Post-War Iraq: Should we help? - Page 4

DanS · March 17, 2003, 18:21

DAVOUT: "raise a problem" is putting it much more delicately than it was in actual fact.

HershOstropoler · March 17, 2003, 18:21

"I think we're on sufficient legal ground."

No. This war is illegal. The legal grounds that are paraded around are bollocks, from 1441 to reuming hostilities after a ceasefire.

"That's being ignored, not being stabbed in the back..."

Aha. When France works against a war that the US government wants for some bizarre reason, it's stabbing the US in the back. When the US starts a war that goes directly against France's interests (not just economical, even more security related), it's just ignoring France.

You have mastered the jingoistic double standard close to perfection.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 18:24

Quote:

No. This war is illegal. The legal grounds that are paraded around are bollocks, from 1441 to reuming hostilities after a ceasefire.

Bullshit.

Quote:

When France works against a war that the US government wants for some bizarre reason, it's stabbing the US in the back.

France acted like they were willing to compromise when they signed 1441. Then, when the US came back for the second resolution that France had requested, France refused to even consider the use of military force. That's a backstab...

DanS · March 17, 2003, 18:26

The legal grounds that are paraded around are bollocks, from 1441 to reuming hostilities after a ceasefire.

Why's that? Seriously, talk of illegality has died down over the last couple of days, just as the illigitimacy argument has been trumpeted (this is debatable, IMO). None of the US or Brit legal scholars are saying it's illegal.

HershOstropoler · March 17, 2003, 18:26

What do you know about international law, Mausi?

As for evil France, the US never considered a peaceful solution. The NY Times has a realistic asessment of how the diplomacy around 1441 went.

HershOstropoler · March 17, 2003, 18:28

Dan:

"None of the US or Brit legal scholars are saying it's illegal."

That's not correct, it just does not get reported. The Media are now out there for blood, not for legal briefs.

DAVOUT · March 17, 2003, 18:31

All this mean that it is now extremely dangerous to discuss with the US. If you say anything different of YES, you are subject to a trial of intent against which there is no possible end.

DanS · March 17, 2003, 18:41

The Media are now out there for blood, not for legal briefs.

This might well be true. However, the UK Attorney General has said that it is legal based upon past resolutions. That's why we backed off of the new resolution that was going to be vetoed or voted down.

HershOstropoler · March 17, 2003, 18:45

The UK attorney general is a government official. Do you think everything is legal that Ashcroft says is legal?

The new resolution was withdrawn for political, not legal reasons.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 18:48

Quote:

The new resolution was withdrawn for political, not legal reasons.

That's not what I've been hearing...

DanS · March 17, 2003, 18:48

Do you think everything is legal that Ashcroft says is legal?

Of course not. But there is no adjudicatory body competent to answer these specific questions, so the UK Attorney General will have to do.

BeBro · March 17, 2003, 19:30

Oh, nice to see that - after coming back from a short trip into real life - this thread has turned mainly into one of these great Euro-US bashing parties....

Quote:

There's a huge difference between not backing a war and actively opposing the US on it. France and Germany stopped being our friends months ago and are little better than Russia, China and Syria in my book. When you actively oppose the US, you make yourself our enemies...

Well, when you are over the whining about the simple fact that other countries have different opinions (and they even express them - shocking!) about a certain issue you could try to define "friendship" for me. I certainly would never expect from my friends that they only do things I want them to do - but that is actually what you demand. IMO this has nothing to do with being allied, or even "friends".

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

I certainly would never expect from my friends that they only do things I want them to do - but that is actually what you demand.

Bullshit. I've already said that I don't have any problem with our allies expressing their disagreement or not supporting us; it's when they go from disagreement to active opposition that I have a problem. It's like the difference between warning or avoiding a friend because of their drug use and turning them into the police. Friends don't do the latter...

BeBro · March 17, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
... it's when they go from disagreement to active opposition that I have a problem...

Like it or not, other countries have every right to act that way. Your country acts in his own interests, so don´t complain if others do the same. If you think that is enough to declare them enemies, well, then let´s hope your political leaders are somewhat wiser, because the world would become a quite cold place with so much enemies around....

DanS · March 17, 2003, 19:55

Like it or not, other countries have every right to act that way.

Sure they do. But would consider them an ally afterwards?

France isn't our enemy.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 19:58

Quote:

France isn't our enemy.

