France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Defiant


Now you are finally starting to understand why we now have a presence in the ME(the breeding ground for terrorists). If Somalia or near by regions fly an aircraft into buildings here in America, be ready for another war on the African continent. Our shot into Iraq is a warning for these other countries that we will not tolerate hits to America.

Iraq never hit America

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So what happened to them between 1989 and 2002. Where did they go?

They got destroyed by UN inspectors and by Saddam.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It did not explicitly authorize war. It ALSO did not explicitly say that a second resolution was required.

No need to state the obvious, that follows from the UN Charter.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


And the only reason they will do that is because we are ****ing around with them. If we leave them alone, our problems dissapear. The simple fact is that we dont have the support of the population, and no country has been held long when the people dont support the occupier. Invading wont solve the problem, it will only compound it.

And heres for lotm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3184683.stm

If we leave them alone our problems disappear, are you for real, leaving them alone only invites more attacks, terrorists attack the weak, that is what they do, and if you look at the latest polls in the USA, even Sava would agree that America is in favor of what we did. If we take anymore serious hits like 9-11 you just might see an all out war in the middle east, no tactical bombing, only turn and burn the turf. Get it through your head, USA will not take hits like 9-11 and then leave them alone.

[Japher]

They got destroyed by UN inspectors and by Saddam.

Really? Ooops! Oh, well, I guess what's done is done...

Still, if he did destroy them, were's the evidence? Were's the proof that he destroyed them? Burried in the sand? Or in the Russian documents that say that they hid the weapons for the b-strd?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


You removed one big problem: Saddam

But you created at least 3 new big problems:
1) A damaged infrastructure, particularly water treatment, but plenty of other problems as well. And you lack the funds to fix it.
2) Anarchy, terrorism, and etnic conflicts, which you lack the manpower to keep at bay.
3) Massive unemployment, leading to poverty and more anarchy

The infrastructure was already damaged. Prewar Iraq did not have enough power to meet demand. Large areas of the South now have MORE power than they did pre-war. Baghdad has less, because under Saddam Baghdad was privileged. We are close to 75% of pre-war power supply, and will be at 100% in a few weeks. Where we need international HELP is going beyond 100%, and actually meeting full demand. Ditto, to a greater or lesser degree, for most other services and infrastructure.

ethnic conflict - plenty of ethnic conflict under saddam - just that it was all inflicted by the state on the Kurds and Shia. In fact relatively little ethnic conflict since liberation. Terrorism yes, but Mosul, Kirkuk and the north remain quiet, and despite the assasination in Najaf the south remains relatively quiet. The problem of violence (not literally anarchy) is essentially in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. We need help fixing that quickly - but we'll fix it everntually, even without help.


Poverty - we're making slow but real progress - there was certainly plenty of poverty under Saddam - But now there are plenty of unemployed ex-soldiers, etc

And in all these areas expectations are high - in reports from Iraq you generally do not hear "it was better under saddam" instead you hear " these are Americans, theyre rich and powerful, why cant they make it better faster?" The frustration is VERY real, but lets not let it blind us to what is happening.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


They got destroyed by UN inspectors and by Saddam.

The UN inspectors did not complet destruction when they were tossed out - as all agree.

Are you saying Saddam destroyed them subsequently?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Japher

...
Or in the Russian documents that say that they hid the weapons for the b-strd?

Perhaps they confiscated them?

- No mr Hussein, you are not mature enough to play with these toys any more. Come back when you have grown up!

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Iraq never hit America

That is right, "convential ollie", but Iraq was the best tactical choice for an invasion for a presence in the ME, we couldn't attack Saudi(who I am believing needs it desperately) but because of Mecca and we would start a massive war with the Muslims. What Bush did was take the best target, Iraq(because of Saddam and his history) to gain a presence in the ME, now we are in the back door of Saudi, Syria, Iran. The worst thing we could do now is envite the UN to help, keep those bastards out, let this remain a US and British operation.
If we are attacked and money or direct links can be established to Saudi, you just might see another war, much larger with global consequences.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


No need to state the obvious, that follows from the UN Charter.

Bunk - everyone knew at the time that there were people in the US admin who didnt think even 1441 was necessary. It was certainly understood that there were at least as many who would think 1441 was sufficient. They didnt press for explicit requirement for a 2nd res cause they knew if they did that the admin hawks would wash their hands of the UNSC process, and they were trying to stop that.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The infrastructure was already damaged. Prewar Iraq did not have enough power to meet demand. Large areas of the South now have MORE power than they did pre-war. Baghdad has less, because under Saddam Baghdad was privileged. We are close to 75% of pre-war power supply, and will be at 100% in a few weeks. Where we need international HELP is going beyond 100%, and actually meeting full demand. Ditto, to a greater or lesser degree, for most other services and infrastructure.

ethnic conflict - plenty of ethnic conflict under saddam - just that it was all inflicted by the state on the Kurds and Shia. In fact relatively little ethnic conflict since liberation. Terrorism yes, but Mosul, Kirkuk and the north remain quiet, and despite the assasination in Najaf the south remains relatively quiet. The problem of violence (not literally anarchy) is essentially in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. We need help fixing that quickly - but we'll fix it everntually, even without help.


Poverty - we're making slow but real progress - there was certainly plenty of poverty under Saddam - But now there are plenty of unemployed ex-soldiers, etc

And in all these areas expectations are high - in reports from Iraq you generally do not hear "it was better under saddam" instead you hear " these are Americans, theyre rich and powerful, why cant they make it better faster?" The frustration is VERY real, but lets not let it blind us to what is happening.

LOTM, is right, in an age of FAX, FED EX, CELL phones, everything has the connotation of being fixed overnight, some things cannot, patience must be given.

[Japher]

No mr Hussein, you are not mature enough to play with these toys any more. Come back when you have grown up!

They should of ran his nose in it and thrown him outside! Oh, wait, we did that

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Perhaps they confiscated them?

- No mr Hussein, you are not mature enough to play with these toys any more. Come back when you have grown up!

Yup, the russians confiscated them. And during the debate on Iraq, and the inspections, etc, the russians kep silent about it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

If we leave them alone our problems disappear, are you for real, leaving them alone only invites more attacks, terrorists attack the weak, that is what they do, and if you look at the latest polls in the USA, even Sava would agree that America is in favor of what we did. If we take anymore serious hits like 9-11 you just might see an all out war in the middle east, no tactical bombing, only turn and burn the turf. Get it through your head, USA will not take hits like 9-11 and then leave them alone.

Wrong. Leaving them alone means they can no longer count on the support of the people because America is no longer messing with their affaires. Maybe you should try looking deeper then 9-11, which was brought about because of what we have done the last 40 years in the Gulf Region, which is have our fingers in every countries pie. You too would hate it if foreigners told you how to run your country and would manipulate elections, support dictators, and kills opponents.

Really? Ooops! Oh, well, I guess what's done is done...

Still, if he did destroy them, were's the evidence? Were's the proof that he destroyed them? Burried in the sand? Or in the Russian documents that say that they hid the weapons for the b-strd?

The proof is in the pudding. We've been in Iraq for a long time now and we havnt found anything - no mobile weapons labs, no weapons of mass destruction.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Bunk - everyone knew at the time that there were people in the US admin who didnt think even 1441 was necessary.

There were people in the US admin who thought post war Iraq would be quick and easy. Or people who think they talk to Jesus. How is that relevant?