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

[ntsa]

Well korpdeath --

To answer the question: Because both France and Germany have an awful lot to lose if their illicit sales of prescribed materials to Iraq over the past 12 years come to light. Let us not forget how those nations sought to undermine the last inpection regime for their own commercial ends. There is, as is so often suggested, a commercial dimension to this whole issue, but that dimension is not brought to the table by the US or UK, nor has it anything to do with oil.

Actions by the Franco-Prussian alliance in the UN are not only devisive, but are liable to render the UN as impotent as its predecessor, the Leage Of Nations. The loss of such a platform for the will of the international community would force the kinds of unlitaterel actions that were the pre-cursors of the last world war. Sending mixed messages to Bagdad at such a time can only serve to reinforce the regimes belief that they can slip through the loophole of our divisions.

In terms of winning the war The US needs the UN like a man going hunting needs an accordian. But to win the peace, to effect regime change and to bring Iraq back into the international community the UN will be vital. The machinations of the Franco-Prussian alliance can only have the effect of making it more difficult for us to win such a peace for the people of Iraq and deal with other rouge state proliferators in the future.

[KorpDeath]

Hallelujah!!!!! Thank you ntsa for giving me some insight as to what could very possibly be the reason for the U.N. inaction.


See AO members. The proper thing to do when someone asks a question is to give them an answer to THAT question. Directly, concisely. WOW what a breath of fresh air in the stench of this forum.

Thank you again ntsa. You are a true scholar and gentleman.

Anybody want to add something about what I asked?

[ntsa]

Originally posted here by Negative

Now, to the point: yes we signed the UN resolutions, and YES, we will keep our word (namely the disarmament of Iraq). But what France, Germany and Belgium stood up against is, as mentioned before, NATO, not UN. Now lemme explain how we DO keep our NATO-word. NATO-rules are clear: unilateral military intervention is forbidden (a single NATO-member CAN NOT decide to wage war on any other country. Guess who's about to break that rule... right). Furthermore: in the case of an unilateral military intervention where the attacking country is the 'victim' of a counter-strike by the 'defending' country, all intervention by any other NATO-member is forbidden.
In this case: if Iraq gets attacked because the US use Turkish bases, then IRAQ is the state that can call in legitimate self-defense (according to international law). By not agreeing with help to Turkey (THAT'S what this 'crisis' is about, KD), France, Germany and Belgium are acting according international law, and according NATO-law. Period.

I think Korpdeath can be forgiven for the confusion between the UN resolution 1441 and the NATO position given that the problems at NATO are directly symtomatic of the Franco-Prussian position within the UNSECCO. Turkey's invocation of article 4 of the treaty really makes the NATO dispute a moot point however. Because of this invocation we are obliged to provide Turkey with the defensive - let me repeat that - defensive measures that they ask for.

As an aside to this argument and in terms of what is really a UN matter one has to question the relevance of an organisation (NATO) whose primary mandate expired with the fall of the communist block. My 2 cents on this aside would be that the secondary functions of the NATO mandate should be incorporated into the UN (though this has little relevance in the current discussion).

I think that the promise to which KorpDeath refers however is the promise of "serious consequences" made in resolution 1441. The unanimity of the international community in delivering this resolution of "last chance" to the Iraqi regime is severely diluted by the reticence of certain members in accepting the duty of delivering those serious consquences as promised. Many international observers, myself incuded, fear that such devisive actions by the Franco-Prussian alliance will offer the Iraqi regime the opportunity to slip through the loophole of our divisions.

Authorization for the disarmament of Iraq, yes.
Authorization for a war? Don't think so. Far from it.

And what did the L'Union Fait La Force think the "Serious consquences" described in 1441 meant? Authorisation to use harsh language? Or did the French believe "serious consequences" meant that they would have to finally stop selling Iraq prescribed material through it's African connections?

Turkey for example also still has the same weapons they used on their own people (hey look, a coincidence, 'their own people' are in both cases the Kurdish). I don't see anyone telling the Turkish to stop using WMD on their own people.
It's harder to proof you don't have something than proving you do have something, btw.

The plight of the Kurdish is a terrible thing and is often used to demonstrate how evil the encumbant Iraqi regime is. But at the end of the day this argument is a confusion between cause and effect (like the blood for oil argument). The effect of military action may be positive for the Iraqi people and the the kurds. The cause however is not some philanthropic gesture on the part of the US and UK, but a genuine concern by the executives of those nations for their own national security in an post 9/11 environment where the wests primary weapon, that of detterence, has been rendered impotent. Detterance is not an effective weapon against world terrorism because their attacks can be delivered without a return address. That is the essence of how the world changed on 9/11. The position can be summed up thus: Rouge states with connections to world terrorism cannot be allowed to have WMD programmes.

