Win a copy of Beginning Java 17 Fundamentals: Object-Oriented Programming in Java 17 this week in the Java in General forum!
    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:
  • Tim Cooke
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Ron McLeod
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Rob Spoor
  • Paul Clapham
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Holloway
  • Tim Moores
  • Jesse Silverman
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Al Hobbs
  • Piet Souris
  • Frits Walraven

no war

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 126
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

While personal attacks may be all you can muster, let's avoid them please. But on the off chance you have something of substance you feel is worth adding to the conversation, please blind us with your acumen. :roll:


Truly I didn't mean to offend you Jason. What I want to say to you is -- Please don't 100% trust the goverment, otherwise you may be fooled and disappointed.
 
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 Thomas Paul:
"Health effects"? What "health effects"?
As to other casualties, yes the US invited rebellion and then did nothing to help the rebels. Shame on us. We will do better this time.


:A_sad_smile:
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Let's hope that Russia and China and Germany and France and some other European countries can withstand those red neck idots and let's hope those US idiots realize they're acting like the aggressive fools they are ...
 
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
"no war",
your contribution to this discussion would be much more appreciated, if you could restrain from offensive language and bring up facts instead.
From Blix's report today:
1. American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures, and we would expect soon to be able to add night-vision capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation. We also expect to add low-level, close-area surveillance through drones provided by Germany.
We are grateful not only to the countries which place these valuable tools at our disposal but also the states, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the stationing of aircraft on their territory.
2. As I noted on the 14th of February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist.
Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.
3. There have been reports, denied from the Iraqi side, that proscribed activities are conducted underground. Iraq should provide information on any underground structure suitable for the production or storage of weapons of mass destruction.
During inspections of declared or undeclared facilities, inspection teams have examined building structures for any possible underground facilities. In addition, ground-penetrating radar equipment was used in several specific locations. No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far.
4.How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 284
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Abadula Joshi:

Truly I didn't mean to offend you Jason. What I want to say to you is -- Please don't 100% trust the goverment, otherwise you may be fooled and disappointed.


I would like to second that rather wise advice. if one's conversation is filled with unwavering belief in one's own government, it is extremely hard for any acumen to be apparent and unlikely for any previously unthought-of views to be shown.
 
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 Mapraputa Is:
From Blix's report today:


It seems that Blix left out a few items in his recent presentation to the security council.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/31787.htm
I would think this would cast serious doubts on Blix's ability/willingness to perform the job he was sent to do in an unbiased and efficient manner.
Of course there has been evidence for some time now that he may not be the right man for the job, but that's probably why he's there.
A hen to guard a fox is worth a read.

Their leader is Dr David Kay, who began inspecting suspect buildings without pre-notifying the Iraqis, and uncovered proof that Mr Saddam was just 12 to 18 months away from his first nuclear bomb.
The hardnosed arms inspector had refused to listen to Dr Hans Blix, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997, who had certified Iraq nuclear-free right through the 1980s, giving it an 'exemplary' grade for good behaviour three times.
The IAEA was responsible for the nuclear part of the UN arms inspections and Dr Blix had reproached Dr Kay for mistrusting the Iraqis - and his findings.
Dr Blix opposed Dr Kay's raids vehemently but Dr Kay persevered, got the UN inspectors into that stand-off and, as is now common knowledge, exposed to the world Mr Saddam's nefarious intentions - conducted right under the nose of the IAEA.


By the way, Dr Blix also incorrectly certified North Korea nuclear safe throughout the 1980s.


