Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Tim Cooke
Sheriffs:
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • paul wheaton
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Himai Minh

no war

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
On the topic of human shields... If we eventually enter into armed hostilities with the Iraqis, and after this point any human shields, with US citizenship at least, continue to try and act in that capacity, I wonder if they can be tried for providing "aid and comfort to the enemy" or anything like that.
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Which would be sad. These people are trying to protect "other installations critical to the civilian population". Civilian population isn't "the enemy".
But I am not sure how much help these people are practically. I do not think anybody would purposely bomb hospitals, water treatment plants etc. And if these objects will be destroyed by mistake, then why to voluntarily increase casualties?
[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 167
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
On the topic of the United Nations resolution, i submit that the current Administration is just engaged in a Cynical game of perpetually raising the bar for compliance, they asked iraq to open up its palaces it did, they asked to interview scientists in private, iraq finally agreed, they asked for U2 reconnnaissance flights they got it-- it seems they are perpetually clutching at straws and looking for something, anything to pin on iraq.Also they are paying off Turkey for the use of its bases, every country needing some bucks is now lining up for a handout.
It seems that the administration wants to get a war in the worst possible way and they probably will. It is my hope that the other UN council members are able to at least take a pricipled stand and not give an unjust war the patina of legitimacy
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1865
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I think that everyone participating in this thread has the same goal--long term peace in the Middle East. I think that we can all agree that a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the key to long term peace. Once peace is achieved, the biggest winners will be the Palestinians and the United States. The Palestinians will have an opportunity to rebuild their lives within a sovereign homeland on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. The United States will have an opportunity to rebuild its relationships with Middle Eastern nations and the Islamic world in general.
Who will be the losers when negotiated peace is achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Won't it be everyone that is currently using the conflict to his or her advantage? It has often been said that great leaders are made by great enemies. Churchill and Roosevelt had Germany, Italy and Japan. Stalin had Hitler. Lincoln had the Confederate States of America and every religious leader has the devil and sin. Every militant political leader in the Middle East and every militant Islamic leader today uses Israel as the poster boy for recruiting and for the collection of donations. Saddam and other leaders have dreamed of uniting the Arab and Islamic worlds behind themselves and "death to Israel" is always the rallying cry.
Most Americans can't even find Israel on a map and most Americans are not particularly religious. One could argue that the American government supports Israel due to the enormous political pressure of the Jewish organizations in America and there may be some truth to that. Even so, the primary reason why the United States supports Israel is because withdrawal of American support will not produce a negotiated peace. Instead, it is more likely to precipitate a war that won't end until one side or the other is annihilated. Who wins then?
In reality, the same militant leaders that swear to fight until Israel is driven into the sea probably would not fight any such war. Instead, they would continue to use Israel as they have been doing for decades. Israel would just continue to be a poster boy for support for militant leaders and the source of conflict between the United States and many other nations.
I think the Bush/Powell strategy for the Middle East is exactly what they have stated. They want a negotiated solution that results in two sovereign states. To achieve that goal, they would like to move both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership closer to the moderate area of the political spectrum. They believe that choking off the financial support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas can moderate the Palestinians. On the Israeli side they believe that the people will elect moderate leadership once the terrorist threat is reduced.
Saddam is a key supported of Hamas so Saddam is currently at the top of the list.
Will the above strategy work? Who knows?
Given the cost of changing the leadership in Iraq, it is difficult to imagine working much further down the list of state sponsors of terrorism. I think that it can only work with multilateral support but it doesn't look like we will be getting much of that--at least not at a reasonable price.
[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Dans contribution reminds me on the fact that the issue is middle east.
Why is funny "US war mongers" vs. "European peace dreamers" vs. "Indian anti-imperialists" discussion the issue here and in the media?
See this mostly as an highly exagerated bogus debate.
Living in darling-country of peace protester... Well there are a lot of different positions in Germany. The position of the government is only one. Even this government is shifting the caped military budget towards out of area missions, cutting back expenses for defense and personal.
Issue should be people in middle east. If terrorism problem can be solved, it can be only solved there. Given the high population growth and the sluggish economic conditions there, this will be a long term problem.
[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

You missed the point. He was sermonizing and pointing out how those of us who don't share his opinion couldn't possibly comprehend "the devastation, the misery it's going to cause". I am merely pointing out that since he is too young to have lived through WW2, and since he was a draft dodger he most likely hasn't seen any other wars, that I doubt he is in any better position than anyone else here to state what some of us may or may not "realize".


Even more: I helped quite a bunch of other pacifists (you call them 'draft dodgers') getting through the legal procedures etc. in order to stay out the army. And I'm proud of it.
About your doubts: go ask my old parents, they'll tell you what happend to their (two separate families in those days!) during WW2. I don't have a big family just because of that war.
I keep on 'sermonizing' everone who still thinks that war is a solution to anything at all. And a lot of you USA folks still haven't understood ...
kind regards
 
Dan Chisholm
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1865
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Colin Powell learned in Viet Nam that war does not produce political solutions. As a result, he has always fought to keep the United States out of war and he has always referred to himself as a "reluctant warrior". I'm sure that he and Bush have no intention of fighting a WW II style battle.
It has been reported that the war started many weeks ago, yet we are still talking as though it is an event that will occur in the future. War is a broad term that can mean a lot of things. In this case, the war is designed to be more of a cooperative coup de tat. Of course, the term "liberation" tends to be used.
Take a look at the war in Afghanistan. Many of the battles were won by CIA agents by sitting down at a bargaining table with local warlords. The battles were often won with a briefcase of cash.
Unlike Afghanistan, it won't take a lot of cash to win the support of the minority groups in the north and south. As mentioned above, it has been reported that the CIA is already inside Iraq working on that aspect of the war.
It is ironic that a great deal of the war planning has focused on how to defend the Iraqi people and the Iraqi infrastructure from Saddam. Remember that history has shown that defeating Saddam in battle will not win the reelection of an American president. In order to win reelection, Bush must also win the peace and do so very quickly. Otherwise, he will join his father in retirement.
Please understand that I am not advocating war. As Kuwait has already pointed out, "The train is already on the tracks." Now we all need to hope for results that contribute to long term peace in the region.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Just as an interlude: George W. Bush, the visionary:
http://users.skynet.be/rebelrousers/bush.jpg
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:
Please understand that I am not advocating war. As Kuwait has already pointed out, "The train is already on the tracks." Now we all need to hope for results that contribute to long term peace in the region.


But it's not just Kuwait pointing this out; it's the USA themselves that are *forcing* this status quo; they've instigated this by keeping on transporting troops and weapons etc. etc. while not waiting for the conclusions drawn by the UN. They (the USA) simply go their own way ... I find that disgusting.
kind regards
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
they've instigated this by keeping on transporting troops and weapons etc. etc.


And this is where so many people have it wrong, as Axel pointed out, Saddam Hussein is the person who "instigated this".
Secondly, a simple question: Do you or do you not realize that the only reason this current round of inspections has produced any results, is because of the massing of troops around Iraq?

They (the USA) simply go their own way


Another simple question: Do you believe that the United States (or any country for that matter) should have to seek permission from others, including hostile governments and governments with competing and opposed interests, in order to defend national security interests, as long as it acts within international law?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by shay Aluko:
On the topic of the United Nations resolution, i submit that the current Administration is just engaged in a Cynical game of perpetually raising the bar for compliance


I submit that it is actually others who insist on lowering the bar for compliance. What constitutes compliance has laready been set forth in various resolutions. It is simply other nations which are seeking to allow Iraq to get away without fully complying. On the other hand, the US is insisting on full unconditional compliance.
The overflights have been conditional, and the "interviews" with scientists have been a sham. Further, granting a small handful of interviews at the 23rd hour, interviews that were manufactured by the Iraqis to produce no info at that, is not "complying". It's merely wishful thinking.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Another simple question: Do you believe that the United States (or any country for that matter) should have to seek permission from others, including hostile governments and governments with competing and opposed interests, in order to defend national security interests, as long as it acts within international law?


A simple counter question: in what way does Iraq infringe national security interests as far as the USA are concerned? And don't give me that 9/11 mantra again.
kindest regards
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
ps. If you say O-I-L, I'll accept your answer to my counter question.
my kindest regards
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
So I guess that means you have no intention of answering these questions, Jors?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
So I guess that means you have no intention of answering these questions, Jors?


No, by no means. Here goes:
you wrote: Another simple question: Do you believe that the United States (or any country for that matter) should have to seek permission from others
My short answer is 'yes they should'. Now, what's your anser to my question then?
my kindest regards
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
You forgot the first part:
Do you or do you not realize that the only reason this current round of inspections has produced any results, is because of the massing of troops around Iraq?
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
You forgot the first part:Do you or do you not realize that the only reason this current round of inspections has produced any results, is because of the massing of troops around Iraq?


I didn't forget that part at all. I do realize that the USA is pushing matters beyond limits. I sure realize that. Now, would you be so kind answering my previous question?
My kindest regards with sugar on top
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
JM: Do you or do you not realize that the only reason this current round of inspections has produced any results, is because of the massing of troops around Iraq?
JH: I do realize that the USA is pushing matters beyond limits. I sure realize that.

Of course this isn't directly answering the question posed, but I think I can safely infer from this that what you really meant was yes, that you realize that the only reason this current round of inspections has produced any results, is because of the massing of troops around Iraq.
JM: Do you believe that the United States (or any country for that matter) should have to seek permission from others, including hostile governments and governments with competing and opposed interests, in order to defend national security interests, as long as it acts within international law?
JH: My short answer is 'yes they should'.

Maybe if you had expanded on it, this answer wouldn't seem as ridiculous as it does. :roll: I would think populations and governments that might follow this line of thinking would spend a good portion of their history occupied by a foreign power.
[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
JH: A simple counter question: in what way does Iraq infringe national security interests as far as the USA are concerned?
It is because of a mix of factors that Iraq is a national security threat to the US. While any single one of these factors may or may not be enough to cause a threat, it is the combination of factors that makes them so dangerous.
  • Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
  • The current Iraqi regime has shown an active effort to continue to acquire additional WMDs and means of delivery for WMDs.
  • Despite numerous UN resolutions and UN sanctions, and despite agreements which they have made, there is no evidence that Iraq has any plans of ever disarming, living up to these agreements, and complying with the will of the UN.
  • The current Iraqi regime has shown the willingness to use WMDs both against civillians and militray targets.
  • The current Iraqi regime maintains contacts with international terrorist organizations
  • The current Iraqi regime is not only a perpetrator of international terrorism, including acts against the US and her interests, but also materially supports other international terrorist organizations who are hostile towards the US and who have committed acts of terrorism against the US and her interests.
  • The current Iraqi regime is hostile towards the US.


  • As I said before, while a single element may or may not be sufficient to warrant a concern to national security, the combination of these elements is very dangerous.
    [ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
     
    slicker
    Posts: 1108
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    On the topic of human shields...
    I hope these folks don't unwittingly become trojan horses for the Iraqis, by getting infected with Small Pox while they're over in Iraq...
    Boy, what a cruel irony, that would be!!!
     
    Anonymous
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 18944
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Jason Menard:
    JH: A simple counter question: in what way does Iraq infringe national security interests as far as the USA are concerned?
    It is because of a mix of factors that Iraq is a national security threat to the US. While any single one of these factors may or may not be enough to cause a threat, it is the combination of factors that makes them so dangerous.

  • Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
  • The current Iraqi regime has shown an active effort to continue to acquire additional WMDs and means of delivery for WMDs.
  • Despite numerous UN resolutions and UN sanctions, and despite agreements which they have made, there is no evidence that Iraq has any plans of ever disarming, living up to these agreements, and complying with the will of the UN.
  • The current Iraqi regime has shown the willingness to use WMDs both against civillians and militray targets.
  • The current Iraqi regime maintains contacts with international terrorist organizations
  • The current Iraqi regime is not only a perpetrator of international terrorism, including acts against the US and her interests, but also materially supports other international terrorist organizations who are hostile towards the US and who have committed acts of terrorism against the US and her interests.
  • The current Iraqi regime is hostile towards the US.


  • As I said before, while a single element may or may not be sufficient to warrant a concern to national security, the combination of these elements is very dangerous.


    How funny; the first four reasons apply equally well to the USA too! And if I substitute some other middle east countries' names for Iraq/USA/terrorists (which I won't do, because I don't want this thread closed), your reasoning contradicts itself severely.
    kind regards
     
    High Plains Drifter
    Posts: 7289
    Netbeans IDE VI Editor
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    I am not aware of any UN sanctions against the US for weapons buildup, nor accusations of willingly targeting civilians in a military strike. Can you back those assertions up?
    [ February 24, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
    How funny; the first four reasons apply equally well to the USA too! And if I substitute some other middle east countries' names for Iraq/USA/terrorists (which I won't do, because I don't want this thread closed), your reasoning contradicts itself severely.


    Would it be possible, just once maybe, to back up these unfounded statements with some kind of supporting evidence? Instead of just throwing out that my "reasoning contradicts itself severely", try backing it up.
    So the first four statements apply to the US? Some of them apply to many countries, which is why I specifically mentioned that it was the combination of factors that was important, perhaps you missed that part. But let's look at the first four statements.
    Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.
    Well, this applies to many countries, so yes, the US would be one of them.
    The current Iraqi regime has shown an active effort to continue to acquire additional WMDs and means of delivery for WMDs.
    Please enlighten us how the current US regime (that would be Bush btw) has shown an active effor to continue to acquire additional WMDs and means of delivery for WMDs.
    Despite numerous UN resolutions and UN sanctions, and despite agreements which they have made, there is no evidence that Iraq has any plans of ever disarming, living up to these agreements, and complying with the will of the UN.

    Please tell us which UN resolutions demand US disarmament. Please tell us which countries have levied sanctions against the US until we disarm. Please provide us with info concerning any disarmament agreements the US has made that it is ignoring.
    The current Iraqi regime has shown the willingness to use WMDs both against civillians and militray targets.
    Please provide information supporting your claim that the current US administration has shown the willingness to use WMDs both against civillians and military targets.
    You asked why Iraq was considered by the US as a threat to its national security, and I answered you. You don't have to like the reasons, but they are what they are.
    [ February 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
     
    shay Aluko
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 167
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Jason Menard:

    I submit that it is actually others who insist on lowering the bar for compliance. What constitutes compliance has laready been set forth in various resolutions. It is simply other nations which are seeking to allow Iraq to get away without fully complying. On the other hand, the US is insisting on full unconditional compliance.
    The overflights have been conditional, and the "interviews" with scientists have been a sham. Further, granting a small handful of interviews at the 23rd hour, interviews that were manufactured by the Iraqis to produce no info at that, is not "complying". It's merely wishful thinking.


    Get your facts straight, the overfights have been conditional may I ask what the conditions were -- if you take the time to check that out the condition is that if there is a planned overflight there should be some advance notice given so that the U2 planes do not get fired on because of the hostilities in the no-fly zones, "the interviews were a sham" says who? you?, i submit that you are not competent enough to evaluate the validity of the interviews or otherwise,let the UN inspectors do that, that is their job and that is what they are traind to do. (no offence meant mind you).
     
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 156
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    How much credibility would you give a guy who says
    "I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair."
    Some points from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html
    - Defense Intelligence Agency's classified report asserted it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
    - The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent � that is, a cyanide-based gas � which Iran was known to use. Not Iraq
    - Not just oil, but it's water too? Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja.
    - In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, to Israel
     
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 183
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    I frankly do not understand this waste of disk space and bandwidth by some fellow JavaRancher in the effort to defend Mr. Saddam Hussain.
    He is no hero and no saint.
    He was the direct cause of the death of million of Iranians.


    You shall reap what you sow.


    Remember Marlowe's Doctor Faustus...
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
    How much credibility would you give a guy who says...


    People who seem to be in a position to judge such things have questionned those findings:
    http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0302/0315.html
    http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00036.html
    http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/iraq/
    http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00024.html
     
    Melvin Menezes
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 156
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    I frankly do not understand this waste of disk space and bandwidth by some fellow JavaRancher in the effort to defend Mr. Saddam Hussain.
    Questioning the facts provided as a basis for a war is different from defending Hussain, if you understand that :roll:
    btw, I m not defending Hussain. I m not dead against the war as some are.
    He is no hero and no saint.
    Nobody claims that either.
    He was the direct cause of the death of million of Iranians.
    Ever heard of Iranian �human-wave� attacks by suicidal Iranian troops?
    Imagine what would Blair do if 100 Al-Queda suicide fighters entered into UK and started killing everyone. Now replace Blair with Saddam and 100 al-queda with a million Iranians entering into Iraqi territory in the above sentence.
    and i repeat, I m not against the war as some are.
     
    Michael Ernest
    High Plains Drifter
    Posts: 7289
    Netbeans IDE VI Editor
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by shay Aluko:
    Get your facts straight...if you take the time to check that out..."the interviews were a sham" says who? you?, i submit that you are not competent enough to evaluate the validity of the interviews...


    You're trying to pick a fight, Shay. Perhaps if you resort to less goading, others will follow.
    This is Meaningless Drivel. People are free to offer their evaluations as they see fit. They are also free to annoy others with them -- not my favorite thing, but it's permissible. It should, to the degree possible, remain a spirited but friendly place, meaning people can say what they want -- within the confines of a spirited but friendly place to hang out.
    In sum, to me it doesn't look like you're dancing on the line of tolerable conduct; if you're stepping over it to see what will happen next, I'll explain it to you in a private message.
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by shay Aluko:
    Get your facts straight, the overfights have been conditional may I ask what the conditions were


    The conditions are when and where the flights will occur, aircraft callsigns, and speed of the aircraft. Additionally they want all this information 48 hours in advance, and as Ari Fleischer was quoted, "making them predictable and diminishing their value".

    if you take the time to check that out the condition is that if there is a planned overflight there should be some advance notice given so that the U2 planes do not get fired on because of the hostilities in the no-fly zones


    The Iraqis are very much aware what the flight profile for a U-2 is, including typical airspeed and altitude flown. This profile is quite a bit different from coalition combat aircraft. Additionally U-2s fly by themselves, whereas coalition fighters fly in flights of at least two aircraft (and as mentioned with a far different profile). Transports (including tankers and spec ops aircraft) do not attain the altitude of the U-2. Bombers, which as far as I know are not based in the immediate are since they are long range, are much larger and would also not be mistaken for a U-2.
    Doubtless the Iraqis have normal air traffic control radar (this is far different from fire control radar which the coalition destroys in the no-fly zones when they lock on to friendly aircraft) and monitor their sirspace, so they have aircraft under radar surveillance before they break Iraqi airspace. As such they know where the aircraft have come from, at least to the limits of their radar range. What this all means is that not long after the blip turns up on radar, the Iraqi air controllers know they are looking at a U-2. So as this is the case, the conditions they have levied are not required.

    "the interviews were a sham" says who? you?, i submit that you are not competent enough to evaluate the validity of the interviews or otherwise,let the UN inspectors do that, that is their job and that is what they are traind to do. (no offence meant mind you).


    I'm assuming you mean aside from the US an d UK governments, who have repeatedly stated that Iraq is not cooperating concerning the interviews with Iraqi scientists. Hans Blix has indicated that although they have received some useful information via interviews, their usefulness has been limited under current conditions:

    The Iraqis certainly misused this. The minders would interrupt. They'd say, No, you're wrong; you remember wrongly there. That's why we say it should be private interviews. But it's very hard to get to that under conditions that give full credibility.


