Why war with Iraq seems inevitable

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:35 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2687403.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html

If the US government is willing to piss off France and Germany, it seems more that likely that the US will go to war even without a UN mandate. Bear in mind that France has a permanent seat on the security council (with veto rights), and Germany will preside over it in February. The POTUS, his Co-POTUS and their cabinet obviously don't think they're dependent on the good will of the council.

*sigh*

Besides, Rumsfeld's allegations are just plain wrong. "Old Europe" is total and complete bullshit. Old Europe meant war and strife, especially between France and Germany, who were sworn enemies for the last 2-3 centuries. What we're doing now is just the opposite. What's more, the only Eastern European government that fully supports the US' Iraq policy is Poland. And that's just the government, not the people, mind you. I wonder if he knows that he's talking out of his ass and doing this slander on purpose. What a stupid prick.

OK, I'm done ranting for now.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:50 pm

"Old Europe" is total and complete bullshit. Old Europe meant war and strife, especially between France and Germany, who were sworn enemies for the last 2-3 centuries. What we're doing now is just the opposite.

I rather think that by "Old Europe" he meant "Cold-War Europe."

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:59 pm

Marius wrote:
"Old Europe" is total and complete bullshit. Old Europe meant war and strife, especially between France and Germany, who were sworn enemies for the last 2-3 centuries. What we're doing now is just the opposite.
I rather think that by "Old Europe" he meant "Cold-War Europe."

Cold War? Between which countries? France/Germany and the US? Why? Because we have the audacity to have a differing opinion? I don't understand.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 4:13 pm

"Cold-War" refers to a particular span of history.

Cazmonster · Post by **Cazmonster** » Thu Jan 23, 2003 10:34 pm

Yay! Marius's eye healed!

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:09 am

I, at Saddam's Side
Milan Panorama 23 Jan 03 pp 36-40

by Pino Buongiorno in Amman

"Call me Colonel Qassem. For the time being at least."

The officer, who holds an important post in the Iraqi Army, kept looking around. He seemed nervous. He had a stern look on his face, and he kept sneaking a look at his watch every two minutes. The meeting, set up and postponed more than once through the mediation of a leading Jordanian businessman who conducts business both in Europe and in Baghdad, took place in the cafeteria of a mall
hotel in Amman.

"When it is all over," he promised, "you will be able to reveal my true name and rank to your readers. You will appreciate that I am taking a risk just by being here. What I want is simply abetter future for my children."

"Colonel Qassem," whose face is as lined as that of a 60-year-old, but who probably is not much older than 45, was in Jordan. The day after the interview, which he granted to Panorama without asking for any compensation, he was due to return to his regiment in Baghdad, to the secrets of a regime that has been on a permanent war footing for 15 years.

The tale that he had to tell is precious because it comes from the very heart of the Armed Forces. The dissident officer is not an opponent in exile, safe and sound and enjoying the protection of some foreign power. He has daily first-hand experience of the tragedy of a dictatorship that is all the more merciless because it is about to collapse; a place where you can wake up in the morning and end up in front of an execution squad on the basis of mere suspicion. He said that he too has paid the price of
Saddam's demented cruelty through a number of his relatives. The tale that he told is dramatic, but it is dry, devoid of all rhetoric, and it is based above all on things of which he has first-hand experience.

[Buongiorno] The UN inspectors have not discovered much evidence of weapons of mass destruction to date. This, to the point where the only objections against the Iraqi Government are over gaps in the encyclopedic report submitted two months ago. What is really happening in this umpteenth game of cat and mouse?

[Qassem] The inspectors have been working non-stop in Iraq with the aid of sophisticated instrumentation ever since they arrived. They have been visiting military sites, research laboratories, and palaces of the government and even of the president himself. They have also attempted to question a number of Iraqi scientists, but to little avail. In all of this major work there is a basic flaw due to a lack of imagination or of information: namely the presumption that chemical and biological weapons or the substances used for making them are necessarily hidden in very well protected bunkers. As is well known, on the contrary, these are materials that are easy to transport and that are not even excessively cumbersome. That is exactly where the military apparatuses' and intelligence services' trick lies: namely, in making these devices invisible by constantly moving them around on tanker trucks that travel either under escort or being trailed at a distance. Saddam Hussein is very proud of this simple expedient: In one of the most recent government meetings, simultaneous with the umpteenth inspection of a site in Baghdad, he burst out laughing and said: "While those guys (the inspectors -- Panorama editor's note) are going about underground, our trucks are driving over their heads."

