*moved* What's up with the weak U.N.?

Well, I guess its just about my time to grab the "soap-box" again.


I must say that througout this debate, alot of new evidence, points, and theories have been expressed, some good, some just out in left field. I still must say that I do enforce USA's position in putting "extreme" pressure on Iraq. I seriously believe, that if we weren't putting this much pressure on both Iraq, and the UN, that nothing would have been accomplished. As an effect of our pressure, this debate is taking place on a world scale, and because of this, the world has opened its eyes to the rouge country of Iraq.


I remember not even a year or two ago nothing was being done at all. The inspections stopped, Iraq went into its own little world, and once again they had the ability to run around and do 'who knows what'. It is thru the pressure of the United States that something is now being done about it. This point I hope, is very clear to everyone. It is now up to the UN to decide the best means of going thru with its mandates.

When the US pulled out of Iraq to allow the original inspections, Iraq knew that the US no longer was 'serious' about its war, and Iraq later kicked the inspectors out. They did this because our majority of forces, and NATO allies, had pulled out. If the NATO armies were still in the region, I really don't think Iraq would have pulled that move. They went directly against UN sanctions and nothing was done about it until now.

Why?

I believe that the only reason the UN has rekindled this issue is because the USA made it such a huge topic. I guess I have kind of regained some some confidence in the UN, to a point. As long as the topic stays in the headlines of the world, something is going to be done, either thru diplomatic process, or war. At least it is activly being investigated, and thats alot more than what was being done a few years ago.


I guess thru active debate like this (which I love), one learns the pro and cons of everything. My stance as it is now, is to continue with the inspections until they have been completely exhausted and furthur action is needed, which I believe will be the end case anyway.

As for France and Germany, well, they to have valid arguments. The last thing the world needs right now is more bombs and possible WMD being tossed around in their backyard. With many political figures in office, that lived thru WWII, the idea of this large of a scale war, well frankly must be scary as hell.


As for the economic reasons, everyone has either something to gain, or something to loose, its as simple as that, and I feel no need to go any furthur.

Well, thats where I stand now. Perhaps next week, after yet more talks in the UN, I may feel differently. But only time will tell...

That's a conclusion I can completely agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by me
IF, I repeat IF Turkey gets attacked, THEN the NATO is obliged to take action (and Belgium nor the Franco-Prussian connection will hesitate to do so).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kadeng
My answer to this..your to late than and why not prefend this by sending them some DEFENSE?

---

Timing, my friend... it's all about timing. Don't tell me you really think Iraq is going to start the war. In that case, we indeed would be too late, but I don't think that's going to happen ;)

Here are some possible scenarios:

1. Your scenario: Iraq engages war on Turkey. By the time they get there, they'd be wiped out already. Iraq may have some defensive weapons left, maybe even some cripple rockets that could reach Turkey, but their offensive strength is so weak that even Belgium could defend against them (welp, probably not, but you get the picture). This scenario is VERY unlikely imo, unless it'd be Saddam's swans-song. I don't know if you know what the Turkish army is capable of (Turkish military, and compare that to Iraqi military), but Turkey does not need our support to fight off an eventual Iraqi attack.
Our refusal in the NATO was also inspired by the fact that we were not only requested to send defensive weapons to Turkey, but also to replace American soldiers with our soldiers.

2. The US engages war on Iraq, probably (very likely even, since the contracts already have been signed) using Turkish bases. Two options there: they go in without UN-approval (in that case, technically Iraq would be the offended country); or we all support them. The outcome would be pretty clear. The unknown factors are money, and human lifes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by me
Providing Turkey with arms (whether they be defensive or offensive) right now, means going along in the war-reasoning (send troops/weapons to Turkey right now, and you're basically admitting the war has already started. We refuse to accept that).

---

Quote:

---

Doobedoo.. Originally posted by you
Answer to this...Providing europe with wapens and Us soldiers we were basically admitting the war with Russia has already started?
Don t think so,it was purely defense!!!

---

Ummm... are you talking about the Cold War?
Interludium: In 1988, Belgium blocked a NATO-proposal (again... yay) to upgrade/modernize American nuclear precision-weapons in Europe.
Don't take me wrong: we're a small country, we simply don't have the people to form a decent army. So in case we'd get attacked by some other country, we'd be glad to accept your help. I don't even want to go into the details/origins of the cold war, but basically it was a 'war' between the US and Russia (simplified, indeed). Now... Europe providing bases to the US was a favour, wouldn't you agree? Of course we profited from them, but those bases gave the US the advantage they needed.
Purely defense? Maybe... To defend Europe, or to strenghten the US? Both, I'd say. And something else on that matter: we ARE gratefull we've been liberated by the US some 60 years ago. But does that mean that (warning: exaggeration) when an American comes to visit Belgium and pisses against a German's girls legs, I should jump in and stand up for that American?
BTW: you sure you're Dutch?
[quote]Wooptiewooptiewoo.. Originally posted by you

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kadeng
My last one in this post..Do you think the same about using a firewall/antivirus or do you first let them attack you before you start securing your box? Don t think so!

