I'm going to go through with this, even though there is no point.
Nicconono:
[quote]The only reason of all this is because Bush wants to control oil in this region!<hr></blockquote>
Do you really believe that the quest to control oil is the "only" reason any of this is going on?
I don't want to get involved in arguing against the point if you're just spouting stuff and don't really believe it, so I'm asking.
[quote]Well, Saddam is a dictator, but I think he's not alone and not the worst<hr></blockquote>
So...?
You didn't finish the thought here.
Did you mean to say: "Saddam isn't the wost dictator so the U.N. Security Council shouldn't make him follow rules, rules only apply to the worst of the worst."?
I'm asking. Finish your thoughts, please.
[quote]Should I say North Korea ? Why can't I hear anything about US invading NK ?<hr></blockquote>
Because there is no pending U.N. Security Council action against North Korea, is there?
Also, what does North Korea have to do with Iraq?
[quote]And there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq... In fact Ben Laden hates Saddam...<hr></blockquote>
This matters because...?
[quote]what about Israel in the same area ? People are dying each day for nothing... stupid deaths for stupid peoples.<hr></blockquote>
Fantastic, the anti-Semitic French rears its ugly head. I guess we can just ignore you now.
-
powerdoc:
[quote]for most US people, the war with Iraq is one of the battle related to 9/11: the war continue, and his allies has to help them. <hr></blockquote>
I have never heard from an American anything like, "We need to attack Iraq because of 9/11."
I'm very scared of what your media tells you about what Americans think.
[quote]for most european people, the war with iraq is not related to 9/11, the war against terrorism almost stop with the aghanistan war, even if there is terrorist all around the world. But most europeans people think that the conventional war related to 9/11 is finish, and thus it's not defense but attack. <hr></blockquote>
You'll forgive me if I don't give any weight to the opinion of Europe when it comes to the U.S. fighting terrorism. Surely you can understand how angry the U.S. might be when the nation that it has sacrificed thousands and thousands of young men to save from its own cowardice and military ineptitude attempts to meddle in actions regarding the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Iraq isn't an action related to 9/11 in any real way, but Europe's opinion on the matter of terrorism-related action holds absolutely no value to me; but I can only speak for me. To paraphrase former president Clinton, it would be nice if you supported us, but we don't need it.
[quote]For nearly the first time of history , a new concept is born, preemptive war : destroying a threat before it appear : it has never been deal with it before. If you want to make a paralellar (for what it worth) minority report from Spielberg ask some good questions about preemptive actions.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know if it's just not reported in the French media or if the French don't feel obligations to uphold their agreements, but does U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
<strong>I don't know if it's just not reported in the French media or if the French don't feel obligations to uphold their agreements, but does U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
Does it register at all?
I love you, powerdoc, but wake up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Duh, Grover?
Doc makes a point about pre-emptive war and you respond with something about a UN Security Council Resolution and French obligations to it.
Non-seqitur for starters, Capn' Logic.
And in addition:
The Security Council Resolution is seen as a precursor to pre-emptive war only by the US and UK; in fact you may remember reading something in the US papers about delays to that resolution caused by the French while "automaticity" was REMOVED from 1441.
So, French obligations to what exactly? A US interpretation of 1441?
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said earlier it was not appropriate for NATO to decide on military planning to protect Turkey ahead of Friday's Security Council meeting. ... But he said Turkey could rely on Germany's military support in the event of an attack.
That's good thinking, Gerhard, let's not try to set up defenses until after we're attacked (BLITZKRIEG!). It's really easy to have that attitude when you're not the one threatened.
<strong>Doc makes a point about pre-emptive war and you respond with something about a UN Security Council Resolution and French obligations to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the stated purpose of this war isn't a pre-emptive strike, it's to enforce U.N. resolutions that Saddam has repeatedly and flagrantly violated.
[quote]<strong>So, French obligations to what exactly? A US interpretation of 1441?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me, what are "serious consequences" in France? Iraq is very clearly in violation of 1441. What are "serious consequences"? Please please answer that. Please.
<strong>If tomorrow the UN says to the US : you don't have the right to own any weapon that could damage your neighbours (let's say Cuba - just an example).
Do you think you'll say "Oh yeah, great idea let's do it now".
That's what diplomacy is for.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a horrible analogy. Iraq is under sanction from the U.N. BECAUSE THEY INVADED A SOVREIGN NATION. Please read that again and then understand how inane your analogy is.
Another huge difference; the U.S. listens to diplomacy, Iraq does not.
But you can continue to ignore those two key facts. Keep on keeping on. And damn those dirty Jews, eh!? YEAH!
Tell me, what are "serious consequences" in France? Iraq is very clearly in violation of 1441. What are "serious consequences"? Please please answer that. Please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see.
Does it mean "installing a non-democratic but pro US regime in Baghdad by the use of massive force at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives"? A course of action that will CERTAINLY mean more suicide and terror attacks?
According to the US it does.
Could it mean something different?
Well yes, it could too. The problem here is that the US is reserving the right to define exactly what should be done, and if you disagree (like the majority of the Security Council) you're not with the US, which GWB famously interprets as, "You're against us." Hence the ludicrous anti-French tirades coming out of the US.
The French want to find a way to solve this in a way less prone to total utter catastrophe.
Poor old America is throwing its toys out the pram.
<strong>I have never heard from an American anything like, "We need to attack Iraq because of 9/11.".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's a shortcut. I'd try to explain this more accurately : US used to live in peace inside his countrie before 9/11. Thus 9/11 came, and people in US realise that US was not anymore a sanctuary. At the light of this dramatic experience, US people do not wanted to wait in a passive way the next attack. US people consider that Iraq is a threat, and they did not want to wait that Iraq, in a direct or indirect way attack USA.
This comment was made by US people living in France, saying that many french many people did not understand that the story of 9/11 was not over for them .
If i misunterpret these feeling, please explain me. I don't think that you want to attack Iraq just because Saddam is an evil bloody bastard.
[quote]You'll forgive me if I don't give any weight to the opinion of Europe when it comes to the U.S. fighting terrorism. Surely you can understand how angry the U.S. might be when the nation that it has sacrificed thousands and thousands of young men to save from its own cowardice and military ineptitude attempts to meddle in actions regarding the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Iraq isn't an action related to 9/11 in any real way, but Europe's opinion on the matter of terrorism-related action holds absolutely no value to me; but I can only speak for me. To paraphrase former president Clinton, it would be nice if you supported us, but we don't need it. <hr></blockquote>
Unlike many others people on these board, you don't make any link between Irak and 9/11. So in your opinion, why do we have to attack Iraq ?
[quote]
I don't know if it's just not reported in the French media or if the French don't feel obligations to uphold their agreements, but does U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
. <hr></blockquote>
As Harald said that the 1441 resolution did not say that there is an automatic war if Iraq did not respect it.
I feel only one obligation, the one with NATO, i expect that they find an agreement to help Turkey to his defense.
PS : The point of my post, was to try to explain the divergence of opinion of the two continents, not to say who is right or wrong.
And i still love you Groverat, but i will not ask you to wake up, because i did not consider that my opinion is more wise, i am just thinking different ( i am thinking in blue, red and white like the << insert the name of the countrie>> flag.
There's nothing stopping France from getting on board and having a role in what happens in Iraq. Well, there is something stopping France from being relevant; France itself.
Of course, Europe is a large part of the reason that region is so bloody, so perhaps its best they stay out.
Nicconono:
[quote]The invasion was 12 years ago. This country no longer has the power needed for another war.<hr></blockquote>
So that makes U.N. sanctions and resolutions invalid?
I'm not seeing how your emotional argument is translating into international law.
[quote]Please don't say your country is listening to UN resolutions. That's not true. Human rights ? Guerillas ?<hr></blockquote>
You're going to have to clarify that. What are you trying to say?