[Buongiorno] Where do these trucks go?

[Qassem] They go wherever there is a road that can be driven on, including in the northern regions under the control of the Kurdish clans. They are trailed at a distance by Mukhabarat (Baghdad's intelligence service -- Panorama ed) support vehicles that can interfere at any time or else simply indicate sudden changes of route. Some vehicles move also on the roads of Syria, with Damascus' tacit consent. Syria is gaining quite an advantage from this crisis and it can buy our crude oil for practically no cost. The thing that surprises me the most is why the CIA has not provided the UN inspectors with indications regarding the existence of these trucks, whose movements cannot possibly have escaped notice. After all, it is not so difficult to intercept them. All that one has to do is to stop one of them in order to cause the entire wall of lies built up by Saddam Hussein to collapse.
[Buongiorno] The US authorities' official excuse is that they do not wish to place their network of local informants in jeopardy.

[Qassem] I do not think that the CIA chiefs harbor such scruples. We are talking about an international crisis that is in danger of plunging the whole world into chaos. And they could always say that they got their information from spy satellites. It is politics that is holding everything back: It is the economic risks linked to the possibility of a conflict; it is doubts regarding the future setup in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole. US troops were at the gates of Baghdad back in 1991 when they received the order to cease operations. That is why not even we Iraqi officers can ever truly make out the United States' intentions. And many of us do not trust it and do not want to cooperate with it either now or afterward. In any war the risk involved must be known and assessed, but it cannot be completely eliminated as the United States would like.

[Buongiorno] Do you think that there will be a war in the end?

[Qassem] I hope only that our country can emerge from this unending crisis situation soon. Because of sanctions, our people are reduced to starvation, salaries are not being paid, inflation is rocketing, and disease and malnutrition are decimating our children. Only the president's clique, the military, and the intelligence service men have gained benefits from the conflict. Their salaries have all been doubled and in some cases even trebled in order to avert the danger of their defecting. But the rest of the people are suffering. It is an intolerable situation. There is a desire for rebirth in the country. War is never a thing to be hoped for, but sometimes it is the lesser evil for a better future.

[Buongiorno] How is Saddam coping with this countdown?

[Qassem] He lives by constantly moving around, protected by his Pretorian guard. Like all dictators, he has his food tasted before each meal. And no one ever knows in advance where he is going to be eating or sleeping. He is an ambitious, brutal, and arrogant man just like the picture you people have of him in the West. He has ordered the cold-blooded execution of friends and relatives. He has caused dissidents to be tortured, to disappear, and to be eliminated.

[Buongiorno] How about his sons Uday and Qusay? What role do they really play?

[Qassem] They believe themselves to be omnipotent. Uday, the elder son, has a soft spot for women. Our secret service agents are often tasked with procuring young Ukrainian girls, his favorites, to satisfy his whims. Within the regime the two sons play an important role in the handling of domestic security, of information, and of both legal and clandestine trade. Uday controls a network of trading companies that are used to cover trafficking of all kinds with complex triangulations. A number of them are located even here in Jordan.

[Buongiorno] What are the most well-trodden routes?

[Qassem] After the 1991 war and the almost total destruction of our defense system, Iraq had to buy war material and spare parts on the international market. Syria played an important role. The border is permeable and some people turn not one blind eye but both. The road between Damascus and Baghdad is groaning with traffic. Even the railroad is fully functioning. Engines for airplanes and helicopters and even mechanical parts for missiles have come into Iraq via Syria. Chinese- or Russian-manufactured air defense systems have entered Iraq the same way. Our secret services handle this traffic. Also taxi drivers traveling between Syria and Baghdad help to transport some of this material that is under embargo.

[Buongiorno] How do your agents operate in Europe?

[Qassem] The trading companies that act as facades also make it their business to get hold of visas for Mukhabarat functionaries. The nerve center for all this is in Denmark. But also other embassies abroad serve to coordinate undercover arms trafficking, such as that involving the Orao factory in Serbia which exported MiG 21 and 29 engines to Iraq. Recently President Saddam Hussein has ordered all nonessential diplomats -- in other words, those that are career diplomats and that do not belong to the secret services -- to be recalled to Baghdad.

[Buongiorno] Has the regime entertained relations with al-Qa'ida or not?

