"NO, to war..."

[Chiwas]

<u>Do you think it has to happen a war?</u>

(The Martin Luther King Jr. Day)

&quot;No, to war&quot;
&quot;Bush loses the battle in the streets&quot;

[nowitzki_prophecy]

defenitly,the mad man almost has weapons of mass destructions,he must be stopped before he uses the weapons in people,and you know that if he'll finish developing them,he will uses them.
its for iraq's defensive capabiletis he's developing it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Let's hope not. So far, shaking the big stick as made the inspections possible, and neighboring mideast countries are starting to ask the madman hussein to step down. If he and his neighbors all believe war is a very real possibility, it will make a regime change easier.

It is looking more and more like he's hiding things from the inspectors. If he's allowed to stay in power, there's little doubt that he'd use terrible weapons against other countries. That would be worse than forcefully removing him from power.

[MavKikiNYC]

The United States has to be willing to go to war to protect its people, to protect its allies, to protect its interests, and to neutralize a globally destabilizing figure like Hussein.

To those who exercise their right to free speech by opposing the war on moral grounds:

Self-defense is morally justified. Cowardice and capitulation in the face of agression is not.

To those who exercise their right to free speech by trying to capitalize politically in opposing the Bush administration, making spineless, baseless, ridiculous accusations about the true motive behind the agonizingly difficult decision to send American troops into battle:

To hell with you.

[Drbio]

I cannot fathom at any level how Iraq can justify developing chemical weapons. And it dang sure isn't for &quot;defensive purposes&quot;.

[LRB]

A little over 60 year ago another musthached madman was allowed to proliferate his military capabilities in the name of peace. The most wide scale destruction and lose of life that this planet has ever seen was the result. Millions died. Countless more suffered. My question is can we afford to not to learn from history?

The protests have been directed at the wrong individual. It his Saddam and not Bush who is responsible for this war and who can avoid it.

[Drbio]

ooooooo.....good post.

[Chiwas]

<< A little over 60 year ago another musthached madman was allowed to proliferate his military capabilities in the name of peace. The most wide scale destruction and lose of life that this planet has ever seen was the result. Millions died. Countless more suffered. My question is can we afford to not to learn from history? >>

This is a big truth. Let Hitler take the initiative was a big mistake, a fatal mistake. How many died, 60 million people? I think the lesson had to be learned; I also hope that the US has learned from the Vietnam war; I think it has, seeing the attacks against Lybia, Irak (the Desert Storm), and Afghanistan. The war is imminent, and with the technology owned by the US, has to be short and effective, avoiding as much as possible deaths of civilians and soldiers, but changing that regime. BTW, it seems that Europe, excepting the UK -and maybe Germany!-, is forgetting the Holocaust; it´s sad that it is happening, that some countries don't support as decades before used to, the efforts to have a free, secure and healthy western hemisphere. I liked that, Mavkiki, &quot;to protect the allies&quot;; I consider M&eacute;xico a natural ally of the US, even though there are still some weak liberal forces within M&eacute;xico, but you have to know that we started last week to produce more oil to support an stable market and to be better prepared to face the war. And my friend NP, your country has to be strong in these winds of war.

[nowitzki_prophecy]

i think he's talking about Stalin,think.
doesnt matter anyway,two mad man,stalin has singel heandedly killed,get this,50 MILLIONS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! hard to understand that number.

could be boring,you've been advised:
yea,what Hitler did was,after the first world war france and allies forced germany into the versai contract,which makes germany do alot of stuff that on a normal basis she would'nt want to do.
so what hitler does after 20 years,at the start all of his actions we're to take back what was rightfully his,so Britain and France would not want to jeperdise second world war over something that might be true.
it was only when Hitler invaded chezhoslovakia that Briatains prime minister at the time,Chamberlin understood the fatale mistake he has done,by allowing Hitler to grow his army.

this situation can be prevented,Saddam has already showen he has no problem using chemical weapons on people when he attack some kurds,north of Iraq with such weapons.
people like that should be stopped at any price,before they will be too powerfull to be stopped.

[Fidel]

<< BTW, it seems that Europe, excepting the UK -and maybe Germany!-, is forgetting the Holocaust; it´s sad that it is happening, that some countries don't support as decades before used to, the efforts to have a free, secure and healthy western hemisphere. >>


I don´t think it´s that easy. Germany wants Saddam gone too, that´s for sure. We just don´t think that war in the name of peace is a good option. A war on iraq would severly destabilize the whole situation in the middle east, not stabilize it. It will only provoke more hostility and terror from other arabian countrys. Iraq in itself is a very unstable country with alot of different stems and races. Now what happens after a war? How do you guarantee that there is no such thing as an islamic revolution? Stay there forever? The war in Afghanistan isn´t even over yet.

What do you do with North-Korea? Right now it is clearly double standard. North Korea has a far more advanced nuclear weapon program than Iraq. But...North Korea has no oil. Let´s not kid ourselves. The war on Iraq is as much about oil as anything. The US would like to break ties with Saudi Arabia after what happened on 9/11. The plan is to cut down saudi arabian oil imports to 0 until 2007. So an alternative is needed. Iraq is said to have the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia (250 billion barrel). It´s of the same quality and very easy to facilitate. The US would love to lift the export restrictions for oil of Iraq, but Saddam would then have the money to really add up in the weapon department. So Saddam needs to go first. Alot of other countrys like russia, france and the UK have claims for certain oil fields in Iraq. If they get guarantees for those claims, they´ll probably support a war.

It really is a difficult situation. War would not make it easier IMO. If you could somehow get Saddam to retire, and have democratic elections, that would probably be the best solution. The united nations would have to monitor the whole process, and you´d probably need to send troops for a pretty long time, like in Kosovo. If you can´t get him to retire just through pressure there probably needs to be a war, but it´s a big risk, cause this time some smart bombs won´t do the trick, you´d really have to go in and occupy the land. That would mean alot of death soldiers on both sides plus alot of dead iraq civilians (and maybe dead civilians in Israel too, and an escalation of that conflict). If there is a war, at least the US should be honest and say what it´s about. It IS about getting rid of Saddam and a potential threat to other countrys in the reagion, it IS about not letting Iraq become a military powerhouse. But they could only become such a powerhouse if they were allowed to export oil again. So it IS about the oil too, and very much so. If they didn´t have the oil no one would really care or even consider taking the risk of a war (see Korea).

At the same time the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians needs to be settled down. Otherwise it will be very difficult to achieve peace and stability in the middle east. And let me get this straight. I want Saddam gone too, not that you get the wrong idea. I just wanted to point out some other things that should be considered. Politics are complicated. &quot;Let´s blow him away&quot; seldomly works.

Just wanted to add a short list of oil companys who have claims in Iraq allready or who´d like to get back as soon as possible. And once again I´m not judging here. We have a capitalistic system so it´s natural these companys want to make profit wherever they can (and Iraq is probably the country with the best oil resources on the whole planet, only rival would be saudi arabia). Just giving some facts.

Lukoil (russia)
Zarubezhneft (russia)
Totalfina-Elf (france)
Shell (UK?)
Eni (italy)
CNPC (china)
ONGC (india)
Chevron Texaco (USA)
Exxon Mobil (USA)

[Chiwas]

Nice writing, Fidel. It makes a lot of sense. I´m going to read it again.

[MavKikiNYC]

Nice post, Fidel. However...



<< We just don´t think that war in the name of peace is a good option. >>



There are no 'good' options...in the sense that there are no 'easy' options.



<< War would not make it easier IMO. >>



Does anyone really believe that without war being perceieved as a very real possibility, Hussein would ever be guided to 'retire', or exile himself without the threat of 'pre-emption'? And what has kept Hussein from attacking Israel more overtly and more aggressively, if not the threat of military retalitation?

News reports tonight, in fact, said that senior Iraqui officials have said that Hussein will NEVER agree to exile himself outside the country. He's bargaining, of course. But without the prospect of military intervention, you can be sure there'd be no way that his ruthless, brutal, absolute control on Iraqui affairs and his ever-present hand in internationl terrorism would ever be diminished.

And there would be no way that neighboring Arab countries would be emboldened to oppose Hussein and be working to convince him to leave power, except for the fact that they understand that the United States is serious about removing him from power. In fact I think it can be argued that more than fearing the threat of war, neighboring Arab states are actually taking advantage of it.

&lt;&lt;A war on iraq would severly destabilize the whole situation in the middle east, not stabilize it. It will only provoke more hostility and terror from other arabian countrys. Iraq in itself is a very unstable country with alot of different stems and races. Now what happens after a war? How do you guarantee that there is no such thing as an islamic revolution? Stay there forever? The war in Afghanistan isn´t even over yet. ... ...

... ...Right now it is clearly double standard. North Korea has a far more advanced nuclear weapon program than Iraq. But...North Korea has no oil&gt;&gt;

Yes, one of the risks of war is a less stable situation afterward. But to do nothing and allow Hussein to remain in power is an untenable level of risk. He carried on a war with Iran 20+ years ago, and invaded Kuwait 10+ years ago. In that sense he has shown himself to be a more imminent threat than the North Korean government, and that distinction substantially mitigates and so-called 'double-standard'.

The most galling opposition to the war with Iraq comes from know-nothing flower pickers here in the United States who oppose George Bush on the domestic political front for reasons that are altogether unclear, least of all to themselves. They accuse Bush and his family and his corporate political backers of wanting merely to 'appropriate' Iraqui oilfields for economic and political gain, without understanding or acknowledging the strategic importance of the Iraqui oilfields to American and global security. These voices merely attempt a cheap smear of Bush and his administration.

&lt;&lt;The war on Iraq is as much about oil as anything. The US would like to break ties with Saudi Arabia after what happened on 9/11. The plan is to cut down saudi arabian oil imports to 0 until 2007. So an alternative is needed. Iraq is said to have the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia (250 billion barrel). It´s of the same quality and very easy to facilitate. The US would love to lift the export restrictions for oil of Iraq, but Saddam would then have the money to really add up in the weapon department. So Saddam needs to go first. Alot of other countrys like russia, france and the UK have claims for certain oil fields in Iraq. If they get guarantees for those claims, they´ll probably support a war.&gt;&gt;


Your post makes the connetion clear. It's not merely an economic grab for U.S. interests--it's a crucial military/strategic move, with international geo-political consequences. The world cannot allow itself to be held hostage either by a brutal dictator or by ruthless, murderous religious extremists. And the United States, as a superpower and 'enforcer' for Western values and the Western way of life cannot and will not allow itself to be held economic hostage just because of geographic serendipity.

[LRB]

Kiki: Great post. In many ways being president is like being mod to the world. Just infinitely times harder. I only wish that the Iraq situation was all about us grabbing oil for our own selvish gain and nothing else. If only it were that easy.

But no matter how right the cause, or how justified the action, there will always those who will protest. Some for no other reason than to protest. If everyone would objectively study the history and facts on the situation, maybe more of the anti war protest could be direted against the man that they should be, Saddam Hussein. Afterall, he could stop any possibility of war if he wanted to. Hopefully he will. But if not, I hope he rots in hell for all the lives his unjust actions have cost and will cost.

[Chiwas]

Some humor on the subject.

[BrianJ]

Its amazing to me that we are still here on this earth. There does not appear to be a clear cut right or wrong decision to be made. Also I do not think that it is right for us to be playing big brother over the rest of the world. In reality the easy flow of communication that has been developed is certain to do more harm then good.