May I also remind you that France and German came up with an alternative plan? (You probably won't believe it since you seem to believe that we are even against the disarmament of Iraq, but still..).
Their plan is to tripple weapons-inspections, bring UN-soldiers to Iraq to supervise the disarmament of Iraq (which would turn Iraq into UN-controlled territory), prohibit air-flight above Iraq, and have Mirage IV planes patrol the area. An Iraqi violation would be sanctioned, and there would be a strict control of Iraqi import, also preventing it from smuggling oil.

That plan has now been rubbished as un-workable by everyone involved, incuding Hans Bix, and has since been withdrawn by an embarrased Franco-Prussian alliance. A regime bent on hiding such weapons can do so indefinately and under such circumstances, as Hans Blix points out, the number of inspectors is irrelevant. 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".

In terms of deploying blue hat forces in Iraq, effectively moving right on to the occupation phase without first having a war (nice idea, but incredibly naive) would require the grounding of the entire Iraqi airforce and the return to barracks of all Iraqi soldiers. The Iraqi regime is even less likley likley to accept this option than the American suggestion of exile for Saddam Hussein, because these forces are required to impose the will of the rulling Bath party on the populus.

The position of the Republican Guard is in fact similar to that of the collaborator units of the Waffen SS that undertook the defence of Berlin in 1945. The fall of the regime woud be the pre-cursor for reprisals by the population for the 30 years of the excesses of dicatorship against these forces. In these circumstances these troops could well decide that western troops are 'crusaders', regardless of the colour of their helmets, and begin trading ordinance. Pretending that one could occupy Iraq without first dealing with the Republican Guard would be to sow the seeds of another Vietnam in the Persian Gulf.

History teaches that sometimes, despite appeasment and recurring last chances, conflict is inevitable. This may be such a situation. That decision has always been in the hands of the Iraqi regime. But the blood of every Iraqi tortured and executed by the regime between now and the end of Franco-Prussion procrastination is on the hands of those without the stomach to enforce the will of the international community with the ultimate saction, that of force.

[KorpDeath]

Originally posted here by Negative
Eurotrash present! Will you take me instead, KorpDeath?



I'll sharpen my pencil, KorpDeath (you asked so nicely, couldn't resist).
Back up our words? Do you know WHAT exactly we stood up against? It's NOT the disarmament of Iraq, KorpDeath, it's about the WAY to do it, and, more important, about the timing. Oh, BTW, those resolutions are UN resolutions. What you are talking about (our 'inexcusable' behaviour) is on the NATO-platform, not the UN platforum (kinda different, don't you agree), but I'll let that one slip...
Now, to the point: yes we signed the UN resolutions, and YES, we will keep our word (namely the disarmament of Iraq). But what France, Germany and Belgium stood up against is, as mentioned before, NATO, not UN. Now lemme explain how we DO keep our NATO-word. NATO-rules are clear: unilateral military intervention is forbidden (a single NATO-member CAN NOT decide to wage war on any other country. Guess who's about to break that rule... right). Furthermore: in the case of an unilateral military intervention where the attacking country is the 'victim' of a counter-strike by the 'defending' country, all intervention by any other NATO-member is forbidden.
In this case: if Iraq gets attacked because the US use Turkish bases, then IRAQ is the state that can call in legitimate self-defense (according to international law). By not agreeing with help to Turkey (THAT'S what this 'crisis' is about, KD), France, Germany and Belgium are acting according international law, and according NATO-law. Period.


As much as you don't like it, we ARE following through with what we've said. Both UN-resolutions (contrary to the US who always seem to forget the UN-resolutions against Israel), and NATO- and international law.



Authorization for the disarmament of Iraq, yes.
Authorization for a war? Don't think so. Far from it.


Turkey for example also still has the same weapons they used on their own people (hey look, a coincidence, 'their own people' are in both cases the Kurdish). I don't see anyone telling the Turkish to stop using WMD on their own people.
It's harder to proof you don't have something than proving you do have something, btw.

May I also remind you that France and German came up with an alternative plan? (You probably won't believe it since you seem to believe that we are even against the disarmament of Iraq, but still..).
Their plan is to tripple weapons-inspections, bring UN-soldiers to Iraq to supervise the disarmament of Iraq (which would turn Iraq into UN-controlled territory), prohibit air-flight above Iraq, and have Mirage IV planes patrol the area. An Iraqi violation would be sanctioned, and there would be a strict control of Iraqi import, also preventing it from smuggling oil.

BTW: Germany already sent Patriot-rockets to Turkey, manned by Dutch soldiers...

I ask you again, KorpDeath: where/how are we not backing up our words?
We'd all be goose-stepping if it weren't for the US... yeah yeah.
You'd be still riding horses without a saddle if it weren't for Europe... pfeww, nice logic.

