I am starting to think that France is indeed bluffing. I think China and Russia can be convinced to abstain. But France has been more steadfast. Will they really veto this? it would be unbelievable if they did. It would have serious consequences for everyone. They would be seen as the lone obstacle. Imagine US public opinion if that happens.
But France has been more steadfast. Will they really veto this? it would be unbelievable if they did.... Imagine US public opinion if that happens. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They'll continue to try and rename 'French Fries', 'Freedom Fries'!
Again, according to Drudge, Putin is going to abstain. That doesn't surprise me. I don't expect China to veto because they'll always like the ability to just to war, and this will just give them one more precedent to rely on. Germany doesn't have a veto so their vote is strange. I could see them abstaining more than just about anything else.
France, well, I imagine they'll get bought off with oil and promises that we'll keep all of their illegal Iraqi business ties quiet. In the meantime, they'll make a very impassioned speech in a last ditch effort for peace, but abstain because they don't want to 'interfere with the will of the U.N.' or something like that. Since there will probably be 9-10 votes in favor and several abstains, France being the lone 'no' would be like a blockage of the U.N. will, rather than support. So when Germany abstains, France will follow suit. That keeps them in line with most of the U.N.
Of course there will be a war, inspections or not, disarmament or not, Saddam resignation or not.
My guess is that Saddam will be defeated, probably killed within 2 weeks, and hopefully, US casualties will be zero (altho this is unrealistic). The number of Iraqi military dead will probably top 75,000 and civilians over 100,000.
<strong>But, in your twisted mind it will still be "unilateral". <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
No matter how many times you try and insult me personally, I still won't care.
Here are the key paragraphs from the UK's proposed resolution: [quote]Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
1 Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);
2 Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;
3 Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items. <hr></blockquote>Here are the lines from 1441 that were presumably included to make it clear to the fence-sitters that material breach was not an automatic war trigger:
[quote]12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; <hr></blockquote>It's just saying that they have to have another Security Council meeting to decide what to do after Blix's report - no automatic war. But what the new resolution does is put the burden on the anti-war nations to pass a resolution that Iraq has "demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation" in disarming, or else those "serious consequences" will happen.
[quote] (my own post (!))The number of Iraqi military dead will probably top 75,000 and civilians over 100,000.<hr></blockquote>
Having read the "shock and awe" plan from the Pentagon, the intention is to "kill everything" and "leave nothing standing" (in Baghdad and major Iraqi cities). Is this to avoid a potentially hazardous urban "guerilla" situation, where Iraqi troops could have an advantage, knowing the layout of Baghdad's backstreets? In this situation, Baghdad having a population of some 4.5 million, civilian deaths could easily exceed the U.N. estimate of a half million.
Imagine the same situation in, say, Chicago, Miami or Seattle. Hundreds of 22,000lb bombs air-bursting above residential areas. Just one of those bombs flattens anything within a 3/4 mile radius, and 'hundreds' of these will be deployed. War is ugly. Half of Baghdad's population is under 15 years old.... they presumably don't count for anything, although they have committed no crimes: for starters, they are kids, they are brown-skinned and mostly muslim, and worse, they don't contribute to the bottom line of multinational corporations. So.... they are guinea-pigs consigned for the great hi-tech US weapons field-test and fireworks display for the $benefit of weapons manufacturers, American media corporations and a ghoulish section of the US public, addicted to violence. The dead, mostly women and children (who are the ones most likely to die in hi-tech warfare) will be shoveled up by US army bulldozers and buried in mass graves well away from the cameras; the Pentagon will tally the death toll and classify it; human rights organizations will publish death toll estimates and be promptly denounced as conspiracy theorists. All this because both Iraq and the US are led by evil, psychopathic men with huge egos, no sense of consequence, and even less sense of in-the-moment reality.
The only thing that has changed in the human race since the Stone Age is the efficiency and range of our spears and arrows.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Having read the "shock and awe" plan from the Pentagon, </strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you talking about? Link?
The problem we will face in Iraq is the fact that Iraq is made up of tribes. These tribes have a structure and they are under the control of Saddam. Most in Iraq are in some tribe or another. To get a Government job in Iraq one must produce the paperwork showing which tribe they belong. In recent days Saddam has provided guns and ammo to all men in these tribes including little boys that are skipping school. This combined with the worship of Saddam that is expected helped along via all the statues and paintings of Saddam on every corner in Iraq is a problem that compounds a post-Saddam Iraq.
