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

[KorpDeath]

It reminds of Qaddafi . This is the line of death you cross it and you die!! (takes a step back) okay now this is the line!!!(takes a step back ) okay now this is the line!!! (takes another step back) okay! If you knock on my door I won't come out!!!

That's the U.N. effete, effeminate, ineffectual.

[Negative]

Originally posted by xmaddness
Well, they didn't cooperate in the past, and even kicked inspectors out. That to me shows that if they didn't cooperate in the past, we have no reason to expect them to cooperate in the future. The above excerpts from the UN security council's resolution are reasons why the new resolution is being brought about. Now lets get to the real meat of the new resolution. These are the requirements for Iraq that were outlined in the new resolution, that was UNANIMOUSLY PASSED BY ALL UN SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, including France, Germany, and Belgium.

May I remind you that the UNSCOM-inspectors themselves where responsible for being kicked out? They were supposed to be weapons-inspectors, not spies for the CIA (Fair.org).
I'd stop co-operating for less...

And yes, we signed the resolutions. We just don't agree on those 'all
necessary means'.

You're correct in your next pharagraphs where you state that Iraq has offered incomplete lists to the UN.

They agreed to allow reconnaissance aircrafts in the mean time. They only had one request: stop the sporadic bombardments above the no-fly zone. Washington didn't agree...

Well, there are three examples right there of non-compliance with UN Security Councils demands. Remember that this was passed by all UN security Council member nations. It looks like Iraq is taking the same turns it did with the first resolution back in 1991. This doctrine was written with the words "Severe Consequences" if Iraq did not comply. So now that Iraq hasn't, on several occasions, is Germany, Belgium, and France backing out? These member nations are single handedly destroying the credibility of the UN. And in my opinion, its time for NATO to kick them out.

What's got 'backing out' of the UN got to do with NATO?

UN laws clearly state that pre-emptive war is forbidden. The US and Turkey asked for military support for Turkey IN ANTICIPATION to a war with Iraq. According to UN-laws, that is forbidden. Now where are France, Germany and Belgium backing out? Don't be mistaken: in case of war, the three countries won't hesitate to send support. IN CASE OF WAR, not before the war has even started.

And finally... maybe roles are turning: France, Germany, Belgium... oh look, China and Russia also joined. ELEVEN out of FIFTEEN members are AGAINST military support to Turkey now. Only the US, the UK, Spain and Bulgaria are not with 'us' on this one. Should they all be kicked out now?

This NATO-crisis (NOT UN!) was about military support for Turkey, xmaddness, not about UN-resolutions. And btw (I know, I'm repeating myself): Iraq has been violating more UN-resolutions than Iraq ever will for ages...

Now, more on that support for Turkey.
First off, Turkey doesn't need UN-support. Since The Gulf War, Northern Iraq has developed into an autonomous region, far from Saddam's circle of influence. They are Kurds. The same Kurds Saddam has bombed with biological and chemical weapons. The same Kurds Turkey has bombed with biological and chemical weapons (ask a Turk about Kurds, and prepare to be spitted at). Turkey makes historical claims on the cities of Mosoel and Kirkuk, right outside of the Kurdish autonomous territory. Ankara is afraid the Kurds will profit from the war against Iraq by conquering Mosoel and Kirkuk (lots of oil there!), and making Kirkuk the capital of an indepent Kurdistan. In the talks going on between the US and Turkey, Turkey has demanded that under no condition, Mosoel and Kirkuk can ever be Kurdish. The US on the other side have demanded that Turkey under no condition can claim those two cities.
Now, the US needs Turkey for a war against Iraq (talk about the power of the US as much as you want, but that is a simple fact). Turkey knows this, and is preparing to get everything they can from that simple fact...

Germany's 'disgusting past' is not an issue here imo, so I won't even go there...

The obsolete-ness of the UN is another chapter as well, of course...

[xmaddness]

Points well recieved, although I should have stated the relationship with NATO more clearly. What I meant to get across was that they should be kicked out of UN, or at least their veto powers striken (which I had hoped was already assumed by the post), and to go furthur, kicked from NATO as well.

As for Turkey:

Turkey is a nation that is very vulnerable from an attack from Iraq for many reasons. One reason is because they are a NATO presence in the region, which makes them fair game if war were to break out. A second reason is because of the fact that Turkish and Isreali soldiers train together, and Saddam has shown no remorse is sending munitions towards Isreal, including the possibility of chemical/biological agents.

