ok....now I understand why the rest of the world hates us

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
from the new york times:
Bush administration officials said today that next week they would confront France, Germany and other skeptics of military action against Iraq by demanding that they agree publicly that Iraq had defied the United Nations Security Council.

The officials, expressing exasperation with the refusal of longtime allies to back the United States, said they were vigorously debating whether to seek a second United Nations resolution authorizing force against Iraq. At the least, they said, they will insist that the nations opposed to the American position acknowledge that Iraq has not complied with resolutions on its weapons of mass destruction.

Advertisement




In Paris, President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany proclaimed their unity on the matter. "We both want a peaceful solution to the crisis in Iraq, and we will work toward that in close cooperation," Mr. Schröder said today.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, announced that more than 20,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve had reported for active duty this week. The activations brought to nearly 79,000 the number of National Guard members and Reservists called to active duty for possible service in the Persian Gulf or in the United States. A total American military force of 150,000 is expected in the region by mid-February.

Administration officials said their strategy was based on the belief that there might never be a "smoking gun" proving Iraq's possession of illegal weapons. Accordingly, They acknowledged that the case must be made in a negative fashion: that Iraq has failed to disprove the contentions of the United States and others about its weapons of mass destruction. The administration asserts, without offering evidence, that Iraq has thwarted inspectors by hiding the weapons.

Questioned today about recent polls indicating that Americans are having second thoughts about a war, President Bush condemned the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein.

Labeling him "a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons," the president said in St. Louis that "if Saddam Hussein will not disarm, the United States of America and friends of freedom will disarm Saddam Hussein."

Some administration officials expressed the belief that France and other reluctant allies, accepting American military action as inevitable, would be won over in the end ? perhaps out of concern that their businesses might lose any role in exploiting Iraq's oil. Others said the French might ease their resistance if the United States allowed the inspectors a few more weeks.

But some were skeptical of those arguments, saying that the French ought to be taken at their word, and that Mr. Bush should not bother to seek a second resolution condemning Iraq and authorizing the use of force.

In another sign of their irritation with American allies, aides to Mr. Bush said they were intensifying efforts to line up support elsewhere in Europe and would try to portray France and Germany as holdouts against a quick Security Council indictment of Iraq. Officials said today that support was forthcoming not only from Britain but also from Poland, Spain, Italy and others.

If anything, Americans officials said, the recent French and German appeal for American patience has backfired ? emboldening the hawks in the administration and even spurring Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to tell aides that he would accept military action against Iraq without approval from the Security Council.

Mr. Powell has resisted that position for months. Sounding tougher today than he has, he said on the PBS program "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" that the question was whether to allow Iraq "a few more weeks, a few more months" to comply when it was clear already that it would never do so.

"Frankly," he added, "there are some nations in the world who would like simply to turn away from this problem, pretend it isn't there."

Mr. Powell's comments appeared to be a direct rebuttal of the call for a delay of two or three months by the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, with whom he has talked frequently ? some said tensely ? since the weekend.

Going further, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld dismissed the German and French roles in a newly expanded NATO, which has been asked to provide indirect assistance for an Iraqi invasion.

"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France," Mr. Rumsfeld told foreign journalists at the State Department, as leaders of the two countries today solemnly celebrated the 40th anniversary of their treaty of friendship in Versailles, France. "I don't. I think that's old Europe." He added: "You look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States."

Advertisement




The Iraqi situation appeared today to have been thrown into some turmoil by the French and, to a lesser degree, by the German rejections of American policy on Monday ? and by the publication of polls showing a drop in the number of Americans supporting a war, and a vast majority of Americans opposing action without the support of allies.

Administration officials said that although both Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schröder had called on the United States to slow down its move toward war, the comments of their foreign ministers on Monday at the United Nations were surprisingly vehement.

France had called for the special United Nations ministers' meeting on Monday, ostensibly to discuss terrorism, and many American officials expressed the opinion that Foreign Minister de Villepin had somehow set Mr. Powell up and surprised him with the vehement remarks.

Asked by Mr. Lehrer if he felt "sandbagged" by the French, Mr. Powell replied, "Well, I wouldn't say `sandbagged' is the word." But he said it was "unfortunate" that Mr. de Villepin transformed a meeting on terrorism into a forum on Iraq.

The administration is now planning to focus on the report that the United Nations weapons inspections chief, Hans Blix, is to issue on Monday ? in the hope that it offers details on Iraq's noncompliance. That could result in a fresh United Nations demand that Iraq come clean and dismantle its weapons.

Noting today that French officials have in the past stated publicly that Iraq has those weapons and has failed to comply with the resolutions, officials said the Bush administration believed that France and Germany could somehow be embarrassed next week into repeating that acknowledgment. "Our goal is to rub their nose in reality, and then proceed to discuss what we do about it," an official said, referring to France. "We want to create a situation where they have to respond to the obvious facts and then explain why they don't want to act on them."

