Europe has really failed miserably in the Iraq situation

[STING2]

Klaus,

I'm sure people OVER the age of 60 have some bad memories of World War II or World War I. Of course, people in the former Yugoslavia of all ages have memories of terrible experiences which Europe failed to do anything to stop or prevent. Most of the people marching in Anti-War protest in Europe are under the age of 60 and have only known the peace and security provided them by the USA and NATO alliance.

I certainly would never attempt to minimize the suffering of anyone. Its rather strange that you would attempt to do just that with the victims of 9/11. If you think 3,025 people being murdered in the space of less than 2 hours is a small thing, fine, but I don't think so.

Your arguement about the suffering that many people experienced in World War II is in my view, a very convincing arguement to make sure Iraq is disarmed by military force if necessary.

It has often been said that the great suffering experienced in World War I made the European governments reluctent to confront Hitler earlier on. It is now obvious that if they had confronted Hitler earlier on, they could have potentially prevented a level of suffering 5 times greater than what they experienced in World War I.

So, look at the cost of not acting, World War II. Look at the cost of not acting in the former Yugoslavia. It is naive to believe you can avoid the cost of war by simply avoiding it and pretending the threat is not there. There are risk in using military force, but there is also a risk in not using military force(World War II former Yugoslavia). There are many that feel that the risk of not using military force in this particular situation are greater than the risk of using military force.

 

[Flag Pole Pear]

sting2, your whole point is weakened by the fact that the states is doing NOTHING about north korea who ADMITTED to the world in december that theyre reactivating their reactors and plants and possess the weapons AND plan on making more!

you dont think its not odd that the states has done nothing about it? dont tell me they have, cause the us refuses to even refer to the situation as a "crisis."

 

[u2popmofo]

North Korea = big army, LOTS of American deaths
Iraq = virtually no army, not anywhere near as many American deaths

Thats why you do nothing about or even mention North Korea.

Just a foreign policy lesson for you all.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Such cynicism u2popmofo! I'd bet my bottom dollar that the first country to react and the one with the largest influence, will be the US. Then we can all complain that they either interfere, or reacted too late, or pushed the conflict further than needed to go....or hell, we could make any number of complaints really.

 

[STING2]

Flag Pole Pear,

I think your missing the point. Iraq is not a threat merely because of its possession of WMD and a WMD weapons program. It is a threat primarily because of the behavior of its dictator. Behavior in foreign policy. Lets take a look.


For the past 50 years, North Korea has not invaded any countries. North Korea became a state in 1948. It did invade South Korea in 1950 and that conflict came to a conclusion in 1953 8 years after the defeat of Germany and Japan in World War II. It is also not in violation of a ceacefire agreement. It is not in violation of 17 United Nations resolutions passed under chapter VII rules.

In stark contrast to North Korea's record in Foreign Policy for the past 50 years, Saddam's Iraq has invaded and attacked 4 different countries in just the past 20 years. It is currently in violation of the 1991 Ceacefire agreement which required Iraq to disarm itself. That Ceacefire agreement was signed with US forces only 150 miles from Baghdad back in 1991. Iraq's signing of the agreement put on Ice what could of been and invasion of Baghdad back then. But if Iraq were to violate the conditions of the ceacefire agreement, then the USA and other coalition members would be obligated to bring Iraq back into compliance with military force if necessary. In addition to this Iraq, is in violation of 17 United Nations Resolutions all passed under Chapter VII rules. Resolutions passed under chapter VII rules are considered to be the most serious and allow for the use of military force to bring the violator back into compliance.

North Korea is a passive country in terms of its current foreign policy when compared to many other countries around the world especially Iraq. It is a dictatorship and its possesion of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons is a big concern, but not on the level of Iraq, because North Korea's behavior compared to Iraq has been the opposite. North Korea has not invaded any countries unlike Iraq in the past 50 years. Iraq has invaded and attacked four countries in just the past 20 years.

Mere possession of such weapons is not the threat. It is WMD + Behavior that is the threat. If it was just about possession, then the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, and India would then merit the same response. Clearly it is Saddam's actions and behavior that make him a threat, a threat that will grow even larger and be even more costly to the world if he is allowed to procure his WMD programs.

North Korea is a problem though, but it is in a different league from Iraq in many ways. It does not exibit the threat Iraq does, because its record of behavior on the international scene is in stark contrast to Iraq. This is the one of the reasons that the administration has continued to support a diplomatic resolution of the crises with North Korea. North Korea has not exibited behavior like Iraq and looks suceptible to diplomacy and negotiation unlike Iraq.

But there is another reason that the Bush Administration has chosen the diplomatic route with North Korea. The Military option with North Korea involves substantially greater risk than the military option with Iraq.

For the best 40 years, North Korea has built up its side of the DMZ with massive numbers of artillery pieces. Nearly 11,000 to be more exact. Many of them if not all of them are in range of Seoul, the capital of South Korea which has a population of 10 million. It is estimated that on the first day of any military conflict that North Korea could kill over a 100,000 people in Seoul South Korea with just its Artillery on the other side of the border. The USA does not have the capabillity to take out all of that Artillery in a first strike. Most of it is hidden in the sides of mountains with large concrete doors that open up so it can fire and then close. This unique situation does not exist anywhere else in the world, where such a large population center is in range of so much deployed Artillery.

North Korea has a military of 1.2 million. While it can be defeated, its unique position relative to South Korea, with 70% of its soldiers within 50 miles of the border, make any military option very risky. The above estimate of 100,000 dead in Seoul South Korea on the first day of a conflict from North Korean Artillery firings is a conservative one. Most estimates are higher. Realize this is considering only the use of conventional munitions and not chemical or biological which could produce even more civilian losses.

If North Korea's possession of massive amounts of Artillery in close proximity to Seoul was not enough, consider the fact that North Korea now has nuclear weapons. What would be the cost of a 1 megaton detonation of a nuclear weapon over Tokyo in a military conflict with North Korea. Tokyo has 27 million people packed together in one of the most densly populated centers in the world. North Korea's Nuclear Weapons present a huge problem for USA military forces that chemical and Biological weapons do not.

The problem with North Korea is actually a supporting reason to do something about Saddam now before he gets a Nuclear Weapon or improved conventional military or other types of capabilities. One can see the problem of the military option with North Korea because of such weapons. Saddam has invaded and attacked four countries in the past 20 years. Possession of Nuclear weapons or an improved WMD program or conventional military capability by Saddam in the future will only make for a disaster. Saddams intentions are clear by his past actions. He has used almost everyone weapon in his arsonal. He must be disarmed by military force if necessary because of the cost of not doing so will in the future be catastrophic.

North Korea is not the threat that Saddam is as evidenced by its past behavior for 50 years. At the current time, a military option against North Korea involves cost that don't exist in the Iraq situation. The risk assesment with North Korea shows that the cost of invasion is much greater than the cost of containment. With Iraq, the cost of continueing containment is greater than the cost of military invasion.

Hopefully, Saddam will come to his senses and disarm completely!

 

[Popmartijn]

Ah yes, past behaviour...

I haven't read most of the post (as I've read it often before), but there are a few points I'd like to make. Yes, Saddam has invaded 4 countries in the last 20 years, while North-Korea hasn't done it in 50 years. But since a few years North-Korea has a new leader and in those few years he hasn't invaded another country (BTW, it's geographically also more difficult for North-Korea to invade many other countries as it only borders on 2 by land: China and South-Korea), but his behaviour isn't encouraging. He's aggressive, stubborn and arrogant. And with the bad state the North-Korean economy is in, he'll do anything for dollars. This includes selling weapons (or weapon technology) to those who are willing to pay.

A few months ago, a North-Korean ship was intercepted which had a load of dangerous missiles. Contrary to the first rumours it wasn't officially destined for Iraq, but Jemen, another country with such pro-Western feelings. There have been rumours before that North-Korea was selling nuclear technology (I believe to Pakistan) and who says they won't do the same with biological or chemical technology. They're no friends with the USA, so they don't care if it will be used against civilians in the USA. After all, the USA grossly insulted North-Korea, so they have to pay for it. As they haven't found any trigger to fire their nuclear missiles on Seattle, Portland or other areas in the US North-West (goodbye Microsoft) they may think that terrorist performing attacks is the next best thing.
No, you may scowl at Saddam's behaviour, but at least he's fairly predictable (do anything to stay in power). Since the North-Korea leader is more unknown in that respect, the threat may be worse.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Klaus]

Sting:

being anti war dosn't mean that we don't want to do anything.
It's just that we are more careful about military action. And ppl like me see it as the last option (for example bombing a nuclear plant (like we did in iraq) is ok, because of the danger. Helping to defend Kuwait is ok too.
Imho the things that Powell presented at the UN were not enough to even stand at a legal court - and imho we need more if we want to attack a country - with a ugly dictator, but with lots of innocent civilists.

I'm sorry that you didn't get my point about Worldwar II.

1st) just because i say it's different from 9/11- and the effect is different on the people was extremely different it dosn't change the suffering of a single man or women who was killed or lost a relative at 9/11 but it's really different, you can't compare it.
I try to give another example:
Also more people died from trough allied bombings in germany as jews were killed in Concentration camps you can't compare that.
It's not the number of dead innocent humans which can give a close description what really hapened. And also i read books about the Holocaust, visited a KZ and talked with surviving people i don't think i can really imagine how traumatic it must have been for them - also i guess that children and grandchildren of survivors there can.

Why?
Because your Parents and Grandparents tell you stories about their childhood, youth and what hapened in their life when you are a small kid. And because of that you get a different view on that part of history.

The only reason why i wrote down the numbers of dead men women and children was that i wanted to show you that WW II still has influences the whole country. Everyone knows personal stories from war.. and, in difference to US war experiences of the last generations - they know it also from the other side, from the civilian point of view.

Because of that i guess our view on Wars is much more emotional than yours. And because of that we'd prefer to stop Saddam building weapons of mass destruction in a different way.

Again, never mix anti war possitions with appeasement. Maybe some people who disslike war think that appeasement could work but most have just alternative ideas of solving that problem.

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

The USA believes war is a last option as well. Realize we have spent 12 years trying things other than war to get Saddam to comply. 12 years. Thats longer than Hitler was in power.

The evidence that Powell presented was very compelling. Iraq has to prove what happened to the 30,000 Bio/Chem it is known to of had. It has not handed them over or proven that they destroyed them. The same goes for thousands of tons of Anthrax and VX Nerve Gas. If Iraq does not have these weapons, they have to prove it by showing what happened to the weapons they had. Or if they still have them they have to hand them over. Its obvious what the Iraq mililtary officers were talking about in the intercepted messages.

The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence that would ever be convincing to the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese.

I'll say it again, your talk of the suffering that happened during World War II is a reason to invade Iraq and disarm the country. The World wants to prevent that suffering from happening again which it failed to do in the mid 1930s when it had the chance.

I'd say that if because of what happened during World War II, the people in your country are not willing to use military force, then they have failed to learn and understand the lessons of World War II. The lesson of World War II is not that war is terrible. Everyone already knows that. The lesson of World War II is that appeasement will not stop a dictator and that you can save millions of lives by acting before an event happens.

Unfortunately as Bosnia and Kosovo demonstrate, Europeans would rather watch people suffer and die than risk military intervention to stop it. The Europeans failed with World War II and they failed again to stop the violence in Bosnia and Kosovo. It was military action by the USA that ultimately stopped those conflicts saving hundreds of thousands of lives and perhaps millions. The USA learned the lessons of World War II, its about time the Europeans did as well.

We have spent 12 years using alternative methods to war to disarm Saddam. Saddam should have been disarmed many years ago. The fact of the matter is, diplomacy, appeasement, sanctions, and inspections, will never forces Saddam to give up his WMD. Just as military force was the only way to force Saddam from Iraq, military force is the only way to disarm Saddam completely if Saddam does not comply himself. There is very little chance that Saddam would simply give up his weapons. If Saddam will not give up his weapons with an impending military invasion about to happen, there is no way he would give up his weapons through any of the other "alternative" policy options.

Diplomacy, appeasement, sanctions or some alternative method did not get inspectors back into Iraq in 2002. The real threat of military force from the USA is what got inspectors back on the ground. If there is any chance that Saddam will give up his weapons of mass destruction, it will be because of the threat of a military invasion to bring him down. Diplomacy, sanctions, and inspectors have been toys that Saddam has played with for 12 years.

 

[STING2]

Popmartijn,

"But since a few years North-Korea has a new leader and in those few years he hasn't invaded another country (BTW, it's geographically also more difficult for North-Korea to invade many other countries as it only borders on 2 by land: China and South-Korea), but his behaviour isn't encouraging. He's aggressive, stubborn and arrogant. And with the bad state the North-Korean economy is in, he'll do anything for dollars. This includes selling weapons (or weapon technology) to those who are willing to pay."

Like father like son. The current leader is the same as his Dad who ruled North Korea from its creation in 1948 until the mid 1990s. His behavior is just the same as his fathers for the past 40 to 50 years, stubborn in arrogant, but certainly not aggressive as in taking action to attack and invade other countries. The North Korean economy has always been in shambles. Luckily, its easier to prevent the sell certain weapons that North Korea than with Iraq. Its impossible to get across the DMZ between North and South Korea and there is little if any smuggling over its borders with China and Russia. North Korea sends their materials by boat which is easy to intercept if we decide to.

Actually it is rumored that Pakistan helped North Korea's Nuclear program while North Korea sold Pakistan ballistic missiles. It is legal to sell ballistic missiles. So its not a violation of international law by North Korea.

The North Koreans have a long term policy and are not going to be effected by a couple of words in a speech. North Korea is a country that has said nearly every year since 1953 that they would turn Seoul South Korea into a sea of fire.

"No, you may scowl at Saddam's behaviour, but at least he's fairly predictable (do anything to stay in power). Since the North-Korea leader is more unknown in that respect, the threat may be worse."

No one predicted that Saddam would invade Iran. Nearly no one predicted he would invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or launch missiles against Israel. Saddam is anything but predictable as his past record demonstrates.

To quote former CIA Analyst Kenneth Pollack:

"Saddam's decision making has been characterized by miscalculation, extreme risk taking, a total disregard for human life, a willingness to suffer tremendous damage in pursuit of his goals, and a terrifying willingness to interpret reality in fantastic ways to suit the needs of the moment. He has consistently taken actions that could have proven suicidal-and which many of his aides seem to have recognized as potentially fatal-but that he convinced himself were certain to turn out in his favor. Indeed, there is nothing about Saddam's track record or personality profile to suggest that he will behave in a conservative, risk-averse manner once he obtains nuclear weapons."

 

[Klaus]

-------- Quote from Todays N.Y.Times: --------
Mr. Bush apparently regards Saddam Hussein as a pushover; he believes advisers who tell him that an Iraq war will be quick and easy ? a couple of days of shock and awe, followed by a victory parade. Maybe. But even if it does turn out that way, is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody task of rebuilding Iraq?

