Desert_Eagle25 Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Wow Gob, you really made a point O_O
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Gob....utters words of solemn fact and wisdom.its not a question of whether or not Hussein has not complied....he hasn't.
Edric O Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Very good point Gob, except for one thing - I don't remember seeing evidence that Saddam is armed in the first place... Not with WMD's at least. So if he really doesn't have them, how could he possibly disarm?
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Very well Gob, at least you are reasonable, unlike some other person I could name...nevermind.Anyway, we're drifting off topic. I agree with Ex statement at the beginning of this thread.
exatreide Posted February 11, 2003 Author Posted February 11, 2003 I'm suprised that emprwrorm didnt flame me.....hmmmmm :)
zamboe Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Has no one here actually read the UN resolution 1441? The one that says that if Iraq doesn't show evidence that they have disarmed they are in material breach? It doesn't matter that 57% of Germans think the US are war mongers. If Iraq doesn't prove they are disarming they are in violation of a UN resolution.People seem to think that if we just let Iraq be the situation will magically fix itself. Guess what that isn't going to happen. Saddam isn't going to leave, he might but not without some show of force. You can't appease a dictator like Saddam. Why is that so hard to comprehend? There has been evidence reported about what Saddam is doing. If you don't believe it then there is no way to convince you war is the right option and I don't see any point in arguing about it because you you are pretty much saying there is no proof which is like throwing out half of our argument.It's hard to comprehend the US and UK attitude. I personally don't understand them yet.You sound like saying that the German gov, French gov, Chinese gov, Russian gov among others important goverments of Europe(let alone several millions of their population) are actually protecting the Iraq regime because they think that the UN Res 1441 has to stay in the inspections stage in the short and medium term.Btw, also sharing the opinion of the countries that I mentioned above are the member countries of the NATO that actually didn't accept that proposed resolution presented by the US and UK for entering NATO common forces (therefore protection) to Turkey, they did it because they think a peaceful solution can be achieved.
Dude_Doc Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 But isn't this also a paralell with law and order? If I kill a person, and there is pretty much proof of that I did, sure, I may have some time (or my lawyer that is), to find counterproof, but if I do not find any, then they have right to jail me. The same goes for Resolution 1441. Iraq was accused of having weapons they should not have, so if they do not have, then why is it taking so long for them to proove that they have none?A law is a law. That's the way of life.
zamboe Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 I think that some people seem not to understand some points of the UN 1441 Res., the inspections have a purpouse, it's purpouse is to report to UN about currents stocks and production capabilities of weapons in Iraq, then those reporst must be compared with the report that Iraq presented a few weeks ago to the UN, if those don't match in a meaningful way, then they are in a material breach. So far the inspections are not finished yet, then by going to WAR at this point without UN support it would be a total violation of the Un 1441 Res by the US and UK.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 the french and german government have the most financial interest in Iraq. Russia as well. the reasons for their stance is clear
zamboe Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 the french and german government have the most financial interest in Iraq. Russia as well. the reasons for their stance is clearIf they had such interest, then they would be most likely for an inmediate change in Iraq's goverment, with a new gov. so all sanctions could be removed and a new gov. could start paying it's bills. Your argument makes no sense, because those countries act like they don't have much interest in that.
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 the french and german government have the most financial interest in Iraq. Russia as well. the reasons for their stance is clearCouldn't it be that they just want a peaceful solution ? You seem to assume to know their stance, while it's an assumption you make.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 a new Iraq government would not be financially beneficial to France or Germany unless they had a part in its design. Which is why I predict with 90% certainty that france will jump on board with the rest of the coalition if the US goes to war. They have too much $$$ to lose. They want and financially need to be a part of the new government planning to secure their financial interests. Germany probably will not jump on board no matter what.