    Additionally, the inspectors requested a list of Iraqi scientists who they believe are involved with WMDs. Iraq provided a list of 500 names, instead of a list of the 2500 - 3000 names the inspectors asked for. Although the UN asked for unconditional private interviews, they have only been granted a total of three private interviews since November. The only people who pretend that Iraq is cooperating with interviews is Iraq.
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
    [qb]Now replace Blair with Saddam and 100 al-queda with a million Iranians entering into Iraqi territory in the above sentence.


    As stated in the links I provided earlier, Halabja was Iranian-friendly.
    [ February 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
     
    Melvin Menezes
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 156
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    Jason, that statement of mine was in response to Omar's point.
    Omar: He(saddam) was the direct cause of the death of million of Iranians
    My reply: Ever heard of Iranian �human-wave� attacks by suicidal Iranian troops?
    Imagine ... Now replace Blair with Saddam ...


    JM: As stated in the links I provided earlier, Halabja was Iranian-friendly.
    What has "Halabja was Iranian-friendly" got to do with Iraq defending against the human-wave attacks?
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
    What has "Halabja was Iranian-friendly" got to do with Iraq defending against the human-wave attacks?


    I misread it and was mixing up Iranians and Iraqis.
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    The UK has submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. Chances are it will either be watered-down in committee, not get approved, or will be vetoed altogether. What's interesting (to me at least), is how a justification for it not being approved could be made, since the resolution primarily seems merely to re-state facts which don't seem to be in question. If it does get approved, it will be interesting to see what its final form is, and how much it differs from the draft.

    "The Security Council:
    Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president,
    "Recalling that in its Resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
    "Recalling that its Resolution 1441 (2002), while acknowledging that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,
    "Recalling that in its Resolution 1441 (2002) the Council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution would constitute a further material breach,
    "Noting, in that context, that in its Resolution 1441 (2002), the Council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,
    "Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its Resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution,
    "Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states,
    "Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
    "Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
    "Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
    "Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
    "Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441 (2002),
    "Decides to remain seized of the matter."

     
    shay Aluko
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 167
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Jason Menard:
    The UK has submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. Chances are it will either be watered-down in committee, not get approved, or will be vetoed altogether. What's interesting (to me at least), is how a justification for it not being approved could be made, since the resolution primarily seems merely to re-state facts which don't seem to be in question. If it does get approved, it will be interesting to see what its final form is, and how much it differs from the draft.


    That is my fervent hope. that the resolution is vetoed. I hope some countries in the UN security council are willing to stand up for their principles and not be bribed and compromised like Turkey.
     
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 5397
    1
    Spring Java
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator
    I am happy that *India* has clearly said "NO Support to US for war".
    Thanks God, India is not in the list of countries who are out for SALE.
     
    Melvin Menezes
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 156
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
    Thanks God, India is not in the list of countries who are out for SALE.


    While India may not be for sale like Turkey or other countries, there is certianly something for sale in Iraq for India as Shura already pointed that out in one of the previous posts. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/0923wealth.htm
     
    R K Singh
    Ranch Hand
    Posts: 5397
    1
    Spring Java
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
    there is certianly something for sale in Iraq for India as Shura already pointed that out in one of the previous posts.


    Do you want to say its all abt oil
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by shay Aluko:
    That is my fervent hope. that the resolution is vetoed. I hope some countries in the UN security council are willing to stand up for their principles and not be bribed and compromised like Turkey.


    A veto would most likely mean the end of the Security Council. Is that what you are hoping for?
    As far as countries standing up for their principles, which countries do you think those are?
     
    Jason Menard
    Sheriff
    Posts: 6450
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Report post to moderator

    Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
    Thanks God, India is not in the list of countries who are out for SALE.


    No, but you might check the list of "countries who want to keep a murderous dictator in power".
     
    I child proofed my house but they still get in. Distract them with this tiny ad:
    Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat
      Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
    • New Topic