[Qassem] Any country's intelligence services are in touch with numerous organizations, including terrorist organizations. It is part of the job. There have undoubtedly been a number of contacts, including in Europe, but it is not an institutionalized link.

[Buongiorno] What type of devices and missiles do you still have available to you?

[Qassem] Naturally not all the chemical and biological weapons have been dismantled as ordered by the United Nations. You in the West often talk about scientists involved in research for the manufacture of these weapons. Well, research is useful but it is not essential. Some materials can be found on the black market. Others are easy to manufacture without any need for sophisticated studies. As far as our missiles are concerned, we still have several Ukrainian-manufactured Scud missiles.

[Buongiorno] Where are they concealed? In this case trucks would be of little use.

[Qassem] The woods in the north of Iraq, close to Mosul, provide excellent cover for the launch pads, which that way cannot be easily identified either by reconnaissance aircraft or by satellites. The missiles have to be stored close to their launch pads. Good cover is offered by inhabited settlements.

[Buongiorno] In the event of a US attack, what do you predict that Saddam Hussein will do?

[Qassem] Wars are planned in advance but they are decided on on a minute-by-minute basis in accordance with the military and political requirements of the moment. I would divide the potential targets of Iraqi missile attacks into two categories: on the one hand, those linked to the United States' military presence in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar; on the other, those targets which, if hit, could cause the conflict to degenerate into a regional affair, and I am referring to Israel, but also to Jordan. The government in Jerusalem certainly will not stand idly by with its arms folded.

[Buongiorno] Whose side are the Iraqi people really on? Why do they not rebel? Why did they unanimously reelect Saddam Hussein?

[Qassem] Propaganda and terror paralyze anyone. The Iraqi people have a long tradition of struggles behind them and they have also suffered the consequences of that. It is difficult to speak and to move about with a noose around your neck. The apparatuses of repression know no mercy. Who has the courage to commit suicide and to condemn also his own near and dear ones to death in order to stage a rebellion that is bound to fail? Finally, you should be aware also that Qusay Hussein's agents personally handed out preprinted ballot sheets with a check against Saddam Hussein's name to every family.

[Buongiorno] One last question. Could dissent among the Army officers and even among the Republican Guard lead to a coup d'etat?

[Qassem] I would not be here talking to you if there were no dissent.

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:44 am

Update: things are getting bad. Really bad.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 3:48 am

But of course. Is there not just something really shifty about this face? Look at the beady eyes, the psychotic glare. He could go off at any time. It is the face of evil I tell you!

[align=center]

[/align]

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:08 am

Niiiice, Flak. You're scaring me now.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:46 pm

Can't see the pic.

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:02 pm

Ok, I was looking at the BBC page the other day and they were talking about some letter that a bunch of European countries signed. I was still a bit unclear when I was done reading about it, however. I forget who all signed it, actually: Poland, Denmark, UK, Itally, Spain, Portugal...I'm not sure if those are all correct...I think there are...and I think I'm forgetting some. However, I'm at the school computer and don't remember the webpage I was looking at. At any rate, how does this letter actually affect things? It was supposed to be some (at least) quazi-supportive thing for the US. Anyhow, I'm really unclear about it and was wondering if it is still significant and if so, oi. I'm losing my train of thought. Maybe I'll clear this post up when I get home.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:46 pm

Liniah wrote:Ok, I was looking at the BBC page the other day and they were talking about some letter that a bunch of European countries signed. I was still a bit unclear when I was done reading about it, however. I forget who all signed it, actually: Poland, Denmark, UK, Itally, Spain, Portugal...I'm not sure if those are all correct...I think there are...and I think I'm forgetting some.

Plus Hungary and...the Czech Republic. Which irks me a little.

However, I'm at the school computer and don't remember the webpage I was looking at. At any rate, how does this letter actually affect things? It was supposed to be some (at least) quazi-supportive thing for the US. Anyhow, I'm really unclear about it and was wondering if it is still significant and if so, oi. I'm losing my train of thought. Maybe I'll clear this post up when I get home.

Well, I guess that just shows how far away Europe still is from being truly united. Apart from that, this controversial symbolic gesture of support has little effect. Of those who signed the declaration, only Spain is currently a member of the UN Security Council.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:06 am

Um, excuse me? Did we lose our permanent seat on the place when I wasn't looking or something? It's always the way. You get up to go take a leak and when you come back some asshole has taken it. Fuckers.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:18 am

I wish the French would get up to take a leak. Maybe if they did they wouldn't always be so cranky.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 5:35 am

Nah, that's just them trying to prove what a great, powerful and influental nation they are. Hah! What amuses me is that for all this posturing they either have to eventually join up at the last minute, as per, or idly sit by and be unable to do anything if and when the US & Co. ignore the UN, proving how little influence the French really have outside of Europe.

There was talk a while back of expanding the Security Council IIRC. Some sort of paper floating around proposing the idea of upping the number of rotating seats and giving Germany and Japan permanent seat- possibly with a veto, possibly without. Actually made a fair amount of sense.

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 6:26 am

Damnit. How did I forget the the Czech Republic was in there. Duh.

I think more countries should agree with Germany...(yeah, yeah...and France). I mean, sure, right now some people think they seem kinda silly for doing what they're doing...but the more the merrier...get a few more 'important' countries in there (and however many 'minor' ones) and it begins to look quite a bit more impressive.

So, how do all of the countries feel now? How much support do you think the US will have when it comes down to it? Veed, have you found out about the other Scandinavian countries for me yet? I'm really curious to see what the different places actually decide in the end. Hopefully I'll have some extra time this weekend to look up some stuff myself. This has been a bad week as far as buisy goes, though.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:00 am

Well in Europe in general, and the UK, the majority of people are against it without some serious proof or UN approaval. Of course what the common schlubs on the ground think and what their governments do in their names can be two completely different matters. I'll try and dig out some solid facts and figures.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:24 am

According to the German ambassador, there are "no substantive differences between the U.S. and the German positions on inspections."

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:29 am

Just out of interest, but does anyone have a firm number on how many UN Weapons Inspectors there are in Iraq? I'm wondering because unless they number in the thousands, it seems a little pointless what with Iraq being roughly the same size as France IIRC.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 7:33 am

Off the top of my head, 108.

That might even be close to accurate.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 8:12 am

Closest I can find from a couple minutes looking says 113 as of December last year. And this for poking round a country with a land mass of 437,072 sq km, with the government actively trying to hide stuff.

Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe we have a new definition for futile.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 8:19 am

FlakJacket wrote:Um, excuse me? Did we lose our permanent seat on the place when I wasn't looking or something? It's always the way. You get up to go take a leak and when you come back some asshole has taken it. Fuckers.

Hm? Oh, well yes, since your seat is permanent, I sort of didn't think it was worth mentioning, since it was, well, permanent.

Liniah · Post by **Liniah** » Fri Feb 07, 2003 10:16 pm

Just as a side note, can anyone give me any insight as to how many Europeans feel about the UN in general? Do they/you feel it's working well? Do they/you feel that it's useful? Etc, etc. I thought of this because of this:

the majority of people are against it without some serious proof or UN approaval

That kinda made it sound like "if the UN says so, it's gotta be ok". Now, I know that's probably not what you meant, but taken out of context and all, it could. Is that an attitude that you encounter? I mean, obvisouly, some people here in the US don't feel that the UN is quite so important. If the UN says 'let's all go to war', does that make it ok?

(Damn my political science class for being useful in reality...*babbles about realism and globalism...*)

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:12 am

It's not so much that we give a damn about the U.N. It's more that if we do get U.N. approval, it meanst that we have convinced the majority of the other countries in the world that our intervention is justified. It's good diplomacy to exhaust all other avenues (although my personal impression of Bush is that he sees war as inevitable, and is simply going through the motions of doing that), then get the support of as many other nations as possible. We could go in unilaterally if we had to, but it would mess up our relations with a lot of other countries (mess them up more than Bush already has, I mean).

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:03 am

Glyph wrote:It's not so much that we give a damn about the U.N. It's more that if we do get U.N. approval, it meanst that we have convinced the majority of the other countries in the world that our intervention is justified.

Probably just the cynical bastard in me, but not necessarily. Just means that the US has managed to convince enough countries to vote for it and that the permanent five wont object.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Feb 10, 2003 10:01 am

Toryu mentioned this at the begining of this thread:

The POTUS, his Co-POTUS and their cabinet obviously don't think they're dependent on the good will of the council.

Vice President, there is nothing Co about it.

And since when have we really believed that the UNs good will is good for anything other than really great ass wipe?
[/quote]

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 3:06 am

As I see it, most of the support that the US has in the UN comes from countries that are mostly interested in 'appeasing' the US. The idea as I see it is that many UN members fear that the US declaring war unilaterally will make the UN appear to be irrelevant.

But let's be brutally honest, If the US pulls away from the UN, the UN basically will be irrelevant.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 4:35 am

Pray tell, why UN will be irrevelent if US pulls out?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:43 am

Hmm the largest cohesive memeber that has the ability to project forces beyonds it own borders in an effective manner? The remaining world superpower? Hows that for a start? How about we follow it by kicking their lame asses out of New York.

Think that won't make a difference? You try moving all your shit internationally with no notice...at gun point.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:05 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Hmm the largest cohesive memeber that has the ability to project forces beyonds it own borders in an effective manner?

You seem to think that the United Nations is primarily meant as a peace keeping organisation, and as far as I know, that's it's most prominent role, but the more important role is simple upkeep of good relations. The United States might have all the troops, but that's not what the UN is about.

The remaining world superpower?

Whatever makes you sleep well at night.

Hows that for a start? How about we follow it by kicking their lame asses out of New York.

Oh, no...please don't. *Hand. Staple. Forehead.*

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:13 pm

You seem to think that the United Nations is primarily meant as a peace keeping organisation, and as far as I know, that's it's most prominent role, but the more important role is simple upkeep of good relations. The United States might have all the troops, but that's not what the UN is about.

Wow, a role they have been highly successful at so far. Let me find all the stellar examples from the last fifty years......wait. Thats right, there aren't any. Show me a truly global decision thats going anywhere with out US support.

While I might have agreed that the upkeep of effective lines of communication between nations is a good idea, saying that the UN is particularly effective at that is a joke. Hell they can't even keep the serious human rights violators of their own mandates off the human rights council.

Whatever makes you sleep well at night

I sleep fine, show me an equal.

Oh, no...please don't. *Hand. Staple. Forehead.*

So you really think this would have *NO* ramnifications? Are you that oblivious?

World Wars have been started over sillier shit. Like third rate distant cousins. Politics is a strange beast bud.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:45 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Are you that oblivious?

That's what I keep asking myself about you, too, Paul. It's like you don't like to look at things from an alternative perspective because you're too afraid of what you might find.

Wow, a role they have been highly successful at so far. Let me find all the stellar examples from the last fifty years......wait. Thats right, there aren't any. Show me a truly global decision thats going anywhere with out US support.

While I might have agreed that the upkeep of effective lines of communication between nations is a good idea, saying that the UN is particularly effective at that is a joke. Hell they can't even keep the serious human rights violators of their own mandates off the human rights council.

Which wasn't the point I was trying to make. Your arguments are always military and martial in nature. It's time to take off your helmet and put on your diplomatic hat and take another look at the situation.

The UN isn't all about kicking hoop, so don't treat it that way.

I sleep fine, show me an equal.

I have no clue what you mean by the latter part of your sentence.

So you really think this would have *NO* ramnifications?

Yeah, people will be miffed that they have to move office, and more than miffed at the US if they don't have a good reason for closing the UN headquatres. *shrug*

I think the UN will survive moving office, and even though you think the UN is impotent without the US, I think the UN is more beneficial to the US than you might think.

Politics is a strange beast bud.

Too bad you seem to understand even less of politics than I do.

The Eclipse · Post by **The Eclipse** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:16 pm

You seem to think that the United Nations is primarily meant as a peace keeping organisation, and as far as I know, that's it's most prominent role, but the more important role is simple upkeep of good relations. The United States might have all the troops, but that's not what the UN is about.

The UN isn't all about kicking hoop, so don't treat it that way.

Peacekeeps is EXACTLY what the UN is about, it's not supposed to be that way, but that is the ONLY mildly effective role that the UN plays. Everything else that the UN does is nothing more than posturing and wishful thinking.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:30 pm

The Eclipse wrote:Peacekeeps is EXACTLY what the UN is about, it's not supposed to be that way, but that is the ONLY mildly effective role that the UN plays. Everything else that the UN does is nothing more than posturing and wishful thinking.

You understand what I'm saying, but I don't understand why you feel the need to contradict yourself by saying that it's the only thing the UN is about, and then turn around and say that it is about other things too, which you don't consider very valid. Have you ever looked at their website to see what they're involved in? If not, then I suggest you do, you'll find out that most of the things they do is humanitarian, which you wouldn't feel the direct effects of because you live in SoCal.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:59 pm

Serious Paul wrote:Wow, a role they have been highly successful at so far. Let me find all the stellar examples from the last fifty years......wait. Thats right, there aren't any. Show me a truly global decision thats going anywhere with out US support.

That's not the issue. You may as well say "Show me a truly global decision that's going anywhere without UK support."

That's not the /question/. (Hell, if the UN /were/ doing that without the US, you'd argue by your criteria that it wasn't 'truly global' since it didn't include the US.) The UN are involved in peacekeeping and keeping open diplomatic relations, and that they don't make do without the US so far because, well, they don't have to. That doesn't mean they can't.

I sleep fine, show me an equal.

Well, I sleep fine too, thankyou for asking.

Oh, did you mean an equal to the US? Hmm, well... the USSR's dead and buried, yeah, but I wouldn't be ultra-keen about pissing off the Chinese any time soon.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:06 pm

...or the Indians.

...or the Israelites.

...or the North Koreans.

...or the French.

...or the British.

...or the Russians.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:09 pm

SeriousPaul wrote: I sleep fine, show me an equal.

Four planes and some people who really don't like you.

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:19 pm

Valid point.

Yeah, yeah, the terrorists aren't a match for the USA in sheer numbers, technological superiority, world popularity, or any number of other very important measurements.

What they do have over the US? Grim and bloody determination to really make their point. GWB called them "cowards" after 9/11. That's one thing they /weren't/. Brutal, bloody, wrong, sure. All of those. But they weren't cowards.

I think that's one thing that the USA isn't, perhaps, prepared to face - the sheer venom and vitriol of some peoples' hatred towards the nation. Understandable; no-one wants to be hated, and when you think you've been good and noble and doing the right thing for decades it comes as a shock to find that some people disagree with you... to the point where they will give their own lives without backing down (and without the russian-roulette safety blanket of soldiers at war, who are prepared to die but are hoping to live - these guys *knew* they were going to die). People in the middle east are used to dealing with suicide bombers and bloody fanatics; it was a nasty and rude awakening for the US. Until western countries have become accustomed to the idea that people will do this, and have worked out ways to deal with it, the people who are willing to do this do have at least one advantage over us all.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 2:46 pm

A good point Jes. Terrorist organizations are willing to go to any lengths to attack. I am surprised we have not seen any biological weapons used by terrorists so far. Unleashing toxic compounds is, in theory at least, easier logistically than hijacking 4 seperate planes.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:53 pm

I have no doubt that we will see the use of a weapon of mass destruction - probably a chemical or biological weapon or simple fission warhead, but possibly a neutron bomb - in a terrorist attack against the United States before I'm dead, and probably before I'm married.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 8:56 pm

I hope you're wrong Sal.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:04 pm

Oh, I hope I'm wrong, too. But let's be honest - terrorists go for the whatever will create the most chaos, and nothing quite terrifies people like a mushroom cloud over Long Island or Hollywood.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:16 pm

Jestyr wrote:
SeriousPaul wrote:I sleep fine, show me an equal.
Oh, did you mean an equal to the US? Hmm, well... the USSR's dead and buried, yeah, but I wouldn't be ultra-keen about pissing off the Chinese any time soon.

Dennis wrote:...or the Indians.
...or the Israelites.
...or the North Koreans.
...or the French.
...or the British.
...or the Russians.

Szechuan wrote:Four planes and some people who really don't like you.

Okay, but seriously, folks. Find an equal to the United States. Find another superpower. The fact is - and, oh yeah, I know all of you know this - you can't. China? Yes, one billion people and three AK-47s will definately be enough to stop the Tenth Armored Division if it comes rolling through Beijing. Israel? Why would they fight us again? North Korea? Yes, because it would take at least two days to return them to the stone age.

Europe united could not stand against the United States. If the whole world attacked us, yeah, we're looking to lose in a big way, but every single one of you knows that there's only one superpower in the world, and that's the US, and whatever you may think of the state of affairs that describes, please let's not waste our time trying to drown ourselves in platitudes that /France/ is an equal to the US.

As for terrorists and the threat they present to the United States, I would think that it's obvious that four airplanes and some dead terrorists don't exactly compare to the devastation we've wrought on Al Qaeda.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:21 pm

I don't really think that was the point that people were trying to make, 32. No, individually, you'll beat the shit out of anyone. However, that doesn't take away that the price might be too high in defeating them. If it is, then they are already your equal.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:37 pm

First let me say this has been fun so far, thanks everyone.

That's what I keep asking myself about you, too, Paul. It's like you don't like to look at things from an alternative perspective because you're too afraid of what you might find.

Most certainly not. I am not afraid at all. Heck, I don't even know what it is I am supposed to be afraid of here. Finding out I am wrong? Shit man, thats the point of debate, and discussion. To explore alternate ways of thinking.

If nothing else I learn some things here I may have never have earned otherwise.

Which wasn't the point I was trying to make. Your arguments are always military and martial in nature. It's time to take off your helmet and put on your diplomatic hat and take another look at the situation.

Well yeah, thats because I see a lot of the current dilemas facing my Nation needing Military attnetion. Whats that old thing about every problem looking like a nail when all you have is a hammer? I freely admit my bias towards the heavy handed solution.

Thats why I think we need people like you. Which is why I love America. You can take an opposing view, and we can argue/discuss/name call/whatever as much as we want. But onward ho.....

From the UNs Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

With me so far? See what Number One says?

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

See how easy it is for me to assume the UNs job is to kick hoop? To maintain international peace and security. To you that may mean negotiations. To me that means walk softly carry a big stick. Can we at least agree on that?

I think the UN will survive moving office, and even though you think the UN is impotent without the US, I think the UN is more beneficial to the US than you might think.

I am not quite as much of a tool as you think I am guy. I didn't think they wouldn't survive a move, what I was hinting at was the political fall out. And there would be some.

If the US withdrew from the UN and said close shop and get out of town, that would be a real smack in the face. Sure, a smack most likely won't kill you. But its as embarassing as get out. The UN already lacks credibilty on a global scale. Withdrawing one of its most prominent members (Hey we are like Micheal Jackson, weird and wild, but we get head lines.) would be a big loss.

And while I am against US participation in the UN, I think it has long since fullfilled its usefullness for us, I do agree there may be benefits I don't see, or yet to come.

Too bad you seem to understand even less of politics than I do.

Bah! I do just fine thank you. Maybe I will never get to be a member of what ever namby pamby political group you'd form, but do either of us see that as a real big loss?

Jestyr said:

That's not the issue. You may as well say "Show me a truly global decision that's going anywhere without UK support."

But thats entirely the point. How does my country benefit? The UN is useless, as useless to me as to say the UK.

That's not the /question/. (Hell, if the UN /were/ doing that without the US, you'd argue by your criteria that it wasn't 'truly global' since it didn't include the US.)

But I think that is the question.If you jojn a club its for several reasons right?

Because you share similar intrests? Well the UN to a lot of Americans has diverged from our national Intrests. Because its mutually beneficial? Same thing. A lot fo Americans, hell even people in other countries, think the UN is not a beneficial organization. It simply sucks up money, time, and military equipment with out accomplishing anything.

As far as the last statement goes-well I am an American Jestyr. What do you want me to do?

The UN are involved in peacekeeping and keeping open diplomatic relations, and that they don't make do without the US so far because, well, they don't have to. That doesn't mean they can't.

I am not so sure they could. If anything not at the scale we could. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Oh, did you mean an equal to the US? Hmm, well... the USSR's dead and buried, yeah, but I wouldn't be ultra-keen about pissing off the Chinese any time soon.

Heh. A valid point, one of course I would disagree with. Hey I am a jingoistic patriot.

Dennis posted a grocery list of apples and oranges:

...or the Indians.

...or the Israelites.

...or the North Koreans.

...or the French.

...or the British.

...or the Russians.

Half that list is comprised of long time US allies, the other half is composed of people trying to be our allies. Only one of those countries on that list is actively hostile, and they are so damned determined to get us to feed them its not funny.

Sure maybe one on one any one of those countries, I wouldn't include North Korea on that short list but I digress, would maul us before we put them down. But the chances of that happening are so slim its a real nonoption. Our economies are so intertwined, and becoming more so that I have a hard time seeing things getting much more than actively pissy with each other.

Szechuan said:

Four planes and some people who really don't like you.

Military equa;izer, maybe. Economic? Nope. Political? Nope. Equal, and Superpower mean more than just Military might. Even /I/ know that.

Jestyr wrote:

What they do have over the US? Grim and bloody determination to really make their point. GWB called them "cowards" after 9/11. That's one thing they /weren't/. Brutal, bloody, wrong, sure. All of those. But they weren't cowards.

