out of this particular discussion for now and the foreseeable future.

I concur. I look forward to discussing things with you again...after the situation at hand is over. I'm awefully sorry, that I posted some things that probably shouldn't have been. Please, do not take it too personally. I guess my emotions somewhat clouded my judgement, and that's one of the main factors in my decision, not to continue. Please accept this humble apology.

I, too, will refrain from posting in this thread from now on...sorry to all sides.

Bugs and WS the same goes for me, my feelings are running high on this debate. And due to the fact both sides of the debate are so far apart and cannot meet i am going to drop out of further discussion also.

To Bugismus, I am sorry if some of my posts may have seemed personally aimed at you, as outlined before they were not meant as a personal attack, but more aimed at some of those people on your side of the argument with a more beligerent and groundless argument.

To WS. I hope that if it goes the way of the war then there are not too many casualties, and those that come home alive dont go through the same hell that we found ourselves in.

To everyone else: Please remember this, this is only a debate, you will not be the ones facing death and destruction in iraq, so please spare a thought and maybe a prayer for those people who are about to fight for your rights to be able to post here, and to protect you.

kennedy once said something that i fear will never happen, certainly not in my lifetime.

quote:

---

Mankind must put an end to war, before war puts an end to Mankind

---

The anti-war marches look like they have a big turn out. The London one is huge (police reckon there are over 500,000 people and the organiser reckon over 1 million - most of the marchers won't reach Hyde park until after dusk now, if at all) and there are at least 10 million people marching worldwide.

See:

UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

Worldwide: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2765215.stm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

At least I do not feel alone ;-)

Silence is another speech. -Me

And one of the arguements for war (at least here) is that we will be preventing suffering amongst the Iraqi people (partly, we should remember, brought on by our sanctions and bombing) but what about the hardship for the people if we invade?

A secret UN paper is discussed here:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,896149,00.html

Highlights include:

quote:

---

Nearly 1.5 million refugees and asylum seekers are likely to try to flee from Iraq, and 30% of the country's children under five "would be at risk of death from malnutrition" in the case of war on Iraq, according to a secret United Nations planning document.

---

and:

quote:

---

the document says: "UN agencies and country teams have been engaged in a discreet planning and preparedness effort for several months."

Ominously, it reveals that in spite of requests to the United States, Britain, and other western governments for emergency aid in case of war "no funds have been made available to any agencies to date".

As a result, UN agencies have not yet reached "even minimum levels of preparedness", it says.

---

that is if we go in now (rather than provide time to build up an infrastructure to help the Iraqi people after the invasion) there will severe hardship and widespread death that would be preventable if we actually took our time.

Surely an arguement in favour of not being so hasty and allowing the inspectors more time - time in which we can provide evidence to satisfy our allies and prepare for the aftermath of any potential invasion.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I don't normally like to say 'I told you so', but in this case 'I told you so'

For those of you just joining us, I made it clear in some earlier version thread on this same topic that this talk of us 'liberating' Iraq was bunk and we would be keeping an 'iron-fisted' regime, a bully, a thug, a ruthless killer, in power in Baghdad. The people of Iraq will be no better off in the post-war tomorrow than they are in the pre-war today. Most likely, things will be worse for a lot of them.

It seems the media is catching up with me.

...but who am I to confuse foreign policy with missionary work?

It will be a huge mistake for us not to take advantage of this opportunity to "make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East."

I watched this last night which seconds some of the concerns just expressed: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78959,00.html


IMO, it is time to stop going easy on our values when it comes to dealing with "our guys". The Saudis and the Turks should not be exempt.

[edit] I should highlight the worrying bit:

MCINERNEY: Yes, and that's part of it. And by the way, they're not perfect. There is no perfect group. But the fact is CIA and state basically do not like the INC. They really think, and the indications I get, that the INC would bring too much Democracy. Too of a change in the region...

HUME: Too much democracy?

MCINERNEY: Yes. The problems -- the Saudis and others in the region do not want to see too see much democracy and independent group come in there. The INC has put out a constitution. They've got a lot of literature that they've written. They're secular, they're Sunnis, they're Shiites, they're Kurds, they're Turkmen, they're Christians. They compromise the whole group there. And it is surprising that state CIA are opposing them. Are they going to -- their venture is, well, we'll go in and find somebody. I assure you, Brit, no one's left in Iraq that understands democracy.
[/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 02-19-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-10-2003).]

And things move on a pace - it appears the Russians and Chinese are now on board with the Franco German plan which leaves the US/UK alliance with support from Spain and Bulgaria.
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902510,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902511,00.html

The US is still prepared to go it alone which is something that I can't see turning out good in the long run

Pos. Saddam's refusal to destroy his rockets might win more people over:
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,902545,00.html

but I doubt it.

