EU warns iran of consequences

Originally posted by Alias Jones
Deviswasp - so you are a Brit huh ...?

Well let me first say that that the men and women and resources deployed by the UK are respected and appreciated , althoughbeit minute in comparison to the US deployment and expenditures.

I am a scotsman and a british citizen....
Is 1/4th of the task force , which isnt all UK but largely is, now "minute"?
It was not "minute" when black watch went into bagdad, it wasnt "minute" when you asked us to take alfaw.

My understaning of the EU and UN are comprehensive, as yours had better be to debate me on this topic.

Really?
If thats so, then why are you calling the EU a military alliance?

The United Nations where established as means to bring about diplomatic discussion in a coinsortium of " peers " to wrangle over global problems ( based in NYC by the way ). The charter has never been for military action - rather the nations vote and veto untill a resolution is passed - see resolution as an issue being " RESOLVED " hence the name.

Well done, someone has done there reading....

Regarding Iraq - the UN passed 16 resolutions that Iraq was in clear violation with hence :
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Mabye you might qoute the ENTIRE thing rather than bits of it...
www.fas.org...

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Slightyl diffrent from what you said.
Also, if your NOW saying iraq invaded kuwait twice then your wrong.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991



Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

I wasnt informed iraq was keeping UN troops in custody.....or even kuwait prisnors, any links?
Last time I checked they agreed to these.
How can they be in violation of them if these happened in 1991?

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991



Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

All of the above was under process.....unless you believe the inspectors which provided a bad review where lieing?

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991



"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

That is internal affairs, frankly the UN didnt have a right to do that.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991



"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

The inspectors where allowed in and actually watched the missiles being destroyed by bull dozers.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

For the most part this was done, but if a forign national acusses your country of things you might be less co-operative than usual.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994



"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

Yet again, this is a versailles style treaty, we all seen what happened after that.
Also for the most part they did obey these laws.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996



Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Yet again this was underway.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996



"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

This was underway, they probably got anoyed at the UN and co for looking for an exscuse to start a war.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

Ok this is getting repetitive, you seem to think that multiple counts of the same thing now count as diffrent charges.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997



"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

Again?

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997



"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Ok this is getting sutpid.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998



Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

I swear this is getting stupid.

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998



"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999



Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

We have been over this before, the iraqi government allowed the inspectors in and guess what, still only left over stuff no new WMDs!

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

This is again internal are you trying to say the US went to war because some people wherent getting humanitarian goods?
If so, WHY NOT AFRICA???

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs

So?
A statement is simply a statement.

Now we all know tha the UN did NOTHING to enforce it's own resolutions , so the United STates decided in order for the UN to maintain any relevance that it would take on, itself, with a coalition of the willing the Iraqi regime and force them into complinace of the UN resolutions by military force. The EU was divided:

The UN IS NOT A SEPERATE COUNTRY!
The UN is made up of member states, these states must be willing to enforce the rules.
Also the action was veto'd because 2 of the big 5 didnt like the evidence.

IRAQ - WHO STANDS WHERE

Fully or broadly behind US - UK, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark
Fully or broadly opposed - France, Germany, Greece, Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg
No clear position - Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Finland

But I am sure that you being so knowledgable are fully aware of this already.

That the EU was undecided?
Yes, otherwise they would have made a bigger statement.
Also are you trying to say that the EU is now military?

The UN has NO jurisdiction to act unilaterally on its own - in fact its own armed forced are comprised of other natios military

......How can it act on its own if its made up of other nations also not from NATO?

check here to view in Adobe the contributing nations, and amount of troops, civilians, and police:

www.un.org...

You will also notice the US does less than some third world countries.......

So you see my British friend it IS the United States that have aided the UN in its fight against its own declared violators,. The USA has the ability and the responsibility to do what is necesarry to enforce the rule of the UN , and more importantly its own self interests
[/qupte]
The US and the world ARE the UN!
....So wait its ok to only force the rules you like but disregard otherones?

I like the way Bush put it best - you are either with us or with the enemy - the choice is yours.

Yeah, he also made another arogant statement...."Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we"

Maybe we should ask the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith whether the war was legal or not, or if violating the resolution was sufficient grounds for an invasion? Because from what i've read he wasn't exactly 100% certain was he?

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Iraq being in violation of security council resolutions is not authority to invade. Military action is only legitimate when explicitly authorised by the security council.

The UN is not capable of enforcing a military action authorized by the Security Council unless the United States or the United Kingdom (or both of them) is willing to take up military action in an agreeable fashion. The UN cannot direct or command military action by themselves nor require a chartered member-state to assume military capabilities unless that country VOLUNTARILY offers themselves militarily before the UN. Think of this way: "I guess if no one is going to fight the bad guys, I would just step it up and do the job anyway, but I expect unequivocal supports from some of you guys,"

Originally posted by Chris McGee
International law does not permit countries to take the law into their own hands even if they perceive themselves to be upholding the will of the security council.

You've failed to take into consideration that the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East (or anywhere) take precedence over international law, not just to be dismissive of it but as a protective measure against any unexpected threat or unprovoked attack. The same thing apply to Russia's, UK's, China's, India's, Pakistan's, or any other country having vested national security interests in other countries as well.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Furthermore, I question the notion that the US government was invading Iraq in order to uphold the will of the United Nations anyway. Remember the abuse the UN got (and France is still getting) because it wouldn't authorise military action. That doesn't speak of a country with much respect for the UN or it's resolutions. I believe the US invaded Iraq for it's own selfish reasons.

Once again, you've failed to take into consideration that those countries and some in the UN hierarchy who were against the military action on Iraq were improperly influenced (bribed, corrupted, even deceived) by Saddam Hussein over the years.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Must be nice living in that hyper-polarised world.

Unfortunately in a world where there are countries having no backbones and allow evil to thrive without challenges or confrontations.

[edit on 5/13/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by Britguy
Antogonist: Disclose your WMD programs and let us come and inspect.
Middle Eastern Country: Okey Dokey, send in your inspectors but we don't have any WMD programs.
Antagonist: Oh well, our inspectors have found nothing, but you must prove you don't have any WMD's.
Middle Eastern Country: But we don't have any WMD's
Antagonist: Aha, we don't believe you (we have intelligence data that we have skewed, taken out of context and cobbled together that now shows us that you do and are threatening our babies and Kittens).. send in the bombers.

i have no idea what an antogonist is, but i guess you were trying to write antagonist.

Anyways, nice try in trying to hide some of the things that happened in Iraq, such as Saddam did not allow any of the weapons inspectors in Iraq for several years.... There were cameras that had been set up by the weapons inspectors to keep track of what the IRaqis were doing in the military installations were wmd, and other banned material had been produced before, yet those cameras had dissapeared somehow from the installations...

Not only that but Saddam kept playing cat and mouse with the inspectors once he allowed them to go to certain areas, and only after he was told with at least a week in advance where the weapon inspectors were going.... guess he needed time to hide the milk and honey they were producing, you know milk and honey is very incriminating.....

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Unfortunately in a world where there are countries having no backbones and allow evil to thrive without challenges or confrontations.

Yeah you need a lot of backbone to take on 3rd world countries with tiny militaries and starving people because of sanctions by the powers that be. The troops themselves need backbone but any decent sized country will not suffer defeat from declaring war on someone like Iraq. The leaders just sit there in their comfortable chairs safe in the knowledge that the war will not spiral back on them. At worst they have to face defeat at the polls but the military industrial complex usually funds them so they have enough propaganda on TV for even that to happen. The countries that have backbone are the ones that stood up to the sole superpower and refused to join this illegal war and I'm ashamed that my country isn't one of them. Oh but we got our preferable trade deals and avoided any economic reprisals from the US so it's all good, pity we had to support the killing of 100 thousand people to do it.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Trent]

