Can we discuss this .....

[Mapraputa Is]

Amazon recommended me this book:
Of Paradise and Power: America Vs. Europe in the New World Order by Robert Kagan
"From its opening-line salvo—"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world"—Of Paradise and Power announces a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Robert Kagan begins this illuminating essay by laying out the general differences as he sees them: the U.S. is quicker to use military force, less patient with diplomacy, and more willing to coerce (or bribe) other nations in order to get a desired result. Europe, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on diplomacy, takes a much longer view of history and problem solving, and has greater faith in international law and cooperation. Kagan does not view these differences as the result of innate national character, but as a time-honored historical reality--the U.S. is merely behaving like the powerful nation it is, just as the great European nations once did when they ruled the world. Now, Europe must act multilaterally because it has no choice. The "UN Security Council is a substitute for the power they lack," he writes.
Kagan also emphasizes the inherent ironies present in the relationship. European nations have enjoyed an "American security guarantee" for nearly 60 years, allowing them to cut back on defense spending while criticizing the U.S. for not doing the same. Yet Europe relies upon the U.S. for protection. This has led America and Europe to view the same threats much differently, as evidenced by the split over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Kagan points out that some European leaders are more afraid of how the U.S. will wield its power in the Middle East than they are of the thought of Hussein or other "rogue state" leaders acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

1.
US does not want to be parent, policeman or meddler in anybody's affairs. When drunk husband is beating wife, children crying in background, does anybody really want to kick down the door and haul the bully away in cuffs? I don't want to pay for the police in my own city. I want people to do the right thing.
I don't care if people don't eat ginger. I don't like ginger myself. I don't care if they smoke cigarettes. I don't think I should have to pay the extra money for cigarette smoker's extra healthcare though.
2.
UN inspections were working, there was no WMD's
Inspections were not working. Three aircraft carriers and 100K troops in the gulf worked. It is incredibly expensive to bring that force to the gulf. Without the gun at Saddam's head there were no inspections. It is hard on the people who serve and their families when they go on a mission.
Those of you that would have the US waste its time and money hauling forces back and forth to the gulf please send your checks to Bureau of the Public Debt, Dept G, P. O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188.
In GW-1 we wanted to march on to Baghdad and finish the job while we had the Army there. You wanted to give diplomacy just a little longer.
I suppose many in the French-Belgian-German alliance were making good money in black market deals and hate to see a good thing go. What a shame...
3.
Why we cannot have a theocracy? We do not care for any stinking secularism. We had quite a Stockholm crush on Saddam, BTW.
Let's face it kids ( meant to play up the parents argument ) no form of government is perfect. US only wants to nation build with what looks to work the best. Would you like us to rub your nose in some good examples?
4.
Iraq was not dangerous.
Oh no! not to the Iran, Kuwait, or Isreal.
Why does a country with huge oil reserves need a nuclear power plant?
5.
It's all about oil.
No, it's all about killing cockroaches. US does not like the Saudi government, but we are willing to give time and diplomacy a chance to work.
No problems coming out of Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya. It makes the plan book a lot thinner when we move on to clean up the next cesspool, DPRK.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
1.
2.
UN inspections were working, there was no WMD's
Inspections were not working. Three aircraft carriers and 100K troops in the gulf worked. It is incredibly expensive to bring that force to the gulf.
...

Inspector were sent to find WMD (their primary goal), they found none and until today US army found none too. So what worked? What are US so proud of? Pushing out US muppet?

I suppose many in the French-Belgian-German alliance were making good money in black market deals and hate to see a good thing go. What a shame...

Talking about black-market, men shall do a quick search with those words :
- oil bush administration
- Bush Irangate
-...
You may be interested by this link
So please stop claiming a superior morality.

4.Iraq was not dangerous.
Oh no! not to the Iran, Kuwait, or Isreal.

I think that US was far more dangerous to Iran than was Iraq. Don't forget that Saddam was just US muppet.

Why does a country with huge oil reserves need a nuclear power plant?

Maybe to defend himself against those country who have an eye on their oil reserves.
Now why US need a nuclear plan? You may replace the country name with Israel, or any other country. Don't forget, 200 nuclear weapons in Israel.

5.It's all about oil.
No, it's all about killing cockroaches. US does not like the Saudi government, but we are willing to give time and diplomacy a chance to work.

Well, the world don't like the US govt, but we are not going to declare war for that.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Well, the world don't like the US govt, but we are not going to declare war for that.

I must have missed something... Do you claim to speak for the world now?

[Rufus BugleWeed]

US does not have huge oil reserves. US has huge coal reserves. People in Kyoto are complaining about US burning them. People in US would rather not have nuclear power.
Neither Hussein nor Sharon are US muppets. US would like all countries to be its friend. So US tried to work with Saddam Hussein. Sadly it did not work out.

I think that US was far more dangerous to Iran than was Iraq.

I think Jimmy Carter and the American people have shown amazing restraint with Iran.
But you are right the US is a dangerous adversary. People forget. People think US lacks resolve. Soon Bush will have his day at the polls. The people will speak about whether or not the leadership is on the right track.
Why should we stop believing in moral superiority? How can one support a moral aberration like Saddam Hussein's regime and not admit that they are the lowest self serving life form on the planet?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Don't forget that Saddam was just US muppet.

And what do base this opinion on? If you had said that Saddam was France's muppet then I would believe you.
Dossier Shows France Briefed Iraq on U.S. Plans
By the way, do you think this might have had something to do with the influence of the US:
Pakistan Reaches Out to India
[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
I think that US was far more dangerous to Iran than was Iraq.

1,000,000 Iranians died in the war with Iraq. Can you really make the above statement and keep a straight face?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Inspector were sent to find WMD (their primary goal),

That was not their primary goal. The goal was to determine if the Iraqis were abiding by their agreements. The fact that they refused to reveal the location of stockpiles of anthrax that they were known to have says that, in fact, Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors.

[Jason Menard]

Regarding the WMDs, recently captured high-ranking members of the Iraq regime have not only said that they were lying to the inspectors and misleading them, but several have claimed that they have destroyed weapons just prior to the US undertaking military action. So while we haven't yet found an active program, if we choose to believe the Iraqis, who many of anti-coalition faction seemed more than willing to believe over the past decade, then they destroyed weapons prior to the invasion, and therefore were very recently in possession of WMDs despite earlier claims that they had destroyed them long ago.
Now definitive evidence of Iraqi links to terrorism (including al-Qaeda) have also been uncovered. It seems that not only was there the clandestine WMD program we said there was (if you believe the Iraqis captured), but there were also the links to terrorism we had claimed all along. Sounds like we accomplished a good day's work.
While I suspect that the definitive proof of WMDs that the anti-Coalition crowd is looking for will eventually surface, since it's the last straw they have to grasp at, if the Iraqis did manage to destroy them all just before we came in (which is doubtful), then that works too. On the off chance that they did get them all, our military action will have coerced the Iraqis into taking steps the inspections never would have.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I must have missed something... Do you claim to speak for the world now?

Hi Jason,
Of course I do not claim to speak for the world. But is is a fact that a large part of the world , not only the middle east part or the european part, don't like the US policy (cf the News).
But I suppose that your remark is also valid for Rufus? (US does not like the Saudi government, but we are willing to give time and diplomacy a chance to work.)
And that is without counting with the sentence about cockroaches which may sounds offending for some of us.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Neither Hussein nor Sharon are US muppets. US would like all countries to be its friend. So US tried to work with Saddam Hussein. Sadly it did not work out.

The Saddam dictatorship stayed so long because of the support from US gvt during the cold war. The US govt, provided all the military equipment, that's why I said that US was far more dangerous for Iran than Iraq. So, yes US and Iraq were friends. The question is why it has changed?
About Sharon, I never said that he was US muppet. Did anybody have seen the documentary titled "CIA: secret wars"?
But you didn't answered the question: Why does the US need nuclear plans,weapons?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And what do base this opinion on?

Hi Thomas,
do I really need to make some search to proove the relations between Saddam hussein and the US govt during the cold war? Do I need to make searchs to say that the US govt didn't care at all about the iraquis people and supported Saddam Hussein, just because it was for their own interests. Do I need to make searchs to affirm that the US govt have sustained the worsts dictatorship in this world?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
The Saddam dictatorship stayed so long because of the support from US gvt during the cold war. The US govt, provided all the military equipment

The US only had relations with the Iraqi Baathist regime for six years, from 1984 through 1990. Relations were re-established in 1984 after being broken off for some time. So it is not true that we had a long history of providing support to Saddam Hussein.
By far most of the Iraqi military equipment was provided by France and Russia. That is common knowledge. One should have noticed that the Iraqis fly Migs and Mirages, Hinds and Hips. They fire Rolands and Exocets, shoot their AK-47s, and drive T-72 tanks. How about sensitive dual-use technology? Much of that also comes from Germany.
This is of course just a sampling of their arsenal, but if you have specific knowledge of what weapons the US provided, I would be interested in hearing it (hint, no WMDs either, only precursor elements which are equally valid for educational and health research).

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Hi Thomas,
do I really need to make some search to proove the relations between Saddam hussein and the US govt during the cold war? Do I need to make searchs to say that the US govt didn't care at all about the iraquis people and supported Saddam Hussein, just because it was for their own interests. Do I need to make searchs to affirm that the US govt have sustained the worsts dictatorship in this world?

Yes.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The fact that they refused to reveal the location of stockpiles of anthrax that they were known to have says that, in fact, Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors.

If the question is did Iraq cooperate, the answer is yes. The answer comes from Blix, as he was the one working with Iraq, I think that his answer has pretty much value.
On the other hand, Iraq was known to have MWD, but we haven't seen one until now. So ...

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Regarding the WMDs, recently captured high-ranking members of the Iraq regime have not only said that they were lying to the inspectors and misleading them,...

Sorry Jason,
I haven't seen any of those news. The only news that I remember, is a Iraqui captured who claimed that they were no WMD. You said recently, how recently it is? Is it today, yesterday?
I also have seen no links between Iraq and Al quaida apart those provided by the US govt prior to the war.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Yes.

So I can't speak for the world, but you may speak for Thomas?
Well, I will do my duties, but it's quite hard as my references are in french. Is a google translation convenient for you?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Hi Thomas,
do I really need to make some search to proove the relations between Saddam hussein and the US govt during the cold war?

Yes you do. I noticed that all of Saddam's weapons were stamped "Made in Russia" or "Made in China" and during the Iran-Iraq war we were selling arms to Iran. So when exactly was Saddam our muppet?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Well, I will do my duties, but it's quite hard as my references are in french. Is a google translation convenient for you?

French? That is too funny.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

The Saddam dictatorship stayed so long because of the support from US gvt during the cold war. The US govt, provided all the military equipment, that's why I said that US was far more dangerous for Iran than Iraq.

The US provided the Russian tanks and Chinese missiles? The US provided the French anti-aricraft batteries? What are you talking about? What weapons did we provide to Saddam?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
But is is a fact that a large part of the world , not only the middle east part or the european part, don't like the US policy (cf the News).

Mostly dictators who don't like the idea that they might be next on the list and the countries that sell arms to those dictators.

[Jason Menard]

I haven't seen any of those news. The only news that I remember, is a Iraqui captured who claimed that they were no WMD. You said recently, how recently it is? Is it today, yesterday?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/030421b.asp

The U.S. military is reportedly getting some information on Iraq's weapons programs from an insider. The New York Times reports that the Iraqi scientist says Iraq destroyed bio-warfare equipment as well as chemical weapons when the war appeared imminent.

I also have seen no links between Iraq and Al quaida apart those provided by the US govt prior to the war.
Here's one article.

The documents, discovered yesterday in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's most feared intelligence service, amount to the first hard evidence of a link long suspected by the United States but dismissed as fiction by many Western leaders.
The handwritten file, three pages in all, relates to the arrival of a secret envoy sent by bin Laden to Iraq in March, 1998, apparently to establish a clandestine relationship with the Iraqi regime.

[Jason Menard]

So I can't speak for the world, but you may speak for Thomas?
I was speaking for myself, although I have been accused of being Thomas on several occasions in the past.
Well, I will do my duties, but it's quite hard as my references are in french. Is a google translation convenient for you?
Not the same French sources that have failed to make mention of Frances extensive and recent illegal dealings with Iraq by any chance?
[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
in fact, Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors.

Dont remember the exact numbers, I think I read it on rediff, out of more than 200 or 2000 UN inspectors only 5 complaints abt non-cooperation.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
1,000,000 Iranians died in the war with Iraq. Can you really make the above statement and keep a straight face?

Though I am not very good in playing with words
How many years did Iraq-Iran war last ?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
.. keep a straight face?

I did not read this..
But YOU have no right to tell someone whether he should keep his face straight or not.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Dont remember the exact numbers, I think I read it on rediff, out of more than 200 or 2000 UN inspectors only 5 complaints abt non-cooperation.

Oh come on now. How can one counter a well documented fact with pure supposition that is not even remotely sourced, nor given any context regarding time frame? Hell, I seem to remember reading somewhere, rediff maybe, that Saddam Hussein, I believe, made former UN inspector Scott Ritter, I think, dress in an evening gown, or something, while enjoying intimate candlelit dinners consisting of escargot and Dom Perignon, or maybe it was Evian. :roll:
But seriously, if you have a source to counter Tom's well documented comment, I'm sure we wouldn't mind seeing it. However, in a situation like this, only the guy in charge is likely to do something like lodge official complaints, so it wouldn't be surprising to me if only the guys who have been in charge of the mission were the ones to make any complaints.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Pakistan Reaches Out to India

Dont we know the outcome right NOW.

[R K Singh]

US only wants to nation build with what looks to work the best.
And that is My question, I want to live in gutter. Let me live in gutter. Why do you care abt my being best

Oh no! not to the Iran, Kuwait, or Isreal.
Someone was telling that Iraq was dangerous to US and for its security
Why does a country with huge oil reserves need a nuclear power plant?
I would love to know, which kind of country should posses nuclear power plant

It's all about oil.
No comments, enough have been said and listened. But still, when war was going on, somewhere biding was going on.
I expected this, but I was expecting this after war, "not during war."
But the plus point is this, everyone was busy in war news and it almost went un-noticed.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
But seriously, if you have a source to counter Tom's well documented comment,

OK.. I will give you the link .. it might be night there.
C U in the morning . [evening in India ]
I have work yaar.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
How many years did Iraq-Iran war last ?

Read all about it here:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

[R K Singh]

Hell, I seem to remember reading somewhere, rediff maybe, that Saddam Hussein, I believe, made former UN inspector Scott Ritter, I think, dress in an evening gown, or something, while enjoying intimate candlelit dinners consisting of escargot and Dom Perignon, or maybe it was Evian. :roll:
Thanks, for realizing me, how confusing my sentences could be. I will work on it and will avoid to use long sentences like this.
But seriously, if you have a source to counter Tom's well documented comment.
Let me say sorry. It is not number of inspectors but it is a number of visits. [blame it on my memory]
I could not found it on Rediff. And now I am not very sure where I read it. On print or on some other site.
I had to invest my 2 hrs (but thanks, I did not go out for smoke during this 2 hrs )
Let me made myself clear before I give you the link of well documented comment.
I am not kind of guy who will lie to support my argument. I will accept it if I am wrong.
Now AW as you asked for, here is the link http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d18.shtml [Thanks God, I got it ]
AW from the above link:
=============
The actual record of UNSCOM activities shows virtually complete cooperation by Iraq with even the most provocative demands of the UN inspectors. UNSCOM inspectors carried out 299 visits to previously inspected sites and 128 visits to new sites during the period from November 15 to December 14. Of those 427 visits, there were a total of 5 in which they claim to have encountered "obstacles" from Iraq.
================
The only thing which I come to know today is the time period they are talking about.
But still IMHO, this war could have been avoided.
Previously it was OK, but now IMO, US is acting like bully. US is not ready to hear OR want to convince world now for its actions, like saying NO to UN inspectors without any reasons.
Saying "Blix is jerk" does not make any sense.
Everyone is jerk in someone's opinion.
No, I am not representing "world". I am representing my thoughts.
And I am not world, I know it.
I am part of wrold, I know it.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

Thanks for the link..
I wanted to say that, in 8 yrs, 1,000,000 is OK. It was war, there has to be deaths.
And NOW I would like to know the number of Iraqies died in that period.
TIA for your next link.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
And NOW I would like to know the number of Iraqies died in that period.

Did you read the article? It was in there... 375,000. I am not sure how you can say that the US was a bigger threat to Iran when they fought a war with Iraq and had 1,000,000 casulaties.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
[The only thing which I come to know today is the time period they are talking about.
But still IMHO, this war could have been avoided.

That was, of course, right before Saddam threw the inspectors out. You are right that this war could have been avoided. Saddam could have been truthful about the inspections. Saddam could have obeyed the UN. Saddam could have stopped torturing his people. There were many ways that the war could have been avoided but none of them involved playing along with Saddam for year after year.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Did you read the article? It was in there... 375,000. I am not sure how you can say that the US was a bigger threat to Iran when they fought a war with Iraq and had 1,000,000 casulaties.

Oh.. you are still awake
It was war.
And as per number of casulaties goes, then I would say that Saddam was better war strategy planner than Iran as in the war he had less deaths.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
And as per number of casulaties goes, then I would say that Saddam was better war strategy planner than Iran as in the war he had less deaths.

If by "better war planner" you mean that he was willing to use poison gas in violation of all international treaties then perhaps you are right. That doesn't change the fact that Iran had much more to fear from Iraq than they ever had to fear from the USA.

[R K Singh]

Let me first clear, I think we are talking about, how much legal this war was.
And after that not allowing UN inspectors is how much legal.
Saddam could have been truthful about the inspections.
Now please dont make me to provide link, as it is more recent news which you must have already read.
I am very much sure about 'my this' statement, because while searching for above link I had to read lot of pages.
Iraq was again coopearting with UN inspectors.
Saddam could have obeyed the UN.
NOW US has lost the right to talk about obeying UN.
But still he could have been forced to obey. And atleast he was trying to obey UN, let it be on paper.
Saddam could have stopped torturing his people.
It was domestic matter.
[deleted]
There were many ways that the war could have been avoided.
When I said that it could be avoided, I mean if UN inspector kept on searching WMD, then does anyone think that Iraq could have attacked forget abt US, but Iran, Israel, Kuwait,...

IMO finding WMD without the presence of UN inspectors, will not make those findings valid.
Third, why did US want to librate Iraqies? Who has given right to US to interfere in domestic matters of others. Why it want to be world cop, or let us use new word, "world parent" ?
Till now I am very disappointed that no one could give a single meaningful reason for the war.
Reason given:
1) It has WMD.
How does US affected by it.
2) Ruler was dectator.
Why to interfere in internals matter?
3) It has link to terrorist organisation.
No prove has been given to media. And what ever given were proved to be forged.
4) He was threat to US.
Really I dont understand how it was threat to US.
Now, when US has full control over Iraq, did it could find any weapon?
Now when US has full control and could not found any weapon. How were US was expecting UN inspectors to provide proof of WMD in 2-3 weeks and thats is also when Saddam was ruling.
Does not it look ridiculous now.
>>inspectors to provide proof of WMD in 2-3 weeks
You can say years were provided to UN.
I say, so what did Saddam do in those years?
I will be really happy if anyone can provide me one reason why did US attack or why does one support this attack.
And yes one more question, if anyone can shed light on it.
Which countries should be allowed to be Nuclear power ?
PS: Just for thought- Was there so much cry when there was attack on Afganistan? It was there, but was it that much?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
That doesn't change the fact that Iran had much more to fear from Iraq than they ever had to fear from the USA.

I never talked abt who is more dangerous.
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
I am writing this without looking my any previous posts. One can go and check it out.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
If by "better war planner" you ... USA.

I belive that in war only winner matters.
And once war is over, one can have 100 excuses like it was necessary to drop nuke in Japan else US would have lost the war.