---

Turkey's 'box' already is secured. Once they get 'hacked' (although it's very unlikely... Turkey is on an IBM Z-series, Iraq's stuck with WinME), other parties will come into action.
I secure my box. The day I get hacked, I might call in the Belgian version of the FBI. I'm not gonna bother the FBI before I get hacked.

Edit: Kadeng!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
I completely agree, ntsa. Iraq without doubt is a rouge nation, but there is no proof of connections to world terrorism, nor the possession of WMD programmes. Maybe there are connections, maybe they do still have a WMD programme, but there's no proof (yet). Stop the work of the weapons inspectors, and you still won't be sure about those connections, about those WMD programmes.

---

The Iraqi regimes links to terror are without question. The regime pays compensation to the families of Hammas martyrs who kill Israelis. We have both seen the video footage. The Iraqi second secretary, Husham Zed Husain, was last week expelled from the Philippines for his role in the bombing in Malagutay, Zamboanga City, in October last year. And in so brutal and oppressive a regime as that of Iraq the Al-Zarqawi network, responsible for the recent risin outrages in the UK and Europe, would be unable function without the tacit compliance of that regime.

On the matter of proof: Iraq is no first offender with a right of innocence until proof of guilt, but a convict, one with a thirty year history of re-offence. It was because of this fact that the trigger for the "serious consequences" described in 1441 was not the sucsess or failure of the inspectors to find prescribed material, but the success or failiure of Iraq to prove to the inspectors that they have finally "come clean". Anything less than 100% co-operation is a material breach.

Quote:

---

IF, I repeat IF Turkey gets attacked, THEN the NATO is obliged to take action (and Belgium nor the Franco-Prussian connection will hesitate to do so).
Providing Turkey with arms (whether they be defensive or offensive) right now, means going along in the war-reasoning (send troops/weapons to Turkey right now, and you're basically admitting the war has already started. We refuse to accept that).

---

I feel fairly sure that the Turkish opinion is liable to favour defenive action before it's people are attacked. I also feel fairly sure that the Turkish are best placed to evaluate their own threat level. Invocation of article 4 places a moral if not contractual obligation on us to assist them if they feel threatened by a dictatorship I think we can all agree to despise.

Quote:

---

'L'Union Fait La Force' is Belgium's national device, not France's

---

Granted - I just quite like the phrase ;) It was certainly not my intention with that comment to associate the Belgain executive (who I am prepared to accept are acting with honourable, if misguided, intentions) with Franco-Prussian machinations.

Quote:

---

May be inevitable. Ultimate sanction. Sure, but not without exhausting all diplomatic means. And we're not at that point yet.
The will of the internation community? The will of the international community is diplomacy right now. Even in the UK.

---

1441 was drafted as the last diplomatic solution. After 12 years of re-visiting this problem we have already exhausted all diplomatic means. We have only progressed diplomacy to this point by credible threat of force. A few more weeks to see if promises made under that threat will be honoured? Sure - what's a couple more weeks after 12 years. But we cannot procrastinate indenfinitley in this matter. A return to the previous status-quo is simply unacceptable. War is only inevitable if Iraq fails to provide 100% co-operation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Schwarzfahrer
You say my Country wanted to dominate the world! Maybe you are right, but that is over 50 Years ago!!!

---

I have to agree with Schwarzfahrer on this point. Please let's stop fighting the second world war. It is both unhelpful and devisive in the current situation. My children are Jewish. Some of my inlaws carry those numbered tattoos. If after 50 years we cannot forgive (but never forget) then we condemn ourselves to a perpetual cycle of violence and reprisal. This is an emotive subject best viewed with a level head.

Besides which Saddam Hussein makes Adolf Hitler look like the Eater Bunny. However warped Hitler's world view was he believed he did what he did for the greater good of the fatherland and the German volk. Even Phol Pot was working to a plan. Saddam is out for Saddam and F*#$ the rest.

Quote:

---

In my opinion George W. just want to controll Iraq cause he wants OIL!!!
Don´t you understand that he risks many Soldiers life because of Oil???

---

I would like to point out that Kuwait also has oil, but at the end of the last gulf war did the west seize that oil from Kuwait? Or did the west invest billions into re-capping the oil wells destroyed by the fleeing invaders from Iraq and re-building programmes, effectively dusting the Kuwaities down and then giving back to them the petro-dollars that were rightfully thiers. The concept that this is about oil is confusion between cause and effect. If America was that desperate over its energy security then would invade Venisualla, rather than undertake a far riskier operation in the Persian Gulf.

