no war

[Dan Chisholm]

The United States does not submit a resolution without counting the votes beforehand. If the votes aren't there then the resolution is generally not submitted and the US finds other methods to accomplish the goal. (Kosovo is a recent example.) As a result, US sponsored resolutions are seldom vetoed. In contrast, others use the Security Counsel as a forum for voicing displeasure with American policy. As a result, numerous anti-US resolutions are submitted and vetoed. Does this prove that France is not using veto power to protect economic ties to Saddam?
Do you believe that Saddam signed contracts with French corporations without taking into consideration the protection that those contracts will provide?
Do you agree that veto authority has economic value?

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

Do you agree that veto authority has economic value?

No. Nein. Njet.
Those contracts are insignificant in comparision to the french economy as a whole.
... and they will loose contracts in US trade, because I fear that batch "made in france" isn't very markatable now.
... and they suffer from overprized oil like we do.
Dan, what do you think those funny frenchmen fill in their cars when being at gas-station?
truffles? red wine from Bordeaux? foie gras? camembert? Croissants?
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

{this was written before I saw Axel's post!}
Does this prove that France is not using veto power to protect economic ties to Saddam?
No.
Do you believe that Saddam signed contracts with French corporations without taking into consideration the protection that those contracts will provide?
You mean that he deliberately chose a country that has a veto power in UN Security Council? "the protection that those contracts will provide" - I do not know... How big are these contracts anyway? What is the volume of France-USA trade? To what number USA's "anti-France" sanctions can amount? If France gets more money from contracts with Saddam than it does from trade with the US, then perhaps...
I read that Russia-Western Europe trade balance is far more significant than Russia-USA balance, and this is the reason, not Iraq' s debt...
Do you agree that veto authority has economic value?
As a native born Marxist I agree that everything has economic value in capitalistic realm. For the same reason, I think that "economic value" is the main driving force in international affairs. "liberation if Iraqi people" is a side-effect, if stars will favor.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[John Dunn]

For the same reason, I think that "economic value" is the main driving force in international affairs.
Having been so close to what happened in NYC, I can't agree that money is the one and only "main" driving force. What about the safety of this country?
Since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, we tried not to get too involved in the chaos of the Middle East. (Even in Desert Storm, we only liberated Kuwait and then left.) I think our approach has changed, since 9/11, to a much more aggressive, albeit calculated, approach.
The Bush administration, IMHO, will go after other rogue States, (Syria, Lebanon, Iran), using the newly liberated Iraq as a base. This will probably lead to a different options in the Israel/Palestine struggle.
--------------
BTW, does anyone know why the French want to have nuclear weapons??

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
For the same reason, I think that "economic value" is the main driving force in international affairs.
Having been so close to what happened in NYC, I can't agree that money is the one and only "main" driving force. What about the safety of this country?

National safety can be seen as an inmaterial economic asset. If you don't know what terrorists will do next is not a good ground for investment.
Secure access to oil ressources translates to stable oil prices and can also be seen as an economic assets.
A lot of people here portray "economic value" as some short term deals (like people in Bush administration links to US-oil companies or those debates about France). Both countries wouldn't be that succesful economically if they would think in those short term categories. They are no dot.coms.
The real motivations of the US administration in my view are those long term assets, mentioned above.
Democratizing ME can help to archieve both goals. So there are real economic rationales to democratize ME, not pure idealism.

Originally posted by John Dunn:
[b]
BTW, does anyone know why the French want to have nuclear weapons??

They have secret plan to press US to import 3 billions of Croissants every year.
Also they want to extort Homer Simpson to replace beer by french Boujelais wine as favorite relaxing drink to promote french wine consumptions in the United States.
The french have nuclear weapons since the 50ties or early 60ties.
They said to want to form some democratic check and balance power against and with the USA.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

How big are these contracts anyway? What is the volume of France-USA trade? To what number USA's "anti-France" sanctions can amount? If France gets more money from contracts with Saddam than it does from trade with the US, then perhaps...

I'm sure that the US will not impose any trade sanctions against France. I think the French know that this disagreement will not effect US-France trade.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

As a native born Marxist I agree that everything has economic value in capitalistic realm. For the same reason, I think that "economic value" is the main driving force in international affairs. "liberation if Iraqi people" is a side-effect, if stars will favor.

I don't believe that such behavior is restricted to capitalistic regimes. Even communist governments require money.
In this case, I think that Bush truly believes that democracy will promote peace in the Middle East.
In terms of the motivating factors behind international diplomacy, I think that my opinion and yours vary in terms of degree.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
They have secret plan to press US to import 3 billions of Croissants every year.

Yes! Are you aware of the fat and cholesterol content of Croissants? This aggression will not stand! A line will be drawn in the Sand!

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
As a native born Marxist I agree that everything has economic value in capitalistic realm. For the same reason, I think that "economic value" is the main driving force in international affairs.

So what were the economic reasons for our intervention in Somalia and Bosnia?

[John Dunn]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
National safety can be seen as an inmaterial economic asset.
Not unless you look at the cost of 9/11. In this sense war does have an economic meaning but not to acquire money by gaining oil fields, but by preventing future 9/11s. Realistically, we could not handle too many simultaneous 9/11s. With biological weapons and WMD, terrorists can now inflict inexplicable horrors.
I have to laugh when I think of how many people, such a short time ago, were asking why no one [in govt] did anything to prevent 9/11, and now so many folks are knocking Bush for doing something.
If Osama could fester under the Taliban's friendship, in some remote mountains then think of who could gain strength in Iraq. We blew off the Taliban, and we should not blow off the Iraqis.
This war will be over very soon. The Taliban also claimed they'd fight to the end and that we'd really be sorry for attacking them. But their leaders ran away from the fight. Saddam is bluffing, I don't think his army will fight for him. If the French didn't support Saddam we'd be done by now!
BTW, I heard last night that the Pope is offering Saddam and his family exile in exchange for no war. This is interesting...

[Axel Janssen]

sorry. wrong english. With inmaterial I did not mean negligible/not important but VERY IMPORTANT and not-material/abstract.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
A lot of people here portray "economic value" as some short term deals (like people in Bush administration links to US-oil companies or those debates about France). Both countries wouldn't be that succesful economically if they would think in those short term categories. They are no dot.coms.

Agree absolutely. As long as we will see only short-term interest, the US (or any other sensible country for that matter) politics will look discrepant and incomprehensible.
Speaking about long-term interest, isn't this called "geopolitics"? (I can be wrong with terminology). I mean things like this:
"As part of his annual address to Congress in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt stated that in keeping with the Monroe Doctrine the United States was justified in exercising "international police power" to put an end to chronic unrest or wrongdoing in the Western Hemisphere. This so-called Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine contained a great irony: whereas the Monroe Doctrine had been sought to prevent European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, the Roosevelt Corollary justified American intervention throughout the Western Hemisphere.)
http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030162/Common/Handouts/POTUS/TRoos.html
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Dan Chisholm]

Map,
Are you saying that the French/Russian opposition to American goals in the Middle East might be an application of a European "Roosevelt Corollary"? If so, then we are in general agreement. However, I would say that protection for Latin American debtor states differs from protection for a dictator that is a patron for international terrorism.
Yes, I understand that those Latin American states were probably not models of democracy in 1904 and I assume that some are still not.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Agree absolutely. As long as we will see only short-term interest, the US (or any other sensible country for that matter) politics will look discrepant and incomprehensible.
Speaking about long-term interest, isn't this called "geopolitics"?

I think, too, this is called geopolitics. Economists often critizice this concept: It makes more economic sense to simply trade with a region but too control the region with military.
Yesterday I've watched a interesting interview with a guy from the ecologic party of Austria taken by the best interviewer in german TV and world in general, Sandra Maischberger.
The guy had some interesting points. He said that guys like Rumsfeld had a new vision before 09/11 for future of ME. He claimed that there are public documents available on Internet which prove that (When I wanted to start further investigation in the afternoon, webserver of N-TV was down). The austrian made credible impression on me.
Vision is: Control militaraly the oil half moon region (from Iran to Saudi Arabia).
I still want to see Saddam Hussein leaving Iraq.
Latinamerica:
American politics towards latinamerica of the last 2 centuries is by no means coherent, though some latinamerican "experts" wants to prove that.
The Americans often supported the wrong people, a lot of latinos suffered, but the Americans did gain very little from that. They were more used by the latino group which asked for their support against "communists".
The American president F. D. Roosevelt (the other Roosevelt) accepted mexicanization of American oil companies in Mexico in the 30ties. I think Kennedy or Truman did the same for Venezuela. There were lots of help proyects.
There is a stream of thinking in latin america which blames the USA for everything evil. This point of view is very dubious.
Often the evil was inside the countries.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Dan Chisholm:

Is this a surprise? Look at some of the priests that the pope has been protecting.

Come on now, that's not fair. He's not offering Hussein sanctuary to protect him, he's offering him sanctuary in the hopes that it will avert war.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

No. Nein. Njet.
Those contracts are insignificant in comparision to the french economy as a whole.

Does that mean that French corporations that have contracts with Saddam have no influence over the French government?
You mentioned oil and the impact that gas prices may have on French consumers. Are you under the impression that the French government holds consumer concerns over corporate concerns?

[Thomas Paul]

Plus the Pope hasn't been protecting priests. That was done by a few local Bishops without the knowledge or approval of the Pope.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Come on now, that's not fair. He's not offering Hussein sanctuary to protect him, he's offering him sanctuary in the hopes that it will avert war.

I know it isn't fair. I just found it to be a humorous thought. I'll go back and delete it.
Don't blame me if Jay Leno makes a similar statement in his monologue tonight.
[ March 11, 2003: Message edited by: Dan Chisholm ]

[Shura Balaganov]

Thomas Paul: So what were the economic reasons for our intervention in Somalia and Bosnia?
Just passing through...
Milosevic was just another figure, nor more or less guilty that Bush or Putin. Yugoslavia was a purely economical victim of Unified Germany.
Yugoslavia, although being a part of former "socialist block", did a lot of export to Western Europe. When Europe thought of unifying 2 Germanies, it was not easy to switch Eastern Germany's goods to Western Europe. Market was too tight to cleanly absorb this volume (and we are talking about a country here!). So another country needed to be cicked out of the market. Hence - Milosevic, Yugoslavia trade embargoes, war. One of the richest countries from socialist block gets squashed.
I personally know businessmen who've been trying, unfortunately unsuccessfully, to switch Yugoslavia's goods flow to the East so that the country wouldn't collapse. There was a too strong opposition.
Milosevic my arse. Globalism and economic reasons rule.
Shura

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Milosevic my arse. Globalism and economic reasons rule.

Shur I know you are aware that the problem with Yugoslavia and the former republics was that it fell into chaos after the death of Tito as ethnic rivalries shook the country apart. You do remember that little problem with genocide and ethnic cleansing that they were having over there, right?
There was no global conspiracy to squash their economy. Do you think the big auto makers of the world were afraid we'd all be driving Yugos?

[Shura Balaganov]

Yeah, yeah, I remember, Jason. They did have some issues as far as who will be the next president. But it's not like Yugoslavia was in a bad shape or relied on a single industry too much. Remember, it is a Central European country. Even Soviet Union collapsed with a smaller bang.
At that moment unifying Germany was more important task.
As far as Yugo, we all be driving Hyndai soon, and I am not sure what's worse....
Shura

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
Milosevic was just another figure, nor more or less guilty that Bush or Putin. Yugoslavia was a purely economical victim of Unified Germany.

link

[karl koch]

no offense but....
at least this thread is in the right forum because the US government gives a rats ass what the people think...
as far as i know they never asked the US citizen wheter they think its a good idea to finance saddam hussein and give him the power he has now.
same for afganistan and other countries/dictators.
oh and: there is almost always an economic reason for war. anywhere, anytime.
k

[frank davis]

Originally posted by karl koch:

oh and: there is almost always an economic reason for war. anywhere, anytime.
k

And an economic reason for "peace" also. See Rufus's post on France's deals with Iraq in violation of UN sanctions. But I thought that was common knowledge (and the tip of the iceberg) anyway, but maybe not... China is also involved.
And Russia has much more of a stake in Iraq's oil production than the US. They've already signed a
multi-billion dollar oil development deal with Iraq , of course now on hold and in jeopardy with an immenient American liberation at hand. Worse yet, allowing others to pump large amounts of oil in post-Sadaam Iraq would cause a decline in oil prices sufficient to destroy Russia's oil dpendent economy.
Much speculation on "real" reasons for US wanting war, much less speculation on real reasons others want "peace".

[Mapraputa Is]

Worse yet, allowing others to pump large amounts of oil in post-Sadaam Iraq would cause a decline in oil prices sufficient to destroy Russia's oil dpendent economy.
Are you saying that Russia should destroy its economy only to please te USA?

Anyway, about drone...
"At a news conference today in Iraq, Hiro Ueki, a spokesman for the weapons inspectors, said there were still open questions about whether a drone jet suspected of being capable of spraying anthrax provides evidence that Iraq possesses unauthorized weapons."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/international/middleeast/11CND-IRAQ.html

"But viewed up close today by reporters hastened by Iraqi officials to the Ibn Firnas weapons plant outside Baghdad, the vehicle the Iraqis have code-named RPV-30A, for remotely piloted vehicle, looked more like something out of the Rube Goldberg museum of aeronautical design than anything that could threaten Iraq's foes. To the layman's eye, the public unveiling of the Iraqi prototype seemed to lend the crisis over Iraq's weapons an aura less of deadly threat than of farce.
Resting on trestles on a sidewalk, the drone seemed like a sad, patched-together affair. Its two tiny engines, each about the size of a whiskey bottle, and attached to minuscule wooden propellers, looked about powerful enough to drive a Weed Whacker, as one wag present suggested. Like a primitive biplane from the earliest days of flight, its wings and twinned tail fins were made of wood and stretched fabric. Swathes of plastic masking tape covered the wing joints.
...
The Iraqi officer who identified himself today as the drone project manager, Brig. Gen. Imad Abdul Latif, said with a note of self-reproach that the RPV-30A's early test flights had been so wretched that it had ventured no further than two miles from the airfield, and that it had been grounded following "certain technical problems which had to do with aerodynamic design and engines."
In any case, he and other officials said, the vehicle could not be controlled from a distance of more than five miles, in good weather, since its controllers tracked it "with the naked eye."
As for the allegation that RPV-30A could deliver chemical and biological weapons, Gen. Latif scoffed.
"This is impossible," he said. "This matter should be taken into
consideration from the very beginning of the design — there should be safety measures, from the beginning, in the design."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13DRON.html?pagewanted=2&tntemail1

[Mapraputa Is]

Much speculation on "real" reasons for US wanting war, much less speculation on real reasons others want "peace".
You must have missed "The Value of Sanctions" thread.

[Jason Menard]

Too lazy to look for link, but awhile ago the US stated it had intelligence of an Iraqi drone aircraft flying a racetrack pattern for a total distance of 300+ miles (if I remember correctly), far in excess of what is allowed under UN mandate. The Iraqis claimed they had no such drone aircraft. Lo-and-behold the inspectors eventually stumble across one. Yet here you are quoting what the Iraqis say as if it might have the slightest amount of credibility. They also said their al-Samoud-2 missiles were not illegal once the inspectors stumbled across them. Then the Iraqis claim they have no chemical warheads, until the inspectors happen to find a few at which point the Iraqis claim "oh we must have forgotten about those". What about that 10,000 litres of Anthrax that has gone missing? What about the missing VX nerve agent?
Why anybody is willing to give any credence to anything that comes from an Iraqi official's mouth is beyond imagination. Wishful thinking I suppose. What I'm wondering is if people actually believe what Iraq is saying, or if they just assume that the US is lying.
Ask yourself why is it that the inspectors will not conduct inspections on the front-line Republican Guard units whom even recent Iraqi defectors claim have fielded chem/bio weapons. This is of course given further weight by the fact that the Iraqis are using chem/bio defense equipment for their forces in order to protect them from chemical and biological agents. It is well known that the US doesn't use such weapons in combat, so why would the Iraqis need this equipment if they didn't possess such weapons themselves? Yet the inspectors will not check out these units. They're probably afraid they'll find something.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Are you saying that Russia should destroy its economy only to please te USA?

[/URL][/qb]

It defies rationality to even begin to try to understand how you construed such a meaning out of my statement.

[ March 13, 2003: Message edited by: herb slocomb ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Much speculation on "real" reasons for US wanting war, much less speculation on real reasons others want "peace".
You must have missed "The Value of Sanctions" thread.

I missed much in that thread yet I still believe that my general statement is correct. The media still continues to report allegations by opponents of the war that the US in this for the oil much more than they report allegations that Russia, France, Germany, and China have economic reasons (some illegitimate) to oppose the liberation of Iraq.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Anyway, about drone...

Was the Iraqi official you quoted so extensively talking about the RPVs (remotely piloted vehicle) or the UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) ? Seems there were several types and sizes that were found. Or maybe he was talking about the one they were dismantling until they were rudely interrupted by UN team...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7824-2003Mar10.html
The real question is why Blix would not even mention the drones or "cluster bombs that could spew chemical and biological agents" in his oral report to the UN.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/international/middleeast/11DRON.html

[Mapraputa Is]

HS: It defies rationality to even begin to try to understand how you construed such a meaning out of my statement.
Sorry for stupid interpretation
JM: Yet here you are quoting what the Iraqis say as if it might have the slightest amount of credibility.
I was quoting "The New York Times". What is Ok to quote for NYT, is Ok to quote for Map, I suppose. You do not allow that Iraqis could say something true once in a while?
Why anybody is willing to give any credence to anything that comes from an Iraqi official's mouth is beyond imagination.
Who told about credence? The article simply conveyed what Iraqis officer said. You think that the US press should not report Iraqis official POV (and in this case it wasn't even official)? But this is what "objective reporting" is about, if I am not mistaken.
I quoted this article for balance, to let counter-arguments be heard.
Wishful thinking I suppose. What I'm wondering is if people actually believe what Iraq is saying, or if they just assume that the US is lying.
I do not know about "people", I am just waiting for something more substantial. So far Saddam seems to be pretty good at hiding his WMD. Maybe only invasion will show the ultimate truth.
HS: Was the Iraqi official you quoted so extensively talking about the RPVs (remotely piloted vehicle) or the UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle)
The name was "RPV-30A".

[Jason Menard]

Kurds flee as Iraqis round up men of military age

[Jason Menard]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15363

Anti-war demonstrators worldwide have condemned President Bush's plans for regime change in Iraq, but you won't see any such protests in Iraqi Kurdistan. In this northern enclave that gained autonomy from Baghdad in 1991 under the American and British no-flight zone, the Kurds are eagerly waiting for war. Its 3.5 million residents hope their fragile democratic experiment will be legitimized under international law after Saddam is gone.
The 100,000-plus Kirkukians displaced across the internal border by Saddam Hussein's Arabization campaign to control Kirkuk's oil fields have even more at stake. They hope that American soldiers will lead them home.
"I want this war to happen," says Tawfiq's wife Sungal. "We will sacrifice ourselves ... because we want to be free."

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

JM :Why anybody is willing to give any credence to anything that comes from an Iraqi official's mouth is beyond imagination.
Map :Who told about credence? The article simply conveyed what Iraqis officer said. You think that the US press should not report Iraqis official POV (and in this case it wasn't even official)? But this is what "objective reporting" is about, if I am not mistaken.

Regarding "objective reporting" :
I would think being a professional journalist would entail giving the readers access to some minimum amount of relevant facts to allow them to understand what is being reported on. Simply presenting information by parroting information given by others without any attempt to give background facts could be more misleading than informing.
For example, an important, crucial, central fact left out of the unbalanced URL you cited is that there were actually two of the large RPVs and several smaller ones. Before reporters had been allowed to look at them, dismantling had occurred :
"When they returned to the flight-test site the next day for another look at the large drone, they found two such RPVs -- and found the Iraqis dismantling one of them, as well as two smaller RPVs, according to a senior administration official. "They apparently did not expect the inspectors," the official said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7824-2003Mar10.html
Which RPV were the journalists reporting on, a partially dismantled(altered/modified?) one or the other one? To not mention this is irresponsible. To not mention that 3 out of 4 were being dismantled is also irresponsible. Also pertinent is knowing which large RPV was being dismantled, the one the UN team originally found or the one they found the next day.
The whole article is so unbalanced that it appears designed to give the impression that Iraq may have no working drones. It fails to mention that there are other types of RPVs that Iraq has previously declared to inspectors that can fly up to an hour. That Iraq has been actively developing drones since the late 1980's, etc.
As far as credibility of the Iraqi official, this is important. Officials in Iraq are not typical of offcials in other countries. Giving the "wrong" answers to the UN could result his execution and that of his family.
I find it reasonable to assume that since the Iraqi officer admits drones were designed for "jamming" purposes, that this would be a high priority for development since jamming is about the only way to partially offset the superior military technology of the US.
We all have our biases in interpreting facts, but at least give us the relevent facts.

[Mapraputa Is]

Have you read the whole article?
"The visit to the drone factory was nevertheless a master class in the problems confronting United Nations weapons inspectors in sorting truth from fiction in daily forays that have now taken them to nearly 800 different sites across Iraq in 15 weeks of searching.
At scores of other military factories and design centers, as well as airfields, laboratories, bottling plants, seed storage facilities and other improbable destinations, the Iraqis' professed determination to prove themselves free of banned weapons appears to have thrown up an endless array of vexing new questions.
At the Ibn Firnas factory, visited five times by inspectors looking into the issue of banned drones, the unresolved questions were many.
Was the RPV-30A the craft that American intelligence spotted last summer, flying a "racetrack pattern" at a nearby airfield, or were there other undeclared drones, perhaps less amateurish and fragile than the one put on display? If, as American intelligence officials have said, Iraq has been working on drones as weapons delivery systems for at least 10 years, the prototype shown today suggested that progress has been painfully slow."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13DRON.html
?tntemail1=&pagewanted=all&position=top
[Inserted line break for readability - Jim]
[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Mapraputa Is]

About Kurds, there are some potential problems with their liberation.
"But war in Iraq could cause this forced demographic change to unravel quickly, according to Kurdish and Arab villagers. For in establishing a new home for Arabs, Mr. Hussein's program also created a patchwork of grudges and grievances. American forces could quickly find themselves in the center of a sea of fleeing Arabs, vengeful Kurds and countless disputes over homes, land and lucrative oil fields.
Yet some Kurds made it clear what they expected from Arabs if American bombs began to fall. Mohammed Taheer Tato, mayor of the Kurdish village here, vowed to seize control of Pirbub and all Arab villages created by Mr. Hussein on Kurdish land.
"If they leave, we won't do any harm to them," Mr. Tato said, as the Kurdish men clustered around him nodded. "But if they won't, we are obliged to attack them."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/international/middleeast/14CLAI.html

[Axel Janssen]

... one of the best arguments of the anti-war people here is that the US seems to lack a concept about what to do after liberation of Iraq.
During WW2 since 1942 500 officers visited a special school about Germany-issues.
Leading german intelectuals and scientifics were contracted as consultants.
There were manuals, regulations, etc. about the government of the occupied country.
When the American army crossed the Rhein General Clay was able to immediatedly start reconstruction.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Have you read the whole article?
"The visit to the drone factory was nevertheless a master class in the problems confronting United Nations weapons inspectors in sorting truth from fiction in daily forays that have now taken them to nearly 800 different sites across Iraq in 15 weeks of searching.
At scores of other military factories and design centers, as well as airfields, laboratories, bottling plants, seed storage facilities and other improbable destinations, the Iraqis' professed determination to prove themselves free of banned weapons appears to have thrown up an endless array of vexing new questions.
At the Ibn Firnas factory, visited five times by inspectors looking into the issue of banned drones, the unresolved questions were many.
Was the RPV-30A the craft that American intelligence spotted last summer, flying a "racetrack pattern" at a nearby airfield, or were there other undeclared drones, perhaps less amateurish and fragile than the one put on display? If, as American intelligence officials have said, Iraq has been working on drones as weapons delivery systems for at least 10 years, the prototype shown today suggested that progress has been painfully slow."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13DRON.html
?tntemail1=&pagewanted=all&position=top

Yes, I read the whole article, but as I mentioned previously, there are serious factual ommissions that should have been included by a responsible journalist. How can the journalist describe the appearance of the RPV-30A in 4-5 paragraphs and then let the Iraqi official spend another 4-5 paragraphs describing it, but then the crucial issue of whether this was even the same drone orginally found by the inspectors is not even raised???
Remember one was found origninally, then as the inspectors came back for a (surprise?) visit they found 2 RPV-30As and 2 smaller ones. Three of them were being dismantled. The jounalist should have informed the reader that what was being decscribed by both himself and the Iraqi may have been modified/partially dismantled, or not even the same RPV-30A originally found by the inspectors. The reader needs to have those facts to evaluate the credibility of the relatively lengthy descriptions being given.
Many "vexing new questions" exist as to why the drones were being dismantled, which one was allowed to be on display, and why the journalist left out these crucial facts...
[Inserted line break for readability - Jim]
[ March 17, 2003: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Anonymous]

Well, the cat's out of the bag anyway:
- thank you usa for about to ruin a dozen or so economies around the world, including your own;
- thank you usa for about to kill a 'couple of' people far away from your home land; 'home of the brave, land of the free'; my ass ...
- thank you usa for about to dismantle the entire UN, setting the global community back for more than half a century;
- thank you usa for being the brain dead idiots most of you are.
As Frank Zappa already said back in the late sixties "America's wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful rotten". And he was (and is) right. You all just don't understand, no matter what wiseguy, right winged blabbering you keep on shouting, deafening your own rudimentary understanding of how matters work globally. You are just one afraid bunch of mentally retarded people. There's more to the world than just the usa. But you've forgotten that ages ago.
thank you usa. not.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <finally>:
Well, the cat's out of the bag anyway:
- thank you usa for about to ruin a dozen or so economies around the world, including your own;
- thank you usa for about to kill a 'couple of' people far away from your home land; 'home of the brave, land of the free'; my ass ...
- thank you usa for about to dismantle the entire UN, setting the global community back for more than half a century;
- thank you usa for being the brain dead idiots most of you are.
As Frank Zappa already said back in the late sixties "America's wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful rotten". And he was (and is) right. You all just don't understand, no matter what wiseguy, right winged blabbering you keep on shouting, deafening your own rudimentary understanding of how matters work globally. You are just one afraid bunch of mentally retarded people. There's more to the world than just the usa. But you've forgotten that ages ago.
thank you usa. not.

Trollish attacks such as this against groups of people will not be tolerated. First and last warning. Next time I will simply delete.

[Anonymous]

So censorship is what this is all about? tsk, tsk, shame on you inhabitants of this home of the brave, land of the free ...
(JM: I'll continue this protest posting as long as you'll exhibit yourself as the dictator you're exhibiting yourself)
kind regards,
Jos A. Horsmeier
ps. film at eleven, just to get your attention span satisfied ...