[quote]I think US are facing much more seriuous troubles with North Korea. I think it's much more important than saddam having 3 SCUDS...<hr></blockquote>
What does North Korea being more dangerous have to do with how the U.N. deals with Iraq?
[quote]We can resolve this with diplomacy, and I think it's time for "the world" to focus on NK now. Much more annoying situation.<hr></blockquote>
So you believe Saddam Hussein will cooperate fully with diplomats who want to avoid war at all costs? Just answer "yes" or "no" to that if you could.
[quote]<strong>Well it's a shortcut. I'd try to explain this more accurately : US used to live in peace inside his countrie before 9/11. Thus 9/11 came, and people in US realise that US was not anymore a sanctuary. At the light of this dramatic experience, US people do not wanted to wait in a passive way the next attack. US people consider that Iraq is a threat, and they did not want to wait that Iraq, in a direct or indirect way attack USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's a concern, yeah, but not one that is applicable to how this war is being carried out. I think Iraq truly is a threat to those around them, and apparently Turkey agrees with me.
[quote]<strong>This comment was made by US people living in France, saying that many french many people did not understand that the story of 9/11 was not over for them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most of the Americans I have talked to that support war in Iraq do not use 9/11 as one of the reasons. America has been hard-line against Iraq for a long time now, just ask Clinton who named them part of an "unholy axis" in 1998.
[quote]<strong>If i misunterpret these feeling, please explain me. I don't think that you want to attack Iraq just because Saddam is an evil bloody bastard</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent, please preach this to your fellow Frenchmen.
[quote]<strong>As Harald said that the 1441 resolution did not say that there is an automatic war if Iraq did not respect it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it does say "serious consequences" and I'd like to hear how the French interpret that. Because from what I'm seeing "serious consequences" to the French means "we'll continue to do nothing."
[quote]<strong>I feel only one obligation, the one with NATO, i expect that they find an agreement to help Turkey to his defense. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You feel no obligation to the U.N.? I'm not following you here.
[quote] So you believe Saddam Hussein will cooperate fully with diplomats who want to avoid war at all costs? Just answer "yes" or "no" to that if you could <hr></blockquote>
Your question is wrong. It's not "at all costs".
To simplify, he will cooperate. As I said, he doesn't have the power for a war.
Concerning North Korea : the populations living there are *extremely* poor, and the government is one of the worst you cannot even imagine. They have much more dangerous weapon than Iraq. They can kill much more people with them (they already had in fact) than what saddam could ever dream of. They could even reach the US coasts... Think about that.
You feel no obligation to the U.N.? I'm not following you here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, i have to be more carefull with my english Groverat, you will made a good lawyer . I meant that France should not made a VETO for helping Turkey to reinforce his defenses. Even if i think that Turkey is not threaten now by Iraq, if Turkey has these feelings we have to help them, due to the NATO agreement.
For the UNO, i don't consider that France do not respect his obligations. The resolution 1441 has been made by experts lawyers, it's blurry enough to allow people to have differents interpretations. Diplomatics people are very strong with this : tha's how diplomatia works.
<strong>Your question is wrong. It's not "at all costs".
To simplify, he will cooperate. As I said, he doesn't have the power for a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only way to get Hussein to even fake cooperating is to threaten him with war.
You say he "will" cooperate. Because he "hasn't" in the past and he "isn't" right now, but he "will". What about his past dealings with the U.N. leads you to believe that he will cooperate fully without military action?
As far as his ability to make war, that's big talk coming from someone so far away from Iraq. It seems like Turkey disagrees, and they share a border with Iraq. But I guess you're right, Strasbourg, France is a lot closer to Iraq than Turkey.
[quote]<strong>Concerning North Korea : the populations living there are *extremely* poor, and the government is one of the worst you cannot even imagine. They have much more dangerous weapon than Iraq. They can kill much more people with them (they already had in fact) than what saddam could ever dream of. They could even reach the US coasts... Think about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong> I meant that France should not made a VETO for helping Turkey to reinforce his defenses. Even if i think that Turkey is not threaten now by Iraq, if Turkey has these feelings we have to help them, due to the NATO agreement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aha, ok!
