US and France and others

[SpiceGuid]

The anti-american monster is sleeping: don't wake it.

The anti-french monster is awake: sing your most powerful lullaby.

I agree with you: claiming a role in post-saddam Irak would be both provocant and unrealistic. I hope Chirac will not make that mistake, that would be really one too many.

Seems like the war is finally an impressive military and political success. At the end, against any adversity, US proved the war was legitimate. May be no WMD will be found but who cares now? The actual outcome is a great surprise for me, frenchs and pessimistic experts were simply wrong. Would they keep teaching lessons, that would be uttermost arrogant.

[Warlord Ripskar]

The awarding of contracts to companies with relationships to the US government appears to lack magnamity, but then I've never known any government act in a truly magnaminous manner.

Where there's politicians there's backhanders.

I hope that the smiles remain in the morning after.

[Miles]

The awarding of contracts to companies with relationships to the US government appears to lack magnamity, but then I've never known any government act in a truly magnaminous manner.

Where there's politicians there's backhanders.

I hope that the smiles remain in the morning after.

Spoken like a true fanatic. We'll see.

[Nyarlathotep]

Seems like the war is finally an impressive military and political success. At the end, against any adversity, US proved the war was legitimate. May be no WMD will be found but who cares now? The actual outcome is a great surprise for me, frenchs and pessimistic experts were simply wrong. Would they keep teaching lessons, that would be uttermost arrogant.

You're wrong there. WDM was the main reason for Bush to start a war against Iraq. With WDM the war discussion started. If no WDM are found, Bush's government will loose a lot of creditbility in the worlds eyes.

[Miles]

You're wrong there. WDM was the main reason for Bush to start a war against Iraq. With WDM the war discussion started. If no WDM are found, Bush's government will loose a lot of creditbility in the worlds eyes.

We will lose some credibility if WMD are not found. I'm not too worried though.

However, the stories being told by the Iraqi citizens of torture, rape and murder justify the war. Their gratitude towards us negates any of the bullsh1t that comes from Europe.

Think about it. France/Germany/Russia would have had us contain Saddam Hussein for an indefinite time, and continue sanctions and weapons inspections. The chemicals we have found would NEVER have been discovered by the weapons inspectors. How many innocent Iraqi civilians would have not only died but been tortured and raped because of their lack of courage? I'm sure the Iraqi people thank them for their opposition. ::) Was that Chirac's face being kissed by an Iraqi man? Were those French flags being waved? Face it, they were wrong even if WMD aren't found.

In the Arab world, I see a "wait and see" attitude heavy with skepticism. That's understandable, but we have a golden opportunity to show the Arab world our intentions by setting up a free Iraq. This is in our greatest interest as a country. Far more important than the oil reserves which we could have gained access to anyway without a war. I want to see a free democratic Iraq, where the citizens reap the benefits of their labor and the country's wealth. If the rest of the Arab world would see this, then, I think opinion of the US in Arab countries would increase. This is our ultimate goal.

[Egeides]

French were against the preemptivity of all this, so were 90% of the countries. It could mean that a country can change some other's regime, as long as HIS OWN population agrees, nothing more needed. Of course, add to this that everyone is sceptic about USA's motives because of the past wars it did in the last few decades.

Personally, I'm not too worried for WMD. They were sent some by USA years ago so why would it have vanished? These do not have a great range though...

[Miles]

French were against the preemptivity of all this, so were 90% of the countries. It could mean that a country can change some other's regime, as long as HIS OWN population agrees, nothing more needed. Of course, add to this that everyone is sceptic about USA's motives because of the past wars it did in the last few decades.

Oh, you mean like Bosnia? Yeah, stopping ethnic clensing was an evil thing to do. Maybe you mean Afghanistan? Sure those people are living far worse than under taliban rule right? Go ask one on the street. Or South Korea. Ask one of them if they would like to live in North Korea, because if it weren't for us they in essence would. Or maybe ask yourself and the Europeans if you or they would prefer to live under Soviet occupation. Exactly what suspect motivations are you talking about?