What you say in your post screams of fraud and deception. Such claims you make are simply reckless and I want to know what you base that on.
If you just pluck that out of your mind you are sick. If however you have a link to a credible source I want to see it.
<strong>Here are the key paragraphs from the UK's proposed resolution: It's just saying that they have to have another Security Council meeting to decide what to do after Blix's report - no automatic war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
From Harald's link about 'shock and awe':
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
Evil American devils..trying to scare them into surrendering instead of killing them all!! I really wonder what SJO thought shock and awe meant...destroy the whole city? She hears about S&A and increases her casualty assesment, when the goal of S&A is to reduce casualties...guess she'd reach that conclusion no matter what she heard about tactics and strategy.
As for "not be a safe place in Baghdad"...what do you think this means? Of course they say that...because they plan on hitting every military target they can....what did you think it meant? (I know, it must mean the EVIL US was planning on targeting everywhere and everybody in baghdad, killing everyone in the city..that's what they meant, right?)
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Having read the "shock and awe" plan from the Pentagon, the intention is to "kill everything" and "leave nothing standing" (in Baghdad and major Iraqi cities). Is this to avoid a potentially hazardous urban "guerilla" situation, where Iraqi troops could have an advantage, knowing the layout of Baghdad's backstreets? In this situation, Baghdad having a population of some 4.5 million, civilian deaths could easily exceed the U.N. estimate of a half million.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thought has crossed my mind in the past. What are the alternatives, other than flattened the whole of Baghdad, killing millions of innocent women and children in the process, or clearing the houses on foot one by one, where each doorway and window could harbour an innocent Iraqi family, a booby trap or an Iraqi soldier determined to blow your head off?
What you say in your post screams of fraud and deception. Such claims you make are simply reckless and I want to know what you base that on.
If you just pluck that out of your mind you are sick. If however you have a link to a credible source I want to see it.
Link??
Fellowship[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Fellowship and Tulkas:
There's thousands of links to the "shock and awe" plan describes the delivery of some 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad in the first 2 days of the bombings, and more. The [i]STRATCOM[i/] plan for Iraq goes into further detail describing the use of 22000lb bombs, (the largest conventional weapon in the US arsenal) to be detonated above ground, each one flattening 1800 acres (nearly 3 square miles of real estate) and causing heavy damage well beyond ground zero, the use of tactical nuclear weapons (up to 300 kilotons), in addition to some 5,000 satellite-guided bombs,and 2,500 laser-guided bombs into Baghdad.
It's not my fault if the FOX, CNN, Rush Limbaugh etc. dumbed-down-media omit the grisly details of warfare to lull the population into thinking that war is neat, easy, moral, routine, compartmented and predictable like a disembodied videogame on your PC. If you want to read the scarier military literature, attend any anti-war rally. (It is the interest of protesters to disseminate the gnarly details of military planners). The UN agrees with this in their estimate of 500,000 Iraqi casualties... you must have heard that, even Fox and NBC featured that report! Don't forget what happened in Gulf War 1 in 1991: thousands of retreating/surrendered Iraqi conscripts, many carrying white flags were shot in the back, bombed, shot and strafed by US airplanes in what was called the "turkey shoot" in the "mile of death" in S. Iraq, subesquently scooped up with bulldozers and buried in mass graves.
Um? THe US doesn't have a 22,0000lb bomb. As far as I know. Also one would never use that in a city. Unless you're a shrill anti-Bush banshee making stuff up to "prove" your position.
[sjomode]Current esitamates are that 1.6-4.5 million civilians will be killed in the first 12-48 hours of the war.[/sjomode]
Hey SJO do you have a "unseen torture of Saddam" page to post? No? Of course not! The Pro-Saddam left would never have a bad word for their beloved leader.
Comments
For: US, Britain, Spain, Bulgaria
Probably for: Mexico, Guinea, Chile, Cameroon, Angola
Might be for: Pakistan
No: Germany (non-veto), Syria
Abstain: China, Russia, France
10 to 2 in favor. 3 abstain.
I am starting to think that France is indeed bluffing. I think China and Russia can be convinced to abstain. But France has been more steadfast. Will they really veto this? it would be unbelievable if they did. It would have serious consequences for everyone. They would be seen as the lone obstacle. Imagine US public opinion if that happens.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
But France has been more steadfast. Will they really veto this? it would be unbelievable if they did.... Imagine US public opinion if that happens. </strong><hr></blockquote>
They'll continue to try and rename 'French Fries', 'Freedom Fries'!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Again, according to Drudge, Putin is going to abstain. That doesn't surprise me. I don't expect China to veto because they'll always like the ability to just to war, and this will just give them one more precedent to rely on. Germany doesn't have a veto so their vote is strange. I could see them abstaining more than just about anything else.
France, well, I imagine they'll get bought off with oil and promises that we'll keep all of their illegal Iraqi business ties quiet. In the meantime, they'll make a very impassioned speech in a last ditch effort for peace, but abstain because they don't want to 'interfere with the will of the U.N.' or something like that. Since there will probably be 9-10 votes in favor and several abstains, France being the lone 'no' would be like a blockage of the U.N. will, rather than support. So when Germany abstains, France will follow suit. That keeps them in line with most of the U.N.
Non!
Yes: US, Britain, Spain.
No: Mexico, Guinea, Chile, Cameroon, Angola, Bulgaria, Pakistan, Germany, Syria.
Veto: Russia, France, China
(Resounding defeat).
~~~~~
What I realistically expect:
Yes: U.S., Britain, Spain, Chile, Bulgaria, Mexico, Pakistan, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea
No: Germany, Syria
Abstain: Russia, France, China
(Resounding support)
Of course there will be a war, inspections or not, disarmament or not, Saddam resignation or not.
My guess is that Saddam will be defeated, probably killed within 2 weeks, and hopefully, US casualties will be zero (altho this is unrealistic). The number of Iraqi military dead will probably top 75,000 and civilians over 100,000.
<strong>
What I realistically expect:
Yes: U.S., Britain, Spain, Chile, Bulgaria, Mexico, Pakistan, Cameroon, Angola, Guinea
No: Germany, Syria
Abstain: Russia, France, China
(Resounding support) </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadly, that's what I envision as well.
<strong>But, in your twisted mind it will still be "unilateral". <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
No matter how many times you try and insult me personally, I still won't care.
Actually, I'll consider it a bad decision.
1 Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);
2 Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;
3 Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items. <hr></blockquote>Here are the lines from 1441 that were presumably included to make it clear to the fence-sitters that material breach was not an automatic war trigger:
[quote]12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; <hr></blockquote>It's just saying that they have to have another Security Council meeting to decide what to do after Blix's report - no automatic war. But what the new resolution does is put the burden on the anti-war nations to pass a resolution that Iraq has "demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation" in disarming, or else those "serious consequences" will happen.
Having read the "shock and awe" plan from the Pentagon, the intention is to "kill everything" and "leave nothing standing" (in Baghdad and major Iraqi cities). Is this to avoid a potentially hazardous urban "guerilla" situation, where Iraqi troops could have an advantage, knowing the layout of Baghdad's backstreets? In this situation, Baghdad having a population of some 4.5 million, civilian deaths could easily exceed the U.N. estimate of a half million.
Imagine the same situation in, say, Chicago, Miami or Seattle. Hundreds of 22,000lb bombs air-bursting above residential areas. Just one of those bombs flattens anything within a 3/4 mile radius, and 'hundreds' of these will be deployed. War is ugly. Half of Baghdad's population is under 15 years old.... they presumably don't count for anything, although they have committed no crimes: for starters, they are kids, they are brown-skinned and mostly muslim, and worse, they don't contribute to the bottom line of multinational corporations. So.... they are guinea-pigs consigned for the great hi-tech US weapons field-test and fireworks display for the $benefit of weapons manufacturers, American media corporations and a ghoulish section of the US public, addicted to violence. The dead, mostly women and children (who are the ones most likely to die in hi-tech warfare) will be shoveled up by US army bulldozers and buried in mass graves well away from the cameras; the Pentagon will tally the death toll and classify it; human rights organizations will publish death toll estimates and be promptly denounced as conspiracy theorists. All this because both Iraq and the US are led by evil, psychopathic men with huge egos, no sense of consequence, and even less sense of in-the-moment reality.
The only thing that has changed in the human race since the Stone Age is the efficiency and range of our spears and arrows.
<strong>
Having read the "shock and awe" plan from the Pentagon, </strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you talking about? Link?
The problem we will face in Iraq is the fact that Iraq is made up of tribes. These tribes have a structure and they are under the control of Saddam. Most in Iraq are in some tribe or another. To get a Government job in Iraq one must produce the paperwork showing which tribe they belong. In recent days Saddam has provided guns and ammo to all men in these tribes including little boys that are skipping school. This combined with the worship of Saddam that is expected helped along via all the statues and paintings of Saddam on every corner in Iraq is a problem that compounds a post-Saddam Iraq.
What you say in your post screams of fraud and deception. Such claims you make are simply reckless and I want to know what you base that on.
If you just pluck that out of your mind you are sick. If however you have a link to a credible source I want to see it.
Link??
Fellowship
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</p>
<strong>
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but what exactly does this mean?
<strong>Here are the key paragraphs from the UK's proposed resolution: It's just saying that they have to have another Security Council meeting to decide what to do after Blix's report - no automatic war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm all for it then.
<strong><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml"; target="_blank">CBS</a> do you Fellowship?
"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: Harald ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
From Harald's link about 'shock and awe':
The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces. "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.
Evil American devils..trying to scare them into surrendering instead of killing them all!! I really wonder what SJO thought shock and awe meant...destroy the whole city? She hears about S&A and increases her casualty assesment, when the goal of S&A is to reduce casualties...guess she'd reach that conclusion no matter what she heard about tactics and strategy.
As for "not be a safe place in Baghdad"...what do you think this means? Of course they say that...because they plan on hitting every military target they can....what did you think it meant? (I know, it must mean the EVIL US was planning on targeting everywhere and everybody in baghdad, killing everyone in the city..that's what they meant, right?)
<strong>
Having read the "shock and awe" plan from the Pentagon, the intention is to "kill everything" and "leave nothing standing" (in Baghdad and major Iraqi cities). Is this to avoid a potentially hazardous urban "guerilla" situation, where Iraqi troops could have an advantage, knowing the layout of Baghdad's backstreets? In this situation, Baghdad having a population of some 4.5 million, civilian deaths could easily exceed the U.N. estimate of a half million.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This thought has crossed my mind in the past. What are the alternatives, other than flattened the whole of Baghdad, killing millions of innocent women and children in the process, or clearing the houses on foot one by one, where each doorway and window could harbour an innocent Iraqi family, a booby trap or an Iraqi soldier determined to blow your head off?
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
What you say in your post screams of fraud and deception. Such claims you make are simply reckless and I want to know what you base that on.
If you just pluck that out of your mind you are sick. If however you have a link to a credible source I want to see it.
Link??
Fellowship[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Fellowship and Tulkas:
There's thousands of links to the "shock and awe" plan describes the delivery of some 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad in the first 2 days of the bombings, and more. The [i]STRATCOM[i/] plan for Iraq goes into further detail describing the use of 22000lb bombs, (the largest conventional weapon in the US arsenal) to be detonated above ground, each one flattening 1800 acres (nearly 3 square miles of real estate) and causing heavy damage well beyond ground zero, the use of tactical nuclear weapons (up to 300 kilotons), in addition to some 5,000 satellite-guided bombs,and 2,500 laser-guided bombs into Baghdad.
It's not my fault if the FOX, CNN, Rush Limbaugh etc. dumbed-down-media omit the grisly details of warfare to lull the population into thinking that war is neat, easy, moral, routine, compartmented and predictable like a disembodied videogame on your PC. If you want to read the scarier military literature, attend any anti-war rally. (It is the interest of protesters to disseminate the gnarly details of military planners). The UN agrees with this in their estimate of 500,000 Iraqi casualties... you must have heard that, even Fox and NBC featured that report! Don't forget what happened in Gulf War 1 in 1991: thousands of retreating/surrendered Iraqi conscripts, many carrying white flags were shot in the back, bombed, shot and strafed by US airplanes in what was called the "turkey shoot" in the "mile of death" in S. Iraq, subesquently scooped up with bulldozers and buried in mass graves.
<a href="http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.html"; target="_blank">http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.html</a>;
If you think that anybody behaves in a righteous and moral fashion in modern warfare, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land.
[sjomode]Current esitamates are that 1.6-4.5 million civilians will be killed in the first 12-48 hours of the war.[/sjomode]
<strong>...
<a href="http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.html"; target="_blank">http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_index.html</a>;
...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey SJO do you have a "unseen torture of Saddam" page to post? No? Of course not! The Pro-Saddam left would never have a bad word for their beloved leader.