Iraq

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because we were trying to work within the International community. But as you know - I think the US should get out of the UN. We are by the way - going to go into Iraq, with or without anyone else.

You have seen Iraq not complying with the UN resolutions. Lying repeatedly over the years. You can't possibly think that Iraq just can't find tons of VX nerve gas they once had - which they still have not accounted for. Or the anthrax, or the any of the other weapons we KNOW they have that they are hiding.

The only reason we went to the UN was to prevent an international backlash. It's beyond that - we now realise that NO MATTER how much evidence we present - nothing is going to get France or Germany to believe it.

TY JD...........I won't argue with your opinion (I don't agree 100% with it....but an opinion is a personal thing/choice).

Do you not think that the UN proposals to continue with intensified weapons inspections would be preferable to all-out war at this time? (Saddam cannot commit to war with so many troops gathering at his borders IMO).

[jerseydevil]

Someone yesterday had told me about this cartoon in their paper.

...there was a political cartoon in the local paper and it had the stereotypical Frenchman (beret, moustache and striped shirt) and German (suspenders, lederhosen, funny hat with feather) looking into a big, huge cannon labeled 'Iraq'. they say to each other "but it's not smoking... we should keep looking into it" and Colin Powell is standing behind them.

This basically sums it up.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Do you not think that the UN proposals to continue with intensified weapons inspections would be preferable to all-out war at this time? (Saddam cannot commit to war with so many troops gathering at his borders IMO).

No - I don't think it will do anything. Saddam Hussein most likely moved his biological and chemical weapon making underground. Hell - North Korea was able to continue with their nuclear weapons program while UN inspectors were there.

Also - who is going to pay the American tax payers back for the billions it'll cost us to keep our forces their idle - while Europe continues to insist on inspections? If inspectors are going to be there and the frence want them - then I think the Frence and all the other countries who think Inspections will work - they should put their troops in there to make sure that Hussein starts to comply with inspections. He has not complied in the last 5 months except piecemeal - just enough to keep some countries thinking that inspections are working.

I have a feeling we'll be bombing Iraq the first week of March - time is up.

[Elvellon]

so many people from Europe had a superior attitude to our culture and way of life.

Yep, that is precisely the complaint I usually listen about the US, isn’t it ironical?

But let’s face it, I’ve heard the same complaint about the Brits, French, German, and the Spanish (specially the Spanish, mind you, they are the worse, after all, they are our neighbours ) all seem to be guilty of it at the eyes of everyone else (all but the Portuguese, of course ).

We are in a situation now with Norht Korea because of failed diplomacy and negotiations and weapons inspections. Are we going to allow the same thing to happen with Iraq?

According to Bush, it already happened. They already have deadly biological weapons and chemical ones. These are probably easier to smuggle into a nation that an atomic devise, and in the end they are as deadly. So is not a matter of Saddan not having the means and Norht Korea have them. Both are supposedly capable of dealing mass destruction.

I seriously doubt this. He doesn't need an excuse, also this is the same thing people said when we bombed Lybia because of Pan Am 103. It's also the same thing when we went into Afganistan.

If you live in fear to take any action because of a possible terrorist attack then I suggest you lock your doors and not come out.

I’m not speaking of him attacking Arab countries, or the West, yet. I’m saying of him consolidating his influence there, and use it to gain control of local countries at a later time. And making more attacks against the West, once he is more consolidated.

You fail to see things have changed. When you attacked Afganistan that was because your country was attacked by someone living there, someone that was in very friendly terms with the local regime. Even many Arabs accepted that that was a good cause. But what now?
If you can’t even convince Europe of the need to attack Saddan, do you think the Arabs will be convinced? Like I said, the fundamentalists will appreciate your efforts.

It is only recently where I have been turning to Euro-bashing. I've heard it a lot longer from Europeans concerning America and it's finally come to a boiling point. Maybe you just don't see it - because your just used to it and live it everyday.

No I don’t see it. In fact you are right, I’m used to it. I’m used to hear complains of the English about the Scots, of the Irish about the Brits, of the Spanish about the French, and so on. Some are about real issues; others are not. You are wrong if you think this is just reserved for you, it happens to all.

I do know that I still have resentment for the repeated - repeated - anti-American threads which appeared on Entmoot in a short amount of time. I can't remember if you were here or not.

I believe I was, but I failed to see any real hate towards America. Critics yes, hate, no. But then I didn’t read them all, and only posted a little (mostly to say, in my opinion, why do some hate America. It seems I have this flaw of trying to understand and explain why things happen).

France and Germany is NOT NATO. The majority of NATO is upset that the Frence and Germany are blocking support for Turkey - so it's not just the US there.

Of course, but that doesn’t change what I said; you want them to do what YOU want them to do (even if others want it too). Say it as you will, you still want to have a saying on how those nations should act.

Who is going to pay for our presence there? Is France or Germany? That's the only reason why he is barely complying. If we didn't have such a show of force - NO inpsectors would be in Iraq nor would he have all of a sudden let scientists be interviewed.

Well then, negotiate with the others. If they agree with the slow method, let them know that they also have to participate more actively in it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
You fail to see things have changed. When you attacked Afganistan that was because your country was attacked by someone living there, someone that was in very friendly terms with the local regime. Even many Arabs accepted that that was a good cause. But what now?
If you can’t even convince Europe of the need to attack Saddan, do you think the Arabs will be convinced? Like I said, the fundamentalists will appreciate your efforts.

The majority of Europe is behind the US - it's only pretty much France, Germany and Belgium. Russia started siding with us - then Putin met with Chirac - I'm sure Chirac offered a slice of Europe to them in order for Russia to swing back. Probably offered the Eastern Block back to Russia, Germany will get the slovac nations and France will get the western section of Europe.

Well then, negotiate with the others. If they agree with the slow method, let them know that they also have to participate more actively in it.

They don't want to enforce the inspections. All France and Germany want is to wear down the world and hopefully everyone will give up and then they can go on about their business of making billion dollar deals with Iraq.

France nor Germany is going to put troops in to enforce inspections. yeah - they offered their spy planes - wow - that's a lot.

[Coney]

The majority of Europe is behind the US - it's only pretty much France, Germany and Belgium. Russia started siding with us - then Putin met with Chirac - I'm sure Chirac offered a slice of Europe to them in order for Russia to swing back. Probably offered the Eastern Block back to Russia, Germany will get the slovac nations and France will get the western section of Europe.

ROFLMFAO!! ......Nice to see that you've finally succumbed to the demon drink JD!

They don't want to enforce the inspections. All France and Germany want is to wear down the world and hopefully everyone will give up and then they can go on about their business of making billion dollar deals with Iraq.

So....if it's not about the oil and $'s ....Why doesn't the US offer to honour the deals after the Iraqi' invasion?

(The US does, after all, forsee a two year "peace keeping" US government in Iraq after the disposal of Saddam's regime).

[Lief Erikson]

I have a question, Jerseydevil. How come you've been complaining about Anti-Americanism in Europe? You've just said that Europe is mostly behind us. If that is true, then we should be happy for what we have.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I have a question, Jerseydevil. How come you've been complaining about Anti-Americanism in Europe? You've just said that Europe is mostly behind us. If that is true, then we should be happy for what we have.

Well France has been the most anti-american during the last 20 years. Germany is beginning to be anti-American.

The Eastern European countries support the US position - as does Italy and Spain.

There were the overwhelming majority of European countries who signed and took out that ad stating their support in the US position.

Also - I was referring to the anti-Americanism among the people of those countries - not necessarily the governments. The Brisith people generally have a very condescending attitude towards Americans - but the government is our closest ally.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
If the USA feel that their is so much Anti-American (which reeks of an accusation of hatred IMO) feels so strongly that they have evidence of WMD then why are they not acting independantly from the UN in your opinion?

One quick reason, then I am going to finish reading everything to catch back up

Simply put, stability. We know that, as weak as the UN is (), it is important to have a coalition. If we act without the UN support it will show the world that the UN really means nothing (which it does) and that would be bad. Believe me, if we didn't think a coalition was necessary in the world, we definitely would have acted by now, but we are taking the chance of giving more time so we can show the UN that this is important to have the use of force available. Ultimately, we do not want to defy the UN for those simple reasons, but if we have to, we most certainly will. We don't want to defy the UN and the countries withing certainly don't want us to either, because it will just show the weakness of the UN...

ok back to reading now

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
So....if it's not about the oil and $'s ....Why doesn't the US offer to honour the deals after the Iraqi' invasion?

(The US does, after all, forsee a two year "peace keeping" US government in Iraq after the disposal of Saddam's regime).

We did offer that - that's exactly what we negotiated with Russia. Then they went and visited Chirac and now they changed their mind. Chirac obviously made a behind closed door deal with them.

If the countries want to have a say in the government and help with the redevlopment of Iraq - they better support something in the military action front.

[Elvellon]

The majority of Europe is behind the US - it's only pretty much France, Germany and Belgium. Russia started siding with us - then Putin met with Chirac - I'm sure Chirac offered a slice of Europe to them in order for Russia to swing back. Probably offered the Eastern Block back to Russia, Germany will get the slovac nations and France will get the western section of Europe.

Not quite accurate. The majority of the European governments are with Bush, but for what I’ve seen, that doesn’t means the people agree. Only a minority, even outside those two countries seem to believe in the War rhetoric. The governments seem to be willing to risk popular displeasure by giving their support to a war few agree with, in part so that they can send a message to Germany and France. The division is as much an inner issue as it is an external one.


As for Putin, don’t you think he would be happy if, in the end, he can keep Russia in one piece? I really don’t believe that Putin represent a danger to Europe.

So what they talked?, you may ask.
About the Iraqi oil, of course.

They don't want to enforce the inspections. All France and Germany want is to wear down the world and hopefully everyone will give up and then they can go on about their business of making billion dollar deals with Iraq.

France nor Germany is going to put troops in to enforce inspections. yeah - they offered their spy planes - wow - that's a lot.

The Iraqi oil works mostly in the case of the French government, the German one doesn’t seem to be the case. They don’t have much manoeuvre space. Their public opinion dreads the prospect of War, and I believe that if their Chancellor doesn’t try (at least that) to keep peace his government will fall.

Well, I don’t know about the Germans, but it isn’t really unlikely that the French would be willing to send troops to the region. It actually would benefit their own plans of increasing their influence there. But is also very unlikely that the subject of keeping the slow method was brought on, anyway.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
One quick reason, then I am going to finish reading everything to catch back up

Simply put, stability. We know that, as weak as the UN is (), it is important to have a coalition. If we act without the UN support it will show the world that the UN really means nothing (which it does) and that would be bad. Believe me, if we didn't think a coalition was necessary in the world, we definitely would have acted by now, but we are taking the chance of giving more time so we can show the UN that this is important to have the use of force available. Ultimately, we do not want to defy the UN for those simple reasons, but if we have to, we most certainly will. We don't want to defy the UN and the countries withing certainly don't want us to either, because it will just show the weakness of the UN...

ok back to reading now

So the UN is weak, unecessary and means nothing........hmmm

[Lief Erikson]

If the majority of these people state that they are in favor of the U.S. position, how can we label these countries as Anti-American though? What it seems to me is that, jerseydevil, you've defended both of your statements without really addressing the contradiction. A population can't be both supportive of the U.S. and Anti-American, can it? Or are you saying that some of the European countries are Anti-American and most of them are supportive?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
So the UN is weak, unecessary and means nothing........hmmm

Well if they refuse to have any back bone and enforce their own resolutions without having to have the US do and force them to - then what use are they?

They're basically a glorified humanitarian organization like the Red Cross.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
If the majority of these people state that they are in favor of the U.S. position, how can we label these countries as Anti-American though? What it seems to me is that, jerseydevil, you've defended both of your statements without really addressing the contradiction. A population can't be both supportive of the U.S. and Anti-American, can it? Or are you saying that some of the European countries are Anti-American and most of them are supportive?

I'm not talking about the populations supporting us. The public doesn't - the governments do however.

I obviously didn't make it clear enough since Elvellon didn't understand either. I realise the people don't stand behind the US position - that is very clear. But the US doesn't work with the people of those countries - we work with those countries' governments. It's their responsibility to deal with their citizenry.

The people can be anti-American and resort to American bashing while at the same time their governments support and stand by our positions - which the majority of European GOVERNMENTS do.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well if they refuse to have any back bone and enforce their own resolutions without having to have the US do and force them to - then what use are they?

They're basically a glorified humanitarian organization like the Red Cross.

Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence.

Told you that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I?

[Laurelyn]

Heya, where does Ireland stand in all this mess?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Coney
Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence.

Told that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I

I don't find that last sentence at all funny, Coney. As for the rest of this apparent 'backbone' that you are seeing, I think it is rather plainly not backbone but self interest. And the evidence given has so far all been backing our government's statements describing the situation. This backbone is going against a super-power that has strong evidence backing up its claims.

[Dúnedain]

Ok here is my take on things after seeing how today unfolded in the world. Basically it is only France who is against what we want to do. Germany and Russia both say they are against action as well, however, I have inside knowledge that says they are just standing their ground currently, but will back us with whatever happens. BTW, I know people working in the government, that's where my sources are, plus living here in Washington DC helps a bit

Just to touch what JD has said about Anti-Europeanism. Americans are not against Europe, in fact everyone I know is basically just anti-france right now. I haven't heard one bad thing said about any European country besides France, that I can remember for years now, lol. I think the whole France issue is more than what it seems to be.

Basically, we Americans (this is my opinion, others can agree if they want), don't hate France, we just feel like they have backstabbed us one too many times. They are our best friend when they need us, but when we need them or their backing they turn their backs on us. This point can be said about many countries as well. Let's face it, if we didn't fight in WWI, france would be no longer. If we didn't fight in WWII, france would be no longer. It is things like this when we have given up hundreds of thousands of our own lives to help France live on only to years later fight us over protecting their backyard yet again. Basically, if we didn't come in, France would now be a Soviet Socialist Republic...

I mean seriously, the US hardly gets the aid we deserve for the things that we do. We are lucky to have certain time-tested friends and allies that always support us through thick and thin to back us no matter what and we would do the same. Hell, if France turned their back on us and we desperately needed them we would both go on. However, if France was attacked tomorrow, we would still aid them and they would thank us one day and slap us the next. It is this relationship that they sourly provide that has really broken the camels back between our relations this go around.

In respect to North Korea. We are certainly involved and are moving troops their as we speak (insider info again ), however nuclear issues MUST be handled much more delicately than other weapons issues. Japan said today, that if North Korea even points a missile in their direction, they will immediately attack North Korea, would the US be treated the same way if we made that statement? Most definitely not!

Japan, is our other top ally, people just don't know it. Our friendship is so below the radar, it is great, Japan will be a big reason for world stability in the coming 50 years, and they will be as important as Britain has been to us and vice versa.

After reading many of the posts today, it really comes down to a few things. Everyone, on both sides, throw misconceived perceptions at one another, however in such times that is a good thing, because this is the essence of natural and goodly debate and solution finding. Does anyone have the right answer? Of course not.

The main thing is this, and sometimes the world doesn't feel this way. The U.S. does not want to fight wars. We really don't. We DO however keep the use of force as a resort as it is necessary for countries like Iraq to comply. Like JD said earlier, if we didn't get more aggressive with the possibility of using force, do you really think we would be having any inspections right now? Of course we wouldn't! Force is a means to an end, used or not. In this case, it will undoubtly be used at some point and it will be a good thing, because like it was said earlier, we now live in a world, where preventative measures are much more important that reactive measures....

D

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Coney
Oh they have plenty of backbone.........they are, after all, going against the current world super-power on the grounds of evidence.

Told you that Colin Powells lil' "presentation" wouldn't make a jot of difference didn't I?

They are? You should revise that to 3 countries out of the 15 countries on the Security Council.....