The evil empire argument, that America and Britain are attempting to annexe Iraq in order to ethnicly cleanse the population and steal the oil (without the world press noticing presumably) does not hold water.

Quote:

---

In Fact, many German Soldiers are risking their lifes in Afganistan

---

Granted. Is it not amazing what a positive difference a united United Nations can make to such a country? Is it not amazing what we can do when we work together rather than trading slurs and arguing semantics?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
Timing, my friend... it's all about timing. Don't tell me you really think Iraq is going to start the war. In that case, we indeed would be too late, but I don't think that's going to happen

---

I would agree that Iraq is unikely to launch a conventional attack against Turkey. However Turkey is not concerned about a possible conventional attack. They are concerned about terrorist activity. The AWACS bird requested by Turkey would allow them to monitor inbound passenger flights and direct the requested patriot missiles against hijacked aircraft. Whilst this has been SOP in the UK (and elsewhere) since 9/11, Turkey does not have the means to defend itsef in this way. The requested bio/chem detection units are designed to give early warning of chemical and biological attack. These have already been deplyoyed in the UK following the recent ricin outrages.

My point is that Turkey is asking to be defended from threats that are not only credible, but have already been delivered (if thwarted in the case of the risin outrage) elsewhere in the world. Given that these are precautions that we ourselves our taking can we in all concience ask a county, one who because of it's stance within the UN is as likley to be the target of such attacks as we are, not to take simlilar pecautionary measures?

"dumb ass cannuck...you've got YOUR head on straight don't you?"

Apparently straight enough that you failed to prove me wrong and just responded with a neg and some name calling in a private message.

Quote:

---

May be inevitable. Ultimate sanction. Sure, but not without exhausting all diplomatic means. And we're not at that point yet. The will of the internation community? The will of the international community is diplomacy right now. Even in the UK.

---

Just for curiosity's sake, exactly how long does it take to exhaust all diplomaitc means? Obviously it takes at least 12 years, right? How many more? And exactly what other diplomatic means are there to exhausted? As Blix said, and NTSA quoted, the number of inspectors is irrelevant unless Iraq makes a stupid mistake. There are just too many places to hide things in a country that large, especially when we know that they have vast systems of tunnels and underground facilities. So more inspectors would really just be for show. I really want to know what "all diplomatic means" really means. I'm sure there might be some, but I haven't heard any yet that would really be effective.

I really enjoy AntiOnline, it's a real good site for sharing the knowledge on security and networking. I love it.

This post will maybe get me banned but I can't get anymore, I feel sad to read hate between US & EU!
I'm 30 years old & a father of 3 and I'll tell you what, in my opinion, is the anti war position of the french gov and most of EU countries (except BLAIR, BERLUSCONI & AZNAR).

September 11 was a terrible event, we in France have been offensed as well. I met a guy who worked in the twin towers, as a financial, he did survived but not all of his mates. But I'm sorry to say that it is not related to Iraq in any way!
So the base of all of this is not build with the brain but with the blind heart, I can understand that.
I am not saying that EU is wiser than anyone, but I think that's role to moderate the spirit of revenge is moral in the situation.
But now that the UN process had been launched and if Iraq does not respect the UN, it could be the death of UN credibility. So if we can prove that Iraq has not disarmed then UN will go to war, & I personnaly think it's wise.
The french position is not to say "no to war" it is just to say "think wisely & take few weeks more to the ultimate decision"

I think that US alone attacking Iraq will be a terrible mistake!
The gulf war had been initiated because of a country attacking another one just for gas profit !
11 years later it will be the same but the other way around! Not Iraq attacking Koweit but US attacking Iraq. What's the difference?
What should be UN position to such attack, a resolution against our own allies? The result will may be the end of U.N. & the anarchy!

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
War in Iraq, I think it's just a matter of setting the good questions:

0- Does Saddam give a **** to UN resolutions?
I guess Saddam almost didn't not care of it until now! So thanks to the US he does now!

1- What is the link between AL-QAïDA & IRAK?
None except from the color of the skin.

2- Does Iraq may arms terrorists?
Maybe but I have serious doubt! It is far more easy to get poor uranium, biologic or chimical from ex-soviet black market.

3- Does Iraq has weapon of massive destruction?
US gov thinks so, and the last scandalous UK Blair report as well (pasted with grammatical error from a 12 years old university study ).
Actually a part from Saddam the devil nobody knows nothing,that's why U.N inspection are so important!

4- Does Iraq dangerous to ISRAEL or other geographically closed countries?
I have serious doubt about this! 8 years of war against IRAN, an army completely destroyed by the UN in 1991 and after 11 years of starvation! Seems that Iraq is as dangerous as a mosquito to me!




-+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-

I knew it!
I'll get banned only because I try to understand the policy of my gov supported by
more that 80% of E.U. population (even in UK, Spain & Italy).

That's the first neg I received from a courageous anonymous

Quote:

---

Why don't you get it? We don't want their oil!!!

---

So please tell me the root/objective of all of this!
(I should thanks some of you to accept another point of view from yours!
I am sorry to say that refusing the dialog listening only one point of view is leading to fascism!!! :argue: )

I'll tell you something from my own experience:
My brother is Captain in the foreign legion. He spends twice 6 month in Kosovo and 6 month in Afganistan. In Kosovo, a year before september 11, the FORPONU HQ commander was from US. Therefore, meetings about tactical information were leaded by the US weekly, the last 1/2 hour was about IRAQ strategic situation!!!
It seems wierd, isn't it? Iraq seems to be a target to the US gov/mil from a long time!!!

Did I wrote something about oil?
Maybe I should have, sorry

Quote:

---

Larry Lindsey, President Bush's economic adviser, recently said that a successful war on Iraq would be good for business.

'When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply,' he said in September. 'The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.'

Analysts believe that after five years Iraq could be pumping 10m barrels of oil per day. Opec is already starting to implode, with member nations breaking quotas in an attempt to grab market share before oil prices fall.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Networker
I am not saying that EU is wiser than anyone, but I think that's role to moderate the spirit of revenge is moral in the situation.

---

As you said, the situation in Iraq has nothing to do with September 11th, so why do you call it revenge? It's simply following through on the threat of 'serious consequences' associated with Iraq's decision to break their commitments to the UN.

Quote:

---

I think that US alone attacking Iraq will be a terrible mistake!
The gulf war had been initiated because of a country attacking another one just for gas profit !
11 years later it will be the same but the other way around! Not Iraq attacking Koweit but US attacking Iraq. What's the difference?

---

I think this is probably where the oil AP came from. You didn't specifically mention oil, but you did come awfully close.

Quote:

---

1- What is the link between AL-QAïDA & IRAK?
None except from the color of the skin.

---

If you truly believe this then you must have your head buried in the sand. No offense, but even those I know who are adamantly opposed to war with Iraq will agree that they most likely have ties to Al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

2- Does Iraq may arms terrorists?
Maybe but I have serious doubt! It is far more easy to get poor uranium, biologic or chimical from ex-soviet black market.

---

Ditto my above comments.

Quote:

---

3- Does Iraq has weapon of massive destruction?
US gov thinks so, and the last scandalous UK Blair report as well (pasted with grammatical error from a 12 years old university study ).
Actually a part from Saddam the devil nobody knows nothing,that's why U.N inspection are so important!

---

Let me ask you a question... If you personaly had weapons of mass destruction and a whole bunch of people with really big guns came and told you to destroy them, don't you think that you would destroy them publicly or at least have some sort of proof that you destroyed them? What possible reason would you have to destroy them privately? All you would have to do is show the proof to the big guys with guns and they'd go home. There's probably a good reason why he doesn't have the proof - he didn't destroy the weapons. He's simply moving them from site to site, tunnel to tunnel, palace to palace. It's not that hard to stay ahead of the inspectors in a country that large.

Quote:

---

4- Does Iraq dangerous to ISRAEL or other geographically closed countries?
I have serious doubt about this! 8 years of war against IRAN, an army completely destroyed by the UN in 1991 and after 11 years of starvation! Seems that Iraq is as dangerous as a mosquito to me!

---

People used variations of this argument to claim that Germany wasn't a threat after the first world war. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now. History quite often repeats itself.

Quote:

---

I'll get banned only because I try to understand the policy of my gov supported by
more that 80% of E.U. population (even in UK, Spain & Italy).

That's the first neg I received from a courageous anonymous

---

Suck it up. AP's are by definition anonymous, and whining about them doesn't do you any good unless you're looking for pity. If you're not willing to take the hit, don't make the post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Feb17.html

European leaders united Monday behind a strongly worded declaration affirming solidarity with the United States and warning Saddam Hussein that Iraq faces one "last chance" to disarm peacefully.

"Baghdad should have no illusions. ... The Iraqi regime alone will be responsible for the consequences if it continues to flout the will of the international community," 15 European Union leaders said in a joint declaration.

The leaders gave strong backing for the U.S. and British demand for swift action to disarm Iraq, giving the American military buildup in the Persian Gulf credit for forcing Saddam to work with U.N. weapons inspectors.