PDA

View Full Version : EU needs military arm to be taken seriously by US: Belgian FM



Ironduke
23 Nov 03,, 21:54
EU needs military arm to be taken seriously by US: Belgian FM

BRUSSELS (AFP) Nov 23, 2003
The European Union must have an independent military arm if it wants to be taken seriously by the United States as well as to combat terrorism, Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said Sunday.
The US government has reacted suspiciously to plans by four EU countries that opposed the war in Iraq -- Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg -- to set up a military planning headquarters for the bloc.

Washington fears the drive to bolster the EU's military presence could rival NATO, the bedrock of the transatlantic defence alliance.

But Michel, speaking during a political talk-show on RTBF television, said there were broader issues at stake.

"As long as the European Union lacks an autonomous military capacity to be a major global actor alongside the United States, and to bring about... a real and permanently influential political dialogue with the United States, we will not be able to properly respond to the big questions of this challenge, notably terrorism," he said.

Following talks with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Brussels on Tuesday, Michel said Belgium and the United States had buried the hatchet after months of diplomatic tensions caused by the Iraq war.

The Belgian foreign minister reiterated on RTBF the necessity of "remodelling" transatlantic relations, declaring he was "a very strong supporter of a strategic partnership with the United States".

PiggyWiggy
24 Nov 03,, 00:14
OoOoOoO Big talk from Belgium.

Lets see how USA will take this.

Leader
24 Nov 03,, 00:38
Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
OoOoOoO Big talk from Belgium.

Lets see how USA will take this.

He's right, but are the Euros going to actually build a military? Nah...That would take away money for their welfare programs.

Officer of Engineers
24 Nov 03,, 04:36
Originally posted by Leader
He's right, but are the Euros going to actually build a military? Nah...That would take away money for their welfare programs.

You know, it would help if you actually knew what their military capabilities were instead of just mumbling out of ignorance. That's three countries (Belgium, France, and Germany) that can deploy and sustain a battle group anywhere on earth, something that not China, not Japan, not Israel can do.

Germany just demonstrated that they can field a brigade to Afghanistan.

France has been fighting brush wars in Africa, including destroying the Lybian Army in Chad. The French, alongside the British and the Americans, are currently the only forces on earth that can field a division half way across the globe.

Social spending aside, it's well known amongst the military circles is that if you want to belong to the big boys club, you have to act like a big boy. The European armies have done their share, especially the British and the French.

PiggyWiggy
24 Nov 03,, 07:09
well...if each nation could give enough money to sponsor a 50,000 man team, that will add up to a preety nifty army.

wouldnt you say?

Ironduke
24 Nov 03,, 12:02
Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
well...if each nation could give enough money to sponsor a 50,000 man team, that will add up to a preety nifty army.

wouldnt you say?
Yeah, I'm sure it would be. Most EU nations don't have an active duty army of more than 50,000 men however, and it would be incredibly expensive.

Lunatock
24 Nov 03,, 22:07
A good start would bethe 101st getting French Soldiers to step off a transport at Baghdad International Airport. Not unlike a dog thats nervous of a visitor.

PiggyWiggy
24 Nov 03,, 22:56
the only critical thng that EU needs is the anglos.

Those guys (i am going to try not cursing) are always playing with everyone.

They want to be part of everything EU does, but then they want to be Americas, PAL.

THEY MAKE MONEY BOTH WAYS!

Praxus
25 Nov 03,, 00:30
You know, it would help if you actually knew what their military capabilities were instead of just mumbling out of ignorance. That's three countries (Belgium, France, and Germany) that can deploy and sustain a battle group anywhere on earth, something that not China, not Japan, not Israel can do.

Germany just demonstrated that they can field a brigade to Afghanistan.

France has been fighting brush wars in Africa, including destroying the Lybian Army in Chad. The French, alongside the British and the Americans, are currently the only forces on earth that can field a division half way across the globe.

Social spending aside, it's well known amongst the military circles is that if you want to belong to the big boys club, you have to act like a big boy. The European armies have done their share, especially the British and the French.

Considering Germany is the third largest economy in the world and they had to PROVE that they could deploy a Brigade is PATHETIC.

Israel has no need to deploy troops anywhere but there and even if they could they wouldn't. Japan relys on the US because their constitution FORBIDS them to have offensive force(but they happen to have one of the most powerful navy's on the planet even know they are only spending something like 1% of their GDP on defense). Two bad comparisons. As for China they are still 3rd world nation which needs tons of military reorginization.

Leader's point is that the military forces within the EU compared to the US are inferior. He never claimed or implyed that he was comparing them to the nations you have stated.

Officer of Engineers
25 Nov 03,, 04:42
Originally posted by Praxus
Leader's point is that the military forces within the EU compared to the US are inferior. He never claimed or implyed that he was comparing them to the nations you have stated.

Every military when compared to the US is inferior. My point is that these countries have aided the US far more outside of their own borders than the countries I've stated. And the countries I've stated, especially Israel recieved far more aid than all of NATO combined.

So, you tell me, who is not holding their end of their bargin here? NATO or Japan and Israel?

BTW, NATO's charter does not give it the right to deploy outside of the North Atlantic and yet, we've been to North America and Afghanistan. Legality does not give Japan and Israel the excuse of not being true allies.

Ironduke
25 Nov 03,, 05:20
As far as Israel in concerned, any overt help in military operations would be extremely incideiary.

Officer of Engineers
25 Nov 03,, 05:32
Originally posted by ironman420
As far as Israel in concerned, any overt help in military operations would be extremely incideiary.

So what's the point of this overly expensive alliance? Israel has often been quoted as America's most dangerous ally - to America.

Not to insult the US nor Israel but the rest of NATO did not and cannot see the benefits of this alliance, not when we're willing and did bleed on behalf of the US and Israel did not and could not.

Ironduke
25 Nov 03,, 05:37
I completely understand what you're saying -- but isn't Israel as base of absolute last resort for the US?

If everything else fails, there's always Israel.

Officer of Engineers
25 Nov 03,, 05:45
Originally posted by ironman420
I completely understand what you're saying -- but isn't Israel as base of absolute last resort for the US?

If everything else fails, there's always Israel.

You've got to clarify that for me. I remember the 73 War when the US went DEFCON 3. What other last resort is there would you rely on Israel beyond this?

Again, no insult to Israel but in essence, this meant that the US would have forced NATO to goto war on behalf of Israel. And Israel would done didly squat for NATO.

Praxus
27 Nov 03,, 00:37
Every military when compared to the US is inferior. My point is that these countries have aided the US far more outside of their own borders than the countries I've stated. And the countries I've stated, especially Israel recieved far more aid than all of NATO combined.

So, you tell me, who is not holding their end of their bargin here? NATO or Japan and Israel?

BTW, NATO's charter does not give it the right to deploy outside of the North Atlantic and yet, we've been to North America and Afghanistan. Legality does not give Japan and Israel the excuse of not being true allies.

The only real thing Israel can give us is intelligence, their Military is needed in Israel to defend against facist dictatorships and tyrannical theocracys. I don't think the Iraqi's or Afghani's would be to happy with Merkava Mk. IIIs rolling down the streets.

NATO doesn't need our aid, they aren't being attack by a bunch of Islamic Militants hell bent on the destruction of the West.

Japan can't help us because of their Constitution, and we certainly don't want a return of militantism(correct word?).

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 03,, 01:31
Originally posted by Praxus
The only real thing Israel can give us is intelligence, their Military is needed in Israel to defend against facist dictatorships and tyrannical theocracys.

You've got to be shitting me! A real good testament to Israeli democrazy here. The military is the guarrantor over basic rights? Sorry, don't buy this for one second. If you cannot defend your own rights, no one else will.


Originally posted by Praxus
I don't think the Iraqi's or Afghani's would be to happy with Merkava Mk. IIIs rolling down the streets.

Ethiopia/Eritrea, East Timor, Panama, Haiti, Central America, alot of places the US would welcome help. Not necessarily needing the help but would like a helping hand never-the-less.


Originally posted by Praxus
NATO doesn't need our aid, they aren't being attack by a bunch of Islamic Militants hell bent on the destruction of the West.

My time in the FRY says otherwise.


Originally posted by Praxus
Japan can't help us because of their Constitution, and we certainly don't want a return of militantism(correct word?).

That's the reason why they chickened out of Iraq?

ZFBoxcar
27 Nov 03,, 02:46
You've got to be shitting me! A real good testament to Israeli democrazy here. The military is the guarrantor over basic rights? Sorry, don't buy this for one second. If you cannot defend your own rights, no one else will.

Uh...he didnt mean for internal security. Israel is not under martial law...he just meant that the army is needed inside of Israel because the middle east is more hostile neighbourhood than North America and Europe. So it has nothing to do with Israels democracy. BTW, what were you implying about it?

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 03,, 02:55
Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
Uh...he didnt mean for internal security. Israel is not under martial law...he just meant that the army is needed inside of Israel because the middle east is more hostile neighbourhood than North America and Europe. So it has nothing to do with Israels democracy. BTW, what were you implying about it?

This is the original assertion


Originally posted by Praxus
The only real thing Israel can give us is intelligence, their Military is needed in Israel to defend against facist dictatorships and tyrannical theocracys.

I may have mis-read it but it sounds alot like internal security than external force projection.

What am I implying? I guess from the point of a citizen soldier. That I cannot defend your vote. I can defend your right to vote but I cannot defend your vote. That you've got to defend for yourself.

ZFBoxcar
27 Nov 03,, 03:06
I may have mis-read it but it sounds alot like internal security than external force projection.

No no, he doesnt mean defending against Israeli insurgents (they dont exist as Israeli democracy DOES work, there are about 30 parties in Israel, so anyone who doesnt like the way things work probably has a party representing them), but against agressive neighbours who ARE tyranical theocracys.

If I misread your point tell me, but what I thought you were saying was that Israeli democracy isnt real because the army is enforcing law, which isnt what happens.

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 03,, 03:59
Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
No no, he doesnt mean defending against Israeli insurgents (they dont exist as Israeli democracy DOES work, there are about 30 parties in Israel, so anyone who doesnt like the way things work probably has a party representing them), but against agressive neighbours who ARE tyranical theocracys.

But they're not IN Israel. If I read this right, then the Israeli military cannot afford to help out the US in anyway shape or form because every man, every platoon is needed to man the borders. I find this line of thought to be self-serving.


Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
If I misread your point tell me, but what I thought you were saying was that Israeli democracy isnt real because the army is enforcing law, which isnt what happens.

Actually I thought Praxus was saying that Israeli democrazy is only real because the army is enforcing it. That is what I found surreal.

Ironduke
27 Nov 03,, 04:23
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
You've got to clarify that for me. I remember the 73 War when the US went DEFCON 3. What other last resort is there would you rely on Israel beyond this?

Again, no insult to Israel but in essence, this meant that the US would have forced NATO to goto war on behalf of Israel. And Israel would done didly squat for NATO.
In my opinion, Israel is an oasis of pro-Americanism is otherwise hostile desert. It serves a strategic purpose, it splinters the Arab world into two part, Middle Eastern and North African. If Israel hadn't been there, I believe that history in that region would have played itself out alot different than it has, and not to our benefit.

Ironduke
27 Nov 03,, 04:27
NATO doesn't need our aid, they aren't being attack by a bunch of Islamic Militants hell bent on the destruction of the West.
US, Turkey, France, etc. are all NATO.

ZFBoxcar
27 Nov 03,, 04:28
But they're not IN Israel. If I read this right, then the Israeli military cannot afford to help out the US in anyway shape or form because every man, every platoon is needed to man the borders. I find this line of thought to be self-serving.

That is more accurate assesment (I mean compared to the insurgency thing). Its not exactly selfishness because NATO would reject Israel's help anyways on the grounds of trying to maintain friendship with the Islamic world. Having said that, Im not sure if Israel has the transport capacity to help anyways, although they might. We will never know because nobody will ask for Israel's help, in fact, Bush Sr. demanded Israel NOT help in the first gulf war, even when being attacked by Scuds (a symbolic gesture by Iraq, which is why Israel refrained from replying).

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 03,, 04:50
Originally posted by ironman420
In my opinion, Israel is an oasis of pro-Americanism is otherwise hostile desert. It serves a strategic purpose, it splinters the Arab world into two part, Middle Eastern and North African. If Israel hadn't been there, I believe that history in that region would have played itself out alot different than it has, and not to our benefit.

I agree Israel does split the Arab world and Israel's absence would have had the region's history play out different but I would be very hesitant to state that it would be to the US's detriment.

Iran was pro-US. Turkey would remained a steadfast US ally. France would still have checked Lybian expansion and the Gulf States would still have sold oil and reliant on the US for protection. Alot of history happenned because of Israel but alot of history also happenned that Israel got absolutely nothing to do with.


Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
That is more accurate assesment (I mean compared to the insurgency thing). Its not exactly selfishness because NATO would reject Israel's help anyways on the grounds of trying to maintain friendship with the Islamic world. Having said that, Im not sure if Israel has the transport capacity to help anyways, although they might. We will never know because nobody will ask for Israel's help, in fact, Bush Sr. demanded Israel NOT help in the first gulf war, even when being attacked by Scuds (a symbolic gesture by Iraq, which is why Israel refrained from replying).

Haiti, Panama, Central America, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia, alot of theatres that had/has nothing to do with NATO nor the Islamic world but the US is involved in.

Praxus
27 Nov 03,, 13:49
US, Turkey, France, etc. are all NATO.

I was refering to the main countries in NATO like Germany and Great Britian. Turkey is a country with nearly all Muslims, if their Military loses power and the Islamists take over, we would have supplyed a new enemy with money and weapons. This can not happen because Israel had nukes and last time I checked Jews just don't convert to Islam all willy nilly.


Iran was pro-US. Turkey would remained a steadfast US ally. France would still have checked Lybian expansion and the Gulf States would still have sold oil and reliant on the US for protection. Alot of history happenned because of Israel but alot of history also happenned that Israel got absolutely nothing to do with.


Iran was pro-US before the Islamic Revolution and Israeli never exsisting in all likelyhood would not have stoped the revolution. Their idealogy is what causes hate, their utter distaste for anything western. If Israel weren't there, there would be yet another Arab dictatorship or even worst an Islamic Theocracy were they could wage war on the west.

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 03,, 14:09
Originally posted by Praxus
I was refering to the main countries in NATO like Germany and Great Britian. Turkey is a country with nearly all Muslims, if their Military loses power and the Islamists take over, we would have supplyed a new enemy with money and weapons. This can not happen because Israel had nukes and last time I checked Jews just don't convert to Islam all willy nilly.

You're forgetting the history of the Ottoman Empire. Turning secular was what saved Turkey from disintegration and united the Turks against their former subjects. Raising the Islamic banner as they did once would not have endeared them any to their former subjects. It was the Ottoman Turks who used the Sword of Islam to spread their rule. It was also the rebellion of their former Muslim subjects that ended their rule.


Originally posted by Praxus
Iran was pro-US before the Islamic Revolution and Israeli never exsisting in all likelyhood would not have stoped the revolution. Their idealogy is what causes hate, their utter distaste for anything western. If Israel weren't there, there would be yet another Arab dictatorship or even worst an Islamic Theocracy were they could wage war on the west.

Was it Islamic or was it Persain? Historically, I would argue that the Islamic Revolution in Iran is more Persain in character than carrying the Sword of Islam. In other words, Persains will be Persains regardless of any alien ideology you try to impose.

Praxus
27 Nov 03,, 15:44
When you want to overthrow a Government and instatute ISLAMIC law and a theocratic government one would tend to believe it was an ISLAMIC Revolution.

Officer of Engineers
27 Nov 03,, 17:23
Originally posted by Praxus
When you want to overthrow a Government and instatute ISLAMIC law and a theocratic government one would tend to believe it was an ISLAMIC Revolution.

Unfortunately no, it was not that simple. The Mullahs took over. No question. However, the revolution was more anti-Shah than Islamic. I've met alot of Iranians who since left Iran but who went through the revolution and fought in the Iran-Iraq War. They didn't know that they were setting up the Mullahs to take over. If anything, they believed the communists would win. After the Mullahs took over, they couldn't stand it and left.

Leader
27 Nov 03,, 23:47
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
You know, it would help if you actually knew what their military capabilities were instead of just mumbling out of ignorance. That's three countries (Belgium, France, and Germany) that can deploy and sustain a battle group anywhere on earth, something that not China, not Japan, not Israel can do.

Germany just demonstrated that they can field a brigade to Afghanistan.

France has been fighting brush wars in Africa, including destroying the Lybian Army in Chad. The French, alongside the British and the Americans, are currently the only forces on earth that can field a division half way across the globe.

Social spending aside, it's well known amongst the military circles is that if you want to belong to the big boys club, you have to act like a big boy. The European armies have done their share, especially the British and the French.

I was talking about an army that could compete with America. No European country has such an army, nor do they have any intension or public will to build such an army. The United States spends 400 billion on the military. Is Europe going to do the same? Of course not. The militaries off Europe are becoming more specialized. They are useful in a coalition, but by themselves, they could do very little. If Europe wants to be taken seriously by the US, they have to build a military that can compete with us both in numbers and in dollars. I for one don't think the Euros have the backbone to suck it up and pay that kind of price.

Officer of Engineers
28 Nov 03,, 00:40
Originally posted by Leader
I was talking about an army that could compete with America. No European country has such an army, nor do they have any intension or public will to build such an army. The United States spends 400 billion on the military. Is Europe going to do the same? Of course not. The militaries off Europe are becoming more specialized. They are useful in a coalition, but by themselves, they could do very little. If Europe wants to be taken seriously by the US, they have to build a military that can compete with us both in numbers and in dollars. I for one don't think the Euros have the backbone to suck it up and pay that kind of price.

And thank God! The natural consequence of such a development is competition and at least ignoring the US as the leading voice in world affairs. You're looking to at least another Cold War if not a hot one.

Compare to the US, the world cannot compete but compare to everybody else, NATO minus the US is heads and shoulders above everybody else.

Praxus
28 Nov 03,, 00:51
NATO minus the US is FAR, FAR, FAR above anyone else(minus the US of course).


And thank God! The natural consequence of such a development is competition and at least ignoring the US as the leading voice in world affairs. You're looking to at least another Cold War if not a hot one.

This would cause the collapse of the entire World Economy, not too pretty, considering the fact that the US and EU account for HALF of the world's GDP at around 20 trillion dollars.

Ray
28 Nov 03,, 00:57
The Iranian revolution was basically anti Shah.

The Iranians as a race are more tolerant in a manner of speaking.

However, religion is a great motivator that coalesce or divide various viewpoints towards a mission. History is replete with such incidents. Religion served its purpose during the Iran Revolution.

Leader
28 Nov 03,, 22:41
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
And thank God! The natural consequence of such a development is competition and at least ignoring the US as the leading voice in world affairs. You're looking to at least another Cold War if not a hot one.

Compare to the US, the world cannot compete but compare to everybody else, NATO minus the US is heads and shoulders above everybody else.

Europe wants to be consulted on all world matters as if they were a superpower, yet they are unwilling to pay the price to be in that club. European countries have much higher tax rates to pay for these social programs that they love. The result of that is that the people are unwilling to see their taxes raised to build a military. Instead, they want their politicians to bitch and complain every time the US treats them like the second tier power that they are.

Officer of Engineers
29 Nov 03,, 01:29
Originally posted by Leader
Europe wants to be consulted on all world matters as if they were a superpower, yet they are unwilling to pay the price to be in that club. European countries have much higher tax rates to pay for these social programs that they love. The result of that is that the people are unwilling to see their taxes raised to build a military. Instead, they want their politicians to bitch and complain every time the US treats them like the second tier power that they are.

From what I can gather of the Europeans, they don't want to be consulted, they want leadership in every sense of the world. Ronald Regean was a leader. George Bush Sr was a leader. Even Clinton was a leader. George Bush Jr. was a leader in Afghanistan but failed in Iraq.

In that sense, I do agree. Bush Jr. failed to inspire and to lead.

Praxus
29 Nov 03,, 03:34
but failed in Iraq.

LOL, I think it's the other way around.

Ray
29 Nov 03,, 04:19
Bush jr is indeed a leader. He leads the US, UK and the Coalition of the Willing. Sadly, the Coalition of the UNwilling is a lot larger than the Willing. And worse still is that Blair first had some heart ailment and now he has stomach ailment. So the Willing is Ailing.

The other US leaders led the world which was Willing. The other leaders inspite of waging war were still respected for their views. Bush jr in comparison is like a Bible thumping vilalge preacher - more on morals as he sees it and less on revealing 'God'. Or maybe the way the world is going many of us will see God soon.....

Leader
29 Nov 03,, 15:44
Originally posted by Ray
Bush jr is indeed a leader. He leads the US, UK and the Coalition of the Willing. Sadly, the Coalition of the UNwilling is a lot larger than the Willing.

The United States can't help it if peopleís natural reaction when someone else is attacked is to put their heads in the sand, and hope it doesn't happen to them. Unfortunately, America can no longer be that naive.


And worse still is that Blair first had some heart ailment and now he has stomach ailment. So the Willing is Ailing.

Very funny. The man happens to be sick, which has nothing to do with the war, and you make light of it for political gain. :mad:


The other US leaders led the world which was Willing. The other leaders inspite of waging war were still respected for their views.

America can only lead those can be led. The United States was never going to get UN support. France has a veto, and has adopted a decidedly anti-American foreign policy. If the countries of Europe want to be pacifists or think that it would be easier to pay off the terrorist, then in will be difficult to lead them to war against a terrorist.


Bush jr in comparison is like a Bible thumping vilalge preacher - more on morals as he sees it and less on revealing 'God'. Or maybe the way the world is going many of us will see God soon.....

:unsure

Ray
29 Nov 03,, 16:10
We are under terrorist threat and were so for a long time. The US has just joined the fun and games.:dbanana

Ray
29 Nov 03,, 16:17
Ironman,

The 'competition' between the US and EU intrigues me.

Request you enlighten me [if you don't mind and have the time] with some links and maybe your comments too.

Thanks.

Officer of Engineers
29 Nov 03,, 19:05
Originally posted by Leader
The United States can't help it if peopleís natural reaction when someone else is attacked is to put their heads in the sand, and hope it doesn't happen to them. Unfortunately, America can no longer be that naive.

