Rumsfeld: We don't need the UK

[DanS]

Are you watching it on CSPAN or something? Or do you mean just generally in the last few open meetings?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SpencerH
From the comments I've seen watching the security council bull****, they're aware of how pathetic and impotent they look.

Whereas your dear leaders seem blissfully ignorant of how they look.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Velociryx
That's part of the issue, yes. It absolutely is, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

"serious consequences" means just exactly that. Serious. Consequential. Force was not specifically called for, but NO ONE discounted the use of it....after all, with sanctions and no fly zones in place already, there weren't any other "serious" or "consequential"
cards to play, now were there?

Why not say 'War' then?

To me 'serious consequences' means things like tougher sanctions, regularly bombing the crap out of Iraqi installations (which is already happening every other day on average!) etc. It is NOT war...

We have been d*cking around with Saddam for almost twice as long a time now, as US soldiers spent fighting WWI, WWII, and Korea COMBINED (counting from Saddam's FIRST UN violation).

Yes, but still less time than France and the UK fought in those wars - where were you guys when we were fighting Hitler?

Not forgetting those 4 years when the US pulled out the weapons inspectors...

Enough is enough.

Which is why we don't want a war of first resort! Did you know that Iraq's two biggest opposition parties are opposed to a war...?

If the UN lacks the balls to enforce its own resolution then perhaps (just perhaps, mind you), it should get out of the business of writing them. In any case, they have certainly proved their own uselessness, and we will enforce the resolution on its behalf, whether it likes it or not.

Bollocks! 'Serious Consequencies' does not a war make!

If you get the second resolution, by all means consider it a green light in getting thousands of civilians killed...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Which is why we don't want a war of first resort! Did you know that Iraq's two biggest opposition parties are opposed to a war...?

Erm....

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DanS
Are you watching it on CSPAN or something? Or do you mean just generally in the last few open meetings?

Yeah I caught the speeches to the security council by the australian and canadian ambassadors to the UN on cspan.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Frogger

Whereas your dear leaders seem blissfully ignorant of how they look.

My leaders?


0.00000001

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Erm....

Erm what?

Earth Radiation Mission?

Empirical Risk Minimisation?

Engineering for Reduced Maintenance?

Empowerment Recovery Model?

Exchange Rate Mechanism?

Sorry, you need to be more specific...

I'm all for a war of last resort, but as far as I am concerned we haven't reached there yet...

[Velociryx]

Why not say war? Because the UNSC hasn't got the nads to use such harsh language. The USA has been paying to keep Saddam "contained" and as long as we're the ones doing the flying and footing the bill, it should be up to us when we say enough is enough. Since it's our boys on the front line, and our money paying to keep him in check, if we feel it's time to pull the plug and do something stronger, then that is something we do not need anybody's permission on. I have seen NO evidence of any other nation, or collection of nations stepping up to help. Nada.

Tougher sanctions? France and Germany have been ignoring them anyway! What....do you think Saddam and his cronies MADE THEIR OWN drone? Made their own Smallpox virus? Nahhh, they bought them from our "allies" who short circuited the whole idea behind sanctions, and only now, when we're pushing for something decisive, do they fall back to the old sanctions line, bemoaning the fact that we just haven't given it enough time.

Uh huh.

I'm quite sure that France and Germany would much rather see Uncle Sam foot the bill for Saddam's containment till he grows old and dies....that way, nothing is required of either country.

But that's not what we're going to do, nor is it up for discussion, any moreso than the USA has any say over France's budgetary process.

At the core of it, is this. Saddam is a little terror of our own creation. We regard him as a threat, and plan to remove that threat. Our allies, AS allies, should not raise such a stink over what is essentially the US taking out its own garbage.

That France and Germany ARE, however....that they are actively drumming up support against it, speaks directly to something important.

How much of an ally are they, really?

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Why not say 'War' then?

The UN cant declare war, its not a country.