What might influence Bush And Blair is the real swing against war - the Washington Post/ABC poll is mentioned in the first link above and it is here:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61856-2003Feb24.html

quote:

---

The survey found that 56 percent of the public is willing to wait in order to win U.N. endorsement of U.S.-led military strikes against Iraq. Another 39 percent said the United States should "move quickly," even without the Security Council's backing.

---

Granted it looks split down the middle on these things but this is before any kind of war has even started - when the body bags start coming home and the pictures of dead Iraqi children are beaed into their homes............

And people are taking any opportunity to register their disapproval - Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' was a suprise winner of the British book of the year awards:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,902397,00.html

-----------
And on mobrul's point - an article from last week:
www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,898436,00.html

What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld is preparing his own plan not the Pentagon's and it is one which has the potential to turn very bloody.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This Article is unbelievable!

Well, that not only 'undermines' the 'righteous' part of striking Iraq first, it is also extremely dangerous...I cannot believe what I'm reading there. Ignore the advice of the Generals? That's insane.

I really hope that article is not true...because if it is, it's a huge mistake. What the hell are Bush and Rumsfeld thinking?

WS: I must admit I couldn't quite believe it myself and it may not be the whole story but.....

See also:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,899944,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,899030,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896611,00.html
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0220-03.htm

----------
On a side note this article does some joining of the dots:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,902274,00.html

it doesn't really make any sense of why the current adminstration seems to be gearing itself up to destroying 50 years worth of treaties on just about anything that moves but it fits in with the same 'we know best' attitude which that article on ironhorse also suggests.

It also doesn't mention the environment but they have done similar things with the Kyoto Agreement and I see that Tony Blair is increasing the pressure on Bush over this issue:
www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,902497,00.html

-------------
This is getting increasingly off topic but before 911 it was thought that the US administration were going down an increasingly isolationalist path and pos. this 'going it alone' stance on everything (environment, politics, trade, etc.) is the same kind of thinking expressed on a world stage


___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

...while air force bombers attempted to burn away any stocks of chemical or biological weapons.

---

That´s just plain funny! If they know where these weapons are, they can tell the inspectors. If they don´t, how are they supposed to bomb them away???

And BTW, a question that came to me some time ago: If you say it is impossible for the inspectors to find the WMD without being told by the Iraqis where they are (as opposed to just searching the whole country), how are you going to find them after invading Iraq, assuming that the people who know where they are hidden (probably not too many) will be either dead or still not interested in telling you?

Coming from the Guardian, I think this article is surely right. And I am affraid of that.

quote:

---

This attack is intended to be a "head transplant". The transplant would kill Saddam or force him to flee.

---

Remember my friends, remember... Wasn't it what we were said before the attack on Afghanistan ? And look like how things are...

quote:

---

Instead he favours thousands of precision air strikes

---

Well... After Afghanistan and probably Iraq it seems that the USA have LARGE amounts of excendentary bombs.

And.. We were said that in order to make us think that it would be a "clean" war in Afghanistan. This is a lie. There is no "clean" war. Like said Salvador Dali : "Wars never hurted anyone, except those who die". Oh maybe that would be a clean war from the US side. Now imagine it from the other side.

You are a basic Iraqi. Everyday, you hear at radio that Americans want to attack you because they don't like your leader and his supposed weapons. Everyday you wonder WHAT (not who) are those guys who think they are able to kill thousands of people for silly reasons. Oh instead of launching BILLIONS of dollars of bombs, they should instead pay 200 $ to install an automatic pump in your village. It would have been more useful to you. You wouldn't have been obliged to fill 10 pots of water everyday. Now you have to go one more time to prepare enough water to make dinner. But you didn't see the small red point just next to you. And a millisecond later you are dead. All your innards are burnt in a millisecond, in a giant burst sterilizing all the place. The laser guided missile didn't prevented you. Bad missile. Neither did the launcher of the missile, 4000 kilometers away from there. You never knew who he was, and he will never know who you were.

Oh yes, it is clean. Thanks Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld, all those missiles are well guided by the latest technology, they never fail, and no lives will be lost. From the American side.

Silence is another speech. -Me

You mentioning Dali reminded me of something:
http://www.artdaily.com/noticiaframe.asp?not=11&fnot=2/2/2003

And further on the 'after the war' and 'joining the dots' business this article, and esp. its discussion of the Project for the New American Century, makes more sense of things:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,903043,00.html

although when you are joining the dots and none of them are numbered some of the dots are missing and some of the dots that are there don't belong in the picture what actually becomes clear may not have much

Links:

The Project for the New American Century
www.onlinejournal.com/Media/Prestage111402/prestage111402.html
www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/America_Pearl_Harbored/america_pearl_harbored.h tml
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759
www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
www.sundayherald.com/27735
www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/1031neocon_body.html
www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/1014foretold_body.html
www.fpif.org/papers/02right/
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/project.html - a Pinky and the Brain quote!!

which feeds back to WS' discussion of a Pax Americana in another thread.