Well I agree that they are determined, and they do hate us. I understand why GWB used the terms cowards. I mean you can't just get up on TV and say " The really clever guerilla force that ripped pages from teh Delta Force Doctrine on insurgency tactics..."

I think that's one thing that the USA isn't, perhaps, prepared to face - the sheer venom and vitriol of some peoples' hatred towards the nation.

Unfortunately thats very true. Well put Jestyr. I couldn't agree more with the rest of what you wrote.

Salvation 122 posted:

I have no doubt that we will see the use of a weapon of mass destruction - probably a chemical or biological weapon or simple fission warhead, but possibly a neutron bomb - in a terrorist attack against the United States before I'm dead, and probably before I'm married.

I have to agree. Its sort of sad isn't it?

Allright, have at me!

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:57 pm

3278 wrote:
Jestyr wrote:
SeriousPaul wrote:I sleep fine, show me an equal.
Oh, did you mean an equal to the US? Hmm, well... the USSR's dead and buried, yeah, but I wouldn't be ultra-keen about pissing off the Chinese any time soon.

Dennis wrote:...or the Indians.
...or the Israelites.
...or the North Koreans.
...or the French.
...or the British.
...or the Russians.

Szechuan wrote:Four planes and some people who really don't like you.
Okay, but seriously, folks. Find an equal to the United States. Find another superpower. The fact is - and, oh yeah, I know all of you know this - you can't. China? Yes, one billion people and three AK-47s will definately be enough to stop the Tenth Armored Division if it comes rolling through Beijing. Israel? Why would they fight us again? North Korea? Yes, because it would take at least two days to return them to the stone age.

Europe united could not stand against the United States. If the whole world attacked us, yeah, we're looking to lose in a big way, but every single one of you knows that there's only one superpower in the world, and that's the US, and whatever you may think of the state of affairs that describes, please let's not waste our time trying to drown ourselves in platitudes that /France/ is an equal to the US.

As for terrorists and the threat they present to the United States, I would think that it's obvious that four airplanes and some dead terrorists don't exactly compare to the devastation we've wrought on Al Qaeda.

That made me curious.

Suppose all countries other than US are gone...

What will happen to United States as in itself?

Will US divide into parts as there is no nations threatening United States?

Just a hypothetical question.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:04 pm

One worthy of its own topic. I will post this up for us.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:09 pm

I'll reply as soon as I have more time, but for now...

Please read this...

Serious Paul wrote:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

With me so far? See what Number One says?

What it says to you is not the same as what it says to me, since I'm not so bias to a heavy-handed approach - though I wouldn't shy away from it if I believed it would be best. I don't think rule number one is martial in nature, and if it is, it sure as hell isn't "offensive." That sounds more like a job for NATO.

Also, don't neglect points 2 - 4 just because point 1 appeals to you.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Feb 11, 2003 11:40 pm

Well there is a reason its number one. There is a reason why it is twice as large as of the other two. But for the sake of this discussion lets look at the others:

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Appropriate measures to strengthen Universal peace. You think maybe a war with iraq, 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends that we will win, might strengthen universal peace a little? Of course you don't.

Its awfully noble langauge, but its garbage. For one the UNs member nations, and I include the US here, don't believe the rhetoric. If they did the Un would be the first true one world geovernemnt. There are simply too mnay individual agendas here.

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

So while we are remembering these where was this one when they appointed Liba, Sudan, and Cuba tot he Council on Human Rights?

If the UN can't even stick to its own high and mighty precepts, how can it be solvent? How can it really be taken seriously?

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends

Except there is't a common goal. france wants what is best fro France. Britain wants whats best for Britain. The United States of America wants whats best for the United States of America. A lot fo people just would like to put those Americans "in their place."

If any thing the UN is a center for crap ass politics and whine ass nations that can't get a leg up or respect any other way.

So I didn't skip 2-4 because 1 appealed to me. Nota single word of the Charter appeasl to me Dennis.

I do agree we will both see things from a wildly different point of view.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:00 am

Dennis wrote:I don't really think that was the point that people were trying to make, 32. No, individually, you'll beat the shit out of anyone. However, that doesn't take away that the price might be too high in defeating them. If it is, then they are already your equal.

I'm sorry? When did that become the definition of "equal?" And, even using that as your definition, most of the people on that list still don't qualify.