[Edric O]

Miles, frankly I've had enough of your elitism and infinite arrogance. Why the f**k should anyone listen to the US if they don't want to? Do you own France or something? What gives you the right to tell them what to do? The fact is, it's THEIR damn right to oppose you as much as they like! It's their damn right to lobby against you! And if you don't like it, TOUGH!

You defied the United Nations and spat on the face of the entire world, and now you want FRANCE to pay? Get off your high horse already and put some limits on your immense hypocrisy! You "land of the free" and "home of the brave" who keep telling every nation in the world to PAY for not bowing down and kissing your boots!

[/rant]

[Warlord Ripskar]

Spoken like a true fanatic. We'll see.

Spoken as someone with a working knowledge of Quangos. I waiting for Saturday to see what happens at the meeting.

[Acriku]

The UN is not perfect. Defying the UN for a cause that the UN did not see, and seeing that it comes out the way US have always seen it as, makes defying the UN acceptable and correct! If the UN had it their way, the Iraqi would continue to be oppressed, continue to die from the secret police, continue to live in fear of a possible chemical attack (especially the Kurds), continue to live in fear of Hussein himself, and continue to live their lives in chains. The US had it our way, and it worked out fine. Makes you wonder what the hell the UN is doing over there.

[Edric O]

No, I've spoken like someone who had enough of Americans humiliating the entire world and spitting in everyone's face, and then wondering where all the anti-americanism comes from.

[Acriku]

He was referring to Miles that said "Spoken like a true fanatic."

[Anathema]

When every country starts doing whatever they want, we have a problem. The UN was created in the light of the devastation of WWII to make sure such a slaughter would never happen again. That is the ultimate goal. The United States signed the charter, yet continue to violate it again and again. This time it may have a positive side effect (the liberation of the Iraqi people), but that's not the point. The motives of some opponents in the SC may be less then sincere, but that's not the point either. Iraq may be a horrorible place to live, but that too is not the point! China is not a walk in the park either, but they're in the SC permanently, not because of love for humanity but because of realism. Fact is that China is a big player in world affairs, wether you have sympathy for them or not. We can't tell them to withdraw from Tibet. Sometimes we have to tolerate lesser evils to prevent the greater evil, namely global conflict. Sometimes idealism must make room for reality.

We can't invade every dictature in the world without UN permission. If tomorrow China launches a "preemtive strike" on Taiwan, can the US claim that they would never have invaded a sovereign country (Taiwan isn't even recognised by China anyway) without UN permission? NO. If WWIII should ever come, it will be because certain pig headed nations did whatever they felt like and took no lesson from the deaths of their forefathers at all.

[Acriku]

The UN failed in what it was doing. The US noticed this, and acted upon it. If the UN can do its job correctly and quickly, and with results, then the US wouldn't have had to have done what it did. The League of Nations didn't work. The UN seemed to be working, but it doesn't produce enough results.

[Anathema]

So if China accuses Taiwan of terrorism against China and posessing nuclear weapons, and delivers the same amount of evidence the US did (namely, nothing), and the UN refuses to grant them permission to invade, its okay for China to do it anyway?

And who defines what the UN has to do? The security council, maybe?

[nemafakei]

As I recall, the bringing about of regime change is not the UN's job, according to its charter.

There must be method to what is done - the inspections were a necessary part of the progress.

And now that the US has control, it wishes to appoint (in fact has already appointed) its retired generals and diplomats to control Iraq, rather than UN-selected delegates. This reeks.

[Acriku]

No, only because China has not gone through diplomatic relations, is not going to liberate people from a dictator that oppresses the people, and would not have enough support to go through it. Remember, the US went in with actual support, around the world, and troops from those countries helped in a big way. If you are going to make an analogy, atleast make one that fits the bill.

[emprworm]

No, I've spoken like someone who had enough of Americans humiliating the entire world and spitting in everyone's face, and then wondering where all the anti-americanism comes from.

this is a man who fights for the oppressed......right?

I want this man to tell us publicly then, that those people he saw celebrating and waving around American flags and kissing posters of Bush are valid enough reasons for toppling Hussein. What I want to hear from Edric is the following: an admission that taking out Hussein despite UN opposittion was the right thing to do.

If he says that it was wrong, then he is against the oppressed.

It wasn't pictures of Chirac that the Iraqi's were kissing.

[emprworm]

As I recall, the bringing about of regime change is not the UN's job, according to its charter.

There must be method to what is done - the inspections were a necessary part of the progress.

And now that the US has control, it wishes to appoint (in fact has already appointed) its retired generals and diplomats to control Iraq, rather than UN-selected delegates. This reeks.

the UN had their chance. now they get nothing. the LAST country that should have any say at all is France. The coalition should have total control.

THe UN lost its legitimacy. It is a non-entity.

[emprworm]

So if China accuses Taiwan of terrorism against China and posessing nuclear weapons, and delivers the same amount of evidence the US did (namely, nothing), and the UN refuses to grant them permission to invade, its okay for China to do it anyway?

And who defines what the UN has to do? The security council, maybe?

are the Taiwanese people going to celebrate and dance around in the streets when China comes to "liberate" them? answer that question first, before you make the comparison, Earthnuker.

[Edric O]

this is a man who fights for the oppressed......right?

I want this man to tell us publicly then, that those people he saw celebrating and waving around American flags and kissing posters of Bush are valid enough reasons for toppling Hussein. What I want to hear from Edric is the following: an admission that taking out Hussein despite UN opposittion was the right thing to do.

1. YES, I fully agree that those people I saw celebrating and waving around American flags and kissing posters of Bush are valid enough reasons for toppling Hussein.

2. HOWEVER, taking out Hussein despite UN opposition was an extremely wrong thing to do. As you pointed out, Emprworm, this action completely undermined the UN. The UN lost almost all credibility, and the way is laid bare for another Hitler to unleash hell on the world.

If America can defy the UN and get away with it, who's to stop Nazi Germany from claiming the same right? The UN is turning into the League of Nations. And we all know how that ended up.

[Acriku]

Perhaps the UN idea could never have held up. Especially if it continued to do what it is doing now, which is only making things worse by taking 5 years to vote on something and then another 20 years to decide what to do on that vote, etc.

[SurlyPIG]

1. YES, I fully agree that those people I saw celebrating and waving around American flags and kissing posters of Bush are valid enough reasons for toppling Hussein.

Excellent. Point - freeing the Iraqis from Saddam is justification enough for the war. The war was correct.

2. HOWEVER, taking out Hussein despite UN opposition was an extremely wrong thing to do. As you pointed out, Emprworm, this action completely undermined the UN. The UN lost almost all credibility, and the way is laid bare for another Hitler to unleash hell on the world.

Illogical. The war is correct, no? Freeing Iraq from Saddam is correct, no? The UN opposed the war. This makes the UN incorrect on this issue, since the war is justified and correct, according to you (and general common sense). Is it wrong for the correct party (coalition) to allow themselves to be snubbed by the incorrect party (UN)? Of course not, its simply illogical.

Because this action is correct, it does not undermine UN credibility. Since the UN was incorrect in this matter, they therefore are responsible for their own loss of credibility. If anything, the actions of two or three particular nations were instrumental in simultaneously protecting their own interests while making certain that the US didn't get what it wanted (I doubt they actually cared what was correct or what was necessary - as you said Iraq needed liberation).

[Acriku]

ACE, it's like going against your friend. Even though you save his mother's life, you went behind his back in doing so, so he's pissed off about that, and doesn't care that you saved his mother's life...Or something like that.

[SurlyPIG]

If he were truly your friend he would understand the necessity to save your mother's life and should have helped if asked. ;)