CH - Irak

[djnvcm]

CH stands for <<Confédération Helvétique>> (put on Swiss cars) going abroad. Switzerland is a neutral country. Even with nazis they were neutral. No way to punish Switzerland it is like that (you will not punish your banker).
The point is that when you start a war on your own and if it is not to defend your country and you do it against a major part of the world opinion (including some of your strongest allies) you need to master every thing and in particular the peace and reconstruction that come afterwards.
France position in this conflict was not neutral at all. The point was << What could be the best to get rid of Saddam and keep the country as a non religious country >>
USA went to war... bombing infrastructures. This war is a full success. It has put the Iraki population in a worst situation if not killing it, no water, no food, no salary, insecurity. No proven links with Al-Qaida. No WMD's found. No justification except Saddam
What is the political scene today in Irak ? Did the pentagon wanted to put Al Hakim to power ?
We may say in french: One shall not fart higher than his backside

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by djnvcm
CH stands for <<Confédération Helvétique>> (put on Swiss cars) going abroad. Switzerland is a neutral country. Even with nazis they were neutral. No way to punish Switzerland it is like that (you will not punish your banker).
The point is that when you start a war on your own and if it is not to defend your country and you do it against a major part of the world opinion (including some of your strongest allies) you need to master every thing and in particular the peace and reconstruction that come afterwards.
France position in this conflict was not neutral at all. The point was << What could be the best to get rid of Saddam and keep the country as a non religious country >>
USA went to war... bombing infrastructures. This war is a full success. It has put the Iraki population in a worst situation if not killing it, no water, no food, no salary, insecurity. No proven links with Al-Qaida. No WMD's found. No justification except Saddam
What is the political scene today in Irak ? Did the pentagon wanted to put Al Hakim to power ?
We may say in french: One shall not fart higher than his backside
Blah, blah, blah, blah.........nothing new here. Same old whining from the sidelines from someone who didn't get his way.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by djnvcm
USA went to war... bombing infrastructures. This war is a full success. It has put the Iraki population in a worst situation if not killing it, no water, no food, no salary, insecurity. No proven links with Al-Qaida. No WMD's found. No justification except Saddam

And, apparently, you have no credible source of news. So sad.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by JustPat
And, apparently, you have no credible source of news. bah it's not a matter of having "a news" it's just a matter of forging your own opinion by considering the "war goals" that were invoqued by Bush at the SC, and post-evaluating them (or to invent new wars goals maybe).

The only motive invoqued by Bush is :
Iraq is an immediate threat to US security because of a wide array of WMDs => No WMDs (well maybe some but likely not enough to be a real threat).


The other official goal was to stop terrorism => "Americans Among Over 25 Dead in Saudi Suicide Bombs"
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2731151

"It was the first major attack on U.S. and Western interests since the war on Iraq, which critics warned could fan hatred of America across the Middle East and provoke attacks like those of Sept. 11, 2001, for which Washington blames al Qaeda"



anyway make your own opinion ... and since you probably think the only solution the terrorism is more violence, the future could be even more rejoicing for you... :(


for me, I still think the US were right on invading afghanistan fast, but did it tragically and completely wrong on Iraq. That simply was not the proper way to deal with the problem, and they are others ways of tackling terrorism that invading and occupying.
Actually the neoconservatives are "fanning terrorism" and I suspect some of them like it because terrorism is likely to reinforce them.

.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by yehudi
bah it's not a matter of having "a news" it's just a matter of forging your own opinion by considering the "war goals" that were invoqued by Bush at the SC, and post-evaluating them (or to invent new wars goals maybe) ...
And a hearty humbug to you ...
It is about news, without credible and verifiable news sources you cannot form an opinion that is based on truth.

You claim the President had two goals, eliminate WMD, and combat terrorism. Your news sources missed the key point in the launching of this action, Saddam was in violation of the terms of surrender (for 12 years), a point the UN refused to address, and his despotic regime was the biggest threat to his own people whom he seemed to have no problem killing on a whim.

Violation of the terms of surrender gave all the legal basis necessary to renew military action. We did, soundly defeated the enemy and still there is the brazen defiance among the thugs who have ywt to surrender. In cases like this you have no choice but to exterminate the cockroaches. Saddam, al Queda, PLO, what ever the species of cockroach, if you cannot negotiate peace in good faith because they are looking to stab you in the back as soon as you are not looking, there is no other option then overwhelming and total destruction.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by JustPat
And, apparently, you have no credible source of news. So sad.

What are the news today from Irak ???????

[Mediocrates]

You pulled that "to keep Irak from becoming religious" out of your ass. Tell it to the mullahs.

What's interesting though is that we see a fracture in the Russia-Germany-France iron triangle. Seemingly France is becoming increasingly isolated by its stance vis a vis Irak.

By the by according to the Wall St. Journal a drop off in American tourism to France will cost your country a billion dollars this year. Moreover exports to the US are down 17% in the April - June timeframe.

The bitter pill of asymmetric warfare. Viva la Revolucion !!

[Communication]

JustPat is right. I watched the UN debates. Colin Powell was arguing "material breach," NOT "imminent threat." So was SH is material breach or not? That's the real issue, right? What the media says is an entirely different matter and not relevent at all to the legal question. And we knew that SH had weapons because we sold them to him to use on the Iranians. So what happened to them? Saddam: "I dunno."

I remember back before the war when you guys were coming on this board every day saying, "Hey, the UN needs more time to find the WMDs because 12 years wasn't long enough." I'm curious why you guys now think that two months after the war is enough time.


The build up to war was not a zero sum game either. WMDs were only ONE reason in a larger decision tree. Oil was in there. Freedom was in there too. Property rights, water rights...etc...But where was the discussion in Europe and among the left about freedom for Iraqis? The Arab nations weren't going to do it. At least the fall of SH has caused some Arab introspection regarding that last point. And I think that's the target we should be aiming for now. Not all these stupid bipartisan, transatlantic issues.