Let us not forget Hans Blix, who tried to dissimulate a smoking gun from UNSC.

Have you all seen this link? note the anti-semetic peotry:

article on pro vs anti-war poetry

How can anyone quote Joschka Fischer with a straight face? His thoughts on foreign policy are hardly objective, but he is a foremost authority on harboring red terrorists and firebombing and beating young policemen.

Way off topic,

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Oh, look at the charm! Yes, I know, I am not supposed to judge by appearances but this one is irresistable.

Maybe Hans Blixt should get the next Nobel Peace Prize for his role in destroying the UN. He would have to beat out a lot of competition but he seem to be full of the right stuff.Time and event will measure the man and Ihave a micrometer calibrated in thousandths.

An interesting thing about MSNBC and that Saletan piece...

Of March 6th, Saletan wrote an opinion piece called "Bush's incomprehension of foreign viewpoints."

The next day, he wrote the "Franco-German Iraq Con Game."

Guess which one has been the top headline on MSN for the past four days? Every single time I've hit MSN for the past four days, I see the words "Bush's incomprehension of foreign viewpoints"

Bias? Beats me.

I don't want to join the tinhat brigades, but it does seem odd that they're promoting Saletan's second-to-last piece.

-- Erik

Bush just needs to do this, go in and get it over with- the way it is now is like sloooooowly pulling a band-aid off a bad scrape, the longer you take, the more it hurts.

Want to stop North Korea's nonsense? invade Iraq, it is all being orchestrated by the new "grand alliance" of losers and almost wheres and never was'-

Germany, France, Russia and China. ANything to thwart American Policy, only I think Russia is their weakest link- it has needed the U.S. in an economic sense the early 1970's - the first Russian Wheat Deal.

For those of you who can get it, read Winston Churchill's grandson's editorial in today's WSJ - spells it all out pretty clearly.

I think den-beste's theories of finding MASSIVE Fraco-German evidence is getting stroner day by day

checks ?

HG

#7:

only I think Russia is their weakest link

Huh?? look what Russia will do in UNSC: Veto. Ye Olde Enemmie...

France and Germany are next!

I am sick of hippie Franco/Bavarian apologists like this guy...

"He also urged the President to resist his tendency to bear grudges, advising him to bridge the rift between the United States, France and Germany.

'You’ve got to reach out to the other person. You’ve got to convince them that long-term friendship should trump short-term adversity,' he said."

What a maroon. Let's glass 'em now!

#10: You call Bush Sr. a maroon? Forgotten to turn on your brain pacemaker today?

I still don't believe there will be a veto by anyone. They KNOW the U.S. is going in. A veto would surely deny the veto-er a slice of the post-war pie.

They may claim their (france, Russia) position is one of conscience, but they have none. I don't believe it.

That's my prediction. We'll see soon, I guess.

b

#11 hans ze beeman: "You call Bush Sr. a maroon?"

Did you read what he said hans? I would go further to say he is pro-Saddam, anti-American, he is endangering our troops and he should be jailed for treason.

#10: You call Bush Sr. a maroon? Forgotten to turn on your brain pacemaker today?

I would say that we are in this mess today because of his mistakes. It's understandable that he'd have an opinion, also understandable for him to talk about it with the president, his son. But he's not necessarily the best person to talk to about the Iraq issue.

The article posted was more or less what Jack Straw said on friday.

I think most telling is Colin Powell yesterday saying that he reckons he has the Security Council votes in the bag.

France to veto, I wouldn't put it past them, they must know that the US are not going to do them any favours from this point on.

eat broccoli ;) hahah

tell me, does anyone know WHY I put that here?

#12 bill

I still don't believe there will be a veto by anyone. They KNOW the U.S. is going in. A veto would surely deny the veto-er a slice of the post-war pie.

So? After the Gulf War, do you know how many Kuwaiti contracts France won?

None.

And that's one of the reason behind France attitude. You get shafted once, and then you learn.

#14 James:

I would say that we are in this mess today because of his mistakes. It's understandable that he'd have an opinion, also understandable for him to talk about it with the president, his son. But he's not necessarily the best person to talk to about the Iraq issue.

While I cannot agree wholeheartedly with your contention (Bush Sr. is responsible for this mess only in as far as he followed the advice of other coalition leaders and the UN in leaving Saddam in power and trusting the UN to enforce its' rresolutions), I agree that Bush Sr. is not the best person for his son to be listening to.

Slightly OT, but this piece by Christopher Hitchens is buried in the nether regions of the (online) Mirror:

HITCHENS: BUSH IS BORED WITH IRAQ ARGUMENT

#14 James: "But he's not necessarily the best person to talk to about the Iraq issue."

And the sheer audacity of an ex-president criticizing GW! It's breathtaking really. I think Colin MacLeod said it best in yesterday's Carter thread:

"It would be easier simply to address Carter's arguments if they came from anyone other than an ex-President. That he would publish such a piece in the midst of war and on the even of battle is reprehensible. Even if his arguments were more coherent or useful, his open attack on one of his successors is a violation of the same spirit of bipartisanship that he begins his piece by invoking."

#16 Bender: "tell me, does anyone know WHY I put that here?"

Bush 41 hated broccoli?

#13: From the mentioned article:

Mr Bush Jr, who is said never to forget even relatively minor slights, has alarmed analysts with the way in which he has allowed senior Administration figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, aggressively to criticise France and Germany.

I think Bush Sr. is one of the most highly regarded US presidents in Germany; he helped us to throw down the wall. As I say - Saddam is a monster in need of being umm... neutralized. I do think that is what Bush Sr. says as well. But in my opinion, he correctly states that the current rift is to be overcome as fast as possible - the only ones being happy with that rift are the terrorists who must be dying right now because their diaphragm is close to splitting - from laughing. This includes Saddam. And current President Bush has stated in his last speech that even though there is difference on this matter - which I regret - we are still friends. Bush Sr. the second ex-president indirectly criticizing Bush. I wonder what Bill Clinton is saying?

#9 - Hans ze Beeman

If France hadn't backstabbed us, Russia would have blustered and abstained.

The French lead opened the door to Germany and Russia for different reasons (Germany - genuine raging pacifism in the majority of Germans + Shroeder/Fischer cynical politics. Russia - any chance it gets to blunt what it sees as a drive by the US for hegemony).

France's motives are pure money-grubbing, a chance to become "Big" again, and the typical French pleasure at being rude and backstabbing friends.

I don't hold what Germany or Russia are doing against them.....but France...well, I will have a long, long grudge against them.

Bush Sr. is responsible for this mess only in as far as he followed the advice of other coalition leaders and the UN in leaving Saddam in power and trusting the UN to enforce its' rresolutions.

I agree, but as Harry Truman's motto read "the buck stops here". Every president gets to claim the triumphs, so they get the baggage too. Bush Sr. followed the advice he was given and the UN mandate, true, but he could have chosen to support the insurgents the U.S. said it would support to remove Saddam. Instead, we didn't, Saddam slaughtered them and we're here today.

creedence,

Darling, take your valium already. You are going to pop a major artery in your brain with all this sarcasm.

#21 hans ze beeman: "he correctly states that the current rift is to be overcome as fast as possible - the only ones being happy with that rift are the terrorists who must be dying right now because their diaphragm is close to splitting - from laughing."

You would actually be amazed at the number of people who are against this war simply because of the rifts the Bush Administration is causing and the resulting damage to the fight against OBL and the terrorists. The point of my earlier post was, it's very easy to label someone as pro-Saddam or anti-American, but the fact is most people just don't like Bush's go-it-alone technique.

#24 marek: "Darling, take your valium already. You are going to pop a major artery in your brain with all this sarcasm."

I know, I know. But c'mon, after all the criticism of Carter yesterday for speaking out against the war...?

#25:

The point of my earlier post was, it's very easy to label someone as pro-Saddam or anti-American, but the fact is most people just don't like Bush's go-it-alone technique.

Indeed. The problem that this easy labelling is carried out so often, and the bluntness of this act undermines rational discourse (both sides - idiotarians and anti-idiotarians - should take a deep draught from the "be-rational!" bottle). By the way, from henceforth Pakistan shall be known as a half-weasel - they will abstain from supporting a UN resolution. I am now seriously thinking whether all these countries are going to be added to the Axis of Evil: France, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, