Dancing in the streets, part Deux!

[GePap]

Some people it seems , have abandoned reason for blind emotions. there is no arguing with such people.

[SlowwHand]

No. Some people like for their "friends" to do what they were supposed to do.

What a concept!

That doesn't stop one from fulfilling their own pledge, just because their "friends" turn out to be dealing with the enemy.

Wow! Another good concept!

[Kropotkin]

Maybe you want to restate that in any other way than the level of a kid in the 3rd grade. The international scene is not a school yard in case you didn't notice.

[gsmoove23]

You confuse the word friend for the word flunky or henchman.

dealing with the enemy? How? Wait don't bother, I'd want a valid arguement.

[GePap]

Our friends are under no obligation, moral or legal, to back volutary actions. The Us chose to fight this war, it convinced some nations and not tohers. Deal with it. The French were no more obliged to approve of our actions in Iraq than we were to approve of their actions in Ivory coast, or the dozens of times they have niterveend here or there in Africa.

And as for "fulfilling our pledge", three pledges were made: disarm Iraq of WMD's, end the Saddam regime, and make Iraq a democracy. Only one of them has been achieved as of today.

[DanS]

This story makes me rethink my opinion...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/12/international1429EDT0591.DTL

Oof...

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Ned


Yeah, containment would work. Therefore, war was not justified because it was not of "last resort."

Can't you see that this argument about "last resort" would have meant that the Iraqi people will continue to suffer indefinitely under Saddam Hussein, American and British forces would have to stay committed in the area, potentially forever, with increasing Arab hostility to our very presence. If French troops were there maintaining the containment, I would not have objected so strongly to the French argument.

Ned, i agree with the fact that, for Iraqi people, this conflict is, at least on the short-term, a good thing overall. However, we'll need to several years to see the results, rebuilding the country won't be easy.

But the point is : if the freedom of Iraqi people was the real aim of this war, why didn't the US government say it ????
Instead, Bush told us about "threat against USA" (yeah riiiiight), weapons of mass destruction (no one was used by Saddam during the war, and no one was found yet...).

I'll tell you why : because it's completely illegal to invade another country to change his regime. Period.
Ok, pro-wars will answer :"Bull****, after all Iraqi people are happy now, so this war was legitimate".
But then, why didn't US do the same with the others tyrannic regimes in the world ?
If your government really wants to make the world better, Africa is full of tribal wars and despotic governments, not to mention massive genocides (remember Rwanda ?).

[Spiffor]

These looters are scum
I just realised what it means to pillage museums right next to Babylon

[gsmoove23]

BASRA, Iraq -- A large, angry mob was squaring off in the center of Basra against tense British troops backed by tanks and heavy machine guns, so I asked the Iraqis what they were doing.

"We're here to rob the banks," one man explained cheerfully.

I must have looked surprised because another man explained that mobs had already used rocket-propelled grenades to break into several banks, but that the safes inside were still intact. "So we've come to rob the banks, but those British soldiers won't let us in," he said indignantly. "We're very upset."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/11/nyt.kristof/index.html

We're very upset

[Drake Tungsten]

Our friends are under no obligation, moral or legal, to back volutary actions. The Us chose to fight this war, it convinced some nations and not tohers. Deal with it. The French were no more obliged to approve of our actions in Iraq than we were to approve of their actions in Ivory coast, or the dozens of times they have niterveend here or there in Africa.

Once again, for old time's sake, let me explain that the problem wasn't that France didn't approve of our actions, but that they actively led and built the opposition to US action in Iraq. Allies are perfectly free to disagree with or not support their ally, but it is inexcusable to provide active opposition to an important policy goal of your ally. The fallout from the pre-war diplomacy is going to be interesting (and probably disastrous), as a great amount of damage has been done to the trans-Atlantic relationship.

[gsmoove23]

Once again, for old time's sake, let me explain that the problem wasn't that France didn't approve of our actions, but that they actively led and built the opposition to US action in Iraq.