The Europeans don't think so. In fact, they view Mr. Bush's obsession with invading Iraq as a demonstration of why he can't be trusted to deal with what comes next.

In the United States it is taken as axiomatic that America is a country that really faces up to evildoers, while those sniveling old Europeans just don't have the nerve. And the U.S. commentariat, with few exceptions, describes Mr. Bush as a decisive leader who really gets to grips with problems. Tough-guy rhetoric aside, this image seems to be based on the following policy ? as opposed to political ? achievements: (1) The overthrow of the Taliban; (2) . . . any suggestions for 2?


France was willing to put ground troops at risk ? and lose a number of soldiers ? in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?

And French officials have made no secret of their belief that Mr. Bush wants to invade Iraq not because he is truly convinced that Saddam Hussein is a menace, but because he'd rather have an easy victory in a conventional war than stick to the hard task of tracking down stateless terrorists. I'm not saying they're right; I have no idea what Mr. Bush is really thinking. But you can understand their point of view.

In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust.
-------- end of quote --------

The diplomatic solution of Yougoslavia failed and so does the post war epoche.

Afghanistan still is a unstable mess, Pakistan get's more dangerous day by day and the Bush administration is thinking about Iraq, Iran, North Korea and even China?
(btw.ask the Pakistanis what hapened to the textil-trade agreement with the US after the western world dropped the last bombs)

Bush and his guys didn't learn the main lesson:
The more they try to control others the more they start to hate them, because every Country wants to decide on their own what they want to do.
The way the US act dosn't just split the western world (we will survive that because basically with think the same way >90% of all cases but..
..his try to control the Arabic world will lead to terrorism against the western world.

Klaus

p.s. don't tell me again that 10 ignoring the iraq problem was the westen way of solving a problem.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Lets make some corrections here. First the New York Times article.


"France was willing to put ground troops at risk ? and lose a number of soldiers ? in the former Yugoslavia; we weren't. The U.S. didn't make good on its promises to provide security and aid to post-Taliban Afghanistan. Those Americans, they are very brave when it comes to bombing from 10,000 meters, but they expect other people to clean up the mess they make, no?"

This is totally inaccurate! It was the USA with a two week air bombardment campaign that brought the suffering in Bosnia to an end. It was the USA that provided the largest number of troops to the initial peacekeeping effort. It was the USA that performed 90% of the combat missions to stop the fighting in Kosovo.

The USA has provided the security and aid in the post Taliban Afghanistan. One of my very good friends was just in Afghanistan for 6 MONTHS! He was very involved in operations on that are going on on the ground. He was often shot at and yet continued to perform his mission. Its inaccurate statements from the media like this that make him want to throw up.

Interesting this reporter fails to mention France's interest in not have the Bush Administration invade Iraq. France value's its oil contracts with Saddam over the safety and security of the rest of the world. If there is one regime you can't trust, it is any regime that would attempt to stop the international community from removing the threat that Saddam poses to the rest of the world.

The GDP in Bosnia doubled in only 3 years after the USA took action to stop the war there. There are some cynical people who will lable Bosnia and Kosovo a failure because their not living as well as people in Norway. These people don't understand the hail and the 250,000 people that died in the early 1990s that the Europeans failed to prevent, but the USA finally stopped, as is usually the case. They also don't appreciate the struggles and rate of economic and political development in nation building. Bosnia and Kosovo are successful first off because of the millions of lives that have been saved from war. For them to minimize or not even mention that fact shows their total lack of objectivity in analyzing the situation.

Afghanistan there is still building to do of course, but because there is, is not a failure but simply the reality of the scale of things that must be attempted. According my good friend who was there for 6 months in many different parts of the country, this process is well under way.

Pakistan does not get more dangerous day by day and the USA has contingency plans to deal with Iraq, Iran and North Korea if need be. Each problem is unique and requires different approaches.

Those that criticize Bush don't understand their policies. Its not about controlling anyone. The USA does not invade and attempt to annex territory, that is Iraq's and other countries bag.

The same old arguement was made 12 years ago that the USA was trying to control the Arabic world and that they would hate and rise up in a massive wave of terrorism. This proved to be utter nonsense in the aftermath of the first Gulf War 12 years ago. None of that happened because it wasn't even a remote possiblity. Peope said the same thing about Afghanistan, it didn't happen. The current situation with Iraq is no different. The USA has more support and agreement from Turkey than it does from Germany, France and Belguim.

"p.s. don't tell me again that 10 ignoring the iraq problem was the westen way of solving a problem"

I don't understand what your saying here, you'll have to explain.

Turkey has asked for NATO help in protecting its country from a possible attack from Saddam Hussein and fellow NATO countries Germany, France, and Belgium have denied Turkey this right. All 16 other NATO countries approved Turkey's request. Guess who is going to have no credibility when it comes to foreign policy by this summer?