[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
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:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
From Blix's report today:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Blix left out a few items in his recent presentation to the security council.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/31787.htm
I would think this would cast serious doubts on Blix's ability/willingness to perform the job he was sent to do in an unbiased and efficient manner.
Of course there has been evidence for some time now that he may not be the right man for the job, but that's probably why he's there.
A hen to guard a fox is worth a read.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their leader is Dr David Kay, who began inspecting suspect buildings without pre-notifying the Iraqis, and uncovered proof that Mr Saddam was just 12 to 18 months away from his first nuclear bomb.
The hardnosed arms inspector had refused to listen to Dr Hans Blix, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from 1981 to 1997, who had certified Iraq nuclear-free right through the 1980s, giving it an 'exemplary' grade for good behaviour three times.
The IAEA was responsible for the nuclear part of the UN arms inspections and Dr Blix had reproached Dr Kay for mistrusting the Iraqis - and his findings.
Dr Blix opposed Dr Kay's raids vehemently but Dr Kay persevered, got the UN inspectors into that stand-off and, as is now common knowledge, exposed to the world Mr Saddam's nefarious intentions - conducted right under the nose of the IAEA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, Dr Blix also incorrectly certified North Korea nuclear safe throughout the 1980s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


Typical right-wing blabber, Blix doesn't tell you what you want to hear so you try to discredit him. Its not suprising anyway. By the way, what about the apparent forgeries that were presented as evidence of iraq's weapons program and subsequently discredited by elbaradei's report?.
Any comments about that?
 
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:
Typical right-wing blabber, Blix doesn't tell you what you want to hear so you try to discredit him.


If you have issue with any of the facts I would be interested in hearing about it. I saw an interview with a Swedish diplomat who has known Blix closely for forty years or so who also questioned Blix's handling of things, and specifically made a juxtaposition between Blix and Kay. He also mentioned Blix's disgust at the breach in protocol used by an Iraqi dissident who jumped into his vehicle in Baghdad to try to presumably give them some information. Blix thought the dissident could have used a more appropriate way to approach them. Of course the dissident was hauled off by Iraqi security and never seen again. Sorry I couldn't find a link to a transcript of that interview, but I think it was on either Fox or MSNBC. I personally didn't get the impression that this other Swedish diplomat was a part of some right-wing conspiracy.

By the way, what about the apparent forgeries that were presented as evidence of iraq's weapons program and subsequently discredited by elbaradei's report?.
Any comments about that?


What documents? Presented as evidence by whom? If there's a point you want to make, your going to have to help us out.
[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Mapraputa Is
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
Blix "problem":
"The decision by Dr Blix to declassify the internal report marks the first time the UN has made public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programmes, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html
-- so if I understood right, it was Blix who decided "open" internal UN reports, and otherwise nobody would know about it? And he did not mention these facts in his report because these were "suspicions" rather than "what it has been able to actually confirm"?
What documents? Presented as evidence by whom? If there's a point you want to make, your going to have to help us out.
"UNITED NATIONS, March 8 — The forgery in a document that purported to show Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger was discovered by forensic experts, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said today
In an interview today, he said that any number of groups would have had an interest in planting the document, which he said came to him from several sources. It was quoted in a report from British intelligence services last year as Britain and the United States sought to build their case for disarming Iraq.
Asked whose interest the forgery served, he said: "I'm sure there's a lot of people who would be delighted to malign Iraq."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/international/middleeast/09INSP.html
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1865
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"no war",
your contribution to this discussion would be much more appreciated, if you could restrain from offensive language and bring up facts instead.


I second that suggestion.
Just a little thought should be sufficient to produce good arguments on both sides of this issue but the earlier comments by "no war" demonstrated nothing beyond emotion. What is accomplished by posting something like that? Thoughtful arguments are welcome but a demonstation of no thought is just a waste of disk space.
 
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 if I understood right, it was Blix who decided "open" internal UN reports, and otherwise nobody would know about it?
I suspect that the reports have always been available to security council members whose authority Blix operates under, but they have been declassified and released to the press as well this time.
And he did not mention these facts in his report because these were "suspicions" rather than "what it has been able to actually confirm"?
With reference to some of the information this is true. The discovery of the drone was a concrete fact that should have been reported. I would also argue that it was Blix's job to report his "suspicions" to his bosses (the UN Security Council) and let them determine if it is significant. Based on my reading of that article "unverified intelligence information" sounds like a better term than "suspicions", but that's just me.
"UNITED NATIONS, March 8 — The forgery in a document that purported to show Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger was discovered by forensic experts, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said today...
Oh come on Map. You don't have to spoon feed the guy. Make him work for it. I'm trying to see if we can get some kind of argument of the facts here. Help a brother out.
Assuming the IAEA's analysis on this is correct and the documents are indeed forged, it would seem to me that finding that one out of numerous items quoted by intelligence agencies is of questionable value would seem to be of negligible signigicance. It's not like their entire case was built off of those documents. As we have no idea of who forged the documents and for what purposes, it doesn't seem like there is much to comment on. There are plenty of other pieces of information related to Iraq's nuclear program, including the information found by former inspector David Kay which I previously have mentioned. So until more information is available, I don't think that there is really all that much to say about it other than it's interesting.
[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Mapraputa Is
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
I would think this would cast serious doubts on Blix's ability/willingness to perform the job he was sent to do in an unbiased and efficient manner.
Efficient: I suppose anybody's abilities to do any job can be questioned in this manner. How many "mistakes" did Blix make compared to "average UN inspector"? "Unbiased" - do you think Blix sympathizes with Saddam Husein? Do you think he has reasons to help Saddam to hide his WMD? What are these reasons?
Of course there has been evidence for some time now that he may not be the right man for the job, but that's probably why he's there.
Ah, conspiracy... Who are culprits?
So let's see, Blix is not the right man for the job. UN as a whole is not good enough either, lots of countries aren't quite up the task, Pope mumbles something nobody cares what... Never mind.
About Russia, according to "New York Times",
"Mr. Putin's popularity appears bulletproof. But nearly 9 in 10 Russians oppose war in Iraq, according to recent polls, and nearly 1 in 10 Russians is a Muslim."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/europe/07RUSS.html
-- so I suppose Putin does just what G.Bush does - executes the politics supported by vast majority of the population. Can we now close the question about Putin's support for politics approved by American population?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Efficient: I suppose anybody's abilities to do any job can be questioned in this manner. How many "mistakes" did Blix make compared to "average UN inspector"?
I'm not talking about any mistakes. I'm guess I'm intimating that failure to exert the full extent of his mandate in order to achieve timely results is a lack of efficiency. This was hinted at in some of the previous links regarding this topic. Trying to please the Iraqi regime would not seem to help his efficiency (I'm again refering to that article).
"Unbiased" - do you think Blix sympathizes with Saddam Husein? Do you think he has reasons to help Saddam to hide his WMD? What are these reasons?
In a way yes. He does not want military action against Iraq and does not want to personally be seen as giving any cause for military action against Iraq.
Ah, conspiracy... Who are culprits?
Well, he was a compromise over the first person the French wanted to obstruct, I mean conduct, inspections. It should be noted that the US was still not happy when Blix was appointed to the opsition.
So let's see, Blix is not the right man for the job. UN as a whole is not good enough either, lots of countries aren't quite up the task, Pope mumbles something nobody cares what...
I see we're finally beginning to get on the same page here.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Let's not forget that the "UN Problem" is because France and Russia have the veto. In a Security Council vote the US would probably win if it wasn't for the veto.
 
Mapraputa Is
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
Can we have a mental experiment? Imagine that the USSR decided to invade some ME country, change its, as the USA would promptly point out, chosen on democratic elections leader, the USA is strongly opposed, most of other countries too, there are demonstrations of protest all around the world, UN isn't particularly happy, the only country that supports the USSR is Cuba. No, better North Korea. Well, maybe China. "Religious leaders of nearly every denomination and faith have condemned the Soviet attack on X. Only the Southern Baptist Convention and some evangelical and Pentecostal leaders have rallied behind the USSR. Jewish leaders are deeply split" Oops, wrong quote.
Anyway, the USSR is going to invade this country X. Question: what would the US press say?
[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
After USSR invasion the chances were close to 100% that there wouldn't be free elections for many, many years.
US interventions are different in that respect. For example actually there are free elections in nearly every country of latinamerica which is heavily under US influence.
... and the western press would never had accepted Saddam as "democratic elected president".
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
Hi all, I thought this could interest somebody.
It begins like this :" We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq. ..."
This letter was published by The Guardian on 7th March (UK).
Another letter is going around, signed by almost 300 specialist of International law, in Spain.
So what is this G.W.Bush telling when he says we have the right to declare war?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Can we have a mental experiment? Imagine that the USSR decided to invade some ME country...

Let's even make up a name for this country. How about Chechnya, that sounds fictional enough. My guess is that the US Press would squeeze it in right after the story of the clown parade in Duluth.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Hi all, I thought this could interest somebody.
It begins like this :" We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available,



I guess they didn't read the Blix report. And I guess 2,000,000 dead Arabs don't interest them.
 
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

We are teachers of international law [and we believe]...


Isn't it true that opposing lawyers appear in courtrooms around the world everyday and argue opposing viewpoints of the same case? Are both lawyers always correct just because they are lawyers?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

Isn't it true that opposing lawyers appear in courtrooms around the world everyday and argue opposing viewpoints of the same case? Are both lawyers always correct just because they are lawyers?


And I would bet that most lawyers of international law deal with commerce cases. I doubt that makes them experts in this circumstance.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
MAP: Can we have a mental experiment? Imagine that the USSR decided to invade some ME country, ...
Map, i tried it here, but got no replies

Let's even make up a name for this country. How about Chechnya, that sounds fictional enough...
Yes, very fictious. Because we are talking about middle east. Chechnya is part of russia, like kashmir is part of india and pakistan and like taiwan is part of china, and ... Sorry can't go for a regime change there
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:

Chechnya is part of russia


I disagree. Chechnya was occupied by Russia in 19th century. The mayority of chechnyans are no russians and don't feel as such.
Same for Kazastan and other countries which became independent in 1990s. Problem there is that new government made a nationalistic politic which discriminated against russians who found their home there during 150 or more years of russian government.
 
Mapraputa Is
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

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
MAP: Can we have a mental experiment? Imagine that the USSR decided to invade some ME country, ...
Map, i tried it here, but got no replies



Melvin Menezes:
"What would Bush's and Blair's reaction be, if Germany, France, Russia, ... proposed a resolution at the UN demanding a regime change in Saudi Arabia so that people can choose their leaders democratically, and if the King does not step down then there should be economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia?
Add to the above points that if Saudi Arabia were a capitalistic democracy already, then all the money for the oil would have been distributed to the people appropriately (because the oil belongs to the people of SA, not the King himself, similar to the case of Saddam and iraq). And in that case, those linked with the Royal Family probably wouldn't have enough money and power to (unbeknownst to the Royal Family?) sponsor 9/11."
What piss me off in the whole business with "Iraq liberation" are ubiquitous double standards - everywhere.
Let's even make up a name for this country. How about Chechnya, that sounds fictional enough...

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Yes, very fictious. Because we are talking about middle east. Chechnya is part of russia, like kashmir is part of india and pakistan and like taiwan is part of china, and ... Sorry can't go for a regime change there


And I was talking about the USSR, not Russia. Russia isn't a communist country any more == any atrocities are allowed, the USA doesn't care. An honest experiment would be: the USSR bombed the capital of one of its own republics to ruines, Soviet trups kill whoever they are pleased to kill... "The US Press would squeeze it in right after the story of the clown parade in Duluth" - Tom, you do not believe it yourself.
 
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

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

What piss me off in the whole business with "Iraq liberation" are ubiquitous double standards - everywhere.


Based on the recent comments by Bush, it appears that Iraq is only the first to be involved in a long process of democratization of the Middle East.
Suppose that the democratization of Iraq is successful. How would the people of Saudi Arabia respond? Would they be emboldened to make demands for similar change? If the entire world were united in support for a move to democratize Saudi Arabia, then isn't it probable that the Saudi monarchy would respond by instituting democratic processes first at the local level while working up towards the national levels? Isn't there currently talk of starting that process in Saudi Arabia?
Democratization can be achieved in the Middle East and the UN could play a role in that process. Unfortunately, not every Security Council member feels that democratization is desirable.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
And I was talking about the USSR, not Russia. Russia isn't a communist country any more == any atrocities are allowed, the USA doesn't care. An honest experiment would be: the USSR bombed the capital of one of its own republics to ruines, Soviet trups kill whoever they are pleased to kill... "The US Press would squeeze it in right after the story of the clown parade in Duluth" - Tom, you do not believe it yourself.


