Europe has really failed miserably in the Iraq situation - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-13-2003, 06:19 AM   #46
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Visby, Sweden
Posts: 114
Local Time: 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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 isnīt about oil, itīs 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 donīt 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!
__________________

__________________
Olofski is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 11:13 AM   #47
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
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.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 05:49 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:48 PM
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 is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 06:00 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:48 PM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 06:24 PM   #50
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Visby, Sweden
Posts: 114
Local Time: 04:48 PM
Quote:
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 havenīt been used for their purpose.
__________________
Olofski is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 06:28 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:48 PM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 06:36 PM   #52
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Visby, Sweden
Posts: 114
Local Time: 04:48 PM
I stand corrected!

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

Innocent until proven guilty?
__________________
Olofski is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 06:46 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:48 PM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 07:04 PM   #54
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 05:48 PM
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
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 07:05 PM   #55
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Visby, Sweden
Posts: 114
Local Time: 04:48 PM
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 donīt see US sending big troops over there or badmouthing European countries for not doing anything about it.

Note that Iīm not totally against a war, and I do believe that there will be war, the US have made up itīs 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!
__________________
Olofski is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 08:35 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:48 PM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-13-2003, 10:26 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:48 PM
The CIA has failed like always, not Europe.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com