[edit: Where he threw in a few of the above links and quoted from a number of the most important pieces but the debate got back on to a more strict 'War on Iraq' basis and I suspect unless we can address the underlying engine for this then we can't really understand some of the odd inconsitencies that keep coming up:

1. The ignoring of the Pentagon (and of the opinion of US generals).

2. The breakneck pace for war.

etc.

Because if even a small part of this is true then this is only the first moves in a much wider game (anyone else get a chill from 'Next stop Beijing'?). Seen in this light the Franco-German attempts to derail or slowdown developments starts to seem like a shrewder move (albeit with selfish motives too).]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

This quote

quote:

---

“This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,” Dalyell said, “men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war.

---

Just about sums it up for me. And yes, Emps, it does scare the hell out of me...thanks for posting those links.

WS: Yes I thought of you when I read that

As a bit of background Tam Dalyell is a respected Labour MP of longstanding and is one of the few indedependent-minded Labour MPs who doesn't toe the (New Labour) party line. That said Tony Blair did have 121 Labour MPs vote for an amendment yesterday which said the case for war hadn't been proved (so he isn't the only one with concerns):
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,903759,00.html

quote:

---

thanks for posting those links

---

No worries - you posted some of them first so thank you (I didn't have a chance to check exactly which ones you had posted while I was copying and pasting but left them in as the duplicates are the key articles).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Read and weep, Emps Full Article.

It's not just scary, it's real - Pax Americana.

These 'neo-conservative think tanks' have decided the foreign policy...and many of them have been recruited into the Bush administration. That's not only scary, it's insane. Foriegn policy should not be based on a minorities interests or ideas, IMHO.

I can only hope, that Mr. Bush loses the next election...and this stuff disappears forever...

WS: Thanks for that - the American Enterprise Institute:
www.aei.org

helps explain other things like the failure to rein Israel in and try for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

quote:

---

Senior AEI staff include ..... Lynne Cheney, .....

---

from:
www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/aei.htm

and this is an interesting article from last year:
www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,785394,00.html

Richard Perle's name comes up all the time from authroing the 'Clean Break' paper for Israeli think tanks to use right-wing think tanks and now he is the Pentagon. If they are his views no wonder various Arab countries in the Middle East are concerned - the general plan seems to be to use Iraq as a catalyst to bring down large numbers of states in the region so they can be rebuilt along the lines they want.

And more on him and think tanks:
www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,777100,00.html

And from this article:
www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4612317,00.html

quote:

---

In a meeting with American congressmen last week, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, nominated three countries to be tackled after Iraq: Iran, Libya and Syria.

---

and:

quote:

---

Mr Sharon also met John Bolton, the US under secretary of state, who reportedly told him that it will be "necessary" to deal with Syria, Iran and North Korea after an attack on Iraq. That puts Syria and Iran into the lead with two votes each, followed by Libya and North Korea, with only one.

---

he also says:

quote:

---

The two key phrases are "creative destruction" and "total war".

---

The NRO articles mentioned in the above article are here (I could quote liberally [excuse the pun] from both - esp. the second but its best to read it in context):

Creative Destruction

Total War

Note: Michael A. Ledeen (author of the first NRO article) is a resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at AEI.

This all would have the potential for seeming like a huge conspiracy theory but everyone invovled has been nice enough to publish their policies on this kind of thing quite publically. I presume they just think there is nothing we can do and as they are moving so quickly to tip over the first domino then perhaps they aren't risking leaving things long enough for another election to creep around.

While I have no great love for the governing bodies of the countries listed I think it is a hazardous strategy (a bit like setting fire to your house before redecorating it - it'll help clear off that old wallpaper and paint but could eaily get out of hand) and since when has US intervention ever really worked out well in the long run (since WWII)?

-----------------
On the post-Saddam front see:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/21/dreyfuss-r.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

You know, Emps, some of those articles really made me sick, while reading them...

I said it's insanity...and I meant it. 'Impose our wills forcefully' or 'Total destruction of a nation, or society'...sick.

That's the problem with right-wing neos...they all think they are in a position of right...irregardless of the consequences.

More on the The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" report:
www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm - seems to be the report itself (or an abridged version)
http://freelebanon.org/articles/a360.htm

Again the same names keep coming up:

quote:

---

In 1996, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies assembled a study group to produce recommendations for the incoming government of Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among the participants were American analysts destined to become key voices in the Bush administration, including Douglas Feith, now undersecretary of defense for policy; David Wurmser, now a special assistant to State Department arms-control chief John R. Bolton; and Richard Perle, the immensely influential conservative defense strategist who how heads a civilian Pentagon advisory board.