So you meant something like; I feel no obligation to attack Iraq, but I feel an obligation to help Turkey protect itself?
Makes more sense, thanks for clarifying.
[quote]<strong>For the UNO, i don't consider that France do not respect his obligations. The resolution 1441 has been made by experts lawyers, it's blurry enough to allow people to have differents interpretations. Diplomatics people are very strong with this : tha's how diplomatia works.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what does the phrase "serious consequences" mean to the average Frenchie? How are you boys spinning it currently?
There's nothing stopping France from getting on board and having a role in what happens in Iraq. Well, there is something stopping France from being relevant; France itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Grover, you'll find this difficult. The anti-French sentiment in the US is pervasive and your judgement and logic is being clouded.
I would imagine that tens of thousands of UN troops widdling all over the country would be felt as fairly bloody serious by the US where it deemed necessary to do it there. This is one thing the French have been vocal about for starters in their plans for Iraq. Interpretation and diplomacy it's called, and it was the way things were done within the post WWII developed countries until very recently.
Beyond that I can't speak for them. Well, I see that they have a different aim and interpretation of 1441 and this crisis and thus have pissed off America (I mean, you guys saved their lives 50 years ago. Not agreeing with everything you do huh! Gratitude.)
Incidentally, it would seem to anyone not reddended with apoplexy that what the French are doing and saying is VERY damn relevant, so you're clearly wrong there.
You seem to think that "not doing or thinking what we tell them" equates to "doing nothing at all" with absolutely no reason to do so. Like, it seems, the rest of the Americans.
(I lump you in with everyone who lives within your borders as you seem to think it acceptable to do it when discussing the French)
Iraq is under sanction from the U.N. BECAUSE THEY INVADED A SOVREIGN NATION. Please read that again and then understand how inane your analogy is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see the United States frothing at the mouth to enforce the will of the UN by using massive force to get Israel to give the land THEY stole back, even though they've been denying UN resolutions for THIRTY YEARS.
[quote]I have never heard from an American anything like, "We need to attack Iraq because of 9/11."<hr></blockquote>
Part of the public case against Iraq does appear to be finding connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, in order to show that this would be a natural continuation of the War on Terror.
[quote]Because there is no pending U.N. Security Council action against North Korea, is there?<hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it's being considered (again), with the country's repeated nuclear scares.
[quote]Surely you can understand how angry the U.S. might be when the nation that it has sacrificed thousands and thousands of young men to save from its own cowardice and military ineptitude ... <hr></blockquote>
Most Americans alive today didn't do jack shit for France, so what's the relevance? You could argue that there's some form of continuing debt, but it shouldn't make France's current objections offensive.
[quote]Why do we even both with these imbeciles?<hr></blockquote>
Good question. I don't know why countries and organisations that don't fully support the war need to be manipulated into it -- that's more contemptuous than acting alone.
Remember a few month ago ? they didn't even want the UN inspectors in Iraq. Now look, UN can meet scientists alone.
If think we can call this "progress".
Yeah Turkey is closest to Iraq than I am. No argue here... But it's not so far away...
(anyway, did you hear about Iraq troups moving close to Turkey's border ? I didn't)
Of course NK has nothing to do with Iraq. The point is that nobody's trying to convince the world to invade NK because of their bad weapons. Nobody cares about NK, maybe because they do not produce interesting things ?(oil ?, uranium?-people can die in silence there..)
---
Well, the fact is that war should be considered as the ultimate way to "solve" a problem.
Comments
Nicconono:
[quote]The only reason of all this is because Bush wants to control oil in this region!<hr></blockquote>
Do you really believe that the quest to control oil is the "only" reason any of this is going on?
I don't want to get involved in arguing against the point if you're just spouting stuff and don't really believe it, so I'm asking.
[quote]Well, Saddam is a dictator, but I think he's not alone and not the worst<hr></blockquote>
So...?
You didn't finish the thought here.
Did you mean to say: "Saddam isn't the wost dictator so the U.N. Security Council shouldn't make him follow rules, rules only apply to the worst of the worst."?
I'm asking. Finish your thoughts, please.
[quote]Should I say North Korea ? Why can't I hear anything about US invading NK ?<hr></blockquote>
Because there is no pending U.N. Security Council action against North Korea, is there?
Also, what does North Korea have to do with Iraq?
[quote]And there's no Al Qaeda in Iraq... In fact Ben Laden hates Saddam...<hr></blockquote>
This matters because...?
[quote]what about Israel in the same area ? People are dying each day for nothing... stupid deaths for stupid peoples.<hr></blockquote>
Fantastic, the anti-Semitic French rears its ugly head. I guess we can just ignore you now.
-
powerdoc:
[quote]for most US people, the war with Iraq is one of the battle related to 9/11: the war continue, and his allies has to help them. <hr></blockquote>
I have never heard from an American anything like, "We need to attack Iraq because of 9/11."
I'm very scared of what your media tells you about what Americans think.
[quote]for most european people, the war with iraq is not related to 9/11, the war against terrorism almost stop with the aghanistan war, even if there is terrorist all around the world. But most europeans people think that the conventional war related to 9/11 is finish, and thus it's not defense but attack. <hr></blockquote>
You'll forgive me if I don't give any weight to the opinion of Europe when it comes to the U.S. fighting terrorism. Surely you can understand how angry the U.S. might be when the nation that it has sacrificed thousands and thousands of young men to save from its own cowardice and military ineptitude attempts to meddle in actions regarding the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Iraq isn't an action related to 9/11 in any real way, but Europe's opinion on the matter of terrorism-related action holds absolutely no value to me; but I can only speak for me. To paraphrase former president Clinton, it would be nice if you supported us, but we don't need it.
[quote]For nearly the first time of history , a new concept is born, preemptive war : destroying a threat before it appear : it has never been deal with it before. If you want to make a paralellar (for what it worth) minority report from Spielberg ask some good questions about preemptive actions.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know if it's just not reported in the French media or if the French don't feel obligations to uphold their agreements, but does U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
Does it register at all?
I love you, powerdoc, but wake up.
What can't be done with diplomacy ?
<strong>I don't know if it's just not reported in the French media or if the French don't feel obligations to uphold their agreements, but does U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
Does it register at all?
I love you, powerdoc, but wake up.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Duh, Grover?
Doc makes a point about pre-emptive war and you respond with something about a UN Security Council Resolution and French obligations to it.
Non-seqitur for starters, Capn' Logic.
And in addition:
The Security Council Resolution is seen as a precursor to pre-emptive war only by the US and UK; in fact you may remember reading something in the US papers about delays to that resolution caused by the French while "automaticity" was REMOVED from 1441.
So, French obligations to what exactly? A US interpretation of 1441?
<strong>What can't be done with diplomacy ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't get Saddam Hussein's full cooperation with diplomacy. You can't get Saddam Hussein to obey U.N. sanctions and resolutions with diplomacy.
-
Germany sees <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-14feb2003-3.htm"; target="_blank">error of its ways</a> with regards to NATO's duty to protect Turkey.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said earlier it was not appropriate for NATO to decide on military planning to protect Turkey ahead of Friday's Security Council meeting. ... But he said Turkey could rely on Germany's military support in the event of an attack.
That's good thinking, Gerhard, let's not try to set up defenses until after we're attacked (BLITZKRIEG!). It's really easy to have that attitude when you're not the one threatened.
Why do we even bother with these imbeciles?
[ 02-13-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Doc makes a point about pre-emptive war and you respond with something about a UN Security Council Resolution and French obligations to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because the stated purpose of this war isn't a pre-emptive strike, it's to enforce U.N. resolutions that Saddam has repeatedly and flagrantly violated.
[quote]<strong>So, French obligations to what exactly? A US interpretation of 1441?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me, what are "serious consequences" in France? Iraq is very clearly in violation of 1441. What are "serious consequences"? Please please answer that. Please.
Do you think you'll say "Oh yeah, great idea let's do it now".
That's what diplomacy is for.
<strong>If tomorrow the UN says to the US : you don't have the right to own any weapon that could damage your neighbours (let's say Cuba - just an example).
Do you think you'll say "Oh yeah, great idea let's do it now".
That's what diplomacy is for.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is a horrible analogy. Iraq is under sanction from the U.N. BECAUSE THEY INVADED A SOVREIGN NATION. Please read that again and then understand how inane your analogy is.
Another huge difference; the U.S. listens to diplomacy, Iraq does not.
But you can continue to ignore those two key facts. Keep on keeping on. And damn those dirty Jews, eh!? YEAH!
Please don't say your country is listening to UN resolutions. That's not true. Human rights ? Guerillas ?
I think US are facing much more seriuous troubles with North Korea. I think it's much more important than saddam having 3 SCUDS...
We can resolve this with diplomacy, and I think it's time for "the world" to focus on NK now. Much more annoying situation.
<strong>
Tell me, what are "serious consequences" in France? Iraq is very clearly in violation of 1441. What are "serious consequences"? Please please answer that. Please.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Let's see.
Does it mean "installing a non-democratic but pro US regime in Baghdad by the use of massive force at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives"? A course of action that will CERTAINLY mean more suicide and terror attacks?
According to the US it does.
Could it mean something different?
Well yes, it could too. The problem here is that the US is reserving the right to define exactly what should be done, and if you disagree (like the majority of the Security Council) you're not with the US, which GWB famously interprets as, "You're against us." Hence the ludicrous anti-French tirades coming out of the US.
The French want to find a way to solve this in a way less prone to total utter catastrophe.
Poor old America is throwing its toys out the pram.
<strong>I have never heard from an American anything like, "We need to attack Iraq because of 9/11.".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's a shortcut. I'd try to explain this more accurately : US used to live in peace inside his countrie before 9/11. Thus 9/11 came, and people in US realise that US was not anymore a sanctuary. At the light of this dramatic experience, US people do not wanted to wait in a passive way the next attack. US people consider that Iraq is a threat, and they did not want to wait that Iraq, in a direct or indirect way attack USA.
This comment was made by US people living in France, saying that many french many people did not understand that the story of 9/11 was not over for them .
If i misunterpret these feeling, please explain me. I don't think that you want to attack Iraq just because Saddam is an evil bloody bastard.
[quote]You'll forgive me if I don't give any weight to the opinion of Europe when it comes to the U.S. fighting terrorism. Surely you can understand how angry the U.S. might be when the nation that it has sacrificed thousands and thousands of young men to save from its own cowardice and military ineptitude attempts to meddle in actions regarding the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. Iraq isn't an action related to 9/11 in any real way, but Europe's opinion on the matter of terrorism-related action holds absolutely no value to me; but I can only speak for me. To paraphrase former president Clinton, it would be nice if you supported us, but we don't need it. <hr></blockquote>
Unlike many others people on these board, you don't make any link between Irak and 9/11. So in your opinion, why do we have to attack Iraq ?
[quote]
I don't know if it's just not reported in the French media or if the French don't feel obligations to uphold their agreements, but does U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 ring any bells?
. <hr></blockquote>
As Harald said that the 1441 resolution did not say that there is an automatic war if Iraq did not respect it.
I feel only one obligation, the one with NATO, i expect that they find an agreement to help Turkey to his defense.
PS : The point of my post, was to try to explain the divergence of opinion of the two continents, not to say who is right or wrong.
And i still love you Groverat, but i will not ask you to wake up, because i did not consider that my opinion is more wise, i am just thinking different
In fact we don't care about that.
The point is : they should stop to fight for stupidities. That's all.
Could you please answer the question?
What are "serious consequences" to the French?
I'd love to know.
There's nothing stopping France from getting on board and having a role in what happens in Iraq. Well, there is something stopping France from being relevant; France itself.
