Reformed Security Council

[quoudam72]

Easy Emprwrm the French government did say that Saddam could have bought the arms on the black market indirectly saying that they have a problem with their internal security. And let's not all gang up on the French they are not the only ones with "dirt under their fingernails" (cough, cough) ;)

[emprworm]

Easy Emprwrm the French government did say that Saddam could have bought the arms on the black market indirectly saying that they have a problem with their internal security. And let's not all gang up on the French they are not the only ones with "dirt under their fingernails" (cough, cough) ;)

uhhh...I will be ganging up on the French. The only aid the US ever gave Saddam as far as weaponry is concerned was BEFORE he was known to be a bloodthirsty tyrant. France helped him even this year.

[quoudam72]

Listen "Captain America" I should expect as much from you let me clarify something I was not refering to the US (of course I know that they supplied arms before the Gulf War) I was vaguely making mention to the Russian and German officals or companies of each nation that did major business with the former Iraqi regime. Anyway this is going off subject about the UN Security Council and France's membership to the council.

[Caid Ivik]

Only problem is that France gives up hands everytime they should make order on the world. What they sell is irelevant. If no one has mood to spend some money on cleaning the planet from some idiots, then let they don't yell at those, who have.

[Birdfolly]

uhhh...I will be ganging up on the French. The only aid the US ever gave Saddam as far as weaponry is concerned was BEFORE he was known to be a bloodthirsty tyrant. France helped him even this year.

Come on Emp, Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam and we(US) were supplying them with Chem weapons through the worst of his "Bloodthirsty" actions.

We sell weapons to EVERYBODY.

[emprworm]

uhhh...I will be ganging up on the French. The only aid the US ever gave Saddam as far as weaponry is concerned was BEFORE he was known to be a bloodthirsty tyrant. France helped him even this year.

Come on Emp, Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam and we(US) were supplying them with Chem weapons through the worst of his "Bloodthirsty" actions.

We sell weapons to EVERYBODY.

huh? care to back up these lies? which liberal mindless automotan spoon fed you this nonesense? Please, give me the name of the mindless liberal. I would like to know who they are. Was it Martin SHeen? Barbra Streissand? Some other non-college high school educated Thespian? i'd like to know

[Caid Ivik]

Donald Rumsfeld is a good man, please, shit at Bush, Powell or Ms Rice, but please, if Rumsfeld was once attached in Iraq, it doesn't mean he is a bad person. You don't know him, birdfolly, and if you did, then you won't say such things.

[quoudam72]

@Emprwrm and Caid Ivik

5 years before Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1988 a meeting took place between Washington and Baghdad the time was December 1983 an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982.

First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

In 1984, the State Department,in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market" pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources reported, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an American (ABC) news special.

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

(Right: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.)

[Gobalopper]

But if it's about power, France belongs in the SC before Japan does these days.

Err the stats I posted show the opposite actually...

[Mahdi]

If France does get booted, I think the replacement country should be micronesia, just to show what a farce the UN has become.

[Gobalopper]

Actually its the Federated States of Micronesia. ;)

[Navaros]

Howard seeks to demote France in UN

He wants Japan, a South American country and India to be represented on the Security Council. France was there only because it was a global power at the end of World War II, he said.

Good or bad idea?

IRRELEVANT idea. the UN is irrelevant. the USA has proven they can and will conquer any nation of their choosing, and likely will do so long as it is profitable to do so. the UN is irrelevant. the USA will force their Illegal terrorist will upon country they choose; therefore the UN might as well not exist.

[Acriku]

Why did we waste time with diplomatic issues then, lasting a decade, before invading?

[Mahdi]

Actually its the Federated States of Micronesia. ;)

My mistake. I bet they wear hats there.

[Egeides]

UN starts looking like its predecessor, which became irrelevant because it wasn't respected and USA wasn't in... It's still more effective but in 10 years, who knows...

[Birdfolly]

Why did we waste time with diplomatic issues then, lasting a decade, before invading?

If you can call deadly sanctions, a large bombing campaign that started in 1998 and never really ended "diplomatic issues"

[Caid Ivik]

Maybe that's a problem, that those sanctions are deadly only for people excluding ruling gang.

But now, let's look on quondam's big post:

"5 years before Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1988 a meeting took place between Washington and Baghdad the time was December 1983 an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982."

- So, you should tell what kind of hardware it is. Tanks? Fighters? Guns? Ahh, helicopters...

"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

-

In 1984, the State Department,in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market" pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

- helicopter Bell model 214 ST is based on Bell model 204, also known as UH-1 Huey, which was designed in 1955 as military helicopter. Bell 214 ST was made in 1975 as civilian passenger carrier or naval rescue craft for Middle East, it was to be composed in new Bell factory in Iran. However, political changes after Chomeini's revolution ended these plans. Can carry 16 passengers or a ton of cargo, no weapon systems, due to low speed (250 kph) and no armoring it isn't suitable for battle operations.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/bell214.jpg

"In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources reported, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

- See the picture of Bell 214 ST and point where are a positions for bombs. Also with them the craft cannot go in big speed, and without aiming device it must bomb from low heights. I wouldn't risk it. Mostly used Iraqi helicopter is Mi-8 (about 200), which has ability to carry weapons. US people don't know much about foreign planes, one A-10 pilot, who shot down one helicopter referred it was "Mi-8 or Alouette III".

http://klu.tigerteam-security.net/images/Aerospatiale_SE3160S_Alouette_III.jpg

http://www.m-hobby.df.ru/news/news_3_02/mi-8.jpg

"In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House."

- Then we should hear something about new technology which they received (MiG-29? T-72?).

"Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an American (ABC) news special."

- Possibly they didn't wanted to attack russian ally until USSR is over. Situation in 1988 wasn't same as in 1990 (in 1989 were most anti-commie revolts in USSR satelites). When came good reason after fall of the Reds, US marched as quickly as possible to bring Saddam down. Then UN intervened...

"In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing."

- If 500 UN inspectors were unable to find it, then how could one - AMERICAN - envoy? Iraq was more on russian side, they wouldn't tell everything to enemy. However, Iran was enemy too. Rumsfeld has bound hands.

[Birdfolly]

Maybe that's a problem, that those sanctions are deadly only for people excluding ruling gang.

- If 500 UN inspectors were unable to find it, then how could one - AMERICAN - envoy? Iraq was more on russian side, they wouldn't tell everything to enemy. However, Iran was enemy too. Rumsfeld has bound hands.

That is exactly the problem: The sanctions really only killed people that had no role in making the decisions in Iraq.

The UN already reported on the chemical weapons, Rummy didn't have to look around for them. All he needed was a spine. He talks big enough now, maybe he grew one since then. It just seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[Caid Ivik]

So, he was bound by bipolar politics of the Cold War. Now the USA have free hands. But, if you think anti-war demonstrations are best alternative to fight with terrorrism, support what you want, just don't shit at those, who want now to clean the mess which Cold War has made. Sanctions are useless, there is still some black market, so when it is a good time for good action, it doesn't matter which people do them.

[Birdfolly]

So, he was bound by bipolar politics of the Cold War. Now the USA have free hands. But, if you think anti-war demonstrations are best alternative to fight with terrorrism, support what you want, just don't shit at those, who want now to clean the mess which Cold War has made. Sanctions are useless, there is still some black market, so when it is a good time for good action, it doesn't matter which people do them.

I agree with your thoughts on sanctions. Can you explain "good time for good action"? It seems to me that the US is attacking because it can, as you say because the Cold War is over and there is no one to stop us. Just because one can do something without being nuked doesn't mean they should or that its good.

Antiwar demonstrations are about the only way for us to have a voice in this country since both parties are bought and payed for by corporations and our vote doesn't mean much between those two choices. I'll admit that demonstrations don't do much good and are mostly a product of the weak state of our democracy.

[Miles]

I agree with your thoughts on sanctions. Can you explain "good time for good action"? It seems to me that the US is attacking because it can, as you say because the Cold War is over and there is no one to stop us. Just because one can do something without being nuked doesn't mean they should or that its good.

Yet, the UN, and anti-war protesters would have had us continue sanctions as a measure to contain Saddam Hussein.

And we didn't attack just because we could, we attacked because enough is enough. 12 years of diplomacy just to be spit in the face by Hussien damages the UN's and our credibility. If the UN was not willing to defend itself, then we had to. Just look at how bold some countries have gotten, India and Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and terrorist organizations. In the interest of our national security, we had to reestablish our credibility.

our demonstrations are about the only way for us to have a voice in this country since both parties are bought and payed for by corporations and our vote doesn't mean much between those two choices. I'll admit that demonstrations don't do much good and are mostly a product of the weak state of our democracy.

Demonstrations are a very good thing. It is good to see the Iraqi people so eager to demonstrate their new free speach in protests to the meeting held recently of Iraqi representatives. Your voice does get heard, and if enough people voice out, policy can get changed. Vietnam is a good example. This demonstrates the strength of our democracy. But if you represent the vast minority, don't expect your views to hijack an administration's policy.

[Anathema]

Gob, Japan barely outspends France and besides that, that site doesn't give insight wether or not it's for maintaining/expanding their army or research. The actual size of both armies isn't given either.

And if you look at either of those criteria, you'll see that the UK should be booted from the SC before France.

And at any rate, Japan is not a nuclear superpower but France is.

Edit

When I went to see the profile of the Netherlands on that site, I noticed I had seen the text on top before. It's copied straight from the CIA factbook site

[Acriku]

Birdfolly, from 1991-1998, that's a long time for trying again to solve the problem with diplomacy, isn't it?

[Birdfolly]

Yet, the UN, and anti-war protesters would have had us continue sanctions as a measure to contain Saddam Hussein.

And we didn't attack just because we could, we attacked because enough is enough. 12 years of diplomacy just to be spit in the face by Hussien damages the UN's and our credibility. If the UN was not willing to defend itself, then we had to. Just look at how bold some countries have gotten, India and Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, and terrorist organizations. In the interest of our national security, we had to reestablish our credibility.

No one ever died from a little spit. If you India or Pakistan would you grab a nuke to insure your sovereignty or just bow down to your white masters overseas. Us calling THEM bold is the pot calling the kettle black, no?

I didn't see Iraq attacking anyone in the last 12 years. Not even their neighbors considered them a threat.

All that healthy protesting won't last long when we install yet another puppet. Just add Iraq to the list of coups.

[Gobalopper]

Earthnuker look at GDP, Japan's is 4 times larger then France. Population, Japan is also larger. The only reason Japan may be slightly behind militarily is because of restrictions placed on them after WW2. But looking at economic factors you can't say France is ahead.

And to everyone else talking about the war please do it somewhere else its offtopic for this thread.