---

from:
www.washtimes.com/world/20021007-8413366.htm

see also:
www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030214-98615336.htm

---------
There was an interesting discussion on MSNBC on the 23rd:
www.msnbc.com/news/876263.asp

of which the relevant bit is extracted here:
www.netlexfrance.com/weblogs/index.php?p=634&c=1

Daniel Perle says:

quote:

---

I don?t see what would be wrong with surrounding Israel with democracies; indeed, if the whole world were democratic, we?d live in a much safer international security system because democracies do not wage aggressive wars.

---

A noble aim rather let down by the fact that he is openly advocating 'aggresive wars'.

----------
An article with a broader reach looking at the pre-911 work putting the theoretical pieces in place:
www.cooperativeresearch.org/wotiraq/pre-911_calls_for_war_on_Iraq.htm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Just keeping this 'jolly' little thread bobbing along.

More on the Pax Americana/PNAC business:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,911583,00.html

and more info on the 5 companies in the shortlist to rebuild Iraq (Halliburton - Dick Cheney's old company is in there now who would hav thought??).
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912187,00.html

I suppose the big development is that we appear to not even going to attempt a second resolution which is going to be disasterous (both for the world and also specifically for Tony Blair) - despite Rumsfeld saying the US might go it alone it appears the UK is in without a second resolution:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2845867.stm
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,913116,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,912551,00.html

and why the lack of a second resolution might leave an awful lot of people open to charges of international war crimes (and it isn't going to do UK troops morale any good if most people at home think they are conducting an unjust war):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,910882,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,911777,00.html

My MP will be getting a flea in her ear from me later today

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

and why the lack of a second resolution might leave an awful lot of people open to charges of international war crimes

---

What a coincidence the US (in best company with China and - i think - Syria) has not acknowledged the new international court.

BTW, fun facts about war:
A Soldier who knowingly shoots even one civilian (or an officer who orders him to do it) commits a war crime
- A pilot who knowingly bombs whole housing blocks full of civilians (or an officer who orders him to do so) does not.

And more:

On Halliburton (financial incentives to go to war?):

quote:

---

Halliburton, the Texas company which has been awarded the Pentagon's contract to put out potential oil-field fires in Iraq and which is bidding for postwar construction contracts, is still making annual payments to its former chief executive, the vice-president Dick Cheney.

The payments, which appear on Mr Cheney's 2001 financial disclosure statement, are in the form of "deferred compensation" of up to $1m (£600,000) a year.

---

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,912426,00.html

On the problems for the British government:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,913006,00.html

On Rumseld going it alone in the Pentagon:

quote:

---

The evidence we have is that, among the top echelon, Mr Rumsfeld was behind only his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and a shade ahead of vice-president Dick Cheney in pushing for a war on Iraq as soon as possible after September 11. But Iraq is not dead-centre of his mission at the Pentagon. For him, the job is not about one war. It is about ensuring all wars are fought his way, with complete civilian control, even on technicalities long assumed to be the prerogative of the generals.

---

www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,913087,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

After Cheney joined Halliburton in 1995, the company's portfolio of military contracts and government-backed work grew rapidly and this second-tier oilfield services firm was transformed into the industry's top player. Cheney stepped down as CEO in 2000 with an early retirement package worth $34 million, selling his stake near the stock market's peak.

Just two months after Cheney cashed out, Halliburton announced that its subsidiary, Kellog Brown & Root Services Corporation (KBR), had been sued for allegedly overbilling the Army. KBR is the Army and Navy's exclusive provider of logistical services such as food preparation, construction, power generation and fuel transportation

---

quote:

---

While the case was still pending, last December the Army awarded KBR an uncommonly lengthy ten-year contract with no cost ceilings. The Navy also granted KBR a $300 million, five-year logistic support contract, including the construction of more permanent facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. By hiring an outside company to handle logistics, the Pentagon may end up spending as much as 20 percent more taxpayer dollars than if the military employed its own personnel.

---

http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/budget/08-09-02halliburton.htm

It would seem it is time to start another thread entitled, "Cover the war against Iraq". I am sick of predicting dates but it can't be very much longer before we go in.

I say it starts tonight, about an hour after Georgy Boy gives his speech.

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

OK the discussion of the war continues here:
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000768.html

although I'll leave this open if people want to discuss issues arising from posts here.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Peace has failed.

It is now (IMHO) time to support our boys and girls in uniform, for they will be directly put in harm's way. I would hope that the war goes quickly, for both our troops, and the Iraqi people. A minimizing of suffering, and loss of life.

It is now time, to start organizing how we wish to leave Iraq, when the conflict is done.

This is interesting - the US appear to have been bugging the UN
www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,910567,00.html

quote:

---

Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq.