 

[Klaus]

Sting:
First Korea: take a look at the neigbour countries of North Korea and you will know why they didn't invade too much countries.
They tried to invade South Korea several times, they built huge tunnels under the border to invade Seoul not too long ago.

And.. if Saddam would resign and his son would get his job, do you think that will change the problem? I don't think so.
What we need is Political action - good diplomats who are willing to talk with the neigbour countries so that they are integrated in the solution.
Of course they won't cooperate as long as they have the feeling "US decides and we have to do what they say".

Turkey:
Correction: Turkey didn't ask for help yet - it was the US who asked for turkey! This tells me that it's an diplomatical trick of the US to increase preasure to the European countries.
But here's a non rethoric question (you are much more experienced with military technology than i am, and i allways wondered about that). Why do Israel or Turkey ask germany for Patriot systems? The Patriot system is a US system (ok, we bought some) wouldn't it be wiser to ask the country who builds and develops it? Or the other way, would Turkey ask the US for Leopard II tanks? Is this also diplamatic gameplay or is there a military reason for that? (did Germany modify the US Patriot system in anyway so this one is preferable?)

The New York Times seemed allways a high quality newspaper to me and i'm surprised if the whole article wasn't based on facts. Could you send your statement to the NYTimes too and paste the response?
So you say the US had ground troops in Yougoslavia and they
were long time peacekeepers in Afghanistan after war ended?
(afik it was the US during the war and several weeks after the war (well maybe we have different dates when the war ended?), then Great Britain and now Germany who play the mayor role as Peacekeepers down there. Correct?

Reasons for hate which is the engine for terrorism:
For controlling another country you don't need to annex it.
If the US uses its superpower to force other countries what they didn't want to do - it's control.
Every country hates this (Imagine a foreign government you can't vote for or against would decide the US (your countries foreign politics - and further more they would decide which wars you have to fight.
If we are really convinced that the democratic system is the best (and i am convinced that it is the best we discovered yet) than we have to act that way international. Listen to the other countries, try to find a solltion which works for all of them, not just for the countries who have the military power to ignore international laws.
You might be right that those countries just don't understand US policies - but it would be helpful to explain them and convince those countries instead of forcing them.
Let me try to explain with another example:
See how palestinensians terrorize Israel more and more since Israel has a hardliner at the top of the government who tries to stop this with military action.
I don't want to say that you can simply solve that problem, but wrong ways to "solve" the problem increases a problem.

Maybe you should have talked to Saudi Arabia more - because their people didn't understand the us foreign policy too. They felt controled, Terrorism grew (remember how many terrorists of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia) and the only solution for the regime there to not loose control over the country is to throw out the US troops.

Pakistan:
Take a look at the border of Pakistan to India (both counries have nuclear weapons!!), take a look at their border to Afghanistan (which isn't really peaceful) and think about the grown influence of radical islamists there. (which also - not only! - grew because they are dissapointed by the US)

Back to Iraq: You say the French are against a Iraq war because of the Oil? I'm surprised that Contracts stop after you make a war with a country. The only reason for that might be that the next government makes a political decision that these contracts are from now on illegal - the only reason for that would be that other countries with Oil industry (US/GB ) would "convince" the new government (which wouldn't be there without them) to drop these contracts and make new deals with BP, Exxon (and whatever the names are of the Oil Companies of the Bush Administration)
Oil might be a reason for this war - but I don't think so.

The last 10 years there was no much polititical will to solve that problem (not from the US, neither from Europe or Russia). We mainly ignored it and continued the stuff that was running - but it became mostly too unimportant to talk about that in the UN or the NATO or in bilateral meetings.
I'm glad Bush brought back Iraq - it is a problem and we should care about it. The only thing i disslike about the US way is that they decided pro war a long time ago, not because of the facts but because they wanted that war.
Presure was neccessary, Military is neccessary but War is contraproductive.

Klaus

 

[diamond]

Sting wins again

DB9

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

North Korea only invaded South Korea once in 1950. Since then, North Korea has not invaded any country. Yes, I know about the tunnels, but that does not constitute an invasion. The tunnels were built, but they were never used for their purpose. Also, a country does not have to be bordered by another country to attack and invade it. But either way, the fact remains that for what ever the reason, North Korea has not invaded another country in over 50 years. Its behavior in this regard stands in stark contrast to Iraq's behavior.

Turkey

I believe( I don't know exactly) Turkey invoked article 4 of the NATO charter which request aid from NATO countries in helping Turkey defend itself. The USA can't do that for Turkey. Moving certain supplies, radar's, communication gear, and AWACS planes does require Authorization of the NATO countries. Its true that Turkey could get much of this stuff from an individual country why should it when its NATO's obligation to help an respond to any of Turkey's security needs. The Patriot missile comes from the USA and of course they'll get it no matter what NATO says. The Supplies, Radar's, communication gear, AWACS plane come from NATO forces that are more integrated in a way that would require authorization from all of NATO for their deployment. Of Course, the USA can make up for the lack of this equipment if NATO fails to meet its obligations to Turkey.

