-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Iraq approves U2 overflights, NATO deadlock continues
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Let's clarify a few things:
CNN
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq said Monday it would allow the United Nations to use American U-2 spy planes for aerial surveillance without conditions -- but shortly after, Saddam Hussein said coalition forces patrolling the "no-fly" zones should not launch raids on Iraq during the U-2 surveillance flights.
...
The United States will go ahead with plans to boost Turkey's defenses in advance of a possible war with Iraq despite objections from NATO allies France, Germany and Belgium, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday.
From the Chicago Tribune (no direct link allowed):
France, Russia and Germany issued a joint declaration today calling for strengthened U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. French President Jacques Chirac, reading the declaration in the presence of visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin, said waging war to achieve to neutralize Saddam's weapon's capability should be considered only as a last resort.
The division was also reflected at NATO, where France, Germany and Belgium blocked alliance efforts to begin planning for possible Iraqi attacks against Turkey. NATO would have automatically begun planning for the defense of Turkey, which fears retaliation from neighboring Iraq in case of an invasion, early today if no country protested the move.
But France vetoed the effort and was backed by Belgium and Germany. They argued that supporting NATO's efforts would force the crisis into a "logic of war."
So, um, planning for a possible Iraqi invasion increases the risk of war? These guys need to take a course in logic.
CNN
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq said Monday it would allow the United Nations to use American U-2 spy planes for aerial surveillance without conditions -- but shortly after, Saddam Hussein said coalition forces patrolling the "no-fly" zones should not launch raids on Iraq during the U-2 surveillance flights.
...
The United States will go ahead with plans to boost Turkey's defenses in advance of a possible war with Iraq despite objections from NATO allies France, Germany and Belgium, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday.
From the Chicago Tribune (no direct link allowed):
France, Russia and Germany issued a joint declaration today calling for strengthened U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. French President Jacques Chirac, reading the declaration in the presence of visiting Russian President Vladimir Putin, said waging war to achieve to neutralize Saddam's weapon's capability should be considered only as a last resort.
The division was also reflected at NATO, where France, Germany and Belgium blocked alliance efforts to begin planning for possible Iraqi attacks against Turkey. NATO would have automatically begun planning for the defense of Turkey, which fears retaliation from neighboring Iraq in case of an invasion, early today if no country protested the move.
But France vetoed the effort and was backed by Belgium and Germany. They argued that supporting NATO's efforts would force the crisis into a "logic of war."
So, um, planning for a possible Iraqi invasion increases the risk of war? These guys need to take a course in logic.
No what you are saying is that you are competely ignorant of what NATO is and what the charter says. Turkey invoked article 4 of the agreement. This article asks for advanced PLANNING because TURKEY feels they could be attacked as a result of a war in Iraq. As members of NATO all nations are obligated to assist TURKEY in not only PLANNING a defense but mounting a defense. The alliance exists to protect it's members, what France, Germany and Beligum has done is say "We don't care about Turkey".
This isn't about whether the US wishes to use NATO for anything, this is about a NATO member asking for assistance. If 3 members of NATO refuse to heed the call of that member then the alliance isn't worth the paper it's signed on. End of fvcking story. Sure the US will defend turkey and the Dutch have agreed to send Patriot missles but if the alliance doesn't abide by it's treaty then there isn't a reason to continue the alliance. The US should stop funding the defense of Europe if they feel that strongly about it.
freegeekss
Member
No what you are saying is that you are competely ignorant of what NATO is and what the charter says. Turkey invoked article 4 of the agreement. This article asks for advanced PLANNING because TURKEY feels they could be attacked as a result of a war in Iraq. As members of NATO all nations are obligated to assist TURKEY in not only PLANNING a defense but mounting a defense. The alliance exists to protect it's members, what France, Germany and Beligum has done is say "We don't care about Turkey".