[Evilmav2]

&quot;Virtuous motives, trammelled by inertia and timidity, are no match for armed and resolute wickedness. A sincere love of peace is no excuse for muddling hundreds of millions of humble folk into total war. The cheers of weak, well-meaning soon cease to echo, and their votes soon cease to count. Doom marches on...&quot;
Winston Churchill, 1936

What was true in in 1936 is true today. A sincere love of peace is an admirable quality, but using that sentiment to justify inaction in the face growing and immenant danger is foolhardy. Millions paid with their lives because of the inaction of the French and British during the 1930's. Millions more might pay that terrible price, if the United States invokes the sentiment of &quot;peace&quot; to justify appeasing the nuclear madmen of the today.

[LRB]

I always remember the saying hangin under Vandenbeurg Air Force Base when I 1st visited it. It said &quot;Peace is our profession&quot;.

We cannot have peace as long as Sadddam and people like him run free in the world. They will make it their mission to destroy peace. They cannot stand peace. They hate peace. And they will destroy peace at all costs. The only way to perserve peace it to eliminate these haters of peace before they can do major damage.

Peace truely is the profession of our armed forces. They stand for peace, they defend the peace, and they will go to war to enable us to have peace. The world that we live in does not afford us the choice of no war. The only choice we have is when and how big. Saddam has started the war. It is going on now. Many have died. Many more will die if we do not end the war. The quickest and least costly way to end that war is through decisive action to do so. That action will result in the capitulation by Saddam by his own had or elimination by the armed forces of the US led coalition.

Those who cry for peace will do well to direct their protest against the breaker of the peace, Saddam Hussein, the moral ancestor of Hitler and many other tyrants and whoremongers. We are at war with him now. He threatens our very lives, and to fail to eliminate the threat and defend ourselves is to court disaster and the deaths of millions.

[OutletPass]

Millions paid with their lives because of the inaction of the French and British during the 1930's.

UNITED NATIONS – In unusually blunt terms aimed at pre-empting the United States, France said Monday that it would not support any Security Council resolution for military action against Iraq in the coming weeks.

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, said that &quot;Iraq has complied fully with all relevant resolutions&quot; and that the inspectors should have &quot;all the time which is needed.&quot;


So very hard to understand.

I don't believe that anyone in their right mind truly wants war, but as long as there are mad dog dictators in the world who would kill millions, they must be put to sleep. For everyone's sake, I wish that Saddam (and for that matter, Kim Jong Il) would get the message, but that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Thanks to Fidel for posting from Europe. I do have to say that my thoughts are still with NP. I fear that his countrymen will be the first of our allies to suffer.

[Fidel]

Nice post Kikki,
first of I have to say that it´s a bit difficult for me to talk about topics like that in another language than german. That why I usually stay away from them. I´ll try my best.



<< Nice post, Fidel. However...

&lt;&lt; We just don´t think that war in the name of peace is a good option. &gt;&gt;

There are no 'good' options...in the sense that there are no 'easy' options. >>


I totally agree with that.



<< &lt;&lt; War would not make it easier IMO. &gt;&gt;

Does anyone really believe that without war being perceieved as a very real possibility, Hussein would ever be guided to 'retire', or exile himself without the threat of 'pre-emption'? And what has kept Hussein from attacking Israel more overtly and more aggressively, if not the threat of military retalitation?

News reports tonight, in fact, said that senior Iraqui officials have said that Hussein will NEVER agree to exile himself outside the country. He's bargaining, of course. But without the prospect of military intervention, you can be sure there'd be no way that his ruthless, brutal, absolute control on Iraqui affairs and his ever-present hand in internationl terrorism would ever be diminished.

And there would be no way that neighboring Arab countries would be emboldened to oppose Hussein and be working to convince him to leave power, except for the fact that they understand that the United States is serious about removing him from power. In fact I think it can be argued that more than fearing the threat of war, neighboring Arab states are actually taking advantage of it. >>


Like I said, he probably won´t retire. I just think that he should be given some &quot;time&quot; to think about the situation. Raise the level of pressure. The US could fly some bombardements, destroysome key industry complexes, without going into a full fledged war. Let´s see how he responds to that. Cut down the &quot;Oil for food&quot; program since it´s not really used to help the poor civilians anyways. That´s what I meant. Try everything you can to remove Saddam from power before you go into an all out war. That would be quite the opposite to what happened in Germany with Hitler. He was not put under pressure at all. His actions were pretty much ignored until it nearly was too late (or if you look at all the lost lives: until it was too late).



<< &lt;&lt;A war on iraq would severly destabilize the whole situation in the middle east, not stabilize it. It will only provoke more hostility and terror from other arabian countrys. Iraq in itself is a very unstable country with alot of different stems and races. Now what happens after a war? How do you guarantee that there is no such thing as an islamic revolution? Stay there forever? The war in Afghanistan isn´t even over yet. ... ...

... ...Right now it is clearly double standard. North Korea has a far more advanced nuclear weapon program than Iraq. But...North Korea has no oil&gt;&gt;

Yes, one of the risks of war is a less stable situation afterward. But to do nothing and allow Hussein to remain in power is an untenable level of risk. He carried on a war with Iran 20+ years ago, and invaded Kuwait 10+ years ago. In that sense he has shown himself to be a more imminent threat than the North Korean government, and that distinction substantially mitigates and so-called 'double-standard'.

The most galling opposition to the war with Iraq comes from know-nothing flower pickers here in the United States who oppose George Bush on the domestic political front for reasons that are altogether unclear, least of all to themselves. They accuse Bush and his family and his corporate political backers of wanting merely to 'appropriate' Iraqui oilfields for economic and political gain, without understanding or acknowledging the strategic importance of the Iraqui oilfields to American and global security. These voices merely attempt a cheap smear of Bush and his administration. >>


Two things: the war on Iran was heavily supported by the US and some european countrys, because of the Islamic revolution in Iran (until that point Iran was an important strategic partner of the US). Saddam was chosen as a new strategic partner. The saying was: hemight be a bastard, but he´s OUR bastard. That changed after Saddam attacked Kuweit. Alot of the weapon technology the inspctors are searching for now, comes from companys in the US, UK, France, Germany...those companys had buisiness with Iraq until `99.

I don´t really know the situation in Korea, but Kim Il Yong might be just as dangerous a dictator as Saddam. This situation needs to be adressed too. It makes you think at least why the US is concentrating on Iraq so much and Korea is basicly allowed to build nuclear weapons.

The last point. I´m happy that you didn´t accuse me of being one of those flower pickers, cause I sure didn´t want to sound like one. Of course the oil in Iraq is of very high strategic value for world peace and economy. It´s very dangerous if your whole econmy relys on some agressive ultra islamic and corrupt countrys, or dictators like Saddam. Economical interessts and interessts of the western society go hand in hand here.



<< &lt;&lt;The war on Iraq is as much about oil as anything. The US would like to break ties with Saudi Arabia after what happened on 9/11. The plan is to cut down saudi arabian oil imports to 0 until 2007. So an alternative is needed. Iraq is said to have the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia (250 billion barrel). It´s of the same quality and very easy to facilitate. The US would love to lift the export restrictions for oil of Iraq, but Saddam would then have the money to really add up in the weapon department. So Saddam needs to go first. Alot of other countrys like russia, france and the UK have claims for certain oil fields in Iraq. If they get guarantees for those claims, they´ll probably support a war.&gt;&gt;


Your post makes the connetion clear. It's not merely an economic grab for U.S. interests--it's a crucial military/strategic move, with international geo-political consequences. The world cannot allow itself to be held hostage either by a brutal dictator or by ruthless, murderous religious extremists. And the United States, as a superpower and 'enforcer' for Western values and the Western way of life cannot and will not allow itself to be held economic hostage just because of geographic serendipity. >>


I totally agree with you here. My only gripe with the situation is that the US administration (and administrations of the other countrys involved) should tell the people what this is about. Instead of talking about weapons of mass destruction all the time and saying that the Iraq could attack Europe or the US, it should be made clear that Iraq and certain islamic countrys COULD attack the western world, but in a complete different manner. They could attack our economys, through controling most of the oil resources. I´m sure most people would understand that much better (especially over here in Germany), than the stuff we get to hear now.

[BrianJ]

Fidel of course that is the reason. The only problem with that is the average american voter is not able to understand that. Alot of college educated people would not either. With that being said it is amazing to me that we are able to have such a cutthroat intelligent government that is able to manage not only this economy but all of the tiny variables that could potentionally disrupt it. This is truely a great time to be alive, I don't think that we could prosper much more then right now.

War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things, that would be not being willing to fight for what you believe is right.

That is the attitude that I have. Nothing makes me more sick than watching peace loving panzzies protesters. Especially men, u can cry about your human rights all u want, the reason u can do it is because of the barbaric men who have fought before you, enjoy it. Really need to sleep more.

[Chiwas]

BBC
Monday, 20 January, 2003, 18:49 GMT
Blair ratchets up military pressure

It is a larger deployment proportionately than in 1991

By Jonathan Marcus
BBC defence correspondent


British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon described Monday's announcement as &quot;no ordinary measure&quot; and indeed he might.

This is a surprisingly large British deployment of troops.

Indeed, it is pretty well everything that Britain could reasonably send to the Gulf and support in the field given the military's other commitments - not least the fire brigade strike.

UK troops in the Gulf:



Royal Navy Task Group has set sail

Personnel include Royal Marines from 3 Commando Brigade

Headquarters 1 (UK) Armoured Division

Support from the Desert Rats

16 Air Assault Brigade

102 Logistics Brigade

120 Challenger tanks

150 Warrior armoured personnel carriers


In proportional terms it is a larger deployment in relation to the overall size of the British Army than was the force sent to the last Gulf War in 1991.

Announced on Monday was a force of some 26,000 troops that must be added to the several thousand-strong amphibious force of Royal Marines already on their way to the region.

It comprises a much reinforced armoured brigade - the 7th Armoured Brigade known as &quot;the Desert Rats&quot; and elements of the headquarters of One UK Division.

Known in military jargon as &quot;a square armoured brigade&quot; it is made up of four regiments or battalions; two armoured and two mechanised infantry.

In terms of military punch that is some 120 Challenger Two tanks; 150 Warrior combat vehicles and 32 AS-90 self-propelled guns.

Additional artillery will go with the air-mobile brigade along with its three infantry battalions and their integral helicopters and anti-tank units.

The deployment list is completed by a significant part of a Logistics Brigade to support the British force in the difficult desert conditions.

The timing of this announcement is also significant.

Britain's Labour Government has faced an undercurrent of criticism from within its own ranks to Prime Minister Tony Blair's resolute backing of the American line.

Scepticism is high about involvement in any war.


Large sections of British public opinion are also sceptical about the country's potential involvement in a major war.

By the time the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reports back to the Security Council at the end of this month British troops will be well on the move.

They should be established on the ground - probably in Kuwait - by mid-February.

There is still time to avert a war.

Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons that there had been no commitment to any specific course of military action.

But time is running out. Many pundits believe that without some dramatic change of attitude on the part of Saddam Hussein, an air war could be under way by early March.

Britain's deployment signals Tony Blair's desire to ratchet up the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

But it also demonstrates that Britain intends to take a significant part in the fighting if and when war actually comes.

[Evilmav2]

Britain is yet again proving to be an honorable and far-sighted friend of the United States. The special relationship of the Anglo-American alliance has proven to be a powerful guarantor of world peace in the past 60 years and it will continue to be so in the future...

[Murphy3]

unfortunately, the french are proving, once again, that they are absolutely useless

[scooterj5]

If you're in charge, you can't just make some self-righteous anti-war comments and mumble something about a 'peaceful resolution.'

There is no peaceful resolution!

Saddam is a dictator and murderer. I would rather kill him *before* he kills us.