You haven't explained anything. France actively led and built opposition to UN action in Iraq, which it had every right to do, being a member of the UN. Furthermore it didn't have to build very much opposition being that there was already quite alot of it worldwide. It was the US trying to build support for a UN war by throwing around foreign aid and manufacturing evidence that built the opposition.

[GePap]

Lead a coolition against the US that did exacty what? voice its preexisting disagreement with the US over this war? Did they in any way make the war one day longer? did their actions lead to the harm of any Americans?
The french opposed a second resoltuion, one that I may add the US always insinted they did not need at all, given that they justified this war with old resoltuions and 1441, all of which france voted for. Imagine the French had gone along: if Saddam had disarmed to the content of the US and UK, this "dance thread" would not exist, would it not? The people of Iraq would still live under the Baath party and Saddam, would they not? The French were never going to send troops, anymore than second resolution cosponsor spain did.

Lets face reality, lets face the big picture. The US admin. wanted to take out this regime, becuase they think it is a threat and the US can make a better Iraq and in that way change the middle east. The Uk went along, as did other states. The French did not agree with this notion, neither did the Russians. they stated they would not put their names on this war, did nothing else, and the Us and UK and others moved to attack Iraq anyway, using pre-existing documents to justify the war legally. The most you can say is that the French actively denied the US the ability to claim full legitmacy, and instead forced it to claim legitimacy on older documents and this "coolition" they slapped together. And all of this had no effect whatsoever on the ground. Not a single Iraqi soldier fought harder, or with better weapons, not a single coolition soldier went without something due to what the French did.

So forgive me if I find this anger and hatred at the French mystifing. they said we were wrong, and that they would not allow us to go to war with the highest level of legitimacy, one we did NOT earn anyway becuase the arguments for this war were so muddled anyway. Oh, yes, what a terrible act..I mean, its not like the US has never done something similar to the French..oh, wait, I am wrong, we have done worse things to them in the past..but I forgot, we liberated them in 1945, so we can do **** to them, but not the other way around....

[Drake Tungsten]

Lead a coolition against the US that did exacty what?

They led a coalition that ruined whatever chance the US had of winning a second resolution and thereby gaining international legitimacy. International legitimacy is extremely important and the post-war situation is going to be tougher because we never gained it. UN approval would've taken care of many of the "US is colonizing Iraq" claims that are sure to pop up in the coming months.

Did they in any way make the war one day longer?

They might have made the war longer, as the Turks would have had an easier time allowing the 4th Infantry to launch from their country if a second resolution has passed.

did their actions lead to the harm of any Americans?

We'll never know for sure, but the lack of any UN approval will probably make the post-war situation worse and lead to increased US casualties in the occupation. The UN debacle also helped to make Saddam look like a hero, which encouraged extremists from all over the region to flood into Iraq. How many US soldiers have been killed by foreign fighters who might not have been in Iraq had international legitimacy been achieved?

The most you can say is that the French actively denied the US the ability to claim full legitmacy, and instead forced it to claim legitimacy on older documents and this "coolition" they slapped together. And all of this had no effect whatsoever on the ground.

That's exactly what they did and it will have negative consequences for the US. Allies don't do this sort of thing to each other...

[gsmoove23]

We'll never know for sure, but the lack of any UN approval will probably make the post-war situation worse and lead to increased US casualties in the occupation. The UN debacle also helped to make Saddam look like a hero, which encouraged extremists from all over the region to flood into Iraq. How many US soldiers have been killed by foreign fighters who might not have been in Iraq has international legitimacy been achieved?

You do realize its the US that wants to lead post-war Iraq against the protestations of the UN who would prefer an international leadership? This would also help dispel feelings of illegitimacy and save American lives. Seems you should be equally angry at Bush.

I love these arguements, France, Germany and Russia stood in the way of attempts to legitimize our illegitimate war!

[Drake Tungsten]

gsmoove23 - Do us all a favor and let GePap do the talking. You're not helping your side...