American history leaves much to be desired when terrorism happens to someone else. American armies did not came to the aid of the British IRA problem. Israel fends for itself. French Algiers was not America's problem.


Originally posted by Leader
America can only lead those can be led. The United States was never going to get UN support. France has a veto, and has adopted a decidedly anti-American foreign policy. If the countries of Europe want to be pacifists or think that it would be easier to pay off the terrorist, then in will be difficult to lead them to war against a terrorist.

What you're implying isn't leadership. Leadership is not dictatorship. Leadership is about seeing a cause that is just. Leadership is about ASKING your followers to sacrafice for that cause. Leadership is justifying that cause to your followers so that they're willing to make those sacrafices.

You have no idea what the US is asking of other countries and of their peoples. You have no idea what your gov't is asking of your own people.

The US was asking other countries to put their young men and young women's lives on the line. The US was asking non-American fathers and mothers to be ready to go to their children's (those soldiers who will not go home whole) funerals. The US was asking non-American little girls to get ready not to see their fathers again.

For that kind of sacrafice, you BETTER JUSTIFY your cause beyond the self serving platitude that Bush Jr was spouting. I never got the impression that this was a world cause. This was an American cause. Bush Jr failed and failed miserably in justifying the Iraq War to be a world cause.

The Iraq War was the right war for the wrong reason. The right reasons were Saddam broke the terms of surrender (the suspension but not the cancellation of the nuclear program, 12 chemical artillery shells in perfect, well maintained conditions, and the modified SA-2/AS SSMs). The Air War went on for 11 years. Saddam had shown to make continously disastrous stupid mistakes (Iran-Iraq, Kuwait, Bush Sr's Assassination attempt, the chemical WMD bluff). 11 Sept made it a strategic imperative to get rid of him. Al Qeida openned his eyes to asymetric tactics that I have no doubt that he would tried to use.

Add to that, Bush Jr did not listen. He did not listen to his allies, even the UK. The various gov'ts NEEDED UN approval to justify the war to their peoples. French, Canadian, Italian, Belgian, German General Staffs were in CENTCOM preparing for the Iraq War. Canada was bending backwards trying to get a compromise through. Fine, France was not going to approve but adopting the Canadian position (Iraq would have 30 days (the UK adopted this position but change the timeline to 14 days) to PROVE the destruction of their anthrax and VX stockpiles) as policy would have allowed alot of other countries, especially Canada, to contribute WITHOUT UN approval. Mexico and Chile were ready to support this compromise. Instead, the ridicules ultimatum that Saddam and his sons leave Iraq.

Compare those reasons to the disastrous reasons Bush Jr and his cabinet gave, I, too, would not be willing to ask my people to die for Bush Jr's cause.

We are not sheep.

Leader
29 Nov 03,, 20:46
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
American history leaves much to be desired when terrorism happens to someone else. American armies did not came to the aid of the British IRA problem. Israel fends for itself. French Algiers was not America's problem.

Israel does not "fend for itself" the US provides it with billions of dollars every year. As to the rest "Unfortunately, America can no longer be that naive."


What you're implying isn't leadership. Leadership is not dictatorship. Leadership is about seeing a cause that is just.

Which, we did.


Leadership is about ASKING your followers to sacrafice for that cause.

So, if we had asked France, we would have gotten what? Two middle fingers instead of one.


Leadership is justifying that cause to your followers so that they're willing to make those sacrafices.

How do you justify war to a country full of pacifists? Almost 40% of Euros think war is NEVER justified.


You have no idea what the US is asking of other countries and of their peoples. You have no idea what your gov't is asking of your own people.

I do. It pisses me of that people are so unwilling to sacrifice a faction of the cost in dollars and blood of the last generationís sacrifice to protect the gains that we have made. It's like saying to every WW2 veteran that his sacrifice is worth nothing, and that youíre just going to let evil win because the sacrifice is just to big for you.


For that kind of sacrafice, you BETTER JUSTIFY your cause beyond the self serving platitude that Bush Jr was spouting. I never got the impression that this was a world cause. This was an American cause. Bush Jr failed and failed miserably in justifying the Iraq War to be a world cause.

The war was justified. Saddam is a terrorist. He has murdered well over a million people. He has the capability to produce and the willingness to use and export WMD's.


The Iraq War was the right war for the wrong reason. The right reasons were Saddam broke the terms of surrender (the suspension but not the cancellation of the nuclear program, 12 chemical artillery shells in perfect, well maintained conditions, and the modified SA-2/AS SSMs). The Air War went on for 11 years. Saddam had shown to make continously disastrous stupid mistakes (Iran-Iraq, Kuwait, Bush Sr's Assassination attempt, the chemical WMD bluff). 11 Sept made it a strategic imperative to get rid of him. Al Qeida openned his eyes to asymetric tactics that I have no doubt that he would tried to use.

All those things are true and Bush stated all those things. Just because you don't want to agree with Bush on anything doesn't mean you don't.


Add to that, Bush Jr did not listen. He did not listen to his allies, even the UK. The various gov'ts NEEDED UN approval to justify the war to their peoples. French, Canadian, Italian, Belgian, German General Staffs were in CENTCOM preparing for the Iraq War.

The French government was not going to authorize a war in the UN. It was simply not in their interest. If Saddam is there, they make money. No Saddam. No money.


Canada was bending backwards trying to get a compromise through. Fine, France was not going to approve but adopting the Canadian position

There were two sides in the debate France and the US. Neither side was interested in a compromise so it wasn't going to happen. I doubt it would have made that much of a difference anyway. As a purely logical argument, what does 30 days change? The man had 11 years, if he really wanted to disarm. Saddam would have made some token gesture and Canada would make another "compromise offer" the US would tell them to go shove it, and we'd be having this same discussion.


as policy would have allowed alot of other countries, especially Canada, to contribute WITHOUT UN approval. Mexico and Chile were ready to support this compromise. Instead, the ridicules ultimatum that Saddam and his sons leave Iraq.


Mexico was unlikely to go no matter what. Your PM wasn't much interested in this war. I don't think he was going to change his mind after another 30 days of Saddam showing what he thought of the "international community."


Compare those reasons to the disastrous reasons Bush Jr and his cabinet gave, I, too, would not be willing to ask my people to die for Bush Jr's cause.

Your reasons are the same reasons that Bush gave. Youíre just so consumed by your hated of the man that you can't see that.


We are not sheep.

No, youíre a slave. Your a slave to you bitter hatred of the role of America in the world.

Praxus
29 Nov 03,, 21:11
If you have made the decision that you would rather die then live as a slave, then dying is not a sacrifice in fact according to your principles it is the better of the two(of course everyone wishes to defend their freedom and live).

The Iraq war was in our self-interest no matter what reasons were given for it's start. Not because we freed a bunch of people, but because we rid a threat to Israel and the United States and managed to secure over 1 trillion barrels of oil in the process(and I hope it get's restored to whom it belongs, namely thoose who drilled it, WESTERN OIL companys, from whom the oil was stolen from by Saddam).


American history leaves much to be desired when terrorism happens to someone else. American armies did not came to the aid of the British IRA problem. Israel fends for itself. French Algiers was not America's problem.

Oh we only give 4 billion to Israel on an Anual bases and veto every bogus UN resolution not to mention the technology transfer and the technology we "accidently" let them get. Israel has the means to destroy their enemy but they do not have the will partly because they are being told by everyone that what they are doing is Immoral, now Israelis are starting to believe it is Immoral to wage an all out war against the enemy.

What could we have done against the IRA?

The French can go fuck themselves.

Leader
29 Nov 03,, 22:43
Originally posted by Praxus
The French can go fuck themselves.

Agreed that's basically my opinion on that matter.

Praxus
29 Nov 03,, 23:18
Boston, the Birthplace of the Revolution:D

I have had enough of the French.

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 03,, 00:31
Originally posted by Leader
So, if we had asked France, we would have gotten what? Two middle fingers instead of one.

Being a leader means that you have to accept the answers regardless what they may be. A leader is supposed to be not afraid of his followerís answers.


Originally posted by Leader
How do you justify war to a country full of pacifists? Almost 40% of Euros think war is NEVER justified.

Those pacifists were with you in Kuwait, Bosnia-Herzgovina, and Kosovo.


Originally posted by Leader
I do. It pisses me of that people are so unwilling to sacrifice a faction of the cost in dollars and blood of the last generationís sacrifice to protect the gains that we have made. It's like saying to every WW2 veteran that his sacrifice is worth nothing, and that youíre just going to let evil win because the sacrifice is just to big for you.

It was our soldiers who rescued them in WWII but it was their civilians who starved and left homeless, their women who were raped, and their children who were orphaned. So, give them some space if they hate war.

And thatís the point, isnít it. Bush Jr failed to justify the Iraq War to their satisfaction. When youíre asking others to sacrifice their young, you better justify the war to their satisfaction. It is not only expected. It is demanded.


Originally posted by Leader
The war was justified. Saddam is a terrorist. He has murdered well over a million people. He has the capability to produce and the willingness to use and export WMD's.

On the WMD issue, we were wrong.


Originally posted by Leader
All those things are true and Bush stated all those things. Just because you don't want to agree with Bush on anything doesn't mean you don't.

Those were not his justifications. Time and time again, he hammered the WMD issue. For God sakes, Gen Powell embarrassed himself in front of the UN. The issues that I raised should be the focus. They were not.


Originally posted by Leader
The French government was not going to authorize a war in the UN. It was simply not in their interest. If Saddam is there, they make money. No Saddam. No money.

Forget the French, the UN was a no-go from Day 1 because China was never willing. The French was sitting on the fence for a long while, never saying no to military force until the US forced the issue.

I have a very strong distaste for Chiracís grand standing and stating never to resort to military force in the end. However, youíre ignoring my point. Those countries that pushed for the compromise would have no choice but to commit once Saddam fails in his delivery. It was they who pushed for the compromise.


Originally posted by Leader
There were two sides in the debate France and the US. Neither side was interested in a compromise so it wasn't going to happen. I doubt it would have made that much of a difference anyway. As a purely logical argument, what does 30 days change? The man had 11 years, if he really wanted to disarm. Saddam would have made some token gesture and Canada would make another "compromise offer" the US would tell them to go shove it, and we'd be having this same discussion.

That the UN was a dead issue I agree with but not the compromise. Had the US unilaterally gone with the compromise and worded as such that Saddam must prove to American or British or another 3rd party satisfaction that his stocks were destroyed, that 30 days or 14 days would have brought Canada on board. With Canada comes the rest of the alliance.


Originally posted by Leader
Mexico was unlikely to go no matter what. Your PM wasn't much interested in this war. I don't think he was going to change his mind after another 30 days of Saddam showing what he thought of the "international community."

I have news for you. We were IN the war. The Canadians were the 4th largest force contributor, mostly naval, to that war. Canadians ships provided flanking and escourt protection to USN ships launching strikes and carrying supplies in. Canadian military personnel on exchange programs with the US and British forces were in direct combat against Iraqi forces. My PM just doesnít have the political guts to say otherwise.

Another 30 days would have given the Americans the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group.