Absolutely, I believe it. It might be a page 5 story for a few days but then it will disappear. Look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. That only became a big story here when Carter pulled out of the Olympics.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
now I know why you are so optimistic about democratization of middle east.
[ March 10, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]
 
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

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
now I know why you are so optimistic about democratization of middle east.
[ March 10, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]


We know the Middle East peace plan proposed by Bush. Are there any other plans on the table? Does anyone really want to continue with the status quo?
Who benefits from peace? Who benefits from continued conflict?
 
Mapraputa Is
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

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
now I know why you are so optimistic about democratization of middle east.


because the story about the results will be "squeezed in right after the story of the clown parade in Duluth"?
[ March 10, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Mapraputa Is
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
Dan, does all this mean that now any country can apply "regime change" strategy to the weaker country?
 
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 had already asked this on page 9. Would the US (or Bush, specifically) have gone to Iraq to take Saddam out even if there were no 9/11 attacks?
I would assume the answer cannot be 'no'. Otherwise all the claims about liberating iraqis would prove false. So I assume the answer is a definate 'yes'. And in that case my follow-up questions is:
"Would the US have gone to Afghanistan to take Taliban out even if there were no 9/11 attacks?"
I m sure the answer would be 'No'. I am sure they would have headed straight to iraq without caring much about afghanistan. Because no one ever cared about liberating the afghani women and children. How many news-media even covered that part of asia pre-911? how many people in US even knew there existed a place called kabul, ruled by talibans? Why did not US try to democratize afghanistan at that time?
Speaking of democratization of ME...
 
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

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Dan, does all this mean that now any country can apply "regime change" strategy to the weaker country?


What would anyone want to apply regime change to countries that are weak? With the exception of the United States, the western hemisphere is home to lots of countries that are militarily weak yet nobody is attempting the application of regime change over here.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

We know the Middle East peace plan proposed by Bush. Are there any other plans on the table? Does anyone really want to continue with the status quo?
Who benefits from peace? Who benefits from continued conflict?


Partly agree. I am extremly p*ssed off by governments and populations like that of France or Germany who constantly say since 40 years "oh, uh, middle east is so very complex." Yes lets give Palestinians Axels and others people tax money to build some nice culture centers and let them destroy by Israeli tanks 3 month after being build. That's so much more inteligent than US ME policy.
For me 09/11 is a turning date. We should put pressure on their governments. We won't do anything right, but the ME as is creates monsters like OBL or Mohammed Attah. I am by no means anti-muslim. I know a lot of turkish people and had palestinian friends some years ago. There are a lot of nice, intelligent muslim people. But there are too much rotten apples in that apple basket and this has to do with lack of democracy, role of woman and strange interpretation of islam.
I think that nobody gains from conflict. Very maybe oil exporting countries like Venezuela, Mexico, Russia and Norway. BY NO MEANS FRANCE.

On the other hand, we should not let disintegrate international institutions like UN and Security Council, even if they have big flaws. I know that super-national institutions are extremly unpopular in the USA, but there is some reason for their existence.

If all international issues are unilaterally decided by a government elected by people who read about that very issues on page 5 after clown parade in Duluth, I question the democratic legitimization.
Still its all emotions. Here is link to title picture of the most prestigious german weekly newsmagDer Spiegel. In the magazine there is a well balanced article about american special forces. On the title you have this guy who looks like leader of your local Hells Angels group. They use as eye-catcher. It services popular prejudices.
 
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 Axel Janssen:
For me 09/11 is a turning date.


You sure are not talking about Iraq, are you?

...and this has to do with lack of democracy, role of woman and strange interpretation of islam


Do you mean Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE...?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I believe he was including all of them as well as some others.
 
