Is France Bashing Unwarranted?

[Dreadsox]

The scenario you have described does not sound like the United States was in immediate danger. It sounds like there was room for negotiations. If there was immediate danger, then shame on the President for not acting as if there was immediate danger. All of the negotiations, and talking at the UN, and not doing anything after 9/11 provide enough evidence for me to believe there was NOT an immediate danger.

The scenarios do not match up. I would expect that if there were and immediate danger, then the time to act was immediately. Months of negotiations, and claiming we are in an immediate danger during the negotiations, lead me to believe that this is a negotiations ploy, and not reality.

Of course, I support the disarmament. I prefer the straight facts that 12 years is long enough, that sanctions were killing more people than a war would, that for future security we needed to act. I do not believe that we were in IMMEDIATE danger.

Peace

 

[verte76]

Interpol is based in France. They are working with U.S. agents and other people to recover stolen artifacts from the National Museum in Baghdad. There are U.S, French, British, Canadian, and Turkish scholars working together with Iraqis to help preserve Iraq's history. Many artifacts and manuscripts have been found and are in the process of being put back in the museum. This is very important to the Iraqi people and wouldn't be possible if people weren't working together on a common purpose.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

There was techinically always an immediate danger that Saddam could invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia or another neighbor again and use WMD. That was always a possibility at any time. It was hoped that Saddam would see the light of day and disarm with Peaceful UN inspections. I'm not sure what negotiations your talking about because what Iraq had to do was set in stone. There was nothing to negotiate about. Comply or else. Those were the terms of 1991 ceacefire agreement.

 

[deep]

Sting,

I agree with Dread. The Administration over played the risk to get support for their invasion.

I am glad Saddam is out of power. The Administration has lost a lot of credibility. All their bluster about WMD appear to be either grossly exaggerated of just plain false.

If they offer very little evidence maybe their supporters will be satisfied but that is not the issue. Based on all their claims a substantial find is required for credibility.

 

[verte76]

Sting,

I agree with Dread. The Administration over played the risk to get support for their invasion.

I am glad Saddam is out of power. The Administration has lost a lot of credibility. All their bluster about WMD appear to be either grossly exaggerated of just plain false.

If they offer very little evidence maybe their supporters will be satisfied but that is not the issue. Based on all their claims a substantial find is required for credibility.

I agree with you guys.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree with you guys.

Ditto.

Angela

 

[STING2]

Deep,

"Based on all their claims a substantial find is required for credibility."

This is totally incorrect. First, the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement stated that it was incumbent upon Iraq to PROVE that it no longer had Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Member States were not required to do anything except verify and ensure that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction. The only one that had to prove anything was Saddam.

"I am glad Saddam is out of power. The Administration has lost a lot of credibility. All their bluster about WMD appear to be either grossly exaggerated of just plain false."

In 1998, the United Nations and IRAQ both said that Iraq had 10,000 Liters of Anthrax and 30,000 Shells capable of delivering them. Thats not the Bush administration which would not be in office for another three years, but the UN report at the time. When inspectors were let back in 2002, Iraq claimed that it destroyed the above weapons between 1998 and 2002(when inspectors were not there), BUT provided no evidence to back up that claim. They are required by the Ceacefire Terms of the First Gulf War to fully account and hand over the WMD or destroy it and allow member states to verify the destruction. 30,000 shells is in incredible amount of metal. It does simply vanish into thin air when someone disposes or renders useless such material.

With a 72% approval rating, it appears the general public understands these things unlike many liberals. Its not surprising that in light of the administrations success in foreign policy that liberals continue to search for walnuts they can throw at the administration. Why is it so hard to give credit where credit is do? The zealots have a hard time doing that.

 

[STING2]

"It does simply vanish into thin air when someone disposes or renders useless such material." Correction: It does NOT simply vanish into thin air.

 

[Klaus]

STING2:

noone thinks that Iraq is a innocent country.
But some of us think that there were alternatives to this UN sancitions which were abused by some UN members and ignored too many countries (without consequences for them) and a war.

Your funny typo brings back something other in my memories...
...do you know how long the ABC weapons which the US thought can be found in Iraq can be stored before they have to be refurbished?

OK, back to the topic "France Bashing"
I've met lots of exchange students from the United States here in germany and most of them were surprised that instead of laughter about their France-jokes they just saw surprised faces. Maybe we have a different kind of humore here.

I disslike every sentence that starts with "The French..", "The Germans.." "The Americans.." or any platitude like that.

Klaus

 

[ALEXRUS]

You surprise me. You know very well there was a difference between then and now, particularly since our "Allies" in World War II were involved in the war before us. After all, the fall of World War II has credited the rise of the U.S. as a superpower and Europe's "fall from power" in a sense--but that happened post-World War II. Plus, if I remember my history with Japan, our allies wanted nothing to do with Japan.

The difference between then and now is that there is no contest. The U.S. doesn't need allies. This same outcome, without any allies at all, would have been assured. And you know that perfectly well.

All this talk of coalition building was merely an attempt to placate the public, and, theoretically, I do give the U.S. credit for going that route through the U.N. An excellent tactical move. However, we all know that there was no room for debate. There was no room for negotiation, and whatever other nations in the U.N. could have discussed, it was irrelevant. War was the only route, and, as we see, even the U.S. cannot find these "weapons of mass destruction." Now, in another tactical move, the rhetoric is gradually shifting, justifying this conflict in human rights terms and regime change terms. All good and well--Saddam is certainly not the cuddliest dictator we ever once supported--but his primary selling point was the WMDs.

In other words, the U.S. wanted to transform the U.N. into a rubber stamp, perhaps, ironically, making the U.N. irrelevant no matter what it did. And now we are to punish France and other nations for not accepting Bush's bullying moves? It certainly is appropriate for a bully--after all, bullies certainly do not rationalize well--but it is not something I can support.

Like it or not, we are delving into a new era: the U.S. as the sole hyperpower. It is an interesting change of events, casting off, officially, the specter of the 20th century. I would explain this fascination further, but I need not ruin my potential thesis topics.

Despite all this, the last thing I want to hear is the same old media crap. The last thing I need is romanticized rationalizations to interpret what really happened: the U.S. came in, the U.S. demanded, the U.S. won. Period.

Melon

Excellent post, Melon

 

[ALEXRUS]

Melon,
...There cannot be any negotiation when it comes to a major threat to US National Security abroad. We can explain and debate the facts and the use of force, but at the end of the day, the USA is not going to sacrifice its and the regions security for naive French and Russian interest...

But we in Russia are happy that US sound pragmatism has finally prevailed over our naivete...

 

[verte76]

Excellent post, Melon

Yes.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"noone thinks that Iraq is a innocent country.
But some of us think that there were alternatives to this UN sancitions which were abused by some UN members and ignored too many countries (without consequences for them) and a war."

Please tell me how you disarm a country that does not want to be disarmed and has 430,000 troops and 2,700 tanks to stop anyone that tries to disarm them? How would you disarm such a country without military force?

Success in prior WMD inspections was due to Saddams willingness to give up WMD that was found in order to get sanctions lifted on his country. It was the strategy of giving a little in order to keep the rests.

At any moment, the Iraqi army could stopped the entire UN team of inspectors, killing all of them if they had to. But since the unarmed inspectors would never challenge armed Iraqi troops, they never had to do that. It was enough to stand in their way while they emptied a building out with trucks throught the back alley or road.

"Your funny typo brings back something other in my memories...
...do you know how long the ABC weapons which the US thought can be found in Iraq can be stored before they have to be refurbished?"

Storing such anthrax for a long time is not a problem with refridgeration. Its when you put the Anthrax into the shells that they can only be stored that way for a few days. The shells themselves are empty until a day or two before they are used in battle because of that. Its illegal for Iraq to have the empty Bio/Chem capable shells as well as the Anthrax.

 

[Klaus]

STING2:

there were 2 threads about alternatives how to dissarm him without a war, we can bring one of them up again and continue discussion, i guess repeating these arguments isn't neccessary here

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

What you fail to understand is that any attempt to disarm Saddam without a war requires that Saddam cooperate on some level. He never did. Again, UN inspectors are unarmed and can't stand up to Saddams military if they are lucky enough to find something. That is if Saddam even lets them in the country or stay in the country.

So again, how do you disarm a dictator with a 430,000 man military, who is unwilling to cooperate?

 

[Klaus]

Saddam started to destroy his rockets - we needed the presence of the military in the golf region for that, it was good to raise presure - but when it started to work out (read UN documents) it was the wrong moment to cancel further UN actions and start a war.

 

[STING2]

Klaus,

"Saddam started to destroy his rockets - we needed the presence of the military in the golf region for that, it was good to raise presure - but when it started to work out (read UN documents) it was the wrong moment to cancel further UN actions and start a war."

Sorry but the destruction of the rockets that just happened to be a few miles over the limit is not 100% COMPLIANCE! It is not even close. The UN documents demand 100% compliance. Where are the 30,000 chemical/Bio shells, where are the 10,000 liters of Anthrax. These are things Iraq had in 1998, where are they now!?

Saddam's piece meal tactics of cheat and retreat is what the destruction of the rockets represents. Its like if you came to my house looking for the machine guns and I gave you all the butter knives I had.

The fact remains and its sad so few understand it, Saddam could have rolled out every single piece of his WMD program onto and airfield for the inspectors to look at, take away, or destroy. That is what Saddam has been obligated to do since 1991. Instead, he plays the game of, give a little in order to hide a lot.
Failure to comply fully and immediately is why the war was necessary. At no time has Saddam shown that he was willing to cooperate fully 100%. At no time have the UN inspectors been able to disarm Saddam 100%, not even close.

How far away was Saddam from building a Nuclear Weapon? No one knows for sure, but the point is, taking a chance on more inspections which require more time and have so far failed in the #1 task(100% compliance), is more time Saddam could use to build a nuclear weapon which would radically change any military engagement and may in fact prevent the UN from ever accomplishing its #1 goal in Iraq.

Saddam was never going to comply 100% which is why the inspections after the first few years became a waste of time. No rational person looking at Saddams prior behavior could ever believe that he would cooperate 100%. Even with a full scale military invasion, Saddam never said, "wait, I'm going to cooperate now"! Operation Iraqi Freedom and Saddams behavior despite that operation, is the proof that the peaceful disarmament of Iraq was impossible. Since Saddam was unwilling to give in to a military invasion, what makes you think he would of given up to unarmed UN inspectors 6 months, a year, or two years from now, or ever?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Where are the 30,000 chemical/Bio shells, where are the 10,000 liters of Anthrax. These are things Iraq had in 1998, where are they now!?

Good question. Do you expect the US military to find these weapons, and if so, what would be a reasonable time-scale for them to find the weapons in? Also, do you think it would be appropriate for UN weapons inspectors to take over weapons inspections, considering that you believe the war was endorsed by the UN via resolution 1441.

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

"Good question. Do you expect the US military to find these weapons, and if so, what would be a reasonable time-scale for them to find the weapons in? Also, do you think it would be appropriate for UN weapons inspectors to take over weapons inspections, considering that you believe the war was endorsed by the UN via resolution 1441."

I do expect the US military to eventially find these weapons. I do not know when. But what the US military has done that the UN inspectors were unable to do, is insure that the Iraqi military and Saddams regime were disarmed of such weapons. The US military accomplished in 3 weeks what UN inspectors failed to do in 12 years! Where the WMD is buried is a big question. But Saddams regime and military can no longer dig up and use such WMD because Saddams regime and military no longer exists!

UN resolution 1441 authorized the military to ensure the disarmament of Iraq if Saddam failed to cooperate. When Iraq failed to cooperate, peaceful inspections came to an end and it became the military's job to insure that Iraq was disarmed and find the weapons. The UN already has inspectors on the ground in the form of American, British and Australian troops. There is no need to send in civilian inspectors for a job that has long since passed. This is a military operation in addition to being an inspection and verification process.

 

[Klaus]

STING2: fact 1: UN inspectors found and destroyed WMDs in these 12 years

fact 2: even if the US inspectors do a great job and find the stuff they were looking fore, some people will trust UN inspectors more then US inspectors because they'll think that the WMDs or mobile factories might be planted

fact 3: we have internationally verry different opinions about the legimation of this war, rewriting your interpretation in every thread won't convince many people

Klaus

 

[STING2]

Klaus,


"fact 1: UN inspectors found and destroyed WMDs in these 12 years"

"fact 2: even if the US inspectors do a great job and find the stuff they were looking fore, some people will trust UN inspectors more then US inspectors because they'll think that the WMDs or mobile factories might be planted"

"fact 3: we have internationally verry different opinions about the legimation of this war, rewriting your interpretation in every thread won't convince many people"

Fact 1: UN inspectors found and destroyed WMDs in the past 12 years that SADDAM let them find and destroy!

Fact 2: US, British, and Australian soldiers have been given the task to disarm Iraq through military force by the UN. Other member states could have joined the operation but they decided not to. The peaceful inspection process was over months ago, it required the full cooperation of Saddam for it to work. That never happened. Thats why the military operation to disarm Saddam was necessary. The people who make claims about the planting of evidence could make those claims regardless of the situation. Their claims are baseless and unfounded. I'm sure O.J. Simpson would not mind having them on his defense team though.

In response to "Fact 3": neither will yours. All I am doing is responding to comments made by other people in the same thread. If they state their opinion on a particular topic, I have every right to state mine.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Off topic!

 

[verte76]

I don't know if this is on topic either, Angela, but it's about French politics. Well, sort of. I just got a report from the Simon Weisenthal Center about the alarming number of anti-Semitic incidents in France. The leaders of the Center went to Paris and had a meeting with Chirac. They asked him to crack down on anti-Semitic hate crimes in France. There is a list of these incidents in the report. The report says that the situation got worse during the dispute with the U.S. and Britain over Iraq. The incidents are truly ugly and sickening and I hope this insanity can be stopped.

 

[ALEXRUS]

... The UN already has inspectors on the ground in the form of American, British and Australian troops.

Hmm, I wonder if in the UN they are aware that American and British troops happen to be their inspectors I guess it is also written in 1441 or somewhere else...

 

[Salome]

Off topic!

I might put that in my sig

 

[Dreadsox]

Hmm, I wonder if in the UN they are aware that American and British troops happen to be their inspectors I guess it is also written in 1441 or somewhere else...

Yes, Alex, the UN is in charge. We have been working through the UN and represent the UN in Iraq. That is why the UN now in Iraq, will not let the UN Inspectors back in. They are already there because the US is the UN and so forth and so on.

Peace

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Yes, Alex, the UN is in charge. We have been working through the UN and represent the UN in Iraq. That is why the UN now in Iraq, will not let the UN Inspectors back in. They are already there because the US is the UN and so forth and so on."

Correction, the USA, United Kingdom, and Australia are the only nations in the UN that agreed to participate in the UN military disarmament of Iraq. Peaceful inspections ended months ago. The operation to ensure that Iraq is disarmed is a military one now being performed by the member states of the USA, United Kingdom and Australia. If thats to small a number of nations for the operation then I wonder where all the criticism of other UN operations that only have ONE nation involved are.

 

[Dreadsox]

Sting, I think you have typed this to me before. I know your opinion, and I disagree with it. Anything new to add to this?

 

[Dreadsox]

Apologies for continuing to go off topic. Good thread NB.

 

[STING2]

Dreadsox,

"Sting, I think you have typed this to me before. I know your opinion, and I disagree with it. Anything new to add to this?"

So are you implying that I can't respond to something you posted? Did you ever come up with a number of countries that in your view would represent a "proper" occupation force? Is it more than the four countries that occupied Germany after World War II? Or the single country that occupied Japan after World War II?