Originally posted by Leader
Your reasons are the same reasons that Bush gave. Youíre just so consumed by your hated of the man that you can't see that.

Not hate. The only POTUS I hated was Bill Clinton and directly because of the Kosovo War. I am, however, extremely disappointed in Bush Jr. I expect leaders to justify the reasons for war. I expect leaders to make those justifications clear and precise. The points Iíve made and shared with Bush were never clear and precise. He kept coming back to the WMD issue.


Originally posted by Leader
No, youíre a slave. Your a slave to you bitter hatred of the role of America in the world.

First off, I stood beside your soldiers in VII Corps. Iíve served under your Generals. I can say that we won the Cold War together. I have the utmost respect for your army. Whether I hate the US or not is irreverent to me, the US is the leader of the free world and Bush Jr is currently the leader to the US. I expected better. The world deserves better.

And one final note, whether I am a slave to my own hatre or not means that I am clear about my convictions. I answer to myself first and foremost. On that, I need not and will not apologize. I had to ask people to risk their lives for causes that must be just and clear. I have a duty to myself and to my people to believe those causes are just and clear. Otherwise, I cannot ask good men in good faith to die for a cause that I do not believe in.

If you cannot understand that, then thatís your prerogative but your conscience ainít mine.


Originally posted by Praxus
If you have made the decision that you would rather die then live as a slave, then dying is not a sacrifice in fact according to your principles it is the better of the two(of course everyone wishes to defend their freedom and live).

Try making that decision for your wife and kids.


Originally posted by Praxus
The Iraq war was in our self-interest no matter what reasons were given for it's start. Not because we freed a bunch of people, but because we rid a threat to Israel and the United States and managed to secure over 1 trillion barrels of oil in the process(and I hope it get's restored to whom it belongs, namely thoose who drilled it, WESTERN OIL companys, from whom the oil was stolen from by Saddam).

Youíre joking here, right?


Originally posted by Praxus
Oh we only give 4 billion to Israel on an Anual bases and veto every bogus UN resolution not to mention the technology transfer and the technology we "accidently" let them get. Israel has the means to destroy their enemy but they do not have the will partly because they are being told by everyone that what they are doing is Immoral, now Israelis are starting to believe it is Immoral to wage an all out war against the enemy.

Sharon has the will. When he got elected, I expected a blood bath. Iím surprised by his half-assed measures such as his half-assed attacks on Arafat.

However, the point here is American troops ainít willing to bleed for Israeli interest, why should the Americans feel it necessary for the world to bleed in her interest?


Originally posted by Praxus
What could we have done against the IRA?

Invade Ireland or at least demand and force Ireland to crack down and deny the IRA a base of operations.


Originally posted by Praxus
The French can go fuck themselves.

What about their help in Kuwait, Somalia. Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan?

Praxus
30 Nov 03,, 00:59
Invade Ireland or at least demand and force Ireland to crack down and deny the IRA a base of operations.


The British could do that.


Sharon has the will. When he got elected, I expected a blood bath. Iím surprised by his half-assed measures such as his half-assed attacks on Arafat.

However, the point here is American troops ainít willing to bleed for Israeli interest, why should the Americans feel it necessary for the world to bleed in her interest?

Last time I checked securing lots of oil from a bad guy and ridding his support for Militant Islam and other anti-western phillosophys is in the interest of the WEST.


Youíre joking here, right?

NO

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 03,, 01:04
Originally posted by Praxus
The British could do that.

They've tried and failed, having finally resorting to 23 SAS operating a counter-terror war against the IRA. American pressure on Ireland was non-existing.


Originally posted by Praxus
Last time I checked securing lots of oil from a bad guy and ridding his support for Militant Islam and other anti-western phillosophys is in the interest of the WEST.

But not about GIVING the oil to Western oil companies. That's outright theft.

Praxus
30 Nov 03,, 01:14
But not about GIVING the oil to Western oil companies. That's outright theft.

What was theft was Saddam taking it from Western Oil companies, this would just be giving it back to it's rightful owner.

If someone took my house, and that person was killed does that suddenly make my house property of everyone in the country?

The liniage of the wells should be found out and given back to the companies who owned it before the Bathist took power and if they can't track it back they should auction it off to the highest bidder.

There is no negitive to what I am talking about here, Iraqis get jobs and get tons of private investment.

Leader
30 Nov 03,, 02:21
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Being a leader means that you have to accept the answers regardless what they may be. A leader is supposed to be not afraid of his followerís answers.

So, if you told a soldier in the middle of a battle to go take out an enemy position and he told you to go fuck yourself. You would do what? Explain you rational to him.


Those pacifists were with you in Kuwait, Bosnia-Herzgovina, and Kosovo.

Once again 40% of there people believe war is NEVER justified.


It was our soldiers who rescued them in WWII but it was their civilians who starved and left homeless, their women who were raped, and their children who were orphaned. So, give them some space if they hate war.

I have never said that France had to join us in the war. What I condemn them for is, despite 250 years of alliance, they see fit to stand in the way of us protecting our national security. And why did they do this? They have oil contracts in with Saddam.


And thatís the point, isnít it. Bush Jr failed to justify the Iraq War to their satisfaction. When youíre asking others to sacrifice their young, you better justify the war to their satisfaction. It is not only expected. It is demanded.

They don't have to follow they just have to get out of the way.


On the WMD issue, we were wrong.

Saddam did not have the capability to produce WMD's? He clearly did since he produced massive amounts is the 80's.
Saddam wasn't willing to use WMD's? Well, he already used them.
Saddam wasn't willing to export them? Do you really want to take that risk?


Those were not his justifications. Time and time again, he hammered the WMD issue. For God sakes, Gen Powell embarrassed himself in front of the UN. The issues that I raised should be the focus. They were not.

Those were the justifications that were made to the American people. You didn't hear that at the UN because every UN resolution talked about WMD's and the Europeans didn't want to hear about murdering a million people. They wanted to argue over "International law."


Forget the French, the UN was a no-go from Day 1 because China was never willing. The French was sitting on the fence for a long while, never saying no to military force until the US forced the issue.

China would never have voted this UN resolution. they don't like to be on the American radar screen. They have to much to lose in an conflict with the US. Chirac was not going to go against 97% of his population, period.


I have a very strong distaste for Chiracís grand standing and stating never to resort to military force in the end. However, youíre ignoring my point. Those countries that pushed for the compromise would have no choice but to commit once Saddam fails in his delivery. It was they who pushed for the compromise.

Ha. What about 1441? Last time I checked telling Saddam that he really better give up his WMD's this time didn't amount to "serious consequences."


That the UN was a dead issue I agree with but not the compromise. Had the US unilaterally gone with the compromise and worded as such that Saddam must prove to American or British or another 3rd party satisfaction that his stocks were destroyed, that 30 days or 14 days would have brought Canada on board. With Canada comes the rest of the alliance.

Thirty days changes nothing. If you were for the war, it would matter what Saddam did in 30 days. If you were against the war, then it wouldn't matter what Saddam didn't do. You'd still be against the war.


I have news for you. We were IN the war. The Canadians were the 4th largest force contributor, mostly naval, to that war. Canadians ships provided flanking and escourt protection to USN ships launching strikes and carrying supplies in. Canadian military personnel on exchange programs with the US and British forces were in direct combat against Iraqi forces. My PM just doesnít have the political guts to say otherwise.

That resolution wasn't going to pass the UN anyway. And if it doesnít pass the UN what's the point in waiting. It would just kill more US soldiers.


Another 30 days would have given the Americans the 2nd Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group.

Those thirty days have a cost. And that cost includes that it might turn out to be 60 or 120 days. In which case many, many more Americans would have died.


Not hate. The only POTUS I hated was Bill Clinton and directly because of the Kosovo War. I am, however, extremely disappointed in Bush Jr. I expect leaders to justify the reasons for war. I expect leaders to make those justifications clear and precise. The points Iíve made and shared with Bush were never clear and precise. He kept coming back to the WMD issue.

You believe that because you haven't read the speeches he gave to the American people. WMD's was a small part of the argument, but that all the Euros wanted to hear about.


First off, I stood beside your soldiers in VII Corps. Iíve served under your Generals. I can say that we won the Cold War together. I have the utmost respect for your army. Whether I hate the US or not is irreverent to me, the US is the leader of the free world and Bush Jr is currently the leader to the US. I expected better. The world deserves better.

You don't hate the American people or the American military. You hate America's role in the world. You want to see a world in which the United States takes in to account the opinions of scumbag despots like Saddam and Arafat.

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 03,, 02:38
Originally posted by Leader
So, if you told a soldier in the middle of a battle to go take out an enemy position and he told you to go fuck yourself. You would do what? Explain you rational to him.

Countries and peoples are not armies and soldiers. That soldier when he signed on the dotted line gave me the moral authority to choose the best course for his actions. I, in turn, cannot and must not betray that trust he placed in me to make that decision and that includes punishing him for not obeying my orders.

No such authority was ever given to the United States.


Originally posted by Leader
Once again 40% of there people believe war is NEVER justified.

"Not necessary war but war if necessary." There are NO good reasons to fight a war but plenty of bad ones not to fight one. The Europeans have followed the US through war. Why is this time different?


Originally posted by Leader
I have never said that France had to join us in the war. What I condemn them for is, despite 250 years of alliance, they see fit to stand in the way of us protecting our national security. And why did they do this? They have oil contracts in with Saddam.

They did not stand in your way. The war went through.


Originally posted by Leader
They don't have to follow they just have to get out of the way.

They did.


Originally posted by Leader
Saddam did not have the capability to produce WMD's? He clearly did since he produced massive amounts is the 80's.
Saddam wasn't willing to use WMD's? Well, he already used them.
Saddam wasn't willing to export them? Do you really want to take that risk?

Where are they? We were most certainly wrong in the amount that he had. Using WMD as the measure was wrong. As I stated, it was a strategic imperative to get rid of Saddam. 11 Sept revealled a whole different set of asymetric tactics (which include no WMDs). Merely getting rid of Iraqi WMDs (ie Saddam complied fully) would not get rid of Saddam and the danger he pocessed.


Originally posted by Leader
Those were the justifications that were made to the American people. You didn't hear that at the UN because every UN resolution talked about WMD's and the Europeans didn't want to hear about murdering a million people. They wanted to argue over "International law."

Whose fault is that? The followers who did not to listen or the leader who failed to make his message heard?


Originally posted by Leader
China would never have voted this UN resolution. they don't like to be on the American radar screen. They have to much to lose in an conflict with the US. Chirac was not going to go against 97% of his population, period.

EXCUSE ME?!?!?! EP-3 mean anything to you? Belgrade bombing mean anything to you? Trading LA for TW mean anything? There were THREE vetos in play - France, Russia, and China. France took the heat for what the other two was going to do.


Originally posted by Leader
Ha. What about 1441? Last time I checked telling Saddam that he really better give up his WMD's this time didn't amount to "serious consequences."

I seriously believe the US misjudged on this one. The US did not outline exactly what needs to be complied with - ie exact proof of how and where those VX and anthrax stockpiles were destroyed.


Originally posted by Leader
Thirty days changes nothing. If you were for the war, it would matter what Saddam did in 30 days. If you were against the war, then it wouldn't matter what Saddam didn't do. You'd still be against the war.

30 days would have brought the Canadian Flag into the war. It was a Canadian compromise and therefore, Canada must backed that up. The emotions are against war in all countries but once in it, support is automatic.


Originally posted by Leader
That resolution wasn't going to pass the UN anyway. And if it doesnít pass the UN what's the point in waiting. It would just kill more US soldiers.

No, it wouldn't. The military situation continued to detoriate on the Iraqi side. On the CDF, I've recorded my observations before the war, and I've stated from the beginning that it would be a short war. Iraqi prep work was non-existence. Give the Iraqis another 120 days and with the exception of the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam, most recruits would have to go home and earn a living for their families.

Saddam bluffed. The resulting war is evidence of that.


Originally posted by Leader
Those thirty days have a cost. And that cost includes that it might turn out to be 60 or 120 days. In which case many, many more Americans would have died.

I hardly think so. It would be the US, not the UN, dictating the terms of the ultimatum. If 30 days is not acceptable, then what the UK's 14 or even 10 days?


Originally posted by Leader
You believe that because you haven't read the speeches he gave to the American people. WMD's was a small part of the argument, but that all the Euros wanted to hear about.

Again, whose fault is that? The followers who didn't listen or the leader who didn't make his message heard? As a military man, the fault is always with the leader. It is my job to make sure my orders are clear and understood.


Originally posted by Leader
You don't hate the American people or the American military. You hate America's role in the world. You want to see a world in which the United States takes in to account the opinions of scumbag despots like Saddam and Arafat.

Sir, you do me the injustice of putting words in my mouth. I am a soldier. Nothing more. Nothing less. I wanted my Flag to be besides yours in Iraq. I am more than convinced for the necessity of that war. However, my people, the Canadian people, were not convinced of that necessity. My PM could not or would not convinced them of that necessity. I look to your President to convince my people as this was clearly his war. He failed.

And as much as I disagree with the Canadian Flag not being in Iraq, the Canadian majority have chosen against it. I yield to that authority. In a democrazy, majority rules and the US doesn't vote in Canada.

In the end, the examples of allied participation in Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were not carried forth into Iraq. You may want to blame the allies. I blame Bush Jr would not making clear his message.

Ironduke
30 Nov 03,, 02:56
Trading LA for TW mean anything? There were THREE
I can figure out TW means Taiwan.... what does LA stand for? Not Los Angeles, lol. Can you give more info on what you meant above. Thanks.

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 03,, 03:48
Originally posted by ironman420
I can figure out TW means Taiwan.... what does LA stand for? Not Los Angeles, lol. Can you give more info on what you meant above. Thanks.

The quote was attributed to a Chinese General who told the American Ambassador to China that should the Chinese invade Taiwan, that the US would not intervene in fear of Los Angeles being nuked.

That's the urban legend.

The real facts are that the American Ambassador was having dinner/drinks with the Chinese General and his Staff and "what-if" discussions happenned. The Chinese believe that most Americans would not want to intervene in Taiwan since most Americans couldn't even find TW on a map.

A comment was made by a Major I believe that "in the end, you Americans care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei."

Nothing was mentioned about trading LA for TW but was twisted into such by the NYT.

HOWEVER, once this urban legend took hold, the Chinese Communist Party did nothing to discount the story and even in fact promoted it and even promoted the General for having the balls to stand up to the Americans.

Confed999
30 Nov 03,, 13:51
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
and the US doesn't vote in Canada.
We kinda do, it's called "voting with our wallet".

Leader
30 Nov 03,, 23:10
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Countries and peoples are not armies and soldiers. That soldier when he signed on the dotted line gave me the moral authority to choose the best course for his actions. I, in turn, cannot and must not betray that trust he placed in me to make that decision and that includes punishing him for not obeying my orders.

No such authority was ever given to the United States.

Then it is not the responsibility of the United States to convince these countries to do what is in there own self-interest.


"Not necessary war but war if necessary." There are NO good reasons to fight a war but plenty of bad ones not to fight one. The Europeans have followed the US through war. Why is this time different?

Never means never. Never means if the Nazis invaded your country, you'd smile and wave. We are not talking about relational people here. These people are fools who think that everything can be solved by words.


They did not stand in your way. The war went through.

Just because there are two roads to a destination doesn't mean one of them isn't blocked. In this case, they blocked the easier way.


They did.

They didn't.


Where are they? We were most certainly wrong in the amount that he had. Using WMD as the measure was wrong. As I stated, it was a strategic imperative to get rid of Saddam. 11 Sept revealled a whole different set of asymetric tactics (which include no WMDs). Merely getting rid of Iraqi WMDs (ie Saddam complied fully) would not get rid of Saddam and the danger he pocessed.

"Saddam did not have the capability to produce WMD's? He clearly did since he produced massive amounts is the 80's.
Saddam wasn't willing to use WMD's? Well, he already used them.
Saddam wasn't willing to export them? Do you really want to take that risk?"

Stop reading what you want to read, and start reading what I wrote.


Whose fault is that? The followers who did not to listen or the leader who failed to make his message heard?

Don't blame the United States because your inept leaders couldn't or wouldn't convince their people. It was there failure not to recognize the danger to there own country.


EXCUSE ME?!?!?! EP-3 mean anything to you? Belgrade bombing mean anything to you? Trading LA for TW mean anything? There were THREE vetos in play - France, Russia, and China. France took the heat for what the other two was going to do.

China would have abstained in the end. They never would have held out by themselves. It's just not worth in for them. Russia would have been paid off by the US. The Russians only care about the debt. So, that leaves France.


I seriously believe the US misjudged on this one. The US did not outline exactly what needs to be complied with - ie exact proof of how and where those VX and anthrax stockpiles were destroyed.

Of which Saddam would surely find some. Then we're back to arguing over what exacting "proof" means.


30 days would have brought the Canadian Flag into the war. It was a Canadian compromise and therefore, Canada must backed that up. The emotions are against war in all countries but once in it, support is automatic.

The compromise was the UN resolution. If there was no resolution, then there was no compromise. Thus, there was no point in delaying action. At a certain point, you have to make a decision. Waiting 30 days changes no arguments as to whether or not to go to war. Canada made its decision. Don't blame us because you made the wrong one.


No, it wouldn't. The military situation continued to detoriate on the Iraqi side. On the CDF, I've recorded my observations before the war, and I've stated from the beginning that it would be a short war. Iraqi prep work was non-existence. Give the Iraqis another 120 days and with the exception of the Republican Guard and the Fedayeen Saddam, most recruits would have to go home and earn a living for their families.

Saddam bluffed. The resulting war is evidence of that.

Easy to say now that the war is over.


I hardly think so. It would be the US, not the UN, dictating the terms of the ultimatum. If 30 days is not acceptable, then what the UK's 14 or even 10 days?

Once again, time changes nothing. If you didn't what to go to war 14 days ago, then nothing Saddam does is going to change that.


Again, whose fault is that? The followers who didn't listen or the leader who didn't make his message heard? As a military man, the fault is always with the leader. It is my job to make sure my orders are clear and understood.

That example is flawed because many in the world do not consider the US a leader.


Sir, you do me the injustice of putting words in my mouth. I am a soldier. Nothing more. Nothing less. I wanted my Flag to be besides yours in Iraq. I am more than convinced for the necessity of that war. However, my people, the Canadian people, were not convinced of that necessity. My PM could not or would not convinced them of that necessity. I look to your President to convince my people as this was clearly his war. He failed.

No, your leaders failed. Bush's job is to convince the American people of the righteousness of the mission. He succeeded.


And as much as I disagree with the Canadian Flag not being in Iraq, the Canadian majority have chosen against it. I yield to that authority. In a democrazy, majority rules and the US doesn't vote in Canada.

Then take responsibility for that choice. Your country chose a leader who was so unable to see the facts or seek them out, as Bush did, that he made the wrong choice.


In the end, the examples of allied participation in Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan were not carried forth into Iraq. You may want to blame the allies. I blame Bush Jr would not making clear his message.

Your right. I do blame them. The facts were out there. You weren't convinced of the righteousness of this war by Bush. So why canít your leaders do the same. They are all sovereign nations. It's time for you to stop excusing their leaders for their stupidity.

Officer of Engineers
30 Nov 03,, 23:29
Leader,

There's a fault in your logic that you've failed to see. And there's no point in convincing you of otherwise. The fault is that a world leader had a vision that he failed to communicate to his followers. The Iraq War was Bush's idea and it was his duty to spread that idea. You fault others for not coming up with the idea themselves or see the rightousness of that action.

I do take responsibility for my country. My country chosed not to stand my Flag besides yours and it as much as I disagree with that decision, it is my country's decision.

You, however, do not take responsibility for actions of your country when it doesn't suit you. Case in point, Clinton and the Kosovo War.

You are not consistent.

In any case, we're not going to convince each other. I am still disapointed in Bush Jr no matter what you say.

Leader
01 Dec 03,, 01:09
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Leader,

There's a fault in your logic that you've failed to see. And there's no point in convincing you of otherwise. The fault is that a world leader had a vision that he failed to communicate to his followers. The Iraq War was Bush's idea and it was his duty to spread that idea. You fault others for not coming up with the idea themselves or see the rightousness of that action.

I do take responsibility for my country. My country chosed not to stand my Flag besides yours and it as much as I disagree with that decision, it is my country's decision.

You, however, do not take responsibility for actions of your country when it doesn't suit you. Case in point, Clinton and the Kosovo War.

You are not consistent.

In any case, we're not going to convince each other. I am still disapointed in Bush Jr no matter what you say.

Well, we are clearly not getting anywhere. So, we'll call this argument a truce. :D

I do take responsibility for Kosovo. Kosovo was a mistake. It was a waste of lives and money for no good reason. Other countries can rightfully lay some or most of the blame for that war at our feet. I, as an American, lay the blame at Clinton's feet. The man was a disgrace in more ways then I can count.

Ironduke
01 Dec 03,, 01:21
I do. It pisses me of that people are so unwilling to sacrifice a faction of the cost in dollars and blood of the last generationís sacrifice to protect the gains that we have made. It's like saying to every WW2 veteran that his sacrifice is worth nothing, and that youíre just going to let evil win because the sacrifice is just to big for you.
My grandpa is a WWII vet. An hour before Thanksgiving we were watching MSNBC on the couch, he said "It's too bad Bush didn't stay there" and "I liked the old way of fighting. A long time ago, kings would have to lead their troops into battle. Bush should have been there heading the army into Iraq" and "Too bad they didn't get him while he was there."

Officer of Engineers
05 Dec 03,, 03:45
i][Originally posted by Leader[/i]
Well, we are clearly not getting anywhere. So, we'll call this argument a truce.

I do take responsibility for Kosovo. Kosovo was a mistake. It was a waste of lives and money for no good reason. Other countries can rightfully lay some or most of the blame for that war at our feet. I, as an American, lay the blame at Clinton's feet. The man was a disgrace in more ways then I can count.

My thanks, Leader, for being a gentlemen for regonoizing that I can disagree with you.

I've posted this before but I don't know where it's gone.

Trooth
06 Dec 03,, 15:49
Originally posted by Praxus
Considering Germany is the third largest economy in the world and they had to PROVE that they could deploy a Brigade is PATHETIC.


Didn't Germany only recently remove the limitations on its troop movements from its constitution?

Confed999
06 Dec 03,, 19:51
Originally posted by ironman420
..."It's too bad Bush didn't stay there"..."Too bad they didn't get him while he was there."
I guess I've been spoiled by my family, they are such great people, I only hope I can live up to my family name. My grandfather allways said, to people like your grandfather, "we should never wish on others what we wouldn't want for ourselves", he was a WW2 and Korea veteran. He worked as the leader of my family, before his passing earlier this year, since his father passed on, teaching the younger generations respect and love. My father and uncle have done a wonderful job taking over his position, but this is still the first time I've ever regreted not having children of my own, oh what they missed. Someday I hope that you will use more care with your words, when you are in your grandfather's position, to spread more love than hate. :-(

Officer of Engineers
08 Dec 03,, 15:52
There are few leaders and many followers. That is the way of things. Not everyone can be a leader.

Thus, when the followers are being asked to sacrafice everything, including a future with their wives and families, then, they have a right to demand everything of their leaders.

Trooth
08 Dec 03,, 20:57
I think the other leadership issue was that, over Iraq, there wasn't any leadership to follow. There was no ideal that the war was based on. No wait there were three. Or was it four. No back to three. Oh wait we have thought of another reason.

I think the war was inevitable and it was the right thing to do. However i totally and utterly disagree with how the US and UK governments tried to convince us that it was so.

First Iraq was linked to al-qaeda and this somewhat ridiculous "axis of evil". The link to al-qaeda was that Atta had met an Iraqi secret service agent once for a short period in Germany. Well The US president met a convicted terrorist at the white house, the people of the US poured money into an international terrorist organisation for years and the US government didn't stop it. Notable Senators were big fans of said organisation.

Oh and Bin Laden has tried to kill Saddam in the past.

The axis of evil implied collusion between the three nations .....

So what was next. Well it was WMD. Oh yes. He has them ready to launch on all of us. He can build nuclear weapons in 2 to 3 years given the right resources and personnel. Well so could i or you given the right info, money and technology.

Only they weren't there, the inspectors said so before the war. But we will find them when we invade. You wait and see.

However the spooks started to get cold feet ... so what else we got on him. Oh yes the despot. Right we are going to liberate the Iraqi people. Finally something we can relate to. Finally.

In reality, the air war had been going on long enough. Saddam was a despot and had to be stopped and the success in Afghanistan was a springboard for sorting this other "problem" out.

But the problem is and continues, the platform for the war was just so amatuerishly explained. It seemed to be "my first foreign policy offensive" but sadly it was General Dynamics, not Fisher Price, supplying the toys.

Praxus
08 Dec 03,, 21:41
The fact is Saddam had the capibility to create WMD and supply them to Hamas, Hezzbolah, etc to carry out attacks against Israel and the United States. He also supported to a limited degree Militant Islam(he didn't believe in it but he would use it as a tool). Then of course we got 1 trillion barrels of oil we have "liberated" from the unjust use of a Tyrant. We have the MORAL right to destroy any dictatorship on the planet as long as we install a Government that is meant to protect the Individual Rights of the people.

Trooth
08 Dec 03,, 22:21
"liberating oil" from one bunch of thieves to hand to another is a shady reason. But a reason i will grant you. Not one that was ever stated going into the war ....

Saddam did not have the capability the west attributed to him. Where are all the battlefiled WMDs? I can accept that the bigger toys might be buried underground in places we haven't yet found. But the battlefield ones? That battlefield was pretty much rolled over.

Praxus, you are seeming to classify people on the basis of their religion. That may be your view. But it is also the view of people like Bin Laden, that the US classifies people based on their religion and wishes to exterminate them.

I haven't any issue with the idea that, post Saddam, there will be a better government in Iraq. Totally agree. I also agree that it should be decided, not just in terms of who is in power but the structure of that power, by the Iraqi people.

Praxus
08 Dec 03,, 22:59
Praxus, you are seeming to classify people on the basis of their religion. That may be your view. But it is also the view of people like Bin Laden, that the US classifies people based on their religion and wishes to exterminate them.


I said Militant Islam AKA Islamists, it is an ideology. Part of Islam that teaches hate of the west.


"liberating oil" from one bunch of thieves to hand to another is a shady reason. But a reason i will grant you. Not one that was ever stated going into the war ....

If it were up to me they would be giving back to the Companies who owned them before Sadam and if they can't track the liniage they should be sold to the highest bitter. It is afterall THEIR property. But most people are a bunch of believers in Socialism that the oil somehow belongs to the "people" even know they did not finance the drilling, they never payed for the property. It's like someone steeling your house, the robers get killed, and the Government declares it property of everyone in the country.

Trooth
08 Dec 03,, 23:05
I suspect the lineage is somewhat "vague" pre Saddam. Given the state of the country. I would say give them to the state oil company and then look to privatise the oil company in a few years.

That way the oil is owned by the people that need it most, but if the foreign oil companies want to get involved they know where to go. It fosters investment into the economy, not just into oil rights and it allows for the true fact: The western oil companies consider Iraq to dangerous for them at the moment.

Militant is a subjective position. I see us in danger of another crusade, but this time based on democractic ideology. Winston Churchill's words "Democracy is the worst system of government ever invented, apart from all the others." was meant as a warning as much as a quip.

Blademaster
08 Dec 03,, 23:32
We do NOT HAVE THE MORAL RIGHT to destroy any dictatorship on the planet and install the government that protect individual rights of the people. Who the hell are we?! Some noble race that decides what is good for other races?! FUCK THAT!!! The point is that they created the fucking mess in the first place and it is their responsibility to fix it in the first place.

We did not cause the dictatorship. Yeah we supported him before but we sure hell didn't kill his enemies for him and install him as the head of state of Iraq. He did that WITH THE AID OF THE PEOPLE. How? The people, soldiers, and poltiicians did not resist. So what if they resist a little? They didn't resist HARD ENOUGH!

The only reason we went in because the dictatorship was affecting us and we told him to stop. He wouldn't listen. That was cause for war. We didn't go there because we felt for the poor suffering people of Iraq. We went in because OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS was AT STAKE.

The only reason we should go for war and influence the governement of a soveriegn nation is when they threaten us DIRECTLY and PUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AT GREAT RISK.

It is a bad idea to wage war for moral reasons. Look at the Crusades and WW2 when Adolf Hitler started the war for moral reasons.

I supported the war but I sure didn't like the shit and crap that the Bush administration fed us about the war. In this case, Bush failed the leadership test. A true leader should not have to give us crap to get us to do anything. He should have state the case AS IS, not as WHAT IF or make outrageous claims(Yes he did make outrageous claims).

We are not a moral race. We are just human beings who want the best for us and our children and willing to cooperate legally or mischeavously but not violenty with others as long as they do not use violence against us. When they USE violence against us, GOD help them or give them mercy because we won't.

For the people who spout moral reasons, I say to them,"Fine, that is so important to you, go out there and put yourself on the line of fire, but don't ever ask us to sacrifice our lives or our family's well being TO SERVE YOUR MORAL IDEALS"

I did not and never will ask any other person to sacrifice themselves or their well being to serve my moral ideals. To do that will start the road to hell.

Praxus
08 Dec 03,, 23:56
Since the idea of Individual Rights came a long with John Locke and then instituted by the United States and then by the rest of the western world an average life span has tripled and the population and quality of life has sky rocketed. Our system is superior to that of any other system and to not agree means you are ignoring the plain and simple facts.

We have every right in the world to tell the third world to convert to our system. If they threaten our interest then we have every right to come in and destroy their system and institute our own(ex. Germany and Japan).


I did not and never will ask any other person to sacrifice themselves or their well being to serve my moral ideals.

To fight for your own liberty, rational self-interest, and your own rights is not sacrifice. To ask them to do so is not immoral, because they have a mind and can choose not to fight.


It is a bad idea to wage war for moral reasons. Look at the Crusades and WW2 when Adolf Hitler started the war for moral reasons.

So I supose the American Revolution was a "bad idea". Adolf Hitler started the war because he felt his nations interest were at risk because of the Jews(of course he was a liar and irrational), he started the war for the very reason you claim is the only reason you can.

Morality is the only thing that allows you to see right from wrong.

I believe that rational beings that accept reason can come to the same conclusion about what is moral and what is immoral through reason.

My Morality says the Initiator of Force is always guilty one and only a despotic state can be the initiator of the Use of Force because they have already done so by their actions against their own people.

Blademaster
09 Dec 03,, 00:17
As they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder so I say the same about morality. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

What you think may be morally right may be morally wrong to others.

Let me tell you something about the third world countries. Two of them, India and China. Before 1800s, the two of them alone, accounted for half of the world's output and had longer lifespans than the western world. After India was occupied by the British Empire and China subjected to the demands of the westerns due to opium war, their output declined drastically.

So it is not just your system at play. Who the hell are you to say that your system works the best and everyone has to adapt to your system. I would say to you, "fuck you."

If you say that you have every right to tell the world to agree to your system, well by that reasoning, they have every right to tell you to go bugger off or better yet, tell you to agree to their system.

Morality is a two way street. It is not a cake piece you can eat it and have it.

Trooth
09 Dec 03,, 01:21
I fail to see the direct correlation between the US bill of rights and life expectancy. It doesn't even stack up in the US. The life expectancy of a Bangladeshi male is longer than that of a Harlem male.

The moral argument is about belief. The problem with belief is that it is very powerful, almost all consuming. And the problem with that is a lack of breadth of vision.

I see no different in a "we ave the moral right to smash any nation that is different to us" arguement to jihad.

What you are exposing, Praxus, is a jihad based on democratic fundamentalism, to wipe out a jihad based on Islamic fundamentalism. Those appear to be different flavours of the same meal, and one that is often served cold.

Praxus
09 Dec 03,, 01:23
Let me tell you something about the third world countries. Two of them, India and China. Before 1800s, the two of them alone, accounted for half of the world's output and had longer lifespans than the western world. After India was occupied by the British Empire and China subjected to the demands of the westerns due to opium war, their output declined drastically.

So it is not just your system at play. Who the hell are you to say that your system works the best and everyone has to adapt to your system. I would say to you, "fuck you."

If you say that you have every right to tell the world to agree to your system, well by that reasoning, they have every right to tell you to go bugger off or better yet, tell you to agree to their system.

Morality is a two way street. It is not a cake piece you can eat it and have it.

Before 1820's there was no such thing as Capitalism(in fact that name didn't come about till Karl Marx but that's a seperate issue) and the Protection of Individual Rights was still rare in the Western World. Comparing India and China to pre-industrial revolution in the western world is stupid.


fail to see the direct correlation between the US bill of rights and life expectancy.

When the Government protects Individual Rights, including property rights, people become richer, people create inovations like Mass Production and drop the price of Gods, meaning people spend less on their products.

Trooth
09 Dec 03,, 01:57
You are pulling things together that happened in similar timeframes but i am not sure they are that closely linked, The industrial revolution (1740 in England) which was of course, a very capitalist enterprise even if it wasn't called that, was well underway by the time the bill of rights was written.

But the point is whether we as people can appreciate other's views. If we cannot then we cannot understand each other. And if we cannot do that we are condemned to repeat the past cycles of war, hatred and oppression.

The Crusades is a good example. That was to purify the earth from the hethans. Went well, didn't it ?

Officer of Engineers
09 Dec 03,, 03:55
Praxus, the US as a moral force holds no weight whatsoever. The US is hardly a moral force. Her current support for a crop of dictators (in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Eygpt) hardly signals imposition of individual rights.

More than that, the US is not above (actually the CIA) acting against Her democratic allies acting against of the US's puppets. In my example, the Croats.

Blademaster
09 Dec 03,, 05:28
The American Revolution was not started because of moral ideas. It was started becaues the Americans didn't want to pay taxes without representation. They wanted representation and didn't get it. They were treated as second class citizens in their own land and didn't take too well to it. If it was about morality, they would have a peace protest. But no, they had to have the Boston Tea party.:LOL

Confed999
09 Dec 03,, 19:45
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
There are few leaders and many followers. That is the way of things. Not everyone can be a leader.

Thus, when the followers are being asked to sacrafice everything, including a future with their wives and families, then, they have a right to demand everything of their leaders.
If you're talking to me..... When you become a parent/guardian you are a leader, like it or not. My points were, "we should never wish on others what we wouldn't want for ourselves" and "I hope that you will use more care with your words..., to spread more love than hate". It takes very little to lead a family with love and compassion, usually all that is required is to maintain composure, to think before we speak and listen when we're needed. I come from a huge extended family and I've seen it work time and again, I can't be the only one. As my comments were about what was said and where, not about whom, the remainder of your post is not applicable, and is also why I'm not sure you were talking to me. ;)

Confed999
09 Dec 03,, 19:48
Originally posted by Blademaster
Americans didn't want to pay taxes without representation.
There was alot more to it than that, you need to read the Declaration of Independance.

BTW, there were many protests before the war.

Praxus
09 Dec 03,, 20:42
The American Revolution was not started because of moral ideas. It was started becaues the Americans didn't want to pay taxes without representation. They wanted representation and didn't get it. They were treated as second class citizens in their own land and didn't take too well to it. If it was about morality, they would have a peace protest. But no, they had to have the Boston Tea party

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

I WOULD SAY IT WAS REALLY BASED ON MORALITY

Blademaster
10 Dec 03,, 01:20
To you it may be morality, but to me it is not morality. It is about interests at stake. The british didn't represent Americans' interests or give a damn about Americans' interests. They were treated as second rate citizens. There's a saying,"Provoke the meekest dog too much, he will bite you" or "Beat a dog too much, he will attack you". The British assumed too much and expected too much and took too many things for granted. That costed them.

It was about unfairness, not morality. THe British was unfair to the Americans so the Americans did something about it but in no way, they were morally superior to the British for doing it.

THe Americans wanted to expand their frontiers. THe British did not wanted to because it meant more costs to pay that the Americans were not in shape to brunt. After all, Americans didn't pay their fair share for the cost of the French Indian wars. The British beared the brunt of the cost and wanted the Americans to pay for it.

Not that I condoned the British, but the stuff that you claim the British have done during the Revolutionary War, well it was war and the 1700s. that's what happens if you wage war with British. You take what you ask for. Remember I am an Indian and know very well about the British occupation of my native land, India. Did I claim that tbe Indian battes for freedom from British occupation was morally right for the world? No, I did not. It was morally right for ME and my family. But for others, I do not know. All I know was that my ancestors did it for themselves and families but never asked others to do it for them. But they never claimed that they were morally superior than the British.

That's my beef with you. You came out as saying that you are morally superior because your actions were just and moral.

An action can be just and moral but in no way that makes the person morally superior.

I would dare say that is the source of the conflict of the majorities of the countries with America. They do not like or accept the fact that America is a morall superior country and did it in the act of protests, noncooperation, belligerence, or in the extreme case, violence. Do I condone those people who used violence against US? Not most of them but only those who felt that their nationaly security interests were at stake such as the well beings of their families.

Ray
10 Dec 03,, 02:18
Praxus,

I commend your loyalty to your Nation and your government. However, I think your logic is flawed.

The statement that US is not a super race or a Knight in Shining Armour is rather apt. For Heavens sake, don't think that the rest of the world is living in the Cavemen Age. They are educated and not all are poverty ridden. They may not have plenty but they have adequate to live and more....

Iraq is a blotched affair.

So many nations have WMD and it can trickle to any Tom, Dick and Harry. So, go and sic them! If you do, then it would give credence to the adage - biting more than you can chew.

If the citizens of a country wishes to have a rotten govt or a rotten leader, then who are we to decide what is good for them?

That way many think that the US govt is horrid. Does it mean that they have a right to change it? They would be more justified since the last US Presidential election was a sleight of hand and may be the majority did not vote for Bush.

Can they do it? I mean change the govt? Why not? They have started. The failure of the WTO, the cutback on steel subsidy, no more countries ready to salvage the US from Iraq so that their soldier return and these countries get embroiled, massive protest against Bush in the UK. I reckon you would call it a socialist plot engineered by the Democrats of the US.

Officer of Engineers
10 Dec 03,, 02:52
Originally posted by Confed999
If you're talking to me..... When you become a parent/guardian you are a leader, like it or not.

Hehehehehehe, spoke by someone who has never changed diapers at 02:00 and never experienced hissy fits. Being a slave is more like it than being a leader.


Originally posted by Confed999
My points were, "we should never wish on others what we wouldn't want for ourselves" and "I hope that you will use more care with your words..., to spread more love than hate". It takes very little to lead a family with love and compassion, usually all that is required is to maintain composure, to think before we speak and listen when we're needed. I come from a huge extended family and I've seen it work time and again, I can't be the only one. As my comments were about what was said and where, not about whom, the remainder of your post is not applicable, and is also why I'm not sure you were talking to me. ;)

I thought you were responding to Ironman's Grandfather's quote.


Originally posted by ironman420
..."It's too bad Bush didn't stay there"..."Too bad they didn't get him while he was there."

To which if I understand you right, you were challenging Ironman's grandfather assertion that Bush should have lead the Iraq War himself. Hence, my response.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Ironduke
10 Dec 03,, 03:39
Originally posted by Confed999
I guess I've been spoiled by my family, they are such great people, I only hope I can live up to my family name. My grandfather allways said, to people like your grandfather, "we should never wish on others what we wouldn't want for ourselves", he was a WW2 and Korea veteran. He worked as the leader of my family, before his passing earlier this year, since his father passed on, teaching the younger generations respect and love. My father and uncle have done a wonderful job taking over his position, but this is still the first time I've ever regreted not having children of my own, oh what they missed. Someday I hope that you will use more care with your words, when you are in your grandfather's position, to spread more love than hate. :-(
First of all, my grandpa said those things in jest chuckling. He obviously does not care for Bush, and it is entirely his right not to.

So you think your grandpa says such great things, is such a great person. So what is my grandpa? Some degenerate who babbles on about which he knows not?

Confed999
10 Dec 03,, 03:50
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Hehehehehehe, spoke by someone who has never changed diapers at 02:00 and never experienced hissy fits. Being a slave is more like it than being a leader.
I never had any of my own, true, but I come from a big family, I've done it all. That may be why I've never really wanted any of my own.

Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
I thought you were responding to Ironman's Grandfather's quote.
Nah, he can believe anything he wants, but not everything needs to be said. I don't want it to sound like I'm comming down on grandpa, all I can really comment on is me and my family, I'm sure it doesn't apply everywhere.

You never have had a reason to apologize to me, but I appreciate the thought. :-)

Confed999
10 Dec 03,, 03:51
Originally posted by ironman420
Some degenerate who babbles on about which he knows not?
Certainly not.

Ironduke
10 Dec 03,, 04:22
Why do you think he should take care in what he says to me?

Trooth
10 Dec 03,, 07:57
QUOTE]Originally posted by Praxus
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

I WOULD SAY IT WAS REALLY BASED ON MORALITY [/QUOTE]

Well the "savages" were dealt with very morally by the newly independant US where they not? Many people would sya they had a tyrannical government thrust upon them, not a moral one.

Blademaster
10 Dec 03,, 11:01
To soldiers and veterans, I am curious about your opinions regarding moral force as a decision or support for controlled violence.

How many of you joined the armed forces because of moral reasons(not because you want to defend your country, but other reasons)?

Or was it simple? for God? for country? for education and venue of advancement & opportunity? I don't see anything wrong with that.

I watched the movie, "A few good men" a quite while ago. There was one phrase that the Marines often quote, "For God, country, unit, duty, honor".

I wonder how do you take the phrase as? If the moderators think i am treading on a fine line, please let me know.

Ray
10 Dec 03,, 18:07
As a military man, to me 'For my Country, regiment, unit, honour' is a very important factor.

I was deeply moved by the film 'A Few Good Men'. I may not agree with the means adopted by the Colonel, but his words:

"You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."

indicates the agony of military men doing their duty as they seem is correct. It is being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Praxus
10 Dec 03,, 20:13
How many of you joined the armed forces because of moral reasons(not because you want to defend your country, but other reasons)?

To defend your country is a moral choice. If you believe your country is right then you fight. That is a moral reason for joining the Armed Forces.

Confed999
10 Dec 03,, 22:18
Originally posted by ironman420
Why do you think he should take care in what he says to me?
I never said that. The closest comment I made about your grandpa, is saying what my grandpa would have leaned over and said to him afterward. If you really want an answer to your question, I can do that, if not stop reading now.... Does your grandfather's words hold more weight than the average person off the street? Yes? Perfect reason right there..... Do you think it's allright to wish harm and death on someone else? If you defend the statement in question there's another perfect reason, you had to learn that somewhere...... Would you want your grandchildren to learn that it's ok to hate from you? I would be appalled. Again, I can only comment from my family, if yours thinks that is a wonderful sentiment to express before the family on Thanksgiving, then more power to you. Either way, don't plan on bringing it to my house, it will not be tolerated. :-/

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 03,, 03:50
Originally posted by Praxus
To defend your country is a moral choice. If you believe your country is right then you fight. That is a moral reason for joining the Armed Forces.


Praxus,

There is no such thing as morality in war. You're at best asking rightous men to be butchers. I suggest that you listen to your elders and learn.

Officer of Engineers
11 Dec 03,, 04:14
Originally posted by Ray
"You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me there. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."

Sir,

I never liked the movie for exactly those quotes. We, Sir, serve the civilians. We have to ask for money from the civilians. We, therefore, have to explain it to the civies what we do and how we do it.

Whether they like it or not, that's their problem, but they have to know exactly what they're paying for. And it's our job to make sure that they know.

For, Sir, above the money that we're asking, we're also asking for their sons.

Ray
11 Dec 03,, 12:50
Colonel,

I don't dispute that the civil govt and the law is supreme. I agree with that. That is why I qualified that I don't subscribe to the action of the Colonel of tyhe movie.

My contention is that the military man is in a tricky situation of being damned either way.

We have a dictum of using minimum force. Now, tell me what is minimum force? If there is a poltical hassle, then you are up to your neck in hot war when all the time you have used minimum force.

Everyone forgets God, doctor and the soldier once the crisis is over. Not that we hanker for their eulogies and yet you get rather browned off when the civilians expect you to perform miracles with one hand tied behind your back!

Going my Sniper, yours and others post on the functioning of your Armies, I find that you have tremendous leeway. We don't have the same luxury. We have to be always 'correct' even if militarily it is asking for the moon.

I have seen posts on many fora that India could have solved the Kashmir dispute by swamping Pakistan. Yes, militarily it may have been possible. But then the govt would not have allowed so since the result would be misery for the multitudes. Even now Special Force operations can cause havoc, but will it be allowed? Not in this country. Many commentators have adovated 'salami' tactics, but nothing of that sort will happen. Now, is that a correct action? With the new initiative towards Confidence Building Measures between India and Pakistan, I think the govt is correct but then on the ground the military remains challenged in curbing the terrorism. Selective sentences from the Colonel's dialogue may appeal.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 15:46
He's right, but are the Euros going to actually build a military? Nah...That would take away money for their welfare programs.

The US has a military that is too large, and the US spends too much on its military, even for a country the size of the US. I can't see any reason why the US needs a military that is so large. I would rather live in Europe with our high standards of living than America with its lower standards of living. The reason it has lower standards of living is because it spends about 50% of its entire budget on the military, and the other 50% altogether goes on schools and hospitals and the transportation system etc, which is one of the reasons why Americans are the most undereducated people in the Western World, why the US has the highest child poverty rate in the Western World, and why the US will soon become the first society in history in which the poorest people are children.. So EU countries spend more on the things that give people a better quality of life. BUT, the UK spends far less than the US on its military but still manages to have the best military in the world by far. If the US spent as much on its military as the UK then the US military would be a laughing stock.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 15:55
Or if the UK spent as much as the US, the Americans and the rest of the world would look at the British military in wonder and awe.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 15:59
Every military when compared to the US is inferior. My point is that these countries have aided the US far more outside of their own borders than the countries I've stated. And the countries I've stated, especially Israel recieved far more aid than all of NATO combined.

So, you tell me, who is not holding their end of their bargin here? NATO or Japan and Israel?

BTW, NATO's charter does not give it the right to deploy outside of the North Atlantic and yet, we've been to North America and Afghanistan. Legality does not give Japan and Israel the excuse of not being true allies.

As my girlfriend says to me - "Size is no guarantee of quality." Just because the US has the largest military does not make it the best. An army of 1,000,000 rubbish soldiers is not as good as an army of 500,000 very good soldiers.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:04
NATO minus the US is FAR, FAR, FAR above anyone else(minus the US of course).



This would cause the collapse of the entire World Economy, not too pretty, considering the fact that the US and EU account for HALF of the world's GDP at around 20 trillion dollars.

The US economy is only about 10 trillion.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:10
Europe wants to be consulted on all world matters as if they were a superpower, yet they are unwilling to pay the price to be in that club. European countries have much higher tax rates to pay for these social programs that they love. The result of that is that the people are unwilling to see their taxes raised to build a military. Instead, they want their politicians to bitch and complain every time the US treats them like the second tier power that they are.

There are other ways of being a superpower rather than being a military superpower. The EU is an economic superpower. It's economy is about 9 trillion, slightly smaller than America's 10 trillion. When the ten new states join on 1st May, its economy will surpass that of the US. Even one member state alone, Germany, is the world's largest exporter, outstripping even the US and Japan. So, as an ECONOMIC superpower, the EU is one tier above the US. The military isn't all that counts in being a superpower.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:19
They've tried and failed, having finally resorting to 23 SAS operating a counter-terror war against the IRA. American pressure on Ireland was non-existing.



But not about GIVING the oil to Western oil companies. That's outright theft.

The UK could quite easily invade Ireland. We've already done it once. That's the whole reason behind the IRA terror attacks. The UK is probably the second most powerful country in the world. The mighty Royal Navy is the second most powerful navy in the world. The Republic of Ireland has only 8 ships. The UK has about 150 ships, including 3 aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:33
I don't see how the Americans can complain that some countries (for example, France and Germany) aren't supporting the US in the war in Iraq. I mean, where was the US in the early years of World War II when France was overrun with Nazis and British cities like London, Coventry and Clydebank were being bombed to pieces? World War II was far more devastating than the Iraq War, but the Yanks thought it was okay for them to sit on their arses doing nothing when Europe was in turmoil and the US was also in danger from the Japanese, but when the US goes to war, the Americans expect the WHOLE WORLD to fight alongside them. Hmmmmmmm.

The War in Iraq has, in fact, made the world MORE dangerous than it was before, but brainwashed Americans think it was more dangerous before they went to war. Spain was bombed because of its support of the US. That's why the Spanish voted for an anti-US government. Countries that didn't support the war, like Germany, are now safe, and happy in the knowledge that Al Qaeda will not attack them. But the US, UK, Italy, Australia and other members of the Coalition are now all expecting Al Qaeda attacks. How has the Iraq war made the world safer?

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:44
I think the other leadership issue was that, over Iraq, there wasn't any leadership to follow. There was no ideal that the war was based on. No wait there were three. Or was it four. No back to three. Oh wait we have thought of another reason.

I think the war was inevitable and it was the right thing to do. However i totally and utterly disagree with how the US and UK governments tried to convince us that it was so.

First Iraq was linked to al-qaeda and this somewhat ridiculous "axis of evil". The link to al-qaeda was that Atta had met an Iraqi secret service agent once for a short period in Germany. Well The US president met a convicted terrorist at the white house, the people of the US poured money into an international terrorist organisation for years and the US government didn't stop it. Notable Senators were big fans of said organisation.

Oh and Bin Laden has tried to kill Saddam in the past.

The axis of evil implied collusion between the three nations .....

So what was next. Well it was WMD. Oh yes. He has them ready to launch on all of us. He can build nuclear weapons in 2 to 3 years given the right resources and personnel. Well so could i or you given the right info, money and technology.

Only they weren't there, the inspectors said so before the war. But we will find them when we invade. You wait and see.

However the spooks started to get cold feet ... so what else we got on him. Oh yes the despot. Right we are going to liberate the Iraqi people. Finally something we can relate to. Finally.

In reality, the air war had been going on long enough. Saddam was a despot and had to be stopped and the success in Afghanistan was a springboard for sorting this other "problem" out.

But the problem is and continues, the platform for the war was just so amatuerishly explained. It seemed to be "my first foreign policy offensive" but sadly it was General Dynamics, not Fisher Price, supplying the toys.

The war on Iraq was wrong. It has made Britain and other members of the coalition MORE vulnerable to terrorist attacks, NOT less vulnerable. The only reason why the US went to war was because of the oil. It was NOT to liberate the Iraqis. After all, they have only been replaced by American oppression rather than saddam oppression, and I do not believe for wone minute that the US will hand over power to the Iraqis. The reason why we went to war is to get Iraqi oil, and to ensure that the oil is paid for in American Dollars rather than Euros.

Iraq has NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda. The people who attacked the US on September 11th were Egyptian and the leader of Al Qaeda is Saudi. In fact, it is the US that has links with Al Qaeda because the American company Betsel funded them! How ironic! Not to mention that George Dubya is a close friend of the Bin Laden family and Bin Laden's brother founded "Bin Laden Aviation" in Texas. The Bin Ladens also own real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. Saddam got his weapons from the US. The gas that he used to gas the Kurds to death in 1988 was bought from the US. Not to mention the other biological agents and helicopters and computers.

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:48
We do NOT HAVE THE MORAL RIGHT to destroy any dictatorship on the planet and install the government that protect individual rights of the people. Who the hell are we?! Some noble race that decides what is good for other races?! FUCK THAT!!! The point is that they created the fucking mess in the first place and it is their responsibility to fix it in the first place.

We did not cause the dictatorship. Yeah we supported him before but we sure hell didn't kill his enemies for him and install him as the head of state of Iraq. He did that WITH THE AID OF THE PEOPLE. How? The people, soldiers, and poltiicians did not resist. So what if they resist a little? They didn't resist HARD ENOUGH!

The only reason we went in because the dictatorship was affecting us and we told him to stop. He wouldn't listen. That was cause for war. We didn't go there because we felt for the poor suffering people of Iraq. We went in because OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS was AT STAKE.

The only reason we should go for war and influence the governement of a soveriegn nation is when they threaten us DIRECTLY and PUT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS AT GREAT RISK.

It is a bad idea to wage war for moral reasons. Look at the Crusades and WW2 when Adolf Hitler started the war for moral reasons.

I supported the war but I sure didn't like the shit and crap that the Bush administration fed us about the war. In this case, Bush failed the leadership test. A true leader should not have to give us crap to get us to do anything. He should have state the case AS IS, not as WHAT IF or make outrageous claims(Yes he did make outrageous claims).

We are not a moral race. We are just human beings who want the best for us and our children and willing to cooperate legally or mischeavously but not violenty with others as long as they do not use violence against us. When they USE violence against us, GOD help them or give them mercy because we won't.

For the people who spout moral reasons, I say to them,"Fine, that is so important to you, go out there and put yourself on the line of fire, but don't ever ask us to sacrifice our lives or our family's well being TO SERVE YOUR MORAL IDEALS"

I did not and never will ask any other person to sacrifice themselves or their well being to serve my moral ideals. To do that will start the road to hell.

Correct. The US is no Champion of Democracy. In fact, it goes around the world DESTROYING democracy. Whenever a country has a Communist government, the US goes and gets rid of it, even if that Communist government was elected DEMOCRATICALLY! So the US destroys democracy in order to "save democracy."

StGeorge
19 Apr 04,, 16:58
The 3 Big Lies about Iraq -

1 – Lie Number One is the justification for an attack on Iraq — the threat of its “weapons of mass destruction”.

Few countries have had 93 per cent of their major weapons capability destroyed. This was reported by Rolf Ekeus, the chairman of the United Nations body authorised to inspect and destroy Iraq’s arsenal following the Gulf War in 1991. UN inspectors certified that 817 out of the 819 Iraqi long-range missiles were destroyed. In 1999, a special panel of the Security Council recorded that Iraq’s main biological weapons facilities (supplied originally by the US and Britain) “have been destroyed and rendered harmless.”

As for Saddam Hussein’s “nuclear threat,” the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme had been eliminated “efficiently and effectively”. The IAEA inspectors still travel to Iraq and in January [2002] reported full Iraqi compliance.

Blair and Bush never mention this when they demand that “the weapons inspectors are allowed back”. Nor do they remind us that the UN inspectors were never expelled by the Iraqis, but withdrawn only after it was revealed they had been infiltrated by US intelligence.



2 – Lie Number Two is the connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of September 11.

There was the rumour that Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers, had met an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic last year. The Czech police say he was not even in the country last year. On February 5, [2002] a New York Times investigation concluded:

“The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.”



3 – Lie Number Three is that Saddam Hussein, not the US and Britain, “is blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching the people of Iraq.” (British Foreign Office minister Peter Hain).

The opposite is true. The United States, with British compliance, is currently blocking a record $5billion worth of humanitarian supplies from the people of Iraq. These are shipments already approved by the UN Office of Iraq, which is authorised by the Security Council. They include life-saving drugs, painkillers, vaccines, cancer diagnostic equipment.



http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/index.html#Iraq


http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ImportantSites.html


http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html