American officials said one alternative strategy would be for the United States to seek a Security Council resolution only if France agreed to abstain rather than veto. France has not vetoed a resolution favored by the United States since a 1976 dispute over the Comoros Islands, off the coast of Africa.

"We haven't given up on the United Nations process," one administration official said. "We'll just have to see what happens."

On the subject of delay, Mr. Blix seemed more deferential to the American position today than he did last week, when he made calls for a prolonged inspections process. Asked whether time was running out on Iraq, he told reporters at the United Nations that that was up to the Security Council to judge.

He added that if Iraq were truly cooperating with the inspections, there would be no reason for delay.

Another element in the administration's strategy is to make the Blix report a major element of President Bush's State of the Union message on Tuesday.

Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, notes in an op ed article in The New York Times on Thursday that many other countries besides Iraq have been asked to disarm and have readily done so.

my main problem with this is that we have not seen any proof outside of some old empty missles that they actually have weapons of mass destruction. Any thoughts?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I need a summary. The bush administration's position is that Iraq is not complying with the most recent UN resolution. In their defense a smoking gun is not a prerequisite to such a conclusion.
 

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
it won't kill you to read an article......I'm sure that most people know someone that may be affected by this war.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: minus1972
it won't kill you to read an article......I'm sure that most people know someone that may be affected by this war.
I was basing it on your final sentence at the end, because I've read a lot about this stuff and most of it is all the same. No, there is not a smoking gun. Yes, Iraq is breaching the last UN resolution, and yes finally without backing up such resolutions by force the UN might as well shove its head up its butt. Without a punishment for failing to comply to a UN resolution such resolutions hold no meaning.
 

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: minus1972
it won't kill you to read an article......I'm sure that most people know someone that may be affected by this war.
I was basing it on your final sentence at the end, because I've read a lot about this stuff and most of it is all the same. No, there is not a smoking gun. Yes, Iraq is breaching the last UN resolution, and yes finally without backing up such resolutions by force the UN might as well shove its head up its butt. Without a punishment for failing to comply to a UN resolution such resolutions hold no meaning.
I agree with what you're saying, but the thing that frustrates me most, and what is illustrated in this article is that we lack proof that they are actually breaking that resolution.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I agree with what you're saying, but the thing that frustrates me most, and what is illustrated in this article is that we lack proof that they are actually breaking that resolution.
Well it would be nice if a nuke could be found in Saddamn's closet, but hans blix surely doesn't seem impressed with Iraq at the moment. I guess we'll see what his conclusions are come Jan 27th.
... i dont care. most likely never will
That's kind of sad considering your country will be leading this coalition to put your own countrymen/women in harm's way.

 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
Originally posted by: minus1972
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: minus1972
it won't kill you to read an article......I'm sure that most people know someone that may be affected by this war.
I was basing it on your final sentence at the end, because I've read a lot about this stuff and most of it is all the same. No, there is not a smoking gun. Yes, Iraq is breaching the last UN resolution, and yes finally without backing up such resolutions by force the UN might as well shove its head up its butt. Without a punishment for failing to comply to a UN resolution such resolutions hold no meaning.
I agree with what you're saying, but the thing that frustrates me most, and what is illustrated in this article is that we lack proof that they are actually breaking that resolution.
You expected an article in the New York Times to say anything other than that we have no reason to suspect that poor little Sadammy-poo is breaking the resolutions? The Times is flamingly liberal for pete's sake.

ZV
 

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
where is there any information that the weapons inspectors have found anything of merit in Iraq?
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Originally posted by: minus1972
it won't kill you to read an article......I'm sure that most people know someone that may be affected by this war.


Or...they know people who will be affected by the lack of this war.


You "no war for oil peeps'.....you think France and Germany are hiding tail for moral reasons? I suggest you follow the money. Do yourself a little research into who stands to lose the most monetarily if we take the tyrant down.

Those two faced whiny little European hypocrites have already been instrumental in allowing Saddam to have 12 years to build himself back up which will undoubtedly up the body count on all sides. We have allowed other countries through the UN to put our security on the back burner long enough.

What they think is inconsequential at this point.





 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
There is ample proof from previous inspections that Iraq had many WMD's. Iraq has not proven that they destroyed them.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I agree with what you're saying, but the thing that frustrates me most, and what is illustrated in this article is that we lack proof that they are actually breaking that resolution.
Well it would be nice if a nuke could be found in Saddamn's closet, but hans blix surely doesn't seem impressed with Iraq at the moment. I guess we'll see what his conclusions are come Jan 27th.
... i dont care. most likely never will
That's kind of sad considering your country will be leading this coalition to put your own countrymen/women in harm's way.

It would be nice if papers such as the NY Times would acknowledge the fact that the latest UN Resolution places the responsibility on Iraq to prove that it DOES NOT have weapons of mass destruction. There are still tons of chemical warfare agents that were discovered in the last round of inspections (98) that have not been accounted for and that Saddam has been unwilling and unhelpful in finding out where they are.

Rumsfeld hit the nail on the head the other day when asked about it. I'm paraphrasing what he said but it was "Look, the stuff is not marmalade. You just can't get rid of it."
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
There is ample proof from previous inspections that Iraq had many WMD's. Iraq has not proven that they destroyed them.

That point is missed at will by the bleeting sheep. It is not up to us to prove anything. The papers signed in the tent surrounded by Humvee's in '91 said the Iraqui's would disarm and document it. The latest resolution stated again that they had to prove they disarmed.

But, that's the UN. The paper the council signed is worth as much as a Pokemon trading card. It was a big mistake to grovel at the feet of the pricks to get it. All that has happened because of it is that more time was given the op for to prepare.

 

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
Originally posted by: 308nato
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
There is ample proof from previous inspections that Iraq had many WMD's. Iraq has not proven that they destroyed them.

That point is missed at will by the bleeting sheep. It is not up to us to prove anything. The papers signed in the tent surrounded by Humvee's in '91 said the Iraqui's would disarm and document it. The latest resolution stated again that they had to prove they disarmed.

But, that's the UN. The paper the council signed is worth as much as a Pokemon trading card. It was a big mistake to grovel at the feet of the pricks to get it. All that has happened because of it is that more time was given the op for to prepare.
I think that we should have to prove that there is a reason for us to send our troops in.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,710
430
126
So the world hates us because we desire other countries to agree with and support us?

Well I guess that means we have the justification to hate the rest of the world then...because that's what every country wants.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.
 

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
someone said follow the money. I didn't find all of it, but here's some of it:

Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: jjsole
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.
Well I was just watching CNN and deputy od defense and he's saying Iraq has a bunch of chemical that were found earlier and still have yet to be accounted for.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: jjsole
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.

During the last round of inspections, UN inspectors documented weapons of mass destruction including ton of chemical warfare agents. It is Iraq's responsibility, according to the latest UN resolution, to provide proof that they have destroyed these weapons. They have not provided that proof and are uncooperative in relaying what has happened to those weapons. Bush does not have to prove anything...it is up to Iraq to prove that it does not have WMDs.
 

minus1972

Platinum Member
Oct 4, 2000
2,245
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: jjsole
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.
Well I was just watching CNN and deputy od defense and he's saying Iraq has a bunch of chemical that were found earlier and still have yet to be accounted for.
How can they prove that they don't have stuff? That part confuses me.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: minus1972
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: jjsole
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.
Well I was just watching CNN and deputy od defense and he's saying Iraq has a bunch of chemical that were found earlier and still have yet to be accounted for.
How can they prove that they don't have stuff? That part confuses me.
You can't really proove you don't have anything, but you can provide documentation on what happened to stuff that it is known you DID have (and still do if you can't provide documentation on what happened to it).
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: minus1972
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: jjsole
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.
Well I was just watching CNN and deputy od defense and he's saying Iraq has a bunch of chemical that were found earlier and still have yet to be accounted for.
How can they prove that they don't have stuff? That part confuses me.

They were supposed to document everything that they did with the WMDs found in the last round of inspections...including destruction of the WMDs. They have not done that. They have been unwilling and uncooperative to show what has happened with these items.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
22
81
Originally posted by: minus1972
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: jjsole
Funny how they are trying to villify France and Germany when Russia and China are against military action too. I'm starting to believe that people don't necessarily hate "us", but just Bush, like more and more people in this country. Bush has yet to prove there's any validity to his claim that Iraq even has any wmd's.
Well I was just watching CNN and deputy od defense and he's saying Iraq has a bunch of chemical that were found earlier and still have yet to be accounted for.
How can they prove that they don't have stuff? That part confuses me.
Note where I added the emphasis. (Also, see the post immediately above this, better explanation.)

ZV
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
There is ample proof from previous inspections that Iraq had many WMD's. Iraq has not proven that they destroyed them.

I haven't proven that I didn't rape your wife, either. Should I be arrested and forced to prove my innocence?




(not necessarily my view on the matter; just playing devil's advocate and fueling the debate)
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
There is ample proof from previous inspections that Iraq had many WMD's. Iraq has not proven that they destroyed them.

I haven't proven that I didn't rape your wife, either. Should I be arrested and forced to prove my innocence?




(not necessarily my view on the matter; just playing devil's advocate and fueling the debate)

Do you have a history of rape? Iraq has a history of possessing, developing, and using WMDs.