Here in the states, In the last few years I have heard a good amount of Europe bashing. Given the events leading up to the most recent Iraqi war I can understand this, though I don't condone it. Post WWI, Germany was told what it needed to do, and flaunted the resolutions if you will, with absolutely no repercussions, reparations aside, untill it had invaded multiple countries. So you can certainly understand why America, when it sees a foreign country e.g. Iraq, flaunting the rules regarding it's surrender subsequent to a war, that the U.S. would find this unacceptable. I don't know why, for sure, but many folk in Europe simply have different values regarding war, than those in the U.S., not better, not worse, just diffrent. Peace is almost a religion in much of Europe, and given the destruction of WWI and WWII, not to mention back to pretty much the settlement of Europe, this is not to be unexpected. I say Europe as a whole, as most Americans do, but I do really need to leave Great Britain out of Europe in my categorizing, as GB is as warlike, so to speak, as us Americans. For America in my opinion, it made sense to go to war in Iraq for a number of reasons, the largest have really gone unsaid in mainstream media. Iraq may or may not have been involved with terrorist groups plots in the US, but it most certainly did have it's own plots in regard to an Assasination attempt on Bush Sr. after Gulf I. After Gulf I, Iraq gassed many thousands of its own citizens that the US left hanging, after it didn't liberate them during Gulf I. So many people argue that because no WMD were found in Iraq after Gulf II, that they didn't have them, to this I say, they used them on their own people, obviously they had them. Oil I think played only a minor part in the war, Yes the U.S. relies heavily on Oil from the middle east, and it is in our interest to maintain stability there, however, it should be obvious at this point, that the U.S. didnt invade Iraq to steal their oil, as was suggested time and time again by many during the initial phase of the war. The prime reason I believe that we went to war, was that given, there was sufficient justification to invade Iraq, that a military occupying force in the middle east, would draw the fire of terrorists that seek to do harm to the U.S, in a place close to their home, not ours. This is a high price for the Iraqi people, yes, but when has freedom come at bargain basement prices? Certainly not in America, and I think it one of the most astonishing successes of the civilized world, that after winning our freedom from England, we are now, such close allies. One thing that does get my dander up, is when folks claim how unsuccessfull the war is because a bit over 1500 americans have died so far, and many, many more have been severly wounded. In a ground war, 1500 invading troops dead, is historically insignificant. Yes, to the family of those dead, it is a tragedy, I only know too well, the fear so many families face, with there loved ones going to war. My brother just got back from Iraq, just a little hearing loss from when a bomb went off next to his humvee, but he survived, though his family didnt, his wife split the day he came home, and left him to care for his two young children. My first post here, and want to say hello to you all, yes even those who dont like my post
Look forward to hearing from you,
Wobby

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by Chris McGee
The UN is not capable of enforcing a military action authorized by the Security Council unless the United States or the United Kingdom (or both of them) is willing to take up military action in an agreeable fashion. The UN cannot direct or command military action by themselves nor require a chartered member-state to assume military capabilities unless that country VOLUNTARILY offers themselves militarily before the UN.

Think of this way: "I guess if no one is going to fight the bad guys, I would just step it up and do the job anyway, but I expect unequivocal supports from some of you guys,"

That's a joke, right? The UN cannot enforce military action but it can authorise military action by member states. We all know that already. What's your point?

Think of this way: "I guess if no one is going to fight the bad guys, I would just step it up and do the job anyway, but I expect unequivocal supports from some of you guys,"

Think of it this way: "I guess i'm not going to get authorisation for my war, never mind, the rules are for everyone else. I'll just make up some phoney intelligence, call every country who disagrees with me a traitor, rubbish the UN and do it anyway and STILL expect them to thank me for it.

You've failed to take into consideration that the national security interests of the United States in the Middle East (or anywhere) take precedence over international law, not just to be dismissive of it but as a protective measure against any unexpected threat or unprovoked attack.

For you, yes. Like I said, a selfish war to take care of the interests of the US.

The same thing apply to Russia's, UK's, China's, India's, Pakistan's, or any other country having vested national security interests in other countries as well.

Ah, the big difference is they don't go and kill the populations of those countries.

Once again, you've failed to take into consideration that those countries and some in the UN hierarchy who were against the military action on Iraq were improperly influenced (bribed, corrupted, even deceived) by Saddam Hussein over the years.

That's a very easy excuse which i've heard trotted out many times since all this came out. What about the majority of the UK population who were against the war? What about the majority of europeans who were against the war? What about the majority of Russian people against the war?

I suppose all those hundreds of millions of people were bribed? If the majority of the population is against the war, then the politicians are reflecting the will of their people, corruption or not.

Unfortunately in a world where there are countries having no backbones and allow evil to thrive without challenges or confrontations.

1. That sentence doesn't actually make sense.
2. Having a viewpoint different from yours doesn't mean a country has no backbone.
3. Evil was not allowed to thrive without challenge, they challenged you.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
That's a joke, right? The UN cannot enforce military action but it can authorise military action by member states. We all know that already. What's your point?

Your attitude. Dismissive, short-sighted and completely ignorant of the obvious facts.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Think of it this way: "I guess i'm not going to get authorisation for my war, never mind, the rules are for everyone else. I'll just make up some phoney intelligence, call every country who disagrees with me a traitor, rubbish the UN and do it anyway and STILL expect them to thank me for it.

You are completely missing the points of 12 years run-up to the Iraq war.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
For you, yes. Like I said, a selfish war to take care of the interests of the US.

To protect the Saudi interests and American allies in the Persian Gulf. Yes, all related to oil. This is a very well-known fact. If you do your study of the aftermath of the 1970s OPEC embargo crisis, you will understand the very reasons behind it.

Secondly, it was President Jimmy Carter, a DEMOCRATIC President, declared in his State of the Union speech in January 1980 linking the Persian Gulf oil as a vital national security interest to the United States.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ~ President Jimmy Carter, 1980

www.jimmycarterlibrary.org...

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Ah, the big difference is they don't go and kill the populations of those countries.

The level of your ignorance seem to know no boundary. The Chinese-occupied Tibet? Chechyna? The Baltic states that are still healing the pains of the Soviet occupation of their countries? China's threatening to take Taiwan by force, with 800 missiles and growing pointing at Taiwan?

Originally posted by Chris McGee
That's a very easy excuse which i've heard trotted out many times since all this came out.

No easy excuse. It's a fact that you are clearly ignoring (the UN Oil-for-Food scandal and the oil barrel bribery by Saddam).

Originally posted by Chris McGee
What about the majority of the UK population who were against the war? What about the majority of europeans who were against the war? What about the majority of Russian people against the war?
I suppose all those hundreds of millions of people were bribed? If the majority of the population is against the war, then the politicians are reflecting the will of their people, corruption or not.

I'm not even going to answer that asinine questions.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
1. That sentence doesn't actually make sense.
2. Having a viewpoint different from yours doesn't mean a country has no backbone.
3. Evil was not allowed to thrive without challenge, they challenged you.

I'm just wowed by your astonishing ability of ignoring the obvious historical circumstances. Did you take world and modern history classes by any chance? Is your ability to focus on the present and all the wrongdoings matter the most and everything else happened long ago not relevant to you? Turn off your iPod (or whatever music-playing device you have) when you're reading or paying attention at class. All those crappy music songs are just distracting you needlessly.

Originally posted by the_oleneo
Your attitude. Dismissive, short-sighted and completely ignorant of the obvious facts.

The OP posted something which everyone already knew.

You are completely missing the points of 12 years run-up to the Iraq war.

No, i'm not. In the twelve years the inpectors went in and destroyed everything they could find. When they couldn't find anything more Iraq said there was nothing more to find and, guess what, there wasn't.

The inspectors said there was nothing there, the intelligence agencies cooked the books and hey presto, bush-monkey gets his war.

To protect the Saudi interests and American allies in the Persian Gulf. Yes, all related to oil. This is a very well-known fact. If you do your study of the aftermath of the 1970s OPEC embargo crisis, you will understand the very reasons behind it.

I understand the reasons behind it very well. However one key fact you decide to omit is that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. They had no WMD, after the pounding they took they barely had an airforce or army. The only way they were a threat was through their oil supplies and the fact that they were no longer pricing them in dollars.

It is very nice of you to protect the Saudi Royal family, of course. They run an undemocratic regime which indulges in torture and oppression, is in no way democratic and 19 of whose citizens destroyed the World Trade Centre. Don't let any of that stop you though, you can make most americans think Iraq was in on 9/11.

[Secondly, it was President Jimmy Carter, a DEMOCRATIC President, declared in his State of the Union speech in January 1980 linking the Persian Gulf oil as a vital national security interest to the United States.

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ~ President Jimmy Carter, 1980

I really don't know why you posted this. Who was trying to gain control of the Persian Gulf? Iraq with its 7 planes and two guys with sticks? There is only one fascist regime trying to take over the Persian Gulf region right now and that is the US.

The level of your ignorance seem to know no boundary. The Chinese-occupied Tibet? Chechyna? The Baltic states that are still healing the pains of the Soviet occupation of their countries? China's threatening to take Taiwan by force, with 800 missiles and growing pointing at Taiwan?

1. Tibet: An absolute disgrace, China should pull out immediately

2. Chechnya: Chechnya is a Russian state much the same as, say, Wyoming. If you believe Chechnya should be granted their independence to form an Islamic state practising sharia law then you must also believe Idaho should have the same rights.

3. The Baltic states: The Baltic states were fairly peaceful under Soviet rule. Upon being granted independence religious and nationalistic factions have formed. No blame can be attached other than to those doing the killing.

4. Taiwan: Taiwan is a province of China, see 2.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
That's a very easy excuse which i've heard trotted out many times since all this came out.

No easy excuse. It's a fact that you are clearly ignoring (the UN Oil-for-Food scandal and the oil barrel bribery by Saddam).

Originally posted by Chris McGee
What about the majority of the UK population who were against the war? What about the majority of europeans who were against the war? What about the majority of Russian people against the war?
I suppose all those hundreds of millions of people were bribed? If the majority of the population is against the war, then the politicians are reflecting the will of their people, corruption or not.

I'm not even going to answer that asinine questions.

That 'asinine' question and the one I am apparently ignoring are linked.

I'll put it in simple terms for you. The populations of the countries are against the war in Iraq. The politicians of those countries are also against the war in Iraq.

They may agree for different reasons (which I doubt) but they agree and you cannot argue that the politicians are reflecting the will of the populace.

I'm just wowed by your astonishing ability of ignoring the obvious historical circumstances. Did you take world and modern history classes by any chance?

How far back do you stretch your 'historical circumstances'? I'm guessing it's back to Gulf War I, anything beyond that is the past and should be forgotten. You cannot define historical timespans to suit yourself. Let's take into account the 'historical' arming of Saddam by the US then, yes?

Is your ability to focus on the present and all the wrongdoings matter the most and everything else happened long ago not relevant to you?

It would help if you could write coherently in English.

Turn off your iPod (or whatever music-playing device you have) when you're reading or paying attention at class. All those crappy music songs are just distracting you needlessly.

I don't have an iPod. Why get an iPod when you can get an MP3 player that will play a wider variety of formats?

I don't go to class, I have a job.

I don't listen to crappy music (my wife will disagree).

[edit on 14-5-2005 by Chris McGee]

[edit on 14-5-2005 by Chris McGee]

Originally posted by Chris McGee
No, i'm not. In the twelve years the inpectors went in and destroyed everything they could find. When they couldn't find anything more Iraq said there was nothing more to find and, guess what, there wasn't.

The inspectors said there was nothing there, the intelligence agencies cooked the books and hey presto, bush-monkey gets his war.

Again, you are completely missing the points.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I understand the reasons behind it very well. However one key fact you decide to omit is that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. They had no WMD, after the pounding they took they barely had an airforce or army. The only way they were a threat was through their oil supplies and the fact that they were no longer pricing them in dollars.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a threat to most Middle Eastern countries, especially Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. You're completely ignoring the real facts surrounding Saddam's WMD programs, necessarily given Saddam the needed leverages against his enemies at the times. Why do you think Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor plant in 1981 in the first place?

Originally posted by Chris McGee
It is very nice of you to protect the Saudi Royal family, of course. They run an undemocratic regime which indulges in torture and oppression, is in no way democratic and 19 of whose citizens destroyed the World Trade Centre. Don't let any of that stop you though, you can make most americans think Iraq was in on 9/11.

Of course, you wouldn't understand the political reality behind the necessity of protecting Saudi oil interests in the Gulf. Easy for you to criticize an easy target just because of its "horrible, backward regime" you've heard and read all about but hard for you to comprehend the greater reality of a geopolitical relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I really don't know why you posted this. Who was trying to gain control of the Persian Gulf? Iraq with its 7 planes and two guys with sticks? There is only one fascist regime trying to take over the Persian Gulf region right now and that is the US.

The Soviet Union. It should have been a no brainer for you. The United States is hardly any fascist as your fellow detractors propagating rhetorical nonsense for anti-American convenience.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
1. Tibet: An absolute disgrace, China should pull out immediately

Right. Should have done that a long time ago.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
2. Chechnya: Chechnya is a Russian state much the same as, say, Wyoming. If you believe Chechnya should be granted their independence to form an Islamic state practising sharia law then you must also believe Idaho should have the same rights.

Circumstances between Chechyna and Idaho, Wyoming or any state in the union, are very different. It's more of a land-grab issue for Russia than a state's rights or religious rights.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
3. The Baltic states: The Baltic states were fairly peaceful under Soviet rule. Upon being granted independence religious and nationalistic factions have formed. No blame can be attached other than to those doing the killing.

Many Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians will disagree with you pointedly.

China-Taiwan issue are discussed in other threads. I'm not going to delve it in here.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
They may agree for different reasons (which I doubt) but they agree and you cannot argue that the politicians are reflecting the will of the populace.

Hahaha, not all politicians thinks alike or reflecting the will of the populace, but at least reflecting the will of money, agendas, and special interest groups. It works in every government around the world.

Originally posted by Chris McGee
How far back do you stretch your 'historical circumstances'? I'm guessing it's back to Gulf War I, anything beyond that is the past and should be forgotten. You cannot define historical timespans to suit yourself. Let's take into account the 'historical' arming of Saddam by the US then, yes?

You just don't get it. Seem that you don't really take into consideration and comprehension of the whole political/historical circumstances and realistic facts. I'm not talking about a timespan to suit me. You are just focusing the political NEGATIVES and anti-American hot air rhetoric with me. You are just like Iran: thick-headed with a negative, unrealistic attitude and a lot of hot air to exhaust.

This is my last reply. Don't expect me to reply after yours. I had it with you.

[edit on 5/15/2005 by the_oleneo]

Of course, you wouldn't understand the political reality behind the necessity of protecting Saudi oil interests in the Gulf

Just like there was a political necessity to protect Saddam, Pinochet, Pol Pot and Lon Nol? and im sure there are others that can join the list of luminaries.
The hypocrisy of supporting a repressive and abusive regime in Saudi Arabia and supplying them with weapons on one hand, and on the other telling the world that you were liberating Iraq from a repressive and abusive regime is staggering.

'political reality' as you so happily put it does not make what was done and is being done right.

posted by C0le
And? this has what to do with the EU? the EU said no to iraq without U.N approval, the UK fighting in iraq and afghanistan doesnt have anything to do with the EU.

Psst...C0le, don't be an idiot all your life. The 3 main EU players in negotiating with Iran are...wait for it, you'll love this.....the UK, France and Germany.... Ooooh, don't you just feel like a prat?

posted by C0le...again
So until the EU actualy backs up the BS it says to Iran, set down please.

We do back it up...Economically. We are offering incentives, as well as the chance for us to build them new, non-weapons reactors.

The trick here is that if they want Nuclear power like they say they do, then they cannot refuse the reactors and have to stop building their breeder reactors. If they say no, we will know they are up to something a little dodgy....

posted by Seekerof
And because they are, they are now going to the UN to seek resolutions and more talk. All the while, Iran laughs and keeps on with their nuclear ambitions.

Psst...Seeker.....What I said to C0le stands for you too. All this bitchin about "going to the UN to seek resolutions and more talk" is actually the US's idea....Ooooh....it's that prat feeling again isn't it?

They wanted to do it last year, but we held them up in the hope we could resolve it peacefully.

The US has agreed to let us try peacefully, and the reason the US isn't directly involved in the talks is political.

They can be seen to maintain their distance from the issue whilst sabre rattling and the Iranians will more than likely do a deal if the US isn't involved. Be assured though that the EU talks will have Washingtons input as well!

If it doesn't work, at least we can say we tried and hell, we will probably back you up if something needs to be done too! Maybe then we won't have anymore Anti-Euro crap on here.....

posted by FLYIN HIGH
starving their young

Eh? Iran has a pretty healthy economy all things considered and is trying to gain access to the WTO (an important bargaining chip the EU is using by the way)

posted by BadMojo
UN?

The UN is worhtless...unless you have oil and need food.

Please see above for my reply to the UN bashing....

posted by Alias Jones
The United Nations are impotent.

Please see above for my reply to the UN bashing....

Also, you seem to forget that one of the MAIN players in the UN is the US! Its not some detached, self ruling entity, it is controlled by the Big 5. The reason it doesn't work is down to one thing...the Veto...which America has used on plenty of occasions to block the "will of the international community" when it suite them just as much as anyone else!

posted by DevilWasp
The US is a major player so unless your saying that mabye the UK should lead the assualt on iran with our massive 3 carrier battle fleet and under armed and under equipped armed forces you better just accept the fact that if the US wants to keep its security council seat and veto it needs to respect that it needs to do work.

Not nitpicking DW, but the UK technically has 0 "Aircraft Carriers".... I will let you try and figure that one out and the reason is quite clever

posted by Alias Jones
Well let me first say that that the men and women and resources deployed by the UK are respected and appreciated , althoughbeit minute in comparison to the US deployment and expenditures.

Minute? Bugger off....We make up around 10% of the forces (give or take) and control 1/3 rd of Iraq. At the time of invasion we had 50,000 troops, nearly 25% of the whole force.

Thats not minute mate! Small, but by no means minute. the `Stans and all you other new friends have "minute" troop commitments, not the UK.

Thanks for the thanks though !!

posted by Alias Jones
My understaning of the EU and UN are comprehensive, as yours had better be to debate me on this topic.

Oooh...bring it Sunshine, especially seeing as you referred to the EU as a military alliance and:

The EU is the illegitimate red headed bastard stepson of the UN

Nothing of the sort you plonker. Feel free to debate away if you want, but you will end up looking silly.....

posted by oleneo
Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a threat to most Middle Eastern countries, especially Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. You're completely ignoring the real facts surrounding Saddam's WMD programs, necessarily given Saddam the needed leverages against his enemies at the times. Why do you think Israel bombed Saddam's nuclear reactor plant in 1981 in the first place?

No he wasn't. Every other ME country could have kicked Iraq's arse if he tried. His armour was 30 years old, except for a few hundred Chally's and Chieftains which were not fully functional, his airforce was all but buggered, his WMD program was none existent (see the US Gov own ISG report)...

Threat? To whom? San Marino? Even they would have given him a fight!

posted by oleneo
Many Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians will disagree with you pointedly.

Agreed! Slightly off topic though....



[edit on 15/5/05 by stumason]

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Just like there was a political necessity to protect Saddam, Pinochet, Pol Pot and Lon Nol? and im sure there are others that can join the list of luminaries.
The hypocrisy of supporting a repressive and abusive regime in Saudi Arabia and supplying them with weapons on one hand, and on the other telling the world that you were liberating Iraq from a repressive and abusive regime is staggering.

'political reality' as you so happily put it does not make what was done and is being done right.

Yes, I concur. But in reality, money talks. Unfortunately.

Originally posted by stumason
No he wasn't. Every other ME country could have kicked Iraq's arse if he tried. His armour was 30 years old, except for a few hundred Chally's and Chieftains which were not fully functional, his airforce was all but buggered, his WMD program was none existent (see the US Gov own ISG report)...

Threat? To whom? San Marino? Even they would have given him a fight!

How do you come to that conclusion about Saddam? How do you know that Saddam wasn't a threat in spite of the general fear the Arabs, Iranians, Kuwaitis and Israelis have for him for decades? Did you sit down and have a talk with him recently, as if you and Saddam are old chaps?

He attacked Iran. He gassed the Kurds. He supported terrorism. He executed his own people who spoke out against him and his regime. He invaded and subjugated Kuwait for a time. He have shown his capabilities to deceive, lie, stall and bribe anyone at whim and convenience, while it suited him politically in face of international condemnation.

The only country that can counters Iraq militarily, under Saddam Hussein, on an equal level was Iran. Even Israel opted to strike his nuclear reactor plant covertly without risking an all-out war (probably the smartest thing that Israel have done by keeping Saddam completely distracted by his war against Iran; which I founded it to be ironical that both countries shared a common dislike for Israel).

It wouldn't matter if Saddam having an old and somewhat dysfunctional military to fight with, all he needed are intense loyalty and willingness to fight to the death with all possible means from his own people. Everything else are useful and necessary to the cause.

[edit on 5/15/2005 by the_oleneo]

Originally posted by stumason
Not nitpicking DW, but the UK technically has 0 "Aircraft Carriers".... I will let you try and figure that one out and the reason is quite clever

Well yeah technically we have 4 "assualt ships" with 3 designed for air defence
Ha.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by stumason
Not nitpicking DW, but the UK technically has 0 "Aircraft Carriers".... I will let you try and figure that one out and the reason is quite clever

Well yeah technically we have 4 "assualt ships" with 3 designed for air defence

Ha.

Close.... The "carriers" we have at the moment (not sure if it includes the Helicopter Carrier HMS Ocean though) are classed as 3 deck Cruisers (I'm sure thats the term used).

EDIT: Thinking about it, the term might be through Deck Cruisers. Its one of the two. But they are most definatley Cruisers

Apparently, according to my bro (ex Navy), it is so they can go through the Suez Canal. (which doesn't allow Aircraft Carriers through)

[edit on 15/5/05 by stumason]

U.S. aircraft carriers go through the Suez Canal all the time. You can see them going from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea here: Where are the carriers?

Point taken! Maybe it has changed in recent times.
But that is/was the reasoning behind it (bear in mind that the Uk "carriers" are over 20 years old)

Getting back to the topic at hand, the latest on this problem/issue:
Iran's mullahs give Europeans "Ultimatum"

A senior mullahs' regime official here Saturday called on the Europeans to abandon threats and continue negotiations with Tehran to iron out the differences over the country's nuclear energy program or else.

--snip--

"Doubtless, if our path and that of the Europeans lead to a confrontation, the Europeans will be hurt the most, then the Americans, then the region and finally Iran.

"Our final advice to the Europeans is that they put aside the language of threat since this will benefit them in the first place," Nasseri added.

And this:
Iran rules out compromise on nuclear right




seekerof

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Seekerof]