UN laws clearly state that pre-emptive war is forbidden. The US and Turkey asked for military support for Turkey IN ANTICIPATION to a war with Iraq. According to UN-laws, that is forbidden. Now where are France, Germany and Belgium backing out? Don't be mistaken: in case of war, the three countries won't hesitate to send support. IN CASE OF WAR, not before the war has even started.

I'm sorry to say, but the war has already began, 10 years ago. Ten years ago, need I remind you, it was Iraq who decided to start a "pre-emptive war" with Kuwait. You may think the war ended with the UN inspectiors arrival back the first time, although the bombing in the no fly zone has never ended, and the tossing back and forth of munitions between the USA and Iraq continues to this day. How in your view is this not war?

Allow me to quote your beloved NATO articles:

Taken directly from The NATO Charter.
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Well, it seems to me that when Iraq, on numerous occasions, tried shooting down our aircraft, we should have had unconditional support from all NATO allies. Except of course France, Belgium, and Germany.


The reason of putting more troops in Turkey, as stated even in NATO press conferences, is for "Strictly defensive purposes". What if your country was caught on the border of a known rouge country with possible WMD. I'm sure you would want a strong defence to cover you also.

Ankara is afraid the Kurds will profit from the war against Iraq by conquering Mosoel and Kirkuk (lots of oil there!), and making Kirkuk the capital of an indepent Kurdistan.

You can say all you want and bring in all the rhetoric and heresay you want about oil and whatnot. These statements hold no actual content and are stretching for just more propaganda against the US's military efforts to, let me remind you, "stabalize" the region.

Now, the US needs Turkey for a war against Iraq (talk about the power of the US as much as you want, but that is a simple fact). Turkey knows this, and is preparing to get everything they can from that simple fact...

The US needs Turkey? I think you have it backwards my friend.

During the 1990-91 Gulf War, Turkey suffered a loss of a minimum of $40 billion in lost trade, commerce, and investments. Now some Ankara officials put the impending losses in a new Iraq conflict at $150 billion over a decade. How can a country with an anemic economy, dizzying inflation, and a weak currency sustain this loss? Five years ago while in Istanbul I recall the lira being at 250,000 to the US$; it’s now 1,656,000!

The IMF provides economic life support for Turkey, and who is one of the leading contributors of the IMF? You guessed it, the USA. Turkey really has no leverage in this argument.

Taken directly from Nato Website
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Well UN has been toying with Iraq for ten years now, and with the resolution 1441, UN has signed itself into something with ""consequences" if Iraq does not cooperate. Do you think this means were going to slap Saddam on the wrist?

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Well, to me it looks like Turkey has more than enough reason to be thretened.

Article 51Taken directly from United Nations Charter.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Taken from above.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,

Well, armed attacks have been happening for the past ten years, so why is "defensivly arming" Turkey a problem? Answer me that.


sincerely,
xmaddness

[oldguy]

People, please think about what is going to happen when we (US) go into iraq
I am fourty years old and one of my contemporarys called this week and asked if I could meet him and have a quiet beer at the local watering hole.
Why, this is going to be his second trip to the land of sand, and frankly he feels he won't come home on his feet!!
This frind of mine dates my sister, while we were talking he gave me his will. I don't have too tell someone who has friends or family that have been in combat what this means. Big Mo is my friend and I will miss him if he dosent make it home
I agree something needs to be done about the government in Iraq but war SUCKS, BTDT.
2/9 AIRCAV FT STEWARD
If any of you have a nonviolent solution please scream it from the roof for all to hear
I also have two boys old enough for the draft.
I will greave for all of the fallen, not just those close to me.

[KPATTE456]

Well just maybe they are using thier heads and thinking a little.....some people just dont think of the consequenses later on down the road. The hatred thats going to be caused after we mow over that country AGAIN, which will surely happen , we reduced thier capability to fight to where they dont have a chance. You know, we go to the aid and defend nations from the "Big Bully " nations that prey on the little guys but it seems to me now we are becoming the bullies.If we dont like what other countries do we are just going to stomp them out?.....Guess North Korea is next huh. You know.....I myself got into a situation some years back where something was stolen and i knew who did it, couldnt prove it, so I took matters into my own hands. For that I was arrested, have a police record now and was fined in court. When I gave my explanation, the Judge told me that VIOLENCE IS NOT THE ANSWER TO ANY CONFLICT,and that two wrongs dont make a right. Maybe our govt should practice a little of what it preaches.
We have weapons of mass destruction but no one else should because they might use them, but seems to me G Bush also said publicly that he would use ours also, but remember HE doesnt have anything to worry about, he and his people will be safe in an underground compound while we bear the brunt, may it be nuclear or biological.

This is the Year 2003, thought people have become more educated by now and could think for themselves of the consequenses of action REMEMBER....For Each ACTION...There Is An EQUAL And OPPOSITE Reaction....Tit for a Tat...and Eye for an Eye....till the whole worlds blind.

[KorpDeath]

Yeah, you know. War has never been easy. I lost my uncle in the service in peace time nonetheless. And like I said I'm a pacifist by nature but enough is enough. We have a military for a reason, you can't just look away when you know the right thing to do is stop this guy. They just found yet another long range missile. One that exceeds, by far, the limit that the international community has put on him. Time yet, hey I've got an idea let's wait until he lobs a diry bomb at France. Then all you bleeding hearts can cry and ask WHY God, WHY??!!! Would that make you feel better?

I have fr4iends in the military and I can tell you for all the grief it causes none of them are going to back down from what they know is right.

BTW -This isn't some two bit speed fiend stealing your radio KPATTE456, this is a leader of country that has capabilities that the enitire world has told him he cannot have.

It shouldn't take more intensive searches, Saddam should be forthcoming with eveidence he has disarmed.

[Big_Bolo]

This a reply to KorpDeath,

First the resolution to disarm Iraq passed twelve years ago did not only apply to Iraq but to other countries such as South-Africa and North Korea who were considered potential threat to the United-States globalization plans. Not only this but Saddam Hussein was employed by the CIA(like many other current presidents) before he became King. Their entire goal was to put Sadam in power for them to have control over that entire region and economically benefit from the oil profits. Once in power Hussein stabbed the americans in the back and decided to do things for his people. So at the time when Bush senior was in power who also is the former CIA director back when Kennedy was president, did not like what Saddam had done. Since then Him and the government of the United States have been trying to get rid of him. Now France and Germany are not afraid of Saddam. Since this whole campaign started many of the NATO countries felt that president Bush's decision was a sudden decision without any justification. NATO knows that there is nothing in Iraq and they have not found anything since the inspectors were sent. Now ur president wants to go in there regardless whether the find something or not, that's why Germany, France, Russia, Belgium and China are against it. Simply because the US has no proof or justification to invade Iraq. The latest proof that was provided to the UN by Colin Powell was not even there's. It was projects, articles and a thesis written about ten years ago during the desert storm war by a british student who is now sueing his government over those documents. The states have absolutely no reason to invade Iraq everyone knows that. But Bush is pushing for war and thats what the other countries are against it because he is only interested in fighting, finishing what his father started and the abundant oil reserve in region and war would bring total chaos in the entire midle east and around the world.

Kom@ - that entire paragraph is ignorant. We Americans have fought ourselves to bloodier ends than most of the rest of the world has, or do you not know about our "civil war".

yea this is the only war you have fought and really won. Only because it was between yourselves. In the 60s u didn't win the vietnam war, early in the 90s u got chased out of Somalia a country ten times smaller then urs and there is other ones. Look americans are not good in urban, dog fight and or trench war fighting they get exterminated like bugs. And don't bring up Afghanistan because right now there not fighting anyone. There is no one there. Because if the Russians a world super power(and their army was the biggest, most sophisticated and most powerful in the world and they are still better then the US) were chased out of Afghanistan back in the 80s(watch Rambo 3 it'll give u a little overview) what makes u think the US would be so successfull in winning a war there if Afghanistan had stayed the same?


Look fellows I know u are proud of ur country. But I'll tell u guys something why don't u guys try to see the world other than just through an american eye. This is the internet....visit other world sites or channels other than just americans if u get any that is(don't think u do even if u have satelite) and see the difference in the news u get in the US and the news other people get outside of the US. But realize something ur government is angry because their renewal proposal to the security council was rejected. (For a major reason, one of them is happening right now) There not on the security council anymore therefore they no longer make important decisions. They had control over the security council for a long time and bullied their way into other countries, killed a lot of innocent people including americans to furfill there own interest. But just like everything else in life what cuz up most come down. It's the beginning of the end for the US and u better believe it and be ready for it. Because the US is not all that powerful.

Peace in the Middle East

Big_Bolo

P.S. Don't think for once that I'm from the Middle East. I'm African and I know what ur government did to my country for over 30 years because my country was a potential threat to their interest just like Russia was. And there are still trying to ruin my country along side with other countries simply because of their interest to dominate the world and the control for natural ressources in many regions of the world, to make a profit for themselves and for other people to starve.

[Negative]

Originally posted by xmaddness
I'm sorry to say, but the war has already began, 10 years ago. Ten years ago, need I remind you, it was Iraq who decided to start a "pre-emptive war" with Kuwait. You may think the war ended with the UN inspectiors arrival back the first time, although the bombing in the no fly zone has never ended, and the tossing back and forth of munitions between the USA and Iraq continues to this day. How in your view is this not war?

You'll know what war is when Bush hits the button. The bombings in the no fly zone are American. Iraq asked for the bombings to be stopped, the US refused.
Call that a war, and the entire world is at war right now.

Well, it seems to me that when Iraq, on numerous occasions, tried shooting down our aircraft, we should have had unconditional support from all NATO allies. Except of course France, Belgium, and Germany.

Except of course France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, China, and six more members of the Security Council. The majority of NATO members does not agree with your vision on what's going on. World's opinion does not agree with your vision. Neither do I, and I never will...

The US needs Turkey? I think you have it backwards my friend.

I'm pretty sure the US won't be so stupid to start a war just from the sea. That's what they'll need Turkey for. How are you going to get your troops into Iraq without the help (offering bases) of neighbouring countries? Para-drop them all?
Let's say Iraq decides to shoot some malfunctioning cripple rocket they have secretely stored in some dusty basement at Turkey before Friday. If you guys know your stuff, the Patriots will immediately get rid of, and THEN you can have our support. Other than that, the 11 'rebelling' Security Council members will wait for Blix's reports on Friday.

[Sick Dwarf]

Before reading this post, take note that it is irrelivant to the rest of this thread. This post is not intended to offend Americans, just one person.

Seems to me a resolution to disarm Iraq was already unanimously passed some 12 years ago. SO why is it that France, Germany, and Belgium (who?) don't think it necessary to back their words?

shoved down the throats of those pu55y security council members

and this is how the "grateful" nations of the world treats us.

HMmmmmm?> You ask, of course, in ignorance, WHY?

That's why that faggot Blix and his henchmen have been scooting around that miserable little country looking for the evidence.

YOU'D ALL BE GOOSE STEPPING IF IT WERENT" FOR US! REMEMBER THAT.

how do you say "i surrender" in French?

Great, It's gone from the bleeding hearts of Eurotrash to the insipid nuke waving neophytes of Backwater, Arkansas. (you might have to look up some of those words)

P.S. I can't believe I didn't include you in my original rant. hahahaha

There's no stopping their hate for us, it's inbred.

hey I've got an idea let's wait until he lobs a diry bomb at France. Then all you bleeding hearts can cry and ask WHY God, WHY??!!! Would that make you feel better?

Eurotrash...... yeah...... and you of all people complain about intelligent posts on this thread. But hey, I just say that because my dutch (who?), pu55y, ungratefull, ignorant, faggoting, coward, eurotrash inbred hatred for the US is clouding my judgement on American people. Go figure.

Hey, you know what, PM me your address so I can send you a one-way ticket to holland. Me and my fellow dutch (country right next to germany) friends will be VERY HAPPY greeting you at the airport.

The finger, **** you, and kiss my ass.

[bearbizket]

I understand that we need to pursue Iraq. But, I think the immeadiate threat is Korea. We should just keep a little heat on Iraq while we go after North Korea. As we Learned in Desert Storm/Sheild we can defeate Iraq in less than a year. So to me they are of little concern. Just keep pressuring them with inspections and continue to use the "show of force" tactic that we are using now by massing troops in Kuwait. Just to keep them on their toes.
Now as for North Korea, they are basically waving a flag that they want war. And that nothing NATO can do will stop them from making nukes. Thats still not my cheif concern. My cheif consern, is that we have thousands of troops in South Korea who will die within hours because of North Korea's Massive artillery batteries. If we engage in attacking Iraq we will maybe lose 200 or more of our soldiers. As we learn from Desert storm. If we eforce arms sanctions on North Korea we risk another world war. And maybe even a nuclear war. So you can see my concerns.