And I think you're the one who needs to do some reading, KorpDeath.

Palladin > Umm, never mind... don't even feel like discussing your 'let's nuke them'-wisdom...

Where in this long drawn out tirade did you answer my question, Neg. Where? I hate to have to keep harping on this simple point, but you calling me a war monger and ignorant is just a simple way to avoid having to answer my question?

I wanted to understand why the U.N. feels it doesn't need to back up it's words. You're right. All the insult trading is high schoolish at best, however, I'm not going to get pushed around anywhere, most especially online.

And I'm not the one bringing up nukes, nor did I say we should kill innocent people, blah blah.

And as far as my people not having saddles. I let you in on some of my people's philosophy.

"When the white man discovered this country, indians (for lack of a better word) were running it. No taxes or debt. Women did all the work. White men thought they could improve on a system like that!"

cherokee indian philosophy

Put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it. (I said that nicely, not menaing insult.)

[HurrayForSchool]

Back in the 1940's there was a guy named Adolf Hitler who hated the Jews and created a thing called the holocoust. No one did anything about it, including France, and eventually Hitler invaded France.

Today in the 2000's (and 1990's) we have a guy named Saddam Hussein who hates the Kurds and is commiting genocide. No one is doing anything about it, including France, and you get my point.

Wow, isn't amazing when history repeats itself?

Does it matter whether or not the U.N. needs back up their words?
We have a problem, and we should do something about it.

[Negative]

Originally posted by ntsa
I think Korpdeath can be forgiven for the confusion between the UN resolution 1441 and the NATO position given that the problems at NATO are directly symtomatic of the Franco-Prussian position within the UNSECCO. Turkey's invocation of article 4 of the treaty really makes the NATO dispute a moot point however. Because of this invocation we are obliged to provide Turkey with the defensive - let me repeat that - defensive measures that they ask for.

I was speaking (and still am) from the Belgian point of view, ntsa. Belgium is not in the UN Security Council (France and Germany are), so the difference between our 'rebellion' at NATO and the UN resolutions was kinda important to me.

North Atlantic Treaty, Washington D.C. - April 4, 1949
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.

We are NOT obliged to provide Turkey with defensive measures. The Parties are obliged to consult eachother (which they did). I don't see the territorial integrity, the political independence or security of Turkey threatened yet. We are under the impression that Turkey's question for help, and their invocation of article 4 is nothing more than a call for armed support to start a war. Turkey already allowed the US to use their bases to launch the attacks on Iraq. Agreeing with help for Turkey sounds like agreeing with the upcoming attacks. We're not willing to do that (yet).

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

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).

Here's Article 51 for the record:

Article 51
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 inter- national 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.

I think that the promise to which KorpDeath refers however is the promise of "serious consequences" made in resolution 1441. The unanimity of the international community in delivering this resolution of "last chance" to the Iraqi regime is severely diluted by the reticence of certain members in accepting the duty of delivering those serious consquences as promised. Many international observers, myself incuded, fear that such devisive actions by the Franco-Prussian alliance will offer the Iraqi regime the opportunity to slip through the loophole of our divisions.

Many international observers want to see all diplomatic means exhausted before going to war.

And what did the L'Union Fait La Force think the "Serious consquences" described in 1441 meant? Authorisation to use harsh language? Or did the French believe "serious consequences" meant that they would have to finally stop selling Iraq prescribed material through it's African connections?

'L'Union Fait La Force' is Belgium's national device, not France's
Denying that the US's motives are economical while saying that France's are... well, be probably both have our own views on that.

The position can be summed up thus: Rouge states with connections to world terrorism cannot be allowed to have WMD programmes.

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.

History teaches that sometimes, despite appeasment and recurring last chances, conflict is inevitable. This may be such a situation. That decision has always been in the hands of the Iraqi regime. But the blood of every Iraqi tortured and executed by the regime between now and the end of Franco-Prussion procrastination is on the hands of those without the stomach to enforce the will of the international community with the ultimate saction, that of force.

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.

Originally posted by KorpDeath
Where in this long drawn out tirade did you answer my question, Neg. Where? I hate to have to keep harping on this simple point, but you calling me a war monger and ignorant is just a simple way to avoid having to answer my question?
I wanted to understand why the U.N. feels it doesn't need to back up it's words. You're right. All the insult trading is high schoolish at best, however, I'm not going to get pushed around anywhere, most especially online.
And I'm not the one bringing up nukes, nor did I say we should kill innocent people, blah blah.
And as far as my people not having saddles. I let you in on some of my people's philosophy.
"When the white man discovered this country, indians (for lack of a better word) were running it. No taxes or debt. Women did all the work. White men thought they could improve on a system like that!"
cherokee indian philosophy
Put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it. (I said that nicely, not menaing insult.)