---

www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,910350,00.html

WS: My main concern is that as this war may not be legal we are leaving our troops open to prosecution

I also don't see that being critical of our leaders conduct means we don't support our troops.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

It appears that the idea that we might put in place a democracy which would lead to the 'Domino Effect' in the Middle East has quietly been swept under the carpet as described in a leaked secret report "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes":
http://truthout.org/docs_03/031603B.shtml
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,914518,00.html
www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,915183,00.html

This is also interesting and comes from "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity":
www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm
www.counterpunch.org/vips02082003.html
www.counterpunch.org/vips03152003.html
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/111874.php

[edit: and WS this might be of interest to you - I think the extract in the weekends paper was a longer version though:
www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,913235,00.html

got a book in you?]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

I also don't see that being critical of our leaders conduct means we don't support our troops.


--Emps

---

Yup, I agree. However, now that the conflict is iminient, I believe that full support for the troops is called for, political ramifications and critique can wait until afterwards (IMHO)...and those in question will reap what they have sown.

Far more important (on a bigger scale) is what happens after the conflict. I sincerely hope that the world brings unrelenting pressure to finally ease the plight of the Iraqi citizens, and secures them hope, and daily bread, utilities, and shelter. After all their suffering (a lot at our hands), surely they deserve that.

As to the legal ramifications, well, we will see...but don't expect too much - there was no second resolution, after all. That means, there was no 'No' to a war with Iraq...of course, there was no 'Yes', either. But it is now (because there was no second resolution vote on War) largely in a grey area...and I suspect that America will 'wriggle' its way out of illegality. I highly suspect that any 'measures' will be refuted with the ambiguous wording of Resolution 1441...but again, we will see.

Oh yes, one more thing...this conflict is not actually a War. It's a conflict. A police action, if you will, much as Vietnam was. No war has been officially declared (at least, not yet). And I highly doubt that one will be. Again, the legal issue.

I suspect if anything does come of this legally, GW will handle it the same way his daddy did the last time an international body tried to tell us who we could and could not attack.

It's relatively easy to send a squad of commandos in to take a 3rd world leader. Easier still to put a bounty on his head. Do you know of anyway at all someone could take Bush to the Hague?
The best bet would be to wait a bit. C*****n was the last president to get lifetime Secret Service protection for him and his family.
On second thought, GW is probably covered under daddy's plan.

Doesn't the "law" we're referring to here state that a sovereign nation can only attack another after it has been physically attacked already?

No.
The law we are talking about is the United Nations Charter
More specifically, we are talking about chapter 7, articles 39, 41, 42 and 51
Article 39 gives the Security Council authority to determine a threat and determine an action
Article 41 gives authority to Security Council to use non-force methods to resolve situation
Article 42 gives authority to Security Council to use military methods to resolce situation
Article 51 specifically allows for self-defense "unitl the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

dictionary.com defines self-defense as "The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary."
You can't possibly tell me that you think Nicaragua in the 1980s or Iraq today pose(d) any sort of real threat to the US, today (or in the 1980s) or anytime in the near future. There were no threats of attack (in either instance), there were no amassing of troops on our borders, there were no 'missle tests' over our airspace. The best GW and his administration can do is point to an Afghan (potential terrorist) who got medical treatment in northern Iraq. This is not, was not, and will not be 'self-defense'.

And let's make no mistake here at all. This is not some law thrown down upon us from an oppressive force...some law stacked against us. This law was largely written by the US, and was specifically written to give the US (and a few others) special priviledges. We are a member of the oligarchy.

Thanks for the clarification. But Iraq does in fact pose a direct threat to the United States and so what I was going to suggest is that we need to amend the law in order to allow for pre-emption like what we are doing right now in Iraq.

I want to hear more on that theory. How do you propose governing that sort of a situation? To allow preemptive strikes, without the Security Council approval, would be to encourage 'preemptive strikes' everywhere.
No problems solved, more created.

Lets take this situation back to the 1980s, when we were sponsering terrorism in Nicaragua. Would it have been justified for Nicaragua to bomb Washington? It is certainly the case that the US posed far more of a threat to Nicaragua and its people than Iraq poses to us today.

Today, India poses a threat to Pakistan. One could very easily argue that India is a greater threat to Pakistan (and vice versa) than Iraq poses to the US today. What is to keep Pakistan from firing a couple nukes into New Delhi in 'preemptive self-defense'? Would that be justified?

Where is the line? The line can not be 'wherever the US says it is'. That is not law. That is rule by the fear of an unstable dictator.

This is not to say that the way things are today are great. They aren't. There are better ways to deal with this sort of situation, for sure.
One thing that I'm in favor of is doing away with the Security Council as a permanent body. I'd like to see the members, all members, rotate on and off the Council in staggered terms of some relatively short amount of time (6 years maybe?). Also, no veto power to anybody. Everything is passed (or not passed) by a 66% majority of the Security Council OR at least a simple majority of the General Assembly.
Any member should be able to bring a grievance to the Security Council.