Turkey(of course), United Kingdom, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Italy, United States, Canada, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece all have approved Turkey's request. So who are the countries that are blocking Turkey's reasonable request and preventing the Alliance from doing its obligation:

France, Germany, and Belgium

I don't think the New York Times is a bad newspaper although it is definitely biased a little more to the left. But it would not matter the source that said such things because its simply false. The USA did not participate in the Peace Keeping activities that occured on the ground in Croatia and Bosnia from June 1991 to August 1995. These activities did very little to protect the civilian population in the war torn area's. They were not equipped to participate or stop fighting between various factions. They were able to supply food and other supplies occasionaly. Then in September 1995, in order to stop the fighting, the USA launched heavy Airstrikes on Serb positions around Bosnia. This weakened the Serb position and the Serbs finally came to the peace table. In January 1996, NATO sent 60,000 heavily armed Peacemaking or Peaceenforcement forces. They were not the lightly armed Peacekeepers of 1991 to 1995 with Blue helmets who were incable of stopping the fighting. The USA solution of putting in heavily armed troops to prevent the fighting from starting again worked in Bosnia. The USA represented half of the NATO forces put on the ground in Bosnia in 1996. In 2002, the USA continued to have a significant number of troops in Bosnia.

In Kosovo in 1999, it was the USA that launched 90% of the airstrikes and sent in a large number of the ground forces to preserve the peace. Again, as of 2002, there were large numbers of US soldiers still in Kosovo maintaining the peace.

In Afghanistan, the USA launched nearly all of the airstrikes in addition to have most of the troops on the ground early on. Then when the Taliban collapsed, most of the soldiers in Afghanistan were from the USA. As of 2002, my good friend in the Marines who was stationed in Aghanistan for 6 months will tell you that there are still large numbers of USA soldiers there in addition to CIA and FBI officers. He participated in many special forces missions and saw a lot of the country in the 6 months that he was in the country. The USA does have significant numbers of troops on the ground there and just recently fought its largest battle since Tora Bora last year just a few weeks ago.

Its important to realize that no matter what the USA does policy wise, there will be people in the middle east who will be angered and want to lash out. The USA is not in the business of appeasing every radical minority Arab faction. The USA does talk extensively with its Allies in the middle east and elsewhere. Without Turkey and Kuwaits support, or then Saudi Arabia, a military invasion of Iraq would not be possible. The USA has the support of Turkey, Kuwait, and will probably get Saudi Arabia's support at the last second or at least secretly. In addition, it looks like the USA has the support of the Jordanian government which is a major turn around for Jordan since the last Gulf War. Thousands of British and Australian troops have deployed to Kuwait. The USA is not acting Unilaterally, it does have a coalition that believes military force will be necessary if Saddam does not give up his WMD.

The Bush administration decided to ready the military option if Saddam does not complied because containment, sanctions, and inspection of the past 12 years have failed to accomplish the objective of disarming Iraq. The #1 reason for this is that if Saddam is unwilling to disarm, diplomacy, sanctions and inspections will be unable to disarm him. Just as the only thing that pushed Iraq out of Kuwait was military force, the only thing that will disarm Iraq if Saddam will not disarm, is military force.

Inspections and different types of sanctions as well as limited force, covert action and supplying the opposition have all been tried extensively. Countries like France and Russia in recent years have helped to undermine sanctions against Iraq, though. The CIA's current worse case senerio is that Saddam could have a nuclear weapon as early as 2004 and most likely by 2008. The World can't play hide and seek games with Saddam forever. Saddam must be disarmed and disarmed this year completely, before they potentially get a Nuclear Weapon or seriously revived WMD capability. The time is up and if Saddam does not take decisive action to disarm himself, then the members of the world community that are willing, will have to do that for Saddam this year.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Klaus... that article you posted was an editorial... an OPINION. The New York Times is the standart when it comes to journalistic excellence, no doubt about it. That's known the world 'round. It's also known that their editorial staff leans way to the left. A former teammate of mine from college is in Afghanistan right now as one of those peacekeepers that allegedly aren't there... on the ground, in the caves.

I think Robin Williams said it best...
"oh fuck all of you americans, with your political correctness. your culture is crap americans, we hate all of you... oh, the germans are here... hello americans! we love you! welcome back americans. oh come, you can build a disney land near paris. we won't come, but build it. you can have a miney mouse with arm pit hair, it will be great."


Oh... and I love how people keep yelling that Bush wants Iraq for it's oil, and we should listen to the French, Germans and Russians who want to give the inspectors more time, even though they've already had 12 years. Meanwhile there are French, German and Russian corporations who currently have deals negotiated with Iraq to buy oil at a cheep rate... ironic isn't it.

 

[Olofski]

North Korea = big army, LOTS of American deaths
Iraq = virtually no army, not anywhere near as many American deaths

Thats why you do nothing about or even mention North Korea.

Just a foreign policy lesson for you all.

Saw an old Jay Leno show last week(In Sweden we get them one week after the broadcast in US) He said something like this: "The question isn?t about oil, it?s about gas!" Sums it all up!

Anyway the main issue Iraq/North Korea!

The world can only handle one big crisis at a time, especially the press!

Why? I don?t know maybe because the world is run by us men, and the standing joke/fact(?) is that we only can do one thing at a time.

Just a foreign policy lesson for you all!

 

[Klaus]

Klaus,

North Korea only invaded South Korea once in 1950. Since then, North Korea has not invaded any country. Yes, I know about the tunnels, but that does not constitute an invasion. The tunnels were built, but they were never used for their purpose. Also, a country does not have to be

Yes because S.K. found the tunnels before N.K. could use them. It's obvious that they were built for an invasion, North Korea planed a invasion several times (but luckily it failed) . S.K. imho has a own museum for that. (I can't remember exactly, either in soul or at the border).

Technically you are right, they didn't invade, because their oponents allways found out to early.

Anyway, i guess it's wiser to put politic preasure on this country instead of a war.

Turkey

I believe( I don't know exactly) Turkey invoked article 4 of the NATO charter which request aid from NATO countries in helping Turkey defend itself. The USA can't do that for

Turkey called for a conference (Article 4 of NATO) and America asked Germany and France and several other countries which are against a war before that conference for weapon assistance.

And that's politics because *speculation mode on* Bush wants to get rid of Schroeder too - how? Easy: force him to break his promise to the german people - after that he will be politically dead *speculation mode off*

Germany allready said that they will defend Turkey (even with groundtroops! If there is an attack from Iraq. What they don't want to do is put military equipment to Turkey which can be used for offense also.
I'm not military expert, but someone explained me today why some of that equipment they are asking for is usuable for offense to (AWACS?)- but well i just heread that and i can't translate it to english,but i guess you can i just post it becaus i'd like you to verify or falsify that one.

In my opinion it's wrong how France, Germany and Belgum acts - but i guess that's just part of diplomatics - to be able that one side wins in the UN and the other one in NATO - so that noone looses his face here?

Turkey was verry smart with that move, they don't want to embarrass UK (bekause of the EU membership) and the USA (they get a lot of money from them) and they don't want to embarrass Germany and France (also EU membership).

So Turkey was verry smart and made a neutral move - i guess the US dissliked that and started to ask for military support for Turkey to raise preasure.

I don't think the New York Times is a bad newspaper although it is definitely biased a little more to the left. But it would not matter the source that said such things because its simply false.

If you say it's "a little more to the left than i guess it's right at the center ;-)

If they are wrong (and even the best ones are wrong sometimes) you should write them a letter. I'm curious how they respond.

Klaus... that article you posted was an editorial... an OPINION. The New York Times is the standart when it

Right, but in a Excelent newspaper i expect that even opinions are based on true facts.

Blood for Oil?
Well i guess Oil industry in USA and Great Britain could certainly win because of a war and France and Russia could loose (their contracts if they are really changed because of a war) So from both sides But Germany has no big Oil industry at all - we buy most from GB and some of France so i guess as long as saddam dosn't buy 90% of all Maybachs, Rolls Royces, BMW's and Volkswagens you can't say that the decisions from our Chancelor (i don't agree with them) are driven by economic.

Schroeder and Bush basically made the same mistake. Both decided long before the UN inspections if they are pro or anti war. Well Blair is irrelevant - he just repeats what Bush, just a echo - no opinion.

But there might be another motivation of some countries to vote against the US. the Bush admiistration basically declered everything "irrelevant" which has another opinion -> every country is irrelevant except the US. Maybe that made some other countries upset.

Klaus

p.s. Sting you forgot to answer me this one:

" But here's a non rethoric question (you are much more experienced with military technology than i am, and i allways wondered about that). Why do Israel or Turkey ask germany for Patriot systems? The Patriot system is a US system (ok, we bought some) wouldn't it be wiser to ask the country who builds and develops it? Or the other way, would Turkey ask the US for Leopard II tanks? Is this also diplamatic gameplay or is there a military reason for that? (did Germany modify the US Patriot system in anyway so this one is preferable?)"

I'd be glad if you could tell me the answer for that. As i said above, i'm no military expert and i'd like to understand it a little better.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

there are multiple other independent sources about the number of US troops currently serving in Afghanistan. Plus, a very good friend of mine in the USA Marine Corp just got back from Afghanistan 2 months ago. He had been there for 6 months, yet someone who writes for the New York Times says he was not there. I'm sorry, but the person who wrote that article does not know the facts on that particular point.

As to your questions about the various military systems and NATO, I believe I already answered that. I said:

Moving certain supplies, radar's, communication gear, and AWACS planes does require Authorization of the NATO countries. Its true that Turkey could get much of this stuff from an individual country but why should it when its NATO's obligation to help an respond to any of Turkey's security needs. The Patriot missile comes from the USA and of course they'll get it no matter what NATO says. The Supplies, Radar's, communication gear, AWACS plane come from NATO forces that are more integrated(multiple soldiers from different countries mixed or overlapping in certain ways that they deploy together) in a way that would require authorization from all of NATO for their deployment. Of Course, the USA can make up for the lack of this equipment if NATO fails to meet its obligations to Turkey.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

Just to add, I don't think Turkey was asking Germany specifically for Patriot Missile systems. There are US Patriot Missile Batteries stationed in Germany that have been sent to Israel and will be sent to Turkey. The Germany military may have the Patriot Missile as well but I'll have to look that up.

The USA has no Leopard II tanks so Turkey could not ask the USA for Leopard II tanks.

It is sometimes cheaper to buy a weapon system from a country that has already purchased it from the original supplier. Sort of like buying a used car. Its always cheaper and probably still in good condition.

I have not heard of the Germans using the Patriot at all so I doubt there have been any modifications. The Israeli's actually have their own Anti-Ballistic missile called the ARROW(Brand New) which is better than the Patriot. But Patriots have gone to Israel to thicken the Air Defense.

 

[Olofski]

North Korea only invaded South Korea once in 1950. Since then, North Korea has not invaded any country. Yes, I know about the tunnels, but that does not constitute an invasion. The tunnels were built, but they were never used for their purpose.

Hmm, almost the same thing can be said about Iraq. Iraq have/had nuclear weapons, nervegas or whatever, but that does not constitue an invasion. The weapons may be there, but they haven?t been used for their purpose.

 

[STING2]

Olofski,

Actually, Iraq has used WMD on more occasions than any other country since World War I. Iraq extensively used Chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds during the Iran/Iraq war. In addition, Iraq has invaded and attacked 4 countries in the last 20 years, while North Korea has not invaded any countries in over 50.

 

[Olofski]

I stand corrected!

Although I believe having the weapons doesn?t mean that Iraq is planning an invasion or attack.

Innocent until proven guilty?

 

[STING2]

According to the UN ceacefire of 1991(for the Gulf WAR to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) , Iraq was proven guilty and ordered to disarm their WMD. Iraq agreed they were guilty. Before Iraq can get out off the hook, they must prove that they no longer have WMD. They have failed to do so.

 

[Klaus]

Sting: when i asked you to write to the NYtimes i was just curious about their statement, i didn't want to say that you were telling wrong things here.

Sting: and to the military thing - i was wondering if AWACS are really used for offensive missions.

Patriot:
afik the german military has patriots and i'm curious if there is any logic in asking germany for their patriot systems (Israel and the USA for Turkey) instead of asking the country who builds this systems.
The only reason i can see for this so far is politics - forcing the german government to be more involved in the iraq war to weaken Schroeders position. But i wonder if there's a military reason for this too.

Olofski: Well at least i'm sure (and i guess 99% of all humans would agree) that Iraq is currently not planning an invasion or attack of the US - which would be neccessary for bilateral war. If the US can convince that Saddam is a danger to mankind and the only way to stop him is war than the Security Council will decide so.

Klaus

 

[Olofski]

True but does that call for a full-blown war?

North-Korea is starting nuclear-activities although they are not allowed to do so. I don?t see US sending big troops over there or badmouthing European countries for not doing anything about it.

Note that I?m not totally against a war, and I do believe that there will be war, the US have made up it?s mind. But I believe it would be a big tragedy if US acted without the authorization of the UN. Absolutely no one would gain on that!

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

AWACS can be used for any type of military operation that includes the detection of enemy aircraft or missiles and the direction of friendly aircraft to their targets. So the answer would be yes. But this could be said of most military support systems.

Patriot,

I don't know the answer to that question really. I did look up and found that the Germans had 36 Patriot launchers as of June 1, 1997.

Whether or not Iraq would be contemplating some type of military attack against the USA is not relevant to the current situation. But in regards to that type of thinking, an Iraqi attack on any of its neighbors could be justification for a war.

The situation were in though is Iraq's violation of the UN ceacefire agreement which authorizes the use of military force to enforce compliance with its conditions. In addition to this, UN Security Council Resolution 687 Authorizes ALL subsequent action to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions. The Security Council has already decided what would be grounds for war and clearly Iraq is in violation and a state of war already exist from a legal point of view. There are more laws and resolutions on the books backing up military action against Iraq than any other war I can think of.

Olofski,

If that is what is necessary to disarm Iraq then yes. North Korea is a different situation. Any resolution passed against North Korea was not done so under Chapter VII rules. There is currently know UN resolution that authorizes military action against North Korea while there are 17 UN resolutions and a ceacefire agreement that call for military action against Iraq to bring about enforcement.

North Korea is a problem but not like Iraq. North Korea's past behavior and geographic location along with the countries that are near it, make it less of a threat than Iraq. In addition, North Korea's possession of 11,000 conventional artillery pieces in close range of Seoul South Korea with 10 million civilians almost rules out a military option, as if the fact that they have Nuclear Weapons now was not enough. Iraq is a huge threat and will be a far greater threat than North Korea could ever be if it is not disarmed and prevented from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. North Korea is a problem but its more difficult to deal with them using the military option because of North Korea's unique military capabilities comparitive to Iraq.

 

[hiphop]

The CIA has failed like always, not Europe.