Roll call: Gulf War II stance

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

I actually believe that Al-Qaeda has more chance of getting these weapons if Saddam's regime disintegrates through the US attacks, and whoever's guarding any WoMD decides to skeddadle with the gear and sell it to Al-Qaeda...

Tell me why this scenario isn't likely to happen, and then remind just why it is you want to attack Iraq again...?

For starters, how are they going to get the WMD out of an Iraq collapsing from U.S. military pressure? Sure people can walk out, but vehicles aren't as easy to sneak through. And where will they go? Turkey, and Kuwait are on board against the Wahabbi terrorists, as is Iran to some extent. In any event, Iran already has WMD and I can't really see them being anxious to be fingered for proliferation to terror groups as they work their way up to nuclear weapons while trying to keep the Great Satan at bay. Especially with such a large force so near at hand. That leaves Syria, which is left in a tough position against the Turkish - Israeli - U.S. alliance. Whether they will want to play it tough or seek a detente at this point is an open question. If they merely want to keep their options open then I think we can assume that they don't want to be caught assisting terrorists moving chemicals or biological agents.

IMO the chemicals are too much trouble for the weight anyhow, at least for terrorists. They are tough to apply effectively, though I'm sure there is a way to do so. The bio weapons seem to have much more bang for the weight, and they can spread themselves to some degree. A much better terror weapon.

[Drake Tungsten]

Sikander's arguments are as cogent as always...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
President Bush is constitutionally obliged to take action against adversaries who threaten national security.
I.E. Iraq.

Bush would better declare war to the entire world then. Even Canada is a potential threat to US security, if Iraq is

[Boris Godunov]

Bush would have declare war on himself, first, though.

[Spiffor]

So true Boris.

[Jaguar]

**** France. But the rest of the UNSC is important. We should discuss with Russia and China and come to an agreement.

Reasoning for "**** France:"
I think there is a huge difference between what Russia is doing and what France is doing. Russia is advising us in private, as a friend, to change our plans. France is criticizing us publically to earn brownie-points with Europe. Holland and Monaco and whatnot want have say in things. They want to counterbalance the US. Obviously they can't do it by themselves, but they will be happy if a Central-West Europe coalition stands up to the US on something. They can't affect Washington's decisions, but they can affect decisions made in Brussels. If a major EU member disagrees with the US, this finally gives the minor ones some power. That makes them happy with the dissident major EU powers like France and Germany. It also serves another purpose. The terrorists will hit New York, London, Manchester and Washington long before they go after Paris.

[Spiffor]

Jaguar : you are mostly right

However, France's radical position doesn't only come from its will to get bargaining power within the UN or EU. It has also much to do with the overall radicalization of international diplomacy lately, whose apex was during the "old Europe / new Europe" week.
French diplomacy wanted to postpone the war (not avoid it) in order to further its agenda, but also because it thinks the west shouldn't give the impression it's waging war against the muslim world.
Originally (before 1441), France tried to convince the US to avoid war because such a war would only result in more support (i.e money and manpower) to terrorism. The war in Iraq is contrary to the war on terrorism, in which France takes part.

1441 shows the past willingness of France and US to conciliate their views. Unfortunately, as warmongers continued to hassle America, and as the French and European population became almost unanimously anti-war, the gap widened. And we got the declaration of Chirac-Schröder late January, the letter of "European Eight" a week later, and the whole "Old Europe / New Europe" week after, which led to the mess we now know.

France tried to advise the US to calm down, for both countries own interests. There could have been an agreement on France's imperialistic interests in Iraq (return to pre-Gulf War 1 status quo).
It was and remains part of De Villepin's rethoric : "A true friend doesn't follow you blindly. A true friend warns you when you're going to make a mistake".

If the antifrench hysteria abates in the US, and the mild raise of antiamericanism abates in France, the relationship between the two countries would become healthy again. It would be utterly stupid from France to lose support from the only superpower of this world, and it would be stupid from the US to alienate the 2nd most influent country of the EU.
Especially over small matters (realpolitically) like the war in Iraq.

[Agathon]

I don't know what I want. I oppose the war as I've tried in the company of others to find some good reason for it using every reasonable political ideology and the worst possible motives and I still think it's a fools' errand.

On the other hand, this makes me think that a war that ends up in the humiliation of the US and the Republican party would be a huge shot in the arm for progressive causes and even if it doesn't end up a major disaster it will open the eyes of ordinary people throughout the rest of the world to what the US really stands for. I'd have never believed that my parents' friends would be endorsing beliefs that accord with Chomsky's, but they are and it's changed the political climate at home; something I thought I would never see happen.

Perhaps the war will force a "crisis in democracy".

Be careful Sprayber, don't try to be a hero. You are more actually likely to end up a hero by accident.

[RGBVideo]

In reality parlence, the roster for Europe.
Support US:
All-Minus France and Germany.

Oppose US
France and Germany.

Could you switch this jackass generalisation into an one-liner? You see it would be signature material.

I'm serious, respond quickly, because I'm eager to use it.

[Comrade Tribune]

I wouldn´t support the war *even with* UNSC approval. Therefore, no vote.

The UNSC has no business, nor the right, to legitimize wars.

[Ned]

I would have liked to wait for the UN, but France has turned the SC into a farce. France is no longer concerned about Iraqi disarmament. France is concerned about twarting the US and leading the anti-Americism world.

We should have expect this. However, the turn of events has shown just how really useless the UN really is.

[David Floyd]

I'm a US citizen, and I oppose the war under ANY circumstances.