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:
so if I understood right, it was Blix who decided "open" internal UN reports, and otherwise nobody would know about it?
I suspect that the reports have always been available to security council members whose authority Blix operates under, but they have been declassified and released to the press as well this time.
And he did not mention these facts in his report because these were "suspicions" rather than "what it has been able to actually confirm"?
With reference to some of the information this is true. The discovery of the drone was a concrete fact that should have been reported. I would also argue that it was Blix's job to report his "suspicions" to his bosses (the UN Security Council) and let them determine if it is significant. Based on my reading of that article "unverified intelligence information" sounds like a better term than "suspicions", but that's just me.
"UNITED NATIONS, March 8 — The forgery in a document that purported to show Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger was discovered by forensic experts, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said today...
Oh come on Map. You don't have to spoon feed the guy. Make him work for it. I'm trying to see if we can get some kind of argument of the facts here. Help a brother out.
Assuming the IAEA's analysis on this is correct and the documents are indeed forged, it would seem to me that finding that one out of numerous items quoted by intelligence agencies is of questionable value would seem to be of negligible signigicance. It's not like their entire case was built off of those documents. As we have no idea of who forged the documents and for what purposes, it doesn't seem like there is much to comment on. There are plenty of other pieces of information related to Iraq's nuclear program, including the information found by former inspector David Kay which I previously have mentioned. So until more information is available, I don't think that there is really all that much to say about it other than it's interesting.
[ March 09, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]



Nobody is being spoon-fed here, anyone breathing over the past few days has seen the reports of forgeries all over the news, repeating that information in this forum is redundant. As regards the veracity of the information itself most of supporters of war at any cost would not recognize/or refuse to acknowledge the facts even if it hit them smack in the face. Whatever will happen at the UN remains to be seen, but i am glad the France and Russia have so far refused to be intimidated.
 
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

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
BY NO MEANS FRANCE.


I believe that France does indeed benefit from divisions in the Middle East. Isn't it true that France views itself as a counterbalance to American power? If the United States builds strong ties with a democratic Iraq, then what will be the impact on French power in the Middle East? If the new Iraq does not honor Saddam's contracts with French companies then how will that impact the French economy and French influence in the Middle East?
If France intends to serve as a counterbalance to American power, then isn't it necessary for the United States to have enemies?
Without question, peace in the Middle East jeopardizes the French position as a counterbalance and peace in the Middle East reduces the value of French veto power on the security counsel.
Today, any dictator that needs security counsel protection from the United States can obtain that protection by signing contracts with French companies. What we see today is France holding up its end of the contract. Clearly, France benefits economically when the United States has oil rich enemies.
French veto power is a major component of French trade and the French economy.
 
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

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Still its all emotions. Here is link to title picture of the most prestigious german weekly newsmagDer Spiegel. In the magazine there is a well balanced article about american special forces. On the title you have this guy who looks like leader of your local Hells Angels group. They use as eye-catcher. It services popular prejudices.


In terms of facial hair, does this American special forces soldier appear to be any different than the average Afghan man? I've seen similar pictures but the special forces troops were wearing the traditional Afghan hats to go along with the facial hair. I assumed that they were trying to fit in better with the local population.
[ March 10, 2003: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Report post to moderator
I was talking about ME region. Or maybe even wider scope (Africa north of northern Nigeria, parts of South Asia).
Endemic poverty for great parts of the population, because of exploding birth rates which has to do with role of women.
Sluggish economy because of endemic corruption which has to do with lack of democracy.
Lack of perspective in modern world which has to do with strange interpretation of Islam.
Its so hopeless.
I know that Saddam belongs to a different tradition than OBL.
Both look backwards, glorifying their history.
Both wants a unified arabic world, which speaks with one voice against the bad west.
Both are totalitarian, do not accept oposition.
Saddam was more secular and saw religious fundamentalism as a threat.
 
Mapraputa Is
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
French veto power is a major component of French trade and the French economy.
Are you talking about this particular veto or French behavior in Security Council in general? "UN veto" problems was discussed in depth in "Absolutes" thread (page 5 in particular)
Here is a table Thomas found.
I see that all France vetoes are made together with UK and the USA, except for one in 1976 "Dispute between the Comoros and France on Mayotte".
Hope it doesn't look like nitpicking, I only try to promote "documented" style of duiscussion.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]
 
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater.
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic