France Surrenders!

[DinoDoc]

If anyone cares, here is the text of the resolution.

[Dry]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
France got what it wants is just semantics.

Oh, no! There is a huge difference between being a police officer and being an avenger (sorry for the analogy, Dino ). It is about civilisation and barbarism.

Yeah they said you can't go without a resolution and now they can save face, sort of,

Save face? For what? They have what they wanted! US will act as a civilised nation.

but what they wanted was no go, no war.

Completly wrong. If that was the picture you had in USA of french position, I start to understand why you don't understand France.
They wanted the things being done the right way.

[Dauphin]

now they can save face, sort of,

I didn't think France had any reputation to protect anymore. They lost all face decades ago.

[DanS]

It is about civilisation and barbarism.



Here's an analogy for you. This is frontier justice. Saddam is wanted dead or alive. And we can deputize after the deed is done.

I can assure you that no jury would convict somebody in this situation.

[gsmoove23]

I suppose I'll bow to your superior regional knowledge, yes I was of the opinion that most europeans find the idea of war in Iraq as needless, that the evidence given simply isn't enough reason for all the hoopla with or without UN resolutions. I moved to Britain after 9/11 and am still there, constantly suprised by how many brits are completely against the whole thing.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dry
There is a huge difference between being a police officer and being an avenger (sorry for the analogy, Dino ).

The difference doesn't exist in the international realm. Even Roland will conceede that much. Why you insist on trying to shoehorn concepts that fit better in the national realm into this area, I'll never know.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I suppose I'll bow to your superior regional knowledge, yes I was of the opinion that most europeans find the idea of war in Iraq as needless, that the evidence given simply isn't enough reason for all the hoopla with or without UN resolutions. I moved to Britain after 9/11 and am still there, constantly suprised by how many brits are completely against the whole thing.

Its partly due to mistrust of GW motives (oil, revenge for daddy etc) and partly that there is the contention that as we funded him in the 80's its a bit rich to get him now.


On the second point if there was an acknowledgement we ****ed up in the 80's and that he is very dangerous then more people mught support it.

not sure how to convince over the oil stuff though

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Its partly due to mistrust of GW motives (oil, revenge for daddy etc) and partly that there is the contention that as we funded him in the 80's its a bit rich to get him now.

Partly attempting to protect thier own economic interests in Iraq.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Partly attempting to protect thier own economic interests in Iraq.

the UK doesn't have any significant interests.

i think yo are mixing us up with the french and germans

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Dry

Oh, no! There is a huge difference between being a police officer and being an avenger (sorry for the analogy, Dino ). It is about civilisation and barbarism.


Save face? For what? They have what they wanted! US will act as a civilised nation.


Completly wrong. If that was the picture you had in USA of french position, I start to understand why you don't understand France.
They wanted the things being done the right way.

I think the outcome is the US acting with a civilized veneer, and the resolution will result in other "civilized" nations having to wrestle a bear if they don't want war in Iraq to be invitable. I must say I am a francophile but I will agree that I don't understand France.

[DanS]

"The difference doesn't exist in the international realm."

I want a shiny star to go with this cool hat, damn it!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
i think yo are mixing us up with the french and germans

Mea culpa.

[DanS]

I do consider it an excellent outcome to have unanimous support, especially considering Syria voted for it rather than abstaining.

Resounding Bush/Powell win.

[Pekka]

little off topic, but what if two nations are in war, and they suddenly surrender at the same exact time? They both think the situation is hopeless and surrenders, but they don't know the other one is going to surrender too.. So.. exactly at the same time, what happens?

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Pekka
little off topic, but what if two nations are in war, and they suddenly surrender at the same exact time?

They have a Coke and a smile and laugh about it? But I suspect they would usually just call that a Peace Treaty.

[Japher]

Are we playing the "What If Game"!!!

What if a Nation, let's say Iraq, invaded another country and tried to take it over. From history we know that a greedy Nation, such as Iraq, would not stop there and would probably continue to take over it's surrounding countries, like Isreal. If that kind thing happens than I know America will step in... and it would be policeman-ish. Oh wait, that did happen!!!