True; I really shouldn't have called them that. A stupid comment on my part and I apologize. Competitor would have been a better word...

DanS · March 17, 2003, 19:59

OK, I'll buy that. Creating a counterweight to American power is not something an ally would have any interest in.

Chemical Ollie · March 17, 2003, 20:00

Why is this war so important to America?

GePap · March 17, 2003, 20:01

THe US, Uk and Spain failed to get 9 votes simply because they could not convince any of theose 9 that a war had to occur in March. Had the US allowd for a 30 day extension, they probalby would have been able to pass such a resolution (no French veto even). The Us was unwilling: it wanted war by April, period. The world did not agree, so the US,UK, Spanish position failed. This blaming France is just a cheap red herring to oerocme the fact that they could not get agreement on a March war.

In 1956 drake, we demanded that fracne and the Uk withdrawl from Egypt while they had troops there, tyring to achieve what the UK and France saw as vital national interests (The Uk, to keep the Suez canal open, Fracne to undermine an Arab leader thay saw as giving support to a seperatist movement in the 3 African districts of france, home to over 1 million french citizens [if you don't count the algerans as ctizens of France]. Was that a stab in the back of the Us against an ally? did that make us enemies? Your hyperbole is frankly dangerous.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 20:03

Quote:

Was that a stab in the back of the Us against an ally?

Probably. I don't know enough about the Suez Crisis to make a definitive judgement...

BeBro · March 17, 2003, 20:06

"Not allied" is certainly not the same as "enemy".

Quote:

Sure they do. But would consider them an ally afterwards?

Well, we still consider you our allies, even if you act unilaterally

But seriously, there are common interests between the US and Europe. And they will be still there when Bush, Schröder, Chirac or Blair are gone.

Drake Tungsten · March 17, 2003, 20:09

Quote:

"Not allied" is certainly not the same as "enemy".

France has gone beyond being "not allied"; they are actively trying to become a strategic competitor to the United States. They've joined the ranks of China and Russia; while not yet an enemy, they are certainly not our friends...

Chemical Ollie · March 17, 2003, 20:13

France has always had it's own agenda. What's new?

BeBro · March 17, 2003, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

"Not allied" is certainly not the same as "enemy".

France has gone beyond being "not allied"; they are actively trying to become a strategic competitor to the United States.

Well, I´d say here you overestimate them...

To be honest, I found some of the German-French actions in that entire process quite stupid.

Lincoln · March 17, 2003, 20:29

Iraq did not comply with 1441 so now they face serious consequences. Pretty simple really and entirely legal. There has been no subsequent resolution to annual 1441. Whether the latest push for another resolution was withdrawn for political reasons or not, the fact remains that this war is legal unless France and company can ram through a another resolution before it begins.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

"Not allied" is certainly not the same as "enemy".

France has gone beyond being "not allied"; they are actively trying to become a strategic competitor to the United States. They've joined the ranks of China and Russia; while not yet an enemy, they are certainly not our friends...

NOt allied? Under which definition of allied? By treaty, and hence the law of the land accroding to the constitution we have an obligation to defend France, and France has an obligation to defend us: how is that not an allience?????

According to chickenhwaks, and the lawyers at the white house. this war is legal cause of 1441 and previous resolutions: which of those did France veto? In fact, france vetoed no resolutions against the US. In fact, france voted for the resolution you claim is the validation for force: wehre then is the stab in the back? where then is the idea that France has tried to create some sort fo coolition against the US? we could not convince Guinea, a country we could easily either bribe or threaten, to back us. We could not bribe or threaten Mexico...and all of a sudden that is France's fault?! Were the hell is the logic here? Were are the facts?

France stated that it did not feel the inspections regime had gone all the way and wanted more time. The US and UK did not. Why did France have to just roll over and give up? cause we wanted to attack? Why did we not compromise with our ally and give more than just a week? Why is that not a stab in the back???????

I am sick of all conservatives in this board that continue to make these statements..I am sad that our president and the British government keep making these statements: the US and UK failed, FAILED FAILED to convince more than 2 other state on the council to back them: they failed cause none of the other ocuncil mebers wanted a war by April, and all of sudden its France's fault?

We chose this war, the UK chose this war, Spain chose this war..IT IS OUR CHOICE, IT IS NOT SOMETHING THRUST UPON US, and France or any other state does not have to go along with our choices. You are angry that they failed to back us..fine, but they never had to, it was never something they have to do, that is not friendship, to demand and expect that your friend always do everything you want them to, specially if you disagree. For whatever reasons, France did not want this war, and did not want to vote for a second resolution, a resolution all you warmongers say isn't even needed. So France is our enemy because they never vetoed, bu threatened to veto, a resolution according to you guys we did not need? How is this rational? How is this logical? How is this anything more than an motional rant cuase you want everyone else to back you, cause you think you are so Goddamned right and holy, that gosh darn it, why doesn't everyone just see it? Right, you chickenhwaks are so holy, so utterly correct, so nice that every must fall in line, and if they don'ty, they are our enemies, so forth and so on..PATHETIC. Grow up: they said no to somehting you guys claimed was not even necessary. What they did do was expose the fact that you didn't convince anyone on the council besides Spain and Bulgaria. If the US and UK case was so damned good, you would have gotten the 9 votes, damn a French veto. You didn't, you didn't because you could not convince those nations a war by April was justified. You failed to make the case.

Now maybe, blaiming it all on France makes you feel better, more justified, less willing to question why 6 relatively small and poor states could not be cajolled and convinced by the US and UK to back them, then go ahead, take the theraputic stand..but don't go around thinking it is real, cause it is not.

Drake Tungsten · March 18, 2003, 00:58

How many times do I have to explain that I'm angry with France because they actively opposed US interests, not because they "failed to back us"? I'm so tired of saying the same thing over and over...

Evil_Eric_4 · March 18, 2003, 01:31

S!all

I can understand those of you who feel that those countries that went ahead with military operations should foot the bill but reality must step in.

There is gonna be one hell of a market opened up in a free Iraq.

Those countries who dont sign contracts with Iraqi oil companies to develop oil wells(or repair the damaged ones that Saddam blows)will be screwing up a golden oppertunity.

Lets face it --Oil is whats gonna raise this country out of ruins.

You people seem to underestimate the amount of sweet crude available in Iraq--They only tap maybe 50% of there KNOWN oil fields.We can turn Iraq into a big Kuwait as far as standard of living is concerned and still make everyone a healthy profit.

Countries like France and Germany have really shot themselves in the foot since Im sure the Iraqis will remember who liberated them and who wanted Saddam to stay in power.

Ned · March 18, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
THe US, Uk and Spain failed to get 9 votes simply because they could not convince any of theose 9 that a war had to occur in March. Had the US allowd for a 30 day extension, they probalby would have been able to pass such a resolution (no French veto even). The Us was unwilling: it wanted war by April, period. The world did not agree, so the US,UK, Spanish position failed. This blaming France is just a cheap red herring to oerocme the fact that they could not get agreement on a March war.

According to Powell, they had 10 votes, but still could not persuade France.

Quote:

In 1956 drake, we demanded that fracne and the Uk withdrawl from Egypt while they had troops there, tyring to achieve what the UK and France saw as vital national interests (The Uk, to keep the Suez canal open, Fracne to undermine an Arab leader thay saw as giving support to a seperatist movement in the 3 African districts of france, home to over 1 million french citizens [if you don't count the algerans as ctizens of France]. Was that a stab in the back of the Us against an ally? did that make us enemies? Your hyperbole is frankly dangerous.

I wish some the Frenchmen here could be "honest" about their reasons for stiffing America. I think it may be because of Dien bin Phu - they asked for our help and we said no. We had marines and aircraft carriers standing by.

In '56, we forced France to withdraw from the Suez.

In '62-3, we got actively involved in the anti-communist struggle in Vietnam. This, coupled with our failure to support the French earlier may have suggested to France that we simply wanted to replace them as colonial powers in IndoChina.

GePap · March 18, 2003, 11:15

Ned:

yeah, they had ten votess... and yet they didn;t take the vote? Sorry, but that makes no sense. This admin. fro a week was syaing that what it sought was a council majority and that then, even with French veto, they would claim they had the support of the council, support that one state did not share. If thy ahd 10 votes (all the undecided along) thy would have gone forward. Their actions Ned, specially for this admin. , spealk far more loundly than their words.

As for the second part: Yeah, the French have had this grudge since Dien Bien Phu.... come on Ned. The French do not see the coming war as benefiting their interests (in whichever way you decide to see that), so they did not back it, just as in 1956 the US saw the Anglo-French Israeli invasion of Egypt as being against its interests.