My rambling thoughts on restructuring the UN, though, are not worth much.
Tell me more about how you would keep this preemptive strike policy from letting the world be overrun by the most powerful? How would your way bring more law, more peace, more justice?

mobrul makes some good points. The links between Saddam and a potential WMD attack on the US are tenuous (and thats being charitable) and much better cases can be made as mobrul's examples show. Another one would be that a much stronger case could be made for the UK making a pre-emptive strike on the US thanks to its fund raising for the IRA (Noraid). Only Jack Ryan made much of an impact on that subject

Self-defense can only be claimed if there is a direct threat and despite some very weak and tortuous reasoning there is no evidence of a direct link.

Most of the legal discussion I have read about was focused on whether 1441 was worded so that it provided a mandate for war. Arguing about the meaning of the wording must always be a grey area open to interpretation which leaves the politicians and the soldiers open to charges of war crimes I'm afraid.

And yes I'm sure G.W. Bush could be arrested if you travelled to a country that was inclined to extradite him for war crimes but as he was never mcuh of a traveller before he became president I can't see that being much of a risk for him afterwards

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hmmm...Bugs this

quote:

---

But Iraq does in fact pose a direct threat to the United States

--Bugs

---

Is just not true. Iraq may (or may not) at some time in the future, have posed a direct threat to America...but that is all postulation. The fact is, Iraq has never posed a direct threat to the US. To Kuwait, and other Arab states(and Israel), yes, but never America.

Potiential threat is something else, entirely. But on this, one cannot base a decision to go to war. There must be a will by the suspected aggressor to actually do this, and actions, that support this. Otherwise, one is reduced to the fantasy, and suspicion. On such, one cannot base a decision to go to war. Otherwise, we will have war everytime someone looks at someone else a bit cross-eyed.

In the case with Iraq, there was never a direct threat to the US. Never. There was an indirect threat to our national interests (Oil), but that was dealt with soundly, in the Gulf War. Unfortunately, that War also produced Bin Laden and Al Qaida.

Bin Laden, for example, has proved to be a direct threat to the US (though I hardly think he is capable of destroying the US, he has shown that he is capable of attacking and damaging the US).

The Soviets of the Cold War were a direct threat to the US...and were capable of destroying the US. China could be considered a direct threat to the US...and could destroy it.

Most other threats are more along the lines of indirect threats, and not really capable of destroying the US (though many of them could cause a lot of destruction and misery).

It appears that the central part of the British Government's September dossier on Iraq was forged (and the FBI have been asked to investigate):
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-06.htm
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0314-11.htm

The dossier is here (the relevant bit is chapter 3 section 20):
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/dossier01c.htm

quote:

---

Following the departure of weapons inspectors in 1998 there has been an accumulation of intelligence indicating that Iraq is making concerted covert efforts to acquire dual-use technology and materials with nuclear applications. Iraq's known holdings of processed uranium are under IAEA supervision. But there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.

---

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I honestly don't know how this should work in the Security Council. I have not given much thought to how it could be reconfigured to actually be a force for good in this world. Currently it is not a force for good *and* it is impotent.

I like the idea of doing some reorganizing of the UN though. It should be abundantly clear it is useless when it comes to taking action in the Security Council. I am not quarreling with the UN's humanitarian functions and I would like to see those continue.

In fact, perhaps that is where the UN should begin and end its functions and we can pull together another international mechanism for actually dealing with real geo-political problems with the ability to enforce corrective actions.

That being said, I have *serious* misgivings about treating every nation equally. How can we speak of justice, freedom, and democratic ideals when we give equal weight to totalitarian states, dictatorships, and liberal democracies alike? It makes no sense to me and it represents what I see in much of the UN now.

quote:

---

Where is the line? The line can not be 'wherever the US says it is'. That is not law. That is rule by the fear of an unstable dictator.

---

I will agree with you it cannot be just the US say so. But it can be part of the say so of nations that are democracies. We must make a distinction between nations and I reject this treatment of heinous governments on an equal footing with countries that do live by democratic ideals and the rule of law.

How can you equate Nicragua in the 80s to the US? Communism is not as good as Democracy. That is why we opposed Nicaragua. I am not going to argue our methods in this post but I am going to state that our opposition to Soviet satellites in Central America as most definitely justified.

quote:

---

What is to keep Pakistan from firing a couple nukes into New Delhi in 'preemptive self-defense'? Would that be justified?

---

Again, every situation is different. This cookie cutter approach is doomed if we cannot take into account individual situations. India and Pakistan are both nations where diplomacy has more than a good chance of having a positive effect. They have not blown each other to bits yet because they recognize the danger of war and believe it or not, recognize that negotiations can be productive when both sides have a certain agreement on principle.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq has demontrated since its inception that diplomacy is used only as a means to weaken the other side. He has repeatedly attacked his neighbors without regard to international law, the UN, or any other entity. He acts solely for his own purposes. In other words, diplomacy has been taken to the nth degree with his regime it is NO LONGER A VIABLE OPTION. That is why Iraq is a different situation.

The UN knows it. France even knows it. So the only other option would be to allow him to grow until he does it again. That is crazy! And we are not going to let him get that far and I am glad that someone is willing to do this especially when the UN is not.

mobrul, my biggest problem with your last post is the moral equivalence in your words. I am reading from it that you see no difference between communist states, right wing dicactorships, liberal democracies, or benevolent monarchies, when it comes to internation relations. Is that how you see all these countries? Please tell me if I'm off base on that.

I am trying to understand your point of view and please bear with me as I try to articulate my feelings and thoughts on this. I know emotions are running high right now and mine are definitlely higher than normal so if anything I've just said raises blood pressure, please take a moment to reflect and help me see why because it is not my intention to inflame our discussion but it's just hard to articulate when passions are high.

[edit] double post madness [/edit]

quote:

---

Tell me more about how you would keep this preemptive strike policy from letting the world be overrun by the most powerful? How would your way bring more law, more peace, more justice?

---

mobrul, I don't know why we can't see this jointly. The only way to ensure peace, law, and justice is to ensure that the most powerful agrees with those values.

Might does make Right as a practical matter of world governance. This is why I get so confused when we discuss this. How can it be any other way?

That being said, I believe we can work toward what you describe but we have to constantly be careful not to allow states that don't hold these ideals hijack institutions established by countries that do. You cannot have Sudan heading up human rights committees and say we have a viable UN. They still have slavery! What am I missing?

Here is an article that lays out some guidelines (albeit in the Just War tradition) about how and why "preemption" must be integrated in today's international dealings.

Moral Clarity in a Time of War

quote:

---

This ?regime factor? is crucial in the moral analysis, for weapons of mass destruction are clearly not aggressions waiting to happen when they are possessed by stable, law?abiding states. No Frenchman goes to bed nervous about Great Britain?s nuclear weapons, and no sane Mexican or Canadian worries about a preemptive nuclear attack from the United States. Every sane Israeli, Turk, or Bahraini, on the other hand, is deeply concerned about the possibility of an Iraq or Iran with nuclear weapons and medium?range ballistic missiles. If the ?regime factor? is crucial in the moral analysis, then preemptive military action to deny the rogue state that kind of destructive capacity would not, in my judgment, contravene the ?defense against aggression? concept of just cause. Indeed, it would do precisely the opposite, by giving the concept of ?defense against aggression? real traction in the world we must live in, and transform.

Some will argue that this violates the principle of sovereignty and risks a global descent into chaos. To that, I would reply that the post?Westphalian notions of state equality and sovereign immunity assume at least a minimum of acquiescence to minimal international norms of order. Today?s rogue states cannot, on the basis of their behavior, be granted that assumption. Therefore, they have forfeited that immunity. The ?regime factor? is determinative, in these extreme instances.

---

quote:

---

As for rogue states developing or deploying weapons of mass destruction, a developed just war tradition would recognize that here, too, last resort cannot be understood mathematically, as the terminal point of a lengthy series of nonmilitary alternatives. Can we not say that last resort has been satisfied in those cases when a rogue state has made plain, by its conduct, that it holds international law in contempt and that no diplomatic solution to the threat it poses is likely, and when it can be demonstrated that the threat the rogue state poses is intensifying? I think we can. Indeed, I think we must.

---

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-19-2003).]

Heh. Well, military advisors have been saying such for a long time...about every time someone comes out with a new type of weapon, that is 'unstopable', or largely feared.

Fazit : Pre-emption must be a last option. It's also one, that carries with it a huge responsibility. And in the wake of a post-humiliated UN, the policy of pre-emption leaves major questions behind it...and before it : who is allowed (and under what circumstances) to pre-empt? As it is now, just about anyone, that has a 'grievance'...or any reason to do it. Because Mr. Bush did not lay enough 'evidence' at the feet of the UN, it gives a precidence, for anyone to pre-empt anyone...a very dangerous world, if you ask me...irregardless of how one 'justifies it'. What if that (which you posted) is taken and used by every country? America, as the 'Super power' does set the tone, for most of the world, in what it does. In light of that, Mr. Bush has really given the world the 'green light' to pre-empt away...under any 'pretense'.

I find that not only scary, but irresponsible. This is why it was so important (IMHO) to get UN support on this. I expect drastic consequences from the failure to do so...

What if North Korea 'pre-emps' South Korea? Under the actions taken by the US against Iraq, they would have just as valid reasons to do that, as the US did to attack Iraq. It also leaves the question fully open, about what Isreal has been doing to it's neighbors...and may be planning against Syria. Or Iran. It also leaves the door wide open for China to 'assimilate' Taiwan.