This isn't about whether the US wishes to use NATO for anything, this is about a NATO member asking for assistance. If 3 members of NATO refuse to heed the call of that member then the alliance isn't worth the paper it's signed on. End of fvcking story. Sure the US will defend turkey and the Dutch have agreed to send Patriot missles but if the alliance doesn't abide by it's treaty then there isn't a reason to continue the alliance. The US should stop funding the defense of Europe if they feel that strongly about it.
me ignorant??? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. May I remind you that Turkey is in danger BECAUSE the USA is dragging them into this conflict. The US military needs the airbases for it's attack against the "Axis Of Evil Empires [TM]". It took the Bush administration a couple of billion of your tax dollars in the form of economic help to "convince" the Turkish govt. For weeks they were opposed to the American deployment. A vast majority of the Turkish people are still opposed to the fact that they are dragged into this conflict (use google...) And we certainly care about Turkey. Germany, France and Belgium have some of the biggest populations of Turkish people in Europe and guess what, they applaude the decision of Fr , Ger and Belgium. So you obviously don't have a frigging clue what YOU are talking about. You guys just can't stand it when you snap your fingers we don't jump and kiss your a$$ (like all these east-european countries and Deputy Governor of West Texas Tony Blair).
And about the aspect of solidarity:
-For the moment there are Belgian soldies operating in Afghanistan.
-Tons of US military equipment are shipped in the port of Antwerp every week to the Gulf region (we even deployed elite paratrooper units in Antwerp to protect these shipment.
-the French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" was deployed during the fighting in Afghanistan. They flew hundreds of missions to give assistance to American troops on the ground.
-After 9/11 european AWACS aircraft were deployed in the US to help protect the airspace (paid with MY euro's and with European crews--I'm glad we could help).
I wonder if they mention this in the US media (I guess not)
now you can continue with your whining and spreading your misinformation -- you are certainly a Pro in that aspect
This isn't about whether the US wishes to use NATO for anything, this is about a NATO member asking for assistance. If 3 members of NATO refuse to heed the call of that member then the alliance isn't worth the paper it's signed on. End of fvcking story. Sure the US will defend turkey and the Dutch have agreed to send Patriot missles but if the alliance doesn't abide by it's treaty then there isn't a reason to continue the alliance. The US should stop funding the defense of Europe if they feel that strongly about it.
me ignorant??? You don't have a clue what you are talking about. May I remind you that Turkey is in danger BECAUSE the USA is dragging them into this conflict. The US military needs the airbases for it's attack against the "Axis Of Evil Empires [TM]". It took the Bush administration a couple of billion of your tax dollars in the form of economic help to "convince" the Turkish govt. For weeks they were opposed to the American deployment. A vast majority of the Turkish people are still opposed to the fact that they are dragged into this conflict (use google...) And we certainly care about Turkey. Germany, France and Belgium have some of the biggest populations of Turkish people in Europe and guess what, they applaude the decision of Fr , Ger and Belgium. So you obviously don't have a frigging clue what YOU are talking about. You guys just can't stand it when you snap your fingers we don't jump and kiss your a$$ (like all these east-european countries and Deputy Governor of West Texas Tony Blair).
And about the aspect of solidarity:
-For the moment there are Belgian soldies operating in Afghanistan.
-Tons of US military equipment are shipped in the port of Antwerp every week to the Gulf region (we even deployed elite paratrooper units in Antwerp to protect these shipment.
-the French aircraft carrier "Charles de Gaulle" was deployed during the fighting in Afghanistan. They flew hundreds of missions to give assistance to American troops on the ground.
-After 9/11 european AWACS aircraft were deployed in the US to help protect the airspace (paid with MY euro's and with European crews--I'm glad we could help).
I wonder if they mention this in the US media (I guess not)
now you can continue with your whining and spreading your misinformation -- you are certainly a Pro in that aspect
yeah, a lot of us here in the u.s. dont know how much information we're missing or not told. i think a great deal of what our government tells us the truth, but most of the time it's only 25% of the whole picture. unfortunately, we usually have to wait until after a conflict is long over before we find out the whole truth. and by that time the perpetrators are either long dead, or just beyond the reach of the law.
i do think it is comical how turkey is asking for support from countries that are against what could create that attack in the first place!
i do think it is comical how turkey is asking for support from countries that are against what could create that attack in the first place!
Regardless of past, present circumstances or future possibilities. A NATO member (TURKEY) asked for assitance under article 4 of the alliance treaty. Three member nations refused to provide assitance in an attempt to influence the actions of another nation. Under the basis of that action the treaty is worthless and the alliance is a sham if the member states refuse to assist when a member nation calls for help. Period. END OF FVCKING discussion. Do you NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
By YOUR logic it would be reasonable for the US to refuse to assist in a call for help from a Germany because England refuses to do something about Zimbabwee.
You are trying to equate apples and oranges, when you understand the implications of refusing to abide by the terms of the NATO treaty and what that means to the relevance of the alliance you should come back. I'm disgusted that the French, Germans and Belgiums would sacrifice the safety of a member of NATO to try to influence a SEPERATE US action against another nation. Fortunately the US wont' stand by and let the Turks get gassed by Saddam, we defend our friends unlike SOME PEOPLE.
freegeekss
Member
Regardless of past, present circumstances or future possibilities. A NATO member (TURKEY) asked for assitance under article 4 of the alliance treaty. Three member nations refused to provide assitance in an attempt to influence the actions of another nation. Under the basis of that action the treaty is worthless and the alliance is a sham if the member states refuse to assist when a member nation calls for help. Period. END OF FVCKING discussion. Do you NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?
By YOUR logic it would be reasonable for the US to refuse to assist in a call for help from a Germany because England refuses to do something about Zimbabwee.
You are trying to equate apples and oranges, when you understand the implications of refusing to abide by the terms of the NATO treaty and what that means to the relevance of the alliance you should come back. I'm disgusted that the French, Germans and Belgiums would sacrifice the safety of a member of NATO to try to influence a SEPERATE US action against another nation. Fortunately the US wont' stand by and let the Turks get gassed by Saddam, we defend our friends unlike SOME PEOPLE.
you really don't have a clue about international politics. Like I said before -- THIS WHOLE ARTICLE 4 DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFENSE OF TURKEY --
The Bush administration is trying every trick in the book so It can justify it's crusade. They want as much support of countries and international organisations (UN, NATO, ...) as they can so they can go to the american public and tell them -- look the whole world support us now we can kick some butt.
This whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude is really getting on my nerves
But I guess you are just to brainwashed to be critical about anything at all (like most americans after 9/11)
oh - and you didn't react on anything I said in my original post
By YOUR logic it would be reasonable for the US to refuse to assist in a call for help from a Germany because England refuses to do something about Zimbabwee.
You are trying to equate apples and oranges, when you understand the implications of refusing to abide by the terms of the NATO treaty and what that means to the relevance of the alliance you should come back. I'm disgusted that the French, Germans and Belgiums would sacrifice the safety of a member of NATO to try to influence a SEPERATE US action against another nation. Fortunately the US wont' stand by and let the Turks get gassed by Saddam, we defend our friends unlike SOME PEOPLE.
you really don't have a clue about international politics. Like I said before -- THIS WHOLE ARTICLE 4 DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFENSE OF TURKEY --
The Bush administration is trying every trick in the book so It can justify it's crusade. They want as much support of countries and international organisations (UN, NATO, ...) as they can so they can go to the american public and tell them -- look the whole world support us now we can kick some butt.
This whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude is really getting on my nerves
But I guess you are just to brainwashed to be critical about anything at all (like most americans after 9/11)
oh - and you didn't react on anything I said in my original post
NATO, schmato. This alliance has outlived it's usefulness. No USSR, no need for NATO. It sure wasn't created to protect against regional conflicts in Iraq that is initiated by one of NATO members. It was created to defend against unprovoked attack by the USSR with tanks rolling across Europe to push communism down their throats. Since Russia is no longer interested in world socialsm, and since most European nations are now more communist than Russia, there is no reason for NATO.
umm..is there something i'm missing here?
ARTICLE 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
It looks like they will consult together, does that mean one country can dictate the whole process? Does it also mention anything about what to do if one of the member countries (U.S.) is one of the causes of that threat? The Article's wording sounds pretty open ended to me, and OPEN TO DISCUSSION, it doesn't ask for immediate consensus!
Secondly, there are no missiles from Iraq attacking Turkey now. I'm sure that if Iraq DID start attacking Turkey, France/German/Belgium would come and assist. It's just there is NO ATTACK as of yet, and it won't start (if at all) until the U.S. invades Iraq.
Thank you, but they wont get it anyway.
Btw, it is stilloutrageous behavior - I dont understand what the problem is in having NATO officially announce to prepare Turkeys defense. Instead they are vetoing it but still prepare the defense what the deal of this??? The need for bad reputation???
Remember one thing, if this game goes on, nothing will change in the Middle East. Everytime NATO threatens war, Saddam will make some minor concessions and just barely prevent war. And then, of course, they will find ways to circumvent these concessions hence delaying the war inevitably. For once I agree with W that if you want to go on a war, GO NOW or just forget it.
WinkOsmosis
Banned
So Bono is going to fly over Iraq?
Lol, the man without a clue displaying his ignorance of what article 4 is and why it's not relavant. I will say it again. Turkey requested under article 4 that contingency planning be initiated in case Iraq attacks Turkey for hosting US forces. They didn't ask for guns, they didn't ask for defenses to be deployed, they asked FOR PLANNING. France and the other EURO panzy asses in Germany and Belgium saw it in their heart to DENY discussion and planning for the defense of Turkey. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they plan to wait until Saddam launches those chemical weapons France says he doesn't and they land in Turkey. After which they may THINK about defending a NATO member.
The arrogance and damage to the alliance it makes for those three nations to deny PLANNING a defense of Turkey is unbelievable. If the US had refused to plan a contingency defense of a NATO member I would have been livid with my government. You on the other hand feel is acceptable to neglect the legal ramifications of a treaty and think it is ok to back out of those obligations. I guess you have displayed your character.
It's a gawd damn good thing this country doesn't have to rely on Germany, France or Belgium for our defense because I don't think their word is worth the paper it's printed on.
well i was against it months back...but seeing how saddam manages to utilize his delay tactics SO effectively and we having invested so much resources into the middle east, if dubya backs off - us and europe (even pitiful france and germany) will have lost all credibility in the future, or any credibility dealing with countries in the middle east. even the north koreans will use this to their major advantage.
imo, GW's second term will be defined in the months ahead; he backs out of the war equates to political disaster for the us, along with the bad economy will cost him and his administration a second term. if he goes ahead with the war and it goes drastically wrong - he's done. it all lies in going in, taking out this asshat, and making sure he doesn't get away this time - unlike the other asshat (you know who in Afghanistan) and rebuilding iraq!
m2kewl,
Agreed. I still do not want this to lead to war, but I do not see how it can be avoided. The rest of the world keeps drawing lines in the sand, and he keeps stepping over them, so they draw another one, and say, "Now we really mean it this time." And on, and on, and on.
Wasn't sure about the last of your post though. I hope you weren't referring to HW Bush not getting him in '91, that was the stipulation that the UN gave him with the ok to invade, was that he left Saddam in power.
Agreed. I still do not want this to lead to war, but I do not see how it can be avoided. The rest of the world keeps drawing lines in the sand, and he keeps stepping over them, so they draw another one, and say, "Now we really mean it this time." And on, and on, and on.
Wasn't sure about the last of your post though. I hope you weren't referring to HW Bush not getting him in '91, that was the stipulation that the UN gave him with the ok to invade, was that he left Saddam in power.
XMan
Lifer
"What do you see, Bono?"
"I see a MOLE . . . diggin' in a HOLE . . . "
"Hmm, mark that down as a possible chemical weapons plant. What now?"
"I still haven't found what I'm looking for."
"Well keep looking, damn it!"
"The streets have NO NAME."
"Hmm. Nuclear weapons activity? What now?"
"Bush told the UN, we're going in, with or without you."
"Yeah, we know. Keep looking."
"ARGH!! THIRD WORLD DEBT RELIEF!"
"Nurse, tranquilizers!"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