[Evilmav2]

&quot;Iraq will be disarmed, and the decision between war and peace will not be made in Washington D.C., and not in the United Nations in New York, but rather in Baghdad. It is their decision. Either they will cooperate, or they won't. And it will not take months to determine whether or not they are cooperating.&quot;
Donald Rumsfeld on Monday

&quot;We cannot fail to take action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we are afraid of the difficult choices ahead of us&quot;
Colin Powell on Monday


--Contrary to what the New York Times or Anti-Globalization kooks or the North Korean propoganda ministry or the French ambassador to the U.N. would tell us, the decision for war or peace does lay in Baghdad. During any point of the last 11 years, it would have been easy for Saddam and his gang to have come clean and live up to the disarmament provisions that they agreed to in the 1991 ceasefire. They haven't and they won't. I think I agree with our president when he says, &quot;This looks like the rerun of a bad movie, and I'm not interested in watching it&quot;.

In that light how credible are foreign demands that we waste more months playing games with the Iraqis? Not very. In my mind their demands and stonewalling in the U.N. are as disengenuous as they are dangerous. It seems to me that the French, and Russians, and Red Chinese are far more concerned with dealing America a foreign policy defeat and shackling the alarmingly active giant, than they are in worrying about the very real and credible threat of the Iraqi vipers nest. The long term threat of Iraq is not of concern to some of fellow security council members; their mercenary ideas about their own national interests and undermining American might are.

Thankfully, America does not need the sanction of these callous and self-serving powers. Unless Iraq truly capitulates and proves it can live up to it's agreements, we will act with the help of our honorable allies and end this threat one way or the other- with or without U.N. approval. As Powell said, we will not be &quot;shocked into impotence&quot;. Sadly, if the obstructionary tactics of foreign powers force us to act on our own, all it will accomplish is the discrediting of the U.N. and consigning Woodrow Wilson's proud doctrine of Collective Security to it's sad grave...


AH-64 disarming Iraqi's

[Evilmav2]

unfortunately, the french are proving, once again, that they are absolutely useless

The worthless french should be happy to even have a seat on the security council. I don't if anyone could realistically argue that they have been a great world power since sometime before the Franco-Prussian war...


Paris police department marching, 1943...

[Murphy3]

in what way can the french help out with any type of security...

[Chiwas]

Jacques Chirac declared yesterday (or maybe today) that neither France nor Germany want the war against Irak and that the UN have to address the problem with inspectors and Irak's mass destruction weapons. I heard it in the radio a moment ago.

[Murphy3]

i dont' think anyone wants war..it would be great to settle everything diplomatically.

but remember, we're dealing with a guy leading iraq that has the same type of mentality as JoeJoe..totally childish and unpredicatbale

[Chiwas]

CNN

Rumsfeld dismisses French, German opposition to war


U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld dismissed French and German opposition to war with Iraq saying that the two countries represent &quot;old Europe&quot; and that NATO's expansion means &quot;the center of gravity is shifting to the east.&quot; Other countries in Europe are &quot;not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States,&quot; he said.

[BrianJ]

Off the subject, how do you find that shit evilmav? Do u have a grab bag of appropriate pictures for every occasion? if so u should market it. too funny

[Evilmav2]

Hahaha. I appreciate the compliment. I generally find my poop though a stupid sense of humor and a willingness to search the internet for amusing pictoral aids. Sometimes they are funny; often they are not...

[OutletPass]

Just read this article...no big surprise...looks like it happens sooner rather than later...it's from the London paper &quot;The guardian&quot;

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

The message from the Bush camp: 'It's war within weeks'

Julian Borger in Washington, Ewen MacAskill and Simon Tisdall
Friday January 24, 2003
The Guardian

President George Bush is determined to go to war with Saddam Hussein in the next few weeks, without UN backing if necessary, according to authoritative sources in Washington and London. The US president is &quot;to turn up the heat&quot; in his state of the union address on Tuesday. &quot;The pressure comes from President Bush and it is felt all the way down,&quot; a European official said. &quot;They're talking about weeks, not months. Months is a banned word now.&quot;

Mr Bush wanted the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, to force the issue of military action by presenting evidence of Saddam Hussein's violations of UN resolutions immediately after weapons inspectors give their report to the UN on Monday. In Washington circles such an event is being referred to as the Adlai Stevenson moment. The &quot;Adlai Stevenson moment&quot; has become Washington shorthand for the US presentation of its intelligence case. Stevenson was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, who dramatically confronted the Soviet envoy with vivid aerial photographs of nuclear missiles being unloaded in Cuba.

Downing Street was alarmed by the Bush administration's sudden haste in moving towards a climax. It was adamant that the decision to go to war should not be declared before Tony Blair flies to Camp David for talks with Mr Bush next Friday. An informed source in Washington said: &quot;Blair is a good guy. They won't want to do that to him. They want it to look like he played a part in the policy-making but the decision has been made.&quot; A key moment will now be the state of the union address. According to a Washington source, the US administration remains divided along old fault lines about the precise timescale of war. The US secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld, wants Mr Bush to set a clear and imminent deadline. But Mr Powell, is resisting, asking for a little more time for diplomatic coalition-building.

But both sides of the divide are making it increasingly clear that the end result will be military action, with or without UN backing. The chief White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, yesterday brushed off mounting anti-war feeling across Europe, led by France. It was &quot;entirely possible that France won't be on the line&quot;, he said, adding that Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain and &quot;virtually all of the eastern European countries&quot; would provide support. Mr Powell echoed this, saying: &quot;I don't think we will have to worry about going it alone.&quot;

The impatience within the White House for action against Iraq came on a day in which the cracks in the international coalition against Iraq widened. China and Russia joined France and Germany in warning the US against precipitate action and calling for Washington to work within the UN. The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, revealed the extent of European anger over the US position when he told Washington to &quot;cool down&quot;. The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: &quot;Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq.&quot;

But Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, ratcheted up the rhetoric by claiming that Iraqi scientists were at risk of death. &quot;We know from multiple sources that Saddam has ordered that any scientists who cooperate during interviews will be killed, as well as their families,&quot; he said. Britain believes it has won a short reprieve before the US presents its own intelligence evidence against Saddam Hussein, in effect a declaration of war, but only for a fortnight at most. Mr Bush will lay out the broad case for toppling President Saddam next Tuesday but White House officials insist the speech, a year after the president coined the phrase, &quot;axis of evil&quot;, will stop short of being a declaration of war. That will await a more detailed presentation of intelligence evidence in the next few weeks, after Mr Blair visits Camp David.

&quot;We said that has to be a substantive consultation, not a fait accompli,&quot; one British official said. The British argument is that the longer the US waits before showing its hand, the better the case it will have to put before the UN security council, as the inspectors come across more Iraqi infringements. The Foreign Office had initially sought to defuse the rising tension around next Monday's inspectors' report by denying that it represented a &quot;moment of truth&quot;, but in recent days a source conceded: &quot;That was never going to be realistic. Of course it's important.&quot; At his meeting with Mr Powell yesterday, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, clung to the official line. &quot;There are still ways that this can be resolved peacefully,&quot; he said. Mr Straw repeated that the British preference is for a second UN resolution before any further action against Iraq but Mr Powell, in a change of tack, refused to commit himself to seeking a second resolution.

One of the factors behind Washington's haste appears to be the annual rise in temperatures in the Iraqi desert over the next few months. In theory, US and some allied troops have the capacity to fight in any weather but the effectiveness of both soldiers and equipment diminishes rapidly when the temperature rises over 35C. &quot;The planes have been designed for the cold war. They start losing lift, carry lighter loads, and must make shorter runs when the temperature goes over 35,&quot; said one government official involved in Anglo-American debates over the timing of an attack.

[BrianJ]

Hope they don't call up the inactive reserve, Brian likes beer and tv way to much. Better to not get laid in your own house then , no chance in the mideast