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 a new Iraq government would not be financially beneficial to France or Germany unless they had a part in its design. Which is why I predict with 90% certainty that france will jump on board with the rest of the coalition if the US goes to war. They have too much $$$ to lose. They want and financially need to be a part of the new government planning to secure their financial interests. Germany probably will not jump on board no matter what. Then you can't say their stance is clear, as you obviously are not sure (you can't be, unless someone informed you from inside what their stance is, which I seriously doubt).
zamboe Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 a new Iraq government would not be financially beneficial to France or Germany unless they had a part in its design. Which is why I predict with 90% certainty that france will jump on board with the rest of the coalition if the US goes to war. They have too much $$$ to lose. They want and financially need to be a part of the new government planning to secure their financial interests. Germany probably will not jump on board no matter what. Those are only about 2,000 millions of US$ (just about nothing compared with the French wealth). And it's not even French gov. money, it's actually money of companies that are based in France. If you don't know several years ago, right after the first Gulf War some european gov. backed up some investments in Iraq with tax benefits for those same companies, so it's not really a loss. It's not as simple as you said emprworm. France has really no interest in it.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 a new Iraq government would not be financially beneficial to France or Germany unless they had a part in its design. Which is why I predict with 90% certainty that france will jump on board with the rest of the coalition if the US goes to war. They have too much $$$ to lose. They want and financially need to be a part of the new government planning to secure their financial interests. Germany probably will not jump on board no matter what. Then you can't say their stance is clear, as you obviously are not sure (you can't be, unless someone informed you from inside what their stance is, which I seriously doubt).well of course I am not sure, no one is. The only certainty is that Saddaam Hussein has gassed his own people and has had in his posession tens of thousands of canisters of deadly gas, and is a mass murderer.
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 well of course I am not sure, no one is. The only certainty is that Saddaam Hussein has gassed his own people and has had in his posession tens of thousands of canisters of deadly gas, and is a mass murderer.Uhm, I was under the impression I was talking about the stance of France, Germany and Russia. Not what Saddam did/didn't do. I fail to see why you'd include that in your reply ?
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 because being certain is regarding the facts governing the case, which is war with Iraq. Those are the facts (along with 10+ years of UN violations).The facts are also that Russia and France have enourmous financial interests at stake in Iraq- much more than the US. from these facts, I am drawing personal conclusions.
Nyarlathotep Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 from these facts, I am drawing personal conclusions. Which well could be false.. Never the less, I never questioned the things Saddam did or didn't do, so I don't see the point of you throwing them into your defense.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 i saw a point in it, it was simply my perogative. the point for me was that sadaams atrocities make the pacifist stance of France and Germany mind-boggling. The only explanation that makes sense in light of this is lust for $$$. Historically, lust for $$$ often is more important than human welfare. Based upon this historical precedent, I felt it was absolutely relevant. but that is my personal opinion
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Emp, the US has also earned tons of cash by selling weapons to Sadam (though I'm not sure he still owes the US any money).And Gob did provide documentation to his claim that Russia and France had oil interests in Iraq, but so far I haven't seen a single spec of evidence from you or anybody else that Germanys stance is because of money.
emprworm Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 no i think Germany's interest is less in $$$ and more in saving face for Shroeder who used anti-american sentiment as his campaign to get elected. so yea, i concur on your opinion regarding Germany- they don't have the financial interest France and Russia do.
Anathema Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Schroeder is an honest politician who embodies the feelings of Germany when it comes to Iraq, so stop tossing insults at him.
Edric O Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 Historically, lust for $$$ often is more important than human welfare.Of course. Just look at Bush - this is precisely his attitude.About Germany - who cares, what power do they have?They are an economic powerhouse for one thing. And hopefully they and France will drive some sense into the rest of Europe and convince them to stop being American puppets.It's time to put an end to the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization! Germany, France and all other countries who had enough of Bush's imperialism should resign from NATO.Schroeder is a great man. I have a deep respect for him and I admire his courage to stand up to the US. Germany truly has a worthy leader.
Dunenewt Posted February 11, 2003 Posted February 11, 2003 All the other countries being...Belgium ::)
Recommended Posts