Now, history shows that pre-emption as a tactic and as a policy has always bourne with it grave consequences. It is, in fact, a short-term solution, that in the long run, only causes greater problems (even if the pre-emption totally eliminates the current threat). A policy of pre-emption tends to make friends nervous of allies, and enemies downright paranoid of each other, which is really not conducive to a peaceful atmosphere. In fact, enemies will be tempted to pre-empt one another before they are pre-empted in turn...which then leads to a deadly spiral downwards...and any suspicion (real or imagined) is the 'trigger' for a pre-emption.

Personally, I believe that there are better methods of dealing with the worlds problems....as was demonstrated in the Cold War. More diplomacy, less war.

As for India and Pakistan, well, they've been in a conflict for years...over the Kashmir region. And no amount of diplomacy has solved the question. As for the nuclear issue, they were really on the brink...and it could happen again, as fast as one can blink.

Bugs, I am very sorry I only have a short time to post this morning. I wish I could write longer, but I simply don't have the time today.

There are differences in regimes. Some are good. Some are bad. Most are just kinda there. The problem with you drawing this sort of line between human rights and this attack (very middle-class suburban leftist of you =) ) is what I've been saying all along. Namely, we are not going to install anyone who is any better!
Of course this is all theory at this point, I, nor most anybody else, could possibly know what is on Bush's mind right now, but we can look at the evidence and take a good guess.

All the things that the New American Century people have been writing (that would be most of the Bush staff), all of the stuff that the other right wing think tanks have been writing, all point to a desire to use Iraq as the first step in total regional domination.
Secondly, look at our history. Since WWII, the US has used force and the threat of force, legally and otherwise, to install and/or support some of the most brutal dictators of our time.
It started, as far as I can tell, with hiring Nazis to help us dominate Argentina almost immediately after the war.
Some of our favorites, in no particular order:

Pol Pot -- we gave some $85 million to Pol Pot over the course of a decade
Pinochet
Hussein -- when he 'gassed his own people' in 1988, we praised him and sent him more weapons
Suharto -- referred to by an official of the C*****n administration in 1996 as "our kind of guy."
Supporting Turkey oppression of the Kurds
Supporting Indonesia oppression, occupation, murder and torture in East Timor
Supporting apartheid in South Africa
Supporting Israeli oppression, occupation, murder and torture of the Palestinians
Death squads in Guatemala -- some trained at an army run terrorist camp right here in the USA
Death squads in El Salvador -- some trained at an army run terrorist camp right here in the USA
Saudi Arabia

So, as I've said all along, if you or anybody else can convince me of three things I'll step in and totally, absolutely support the war, UN or not:
a) the seeds of a liberal, multi-ethnic, secular democracy will be formed in Iraq
b) the people of Iraq will be encouraged and given every chance in the world to use and sell their resources as they see fit. Not as US or UK oil companies see fit, but as the people of Iraq see fit.
c) we do everything we can to minimize, even eliminate civilian casualties

I don't see either of those first two things happening. This isn't ancient history I'm talking about. I'm not digging up Jackson purposefully giving the Indians small pox infested blankets, the Trail of Tears or slavery. Most of the things I've listed above were supported by our President's father, either while he was Pres., VP, or head of the CIA. Some of them are still happening today.
When the sun rises every morning and sets every night, one can only assume it is going to do the same tomorrow.

Attempt to fix...

Those are some of the reasons, Mobrul, that I think the US should be allowed to go in and deal with some of these guys. We MADE them. It's our responsibility to fix the issues we've created. From the sounds of it we're also trying to keep Turkey out of Northern Iraq, effectively supplying precedence to the Kurds in southern Turkey (Providing the Kurds in Northern Iraq manage to build a Kurdistan). People can't continue to blame us for making/helping these guys be the terrors they are and then oppose us when we try to fix the issue. God forbid they actually help us and then have a say in what happens afterwards. Such as keeping the US/UK hands off of the oil fields so that they actually go to the Iraqi's (which is still a supposition on your part).

It's just as well that you aren't bringing up ancient history. The US doesn't have one. As it goes, the US is a young country and we've made many mistakes. Our country was built by war and it will take a long time to shake that out of the American mindset I would imagine. How many other coutries around the world were perfect and pristine in their first couple hundred years of sovereignity?

A 10 year old with an M16 is going to make some terrible mistakes and do some terrible things. How fast is he going to learn from those mistakes? Pretty damn fast, if you ask me. I'm not saying that the US should go unopposed but I think that direct opposition only for the sake of opposition is going to make a beast out of the US. Some tempering aid and understanding would probably be a better influence.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Actually the US was build on genocide, slavery and war. Violence has always played a core role in American history, and in the soul...and is offset by bravery, freedom, and the spirit of adventure. A strange mixture...