Lets say now, What if America attacks Iraq and pushes them back. History tells us we should remove the evil dictator that is running country, but instead the rest of the world, like the UN, tells America to form a resolution with this evil dicatator. Oh, wait we did that too!!!

Ok; What if That evil dictator agrees to some sanctions that makes both sides happy. Then, that evil dictator goes and reneges on that deal. What do we do? We make sure at least he isn't producing any weapons of mass destruction and sit on our hands for a few years, mainly becuase of a coward of president, lets say his name is CLinton. Oh wait, that also happened!!!

WHAT IF the ally forces in WWII did not push the Nazi army all the way back from the coasts of France into a tiny little bomb shelter? Ten to One all you Frenchies would now be speaking German.

Who cares if the French agree? "We want a proper war"... what the F*** is that?

Point is... Unless we force ourselves to remember, history will repeat itself. One evil dictator is just as bad as another. France was just trying to be proper, but they are also being selfish and cowardly because it was none of their concern and they didn't want to be taken into an "unwarrented" war, because it wasn't their country... This time... Remember?

[Spiffor]

Actually, I think France's position (the US should not bypass the UN) was both :
- a way to postpone the ineluctable slaughters of thousands inncent people defeat of Saddam.
- a way to raise Chirac's reputation among the Arab world, and the big Arab minority in France
- a way to test the ability of the US to act unilaterally. Except some laughable concessions, the US have shown they can act unilaterally (well, bilaterally if you consider the UK as an independent country )

[GePap]

Here is another link to the resoltuion: (I dopn't know if its the same as Dino's)

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

I fail to see what France got, or anyone else for that matter.

It is a very harsh resoltuion, with an immense preamble that lays out a long list of Iraqi violations. The Single piece in the entire resoltuion that I saw as a concession was active clause 2, which states that the declaration of Iraq as in material breech at this point does not constitute a reason for war now.

The inspections regime is very stringgent: I think the piece about the inspectors being allowed to declare exclusion zones is one very likely to cause problems.

I think the most confusing part, and the one that this admin. will most likely use to delcare Iraq in non-complience, if Iraq accepts in a week (it is likely it will), is the whole delcaration, the bit that Inspectors had told Bush back when they met was not a great idea: Iraq is supposed to give a full and truthfull declaration of all aspects of its WMD and ballistic missile programs/ it is not clear in the resoltion what happens next: for the UN to consider Iraq in breach of this part, does it have to wait for inspectors to go somewhere and check it out, and then come back and say 'hey, we found somehting misleading', or can the US delcare that it believes the declaration to be a lie, recal the council, tell them that, and then go to war? That is not made clear, but we find out by the fist and second weeks of december, now don't we?

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Japher
Point is... Unless we force ourselves to remember, history will repeat itself. One evil dictator is just as bad as another. France was just trying to be proper, but they are also being selfish and cowardly because it was none of their concern and they didn't want to be taken into an "unwarrented" war, because it wasn't their country... This time... Remember?

I would agree here accept to say the real lesson to be gained might be that one form of unchecked agression is no better then another. I have no problem with the UN stepping in and trying to set limits on a nation that at the moment seems more interested in revenge then any real form of justice.

I love the reference to our "coward" ex-president. Where was Bush in Vietnam and I'm not sure but could someone enlighten me as to why we did not remove Saddam back in the day after we had called for all the Iraqis to rise up and fight his rule, thereby leaving those who did to be slaughtered? Who can we lay the blame on for this.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Japher
Are we playing the "What If Game"!!!

What if a Nation, let's say Iraq, invaded another country and tried to take it over. From history we know that a greedy Nation, such as Iraq, would not stop there and would probably continue to take over it's surrounding countries, like Isreal. If that kind thing happens than I know America will step in... and it would be policeman-ish. Oh wait, that did happen!!!

What a load of crap!

Don't the proponents of invading Iraq ever read history? Is it that difficult to pick up a book?

What happened in 1990? Well, lets see:

Iraq is in economic trouble. Its economy has not fully recovered from the 8 year long war with Iran (more on that later). It owes its neighbors, espeically Kuwait and saudi Arabia hundreads of billions of dollars since the Iraq-Iran war is one of the most expensive in history. Iraq ask for Kuwait to forgive the loan. Kuwait will not. Now, saddam's only method of paying back is through his oil profits. kuwait is actvely overproducing its OPEC quota, driving oil prices down, thus making it harder for Saddam to pay back the loan Kuwait won't forgive. So, lo and behold, Saddam, with what is at this time the biggest army in the ME due to 8 years of war, decides to solve his problem with Kuwaits regime. But what does he do first? He goes to ask the US. Yes, in 1990 Saddam Hussein called the US ambassador to Baghdad to ask her if the US would allow Iraq to invade Kuwait. In what has to be one of the worst preformances by a US ambasador, we get a situation were the ambassador thinks she made it clear that the US won't go along, while saddam gets the impression the US would let him go along. So, believing he has the blessings of the US to solve his econmic problem vis a vi Kuwait, he invades. Yes, he is really a new Hitler! I eman, he even dared ask his patron!

On the Iran-Iraq war: Who started it? Yes, it was saddam who invaded Iran to take control of some southern watrways. At the same time, since the 1979 revolution, iran had been sposoring acts against Saddam's regime, since the Ayahtollah had spent time in iraq and come to hate Saddam. In march 1980 the Iranians tried to have Tariq Aziz assasinated, plus they encouraged Shiaties and Kurds to rebel against baghdad. So, in 1980 Saddam invaded a neighboring regime whos army has been weakened greatly by the revolution yet t the same time is sponsoring attempts to assasinate high Iraqi officials and formenting revolt within iraq. Damn, that Saddam is really a new Hitler! Attacking a regime that threatens him! Only hitler does that!

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by 123john321
Well, I don't know if Canada is going to go, most likly will, still its thorght the UN, and I was scared for the America, last time the US when to a war will out NATO, they got there asses kicked, in the Veitam War.

Are you aware of your own countries contributions to the war effort? And I'm sure the Aussies that served there would feel a bit left out.

[mrboo123]

Opps sorry, didn't know Australia was in the Veitam War.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by 123john321
Opps sorry, didn't know Australia was in the Veitam War.

They go to all of our wars.

[The Mad Monk]

Party crashers.

[gsmoove23]

5 Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

Heh, does this include Saddam himself?

[David Floyd]

targeted and shot as our aircraft dozens of times.

Our aircraft were in their airspace. The only regret I have about Iraq shooting at them is that they missed.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by 123john321
Well, I don't know if Canada is going to go, most likly will, still its thorght the UN, and I was scared for the America, last time the US when to a war will out NATO, they got there asses kicked, in the Veitam War.

During the Vietnam conflict, approximately 3.2 million Vietnamese were killed, in addition to another 1.5 million to 2 million Lao and Cambodians who were drawn into the war. Nearly 58,000 Americans lost their lives.

American combat forces kicked ass. Don't mistake stupid political policy for a lack of military ability.

We don't need Nato. We don't need allies. We only need a strong president and a Congressional majority.

Game on.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


During the Vietnam conflict, approximately 3.2 million Vietnamese were killed, in addition to another 1.5 million to 2 million Lao and Cambodians who were drawn into the war. Nearly 58,000 Americans lost their lives.

You rate a success based on the body bag count? How many civilians were included in those figures?

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Our aircraft were in their airspace. The only regret I have about Iraq shooting at them is that they missed.

David, I am sure that I am misunderstanding this quote. I hope so. Because if not, I am going to have to be branding you a treasonous little piss ant punk.

So please clarify that those were not American aircraft piloted by American pilots that you are sorry the Iraqis failed to shoot down.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


You rate a success based on the body bag count? How many civilians were included in those figures?

I didn't say it was a success Dolphin. I am just pointing out that Vietnam was not a military failure, it was a political one.

As for civilian casualties, I don't know and I don't care. America does not indiscriminately kill civilians.