Of course, Europe is a large part of the reason that region is so bloody, so perhaps its best they stay out.
Nicconono:
[quote]The invasion was 12 years ago. This country no longer has the power needed for another war.<hr></blockquote>
So that makes U.N. sanctions and resolutions invalid?
I'm not seeing how your emotional argument is translating into international law.
[quote]Please don't say your country is listening to UN resolutions. That's not true. Human rights ? Guerillas ?<hr></blockquote>
You're going to have to clarify that. What are you trying to say?
[quote]I think US are facing much more seriuous troubles with North Korea. I think it's much more important than saddam having 3 SCUDS...<hr></blockquote>
What does North Korea being more dangerous have to do with how the U.N. deals with Iraq?
[quote]We can resolve this with diplomacy, and I think it's time for "the world" to focus on NK now. Much more annoying situation.<hr></blockquote>
So you believe Saddam Hussein will cooperate fully with diplomats who want to avoid war at all costs? Just answer "yes" or "no" to that if you could.
[quote]<strong>Well it's a shortcut. I'd try to explain this more accurately : US used to live in peace inside his countrie before 9/11. Thus 9/11 came, and people in US realise that US was not anymore a sanctuary. At the light of this dramatic experience, US people do not wanted to wait in a passive way the next attack. US people consider that Iraq is a threat, and they did not want to wait that Iraq, in a direct or indirect way attack USA.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well it's a concern, yeah, but not one that is applicable to how this war is being carried out. I think Iraq truly is a threat to those around them, and apparently Turkey agrees with me.
[quote]<strong>This comment was made by US people living in France, saying that many french many people did not understand that the story of 9/11 was not over for them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Most of the Americans I have talked to that support war in Iraq do not use 9/11 as one of the reasons. America has been hard-line against Iraq for a long time now, just ask Clinton who named them part of an "unholy axis" in 1998.
[quote]<strong>If i misunterpret these feeling, please explain me. I don't think that you want to attack Iraq just because Saddam is an evil bloody bastard</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent, please preach this to your fellow Frenchmen.
[quote]<strong>As Harald said that the 1441 resolution did not say that there is an automatic war if Iraq did not respect it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But it does say "serious consequences" and I'd like to hear how the French interpret that. Because from what I'm seeing "serious consequences" to the French means "we'll continue to do nothing."
[quote]<strong>I feel only one obligation, the one with NATO, i expect that they find an agreement to help Turkey to his defense. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You feel no obligation to the U.N.? I'm not following you here.
Your question is wrong. It's not "at all costs".
To simplify, he will cooperate. As I said, he doesn't have the power for a war.
Concerning North Korea : the populations living there are *extremely* poor, and the government is one of the worst you cannot even imagine. They have much more dangerous weapon than Iraq. They can kill much more people with them (they already had in fact) than what saddam could ever dream of. They could even reach the US coasts... Think about that.
<strong>
You feel no obligation to the U.N.? I'm not following you here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm, i have to be more carefull with my english Groverat, you will made a good lawyer
For the UNO, i don't consider that France do not respect his obligations. The resolution 1441 has been made by experts lawyers, it's blurry enough to allow people to have differents interpretations. Diplomatics people are very strong with this : tha's how diplomatia works.
<strong>Your question is wrong. It's not "at all costs".
To simplify, he will cooperate. As I said, he doesn't have the power for a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only way to get Hussein to even fake cooperating is to threaten him with war.
You say he "will" cooperate. Because he "hasn't" in the past and he "isn't" right now, but he "will". What about his past dealings with the U.N. leads you to believe that he will cooperate fully without military action?
As far as his ability to make war, that's big talk coming from someone so far away from Iraq. It seems like Turkey disagrees, and they share a border with Iraq. But I guess you're right, Strasbourg, France is a lot closer to Iraq than Turkey.