Here's my answer, Korp:

In this case: if Iraq gets attacked because the US use Turkish bases, then IRAQ is the state that can call in legitimate self-defense (according to international law). By not agreeing with help to Turkey (THAT'S what this 'crisis' is about, KD), France, Germany and Belgium are acting according international law, and according NATO-law. Period.

Add to that that I believe that not all diplomatic means are exhausted yet, and you have my answer.
I don't remember having called you a war monger, nor ignorant.
Palladin brought up the nukes, and I adressed him, not you.
My reaction about the saddles was just as childish as your 'goose stepping'-theorie, Korp (the 'nice logic'-comment was ironical). I'm pretty sure every European at AO has seen a comment like that in his antipoints-list already (not talking about you, I know you hit a lot harder ).

And HurrayForSchool, I think there's one thing we all agree on: something needs to be done. The timing and the means is the only 'detail' we disagree on

I hope I cleared up my point of view (which is Belgium's point of view, not France's or Germany's).

[KorpDeath]

Forget I included Belgium. My mistake. Thanks for your insight. That's all I wanted, some other point about the U.N. inactivity.

As far as I am concerned the U.N. is backing itself into a corner which it probably (depending on what happens in the next 2 weeks) won't be able to recover. And against AO/Euro opinion, it would be a very big deal if the U.S. just ignored the U.N all together in all future endeavors.

And no Neg you didn't specifically call me those two names but you did say....

Originally posted here by Negative
KorpDeath...
You needed xmaddness to provide some valid arguements in the other thread, now you need ntsa to post something valid.

You talk about how well-informed you are as much as you want, I haven't seen you post one simple decent thing about this matter. I've seen you miss-spell names, I've seen you being wrong on simple facts, I've seen you insult other countries (nothing wrong with that if it exceeds the level of 'that faggot Blix'), I've seen you act like the average high-school bully, I've seen 'someone' throw around antipoints,... I'd be more than happy to provide ntsa with my points of view, as I did with xmaddness.
They both make valid points (even Powell made some valid points last Friday), but you? I'm done with you. Your 'points of view' didn't piss me off, even your ignorant war-talk doesn't piss me off anymore. You're the one that needs to do some reading instead of...whatever it is you do. You're the reason illiterate people despise Americans like you. And I can't blame them.

America is a great country... if it weren't for people like you. Luckily enough, most people are aware of the fact that you are not at all an example of what America stands for.

I don't know what you can take away from that post but in my neck of the woods means, "You ignorant, war monger." Of which I am very far from.

Thanks again for your insight.

Deny what you like but it's in black and white.

[Schwarzfahrer]

What´s up with you KorpDeath???
You say my Country wanted to dominate the world! Maybe you are right, but that is over 50 Years ago!!! 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??? 50 Jears ago Hitler killed lots of people because he wanted to rule the world. He was a Psycho!!! NOW the President of the GREAT COUNTRY USA (f*** you) is ready to kill lots of people just because he (or the Oil-Companies) want OIL!!! Kom@ is right, many European Countries don´t want War because WW I & II . USA made also a mistake in Vietnam, but we Europeans learned from our Mistakes! It seems that George is not able to learn from the past! I also think that the U.S. think that they are a ****ed-up World Police who attack everyone who don´t fit with them.
You also say that Germany is a "pu55y security council member". In Fact, many German Soldiers are risking their lifes in Afganistan for the USA. In my opinion you are just another ****ed-up American Guy who thinks that the U.S. can do what they want !!!

[KorpDeath]

Yes, very well. Get your F*** you's in while you can. History is just that, gone. I was making a point as to why Germany wasn't pushing for war, that's all.

You europeans don't learn from your mistakes anymore than anyone else. I'm sorry, but you are no more enlightened than the rest of us, it's a sad fact you need to learn. And as for the whole B.S. about war for oil. That's overdone and played out...

Any Germans that are in Afghanistan aren't there for the U.S. my friend, they are there for the world. Doing the civilized world's work. like it or not.

Whether you want to admit it or not we've done allot of good things for the world. It's a shame you all are so short-sighted.

P.S. I don't think the U.S. should "be able to do whatever it wants" , my QUESTION was about the U.N. (I feel I repeat myself, allot) and it's inactivity. That's it. No more, no less.

No one can argue that SoDamn Insane (Yeah, Neg, I misspelled his name, I know) is a threat to the region and to the security of the world. That's why the U.N. resolution was passed after he invaded a soveriegn nation (Kuwait). If you all want to bury your heads in the sand that's fine with me but don't call the U.S. and it's allies, bullies, because we are doing what we said we'd do.

[kadeng]

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).

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


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).

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!!!

Makes no sense to me keeping defensive wapons away from Turkey!!!

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!