To me 'serious consequences' means things like tougher sanctions, regularly bombing the crap out of Iraqi installations (which is already happening every other day on average!) etc. It is NOT war...

Tougher sanctions, with French companies continuing to sell replacement parts for Iraqi aircraft through other ME countries. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

We are not 'regularly bombing the crap out of Iraqi installations (which is already happening every other day on average!)'. We attack SAM sites that illegally lock onto our patrolling aircraft

Yes, but still less time than France and the UK fought in those wars - where were you guys when we were fighting Hitler?

How long did France fight the nazis?

Not forgetting those 4 years when the US pulled out the weapons inspectors...

The US inspectors were told to leave Iraq. UNSCOM left Iraq after Iraq refused to allow them to do their job.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Erm what?

Iraq has opposition parties?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Iraq has opposition parties?

Well, naturally they're not in Iraq...

Of course the US is brokering deals with other more, shall we say 'malleable' exiles - there was a secret meeting that Colin Powell attended in Vienna the other week...

*cough* Puppet Government in the making? *cough*

Love your avatar BTW - Boom Boom!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by SpencerH

The UN cant declare war, its not a country.

It can pass resolutions allowing other countries to do so - that is what the US is claiming 1441 is after all...

Tougher sanctions, with French companies continuing to sell replacement parts for Iraqi aircraft through other ME countries. http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm

Well I don't believe in most of the sanctions anyway and while that report is troubling, the US and UK were doing far worse before 1991 - it's just that at the time Saddam was 'our son of a b*tch', so we didn't care about his WoMD killing innocent civilians then...

We are not 'regularly bombing the crap out of Iraqi installations (which is already happening every other day on average!)'. We attack SAM sites that illegally lock onto our patrolling aircraft

Those are installations aren't they? The other week they struck Iraqi surface to surface missiles being moved to the front - which is a blatant violation of the no-fly resolutions. The US and UK have been waging an undeclared war against Iraq for months now...

How long did France fight the nazis?

Well, there were the French Resistance fighters and the Free French led by De Gaulle, so I think you're being a tad unfair...

The US inspectors were told to leave Iraq. UNSCOM left Iraq after Iraq refused to allow them to do their job.

Oh see there I was thinking that the US pulled them out unilaterally. This should have been addressed in 1998.

Bush reminds me of Mugabe and the white farmers - he's had 23 years to sort out the land rights in Zimbabwe with offers of generous grants from the UK to help, instead he's sat on his arse until one day he suddenly decides they're all evil scum that need to be illegally evicted immediately, destroying his economy at the same time... It's a f*cked up way of dealing with things and the world is telling Bush to go to hell because of it!

Why is Bush still appeasing North Korea?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
the US and UK were doing far worse before 1991

The US never sold Iraq any weapons of import.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

The US never sold Iraq any weapons of import.

Iraq got more than enough support from the US and you know it!

But hey, if you want real two-faced bastardry, what about the Iran-Contra affair huh?

Secretly selling weapons to one of your top enemies for money to fund a sordid and evil little war against a democratically elected goverment!

USA! USA! USA!

[GePap]

How long did France fight the nazis?

Hmm.. if I remember correctly, longer than the Poles, Serbs, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Greeks, Norwegians, and certainly longer than those like the Slovaks, Croats, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Italians who backed the Nazi's (of course that is no black mark as long as they support the war), or the Spaniards who took their aid but never got involved (also not a black mark on them, of course). Oh, and lets not forget the strong resistance the US put up against Nazi Germany before Dec 9, 1941: we really wanted to go towar before we actually went to war when they declared it on us... we really, really did.

That is, of course, if one ignores the actions of resistance figthers from any of the conqured nations, and the expatirates who fought bravely alongside Allied forces in Europe.

Yes, of course we must alway ridicuale the Vichy French government for its actions: it is utterly hypocritcal though to ignore the complicty of most of our European backers had with the Nazis as well.