[quote]<strong>Concerning North Korea : the populations living there are *extremely* poor, and the government is one of the worst you cannot even imagine. They have much more dangerous weapon than Iraq. They can kill much more people with them (they already had in fact) than what saddam could ever dream of. They could even reach the US coasts... Think about that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, so we deal with them and Iraq. <a href="http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=F30E1A2A-5056-49B0-B3768C1C1FEDC152"; target="_blank">North Korea isn't being ignored.</a>
What does it have to do with Iraq?
Powerdoc:
[quote]<strong> I meant that France should not made a VETO for helping Turkey to reinforce his defenses. Even if i think that Turkey is not threaten now by Iraq, if Turkey has these feelings we have to help them, due to the NATO agreement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aha, ok!
So you meant something like; I feel no obligation to attack Iraq, but I feel an obligation to help Turkey protect itself?
Makes more sense, thanks for clarifying.
[quote]<strong>For the UNO, i don't consider that France do not respect his obligations. The resolution 1441 has been made by experts lawyers, it's blurry enough to allow people to have differents interpretations. Diplomatics people are very strong with this : tha's how diplomatia works.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what does the phrase "serious consequences" mean to the average Frenchie? How are you boys spinning it currently?
I'm interested to know.
<strong>Harald:
Could you please answer the question?
What are "serious consequences" to the French?
I'd love to know.
There's nothing stopping France from getting on board and having a role in what happens in Iraq. Well, there is something stopping France from being relevant; France itself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Grover, you'll find this difficult. The anti-French sentiment in the US is pervasive and your judgement and logic is being clouded.
I would imagine that tens of thousands of UN troops widdling all over the country would be felt as fairly bloody serious by the US where it deemed necessary to do it there. This is one thing the French have been vocal about for starters in their plans for Iraq. Interpretation and diplomacy it's called, and it was the way things were done within the post WWII developed countries until very recently.
Beyond that I can't speak for them. Well, I see that they have a different aim and interpretation of 1441 and this crisis and thus have pissed off America (I mean, you guys saved their lives 50 years ago. Not agreeing with everything you do huh! Gratitude.)
Incidentally, it would seem to anyone not reddended with apoplexy that what the French are doing and saying is VERY damn relevant, so you're clearly wrong there.
You seem to think that "not doing or thinking what we tell them" equates to "doing nothing at all" with absolutely no reason to do so. Like, it seems, the rest of the Americans.
(I lump you in with everyone who lives within your borders as you seem to think it acceptable to do it when discussing the French)
<strong>
Iraq is under sanction from the U.N. BECAUSE THEY INVADED A SOVREIGN NATION. Please read that again and then understand how inane your analogy is.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't see the United States frothing at the mouth to enforce the will of the UN by using massive force to get Israel to give the land THEY stole back, even though they've been denying UN resolutions for THIRTY YEARS.
So don't get all moral on us.
Part of the public case against Iraq does appear to be finding connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda, in order to show that this would be a natural continuation of the War on Terror.
[quote]Because there is no pending U.N. Security Council action against North Korea, is there?<hr></blockquote>
I'm sure it's being considered (again), with the country's repeated nuclear scares.
[quote]Surely you can understand how angry the U.S. might be when the nation that it has sacrificed thousands and thousands of young men to save from its own cowardice and military ineptitude ... <hr></blockquote>
Most Americans alive today didn't do jack shit for France, so what's the relevance? You could argue that there's some form of continuing debt, but it shouldn't make France's current objections offensive.
[quote]Why do we even both with these imbeciles?<hr></blockquote>
Good question. I don't know why countries and organisations that don't fully support the war need to be manipulated into it -- that's more contemptuous than acting alone.
If think we can call this "progress".
Yeah Turkey is closest to Iraq than I am. No argue here... But it's not so far away...
(anyway, did you hear about Iraq troups moving close to Turkey's border ? I didn't)
Of course NK has nothing to do with Iraq. The point is that nobody's trying to convince the world to invade NK because of their bad weapons. Nobody cares about NK, maybe because they do not produce interesting things ?(oil ?, uranium?-people can die in silence there..)
---
Well, the fact is that war should be considered as the ultimate way to "solve" a problem.
I think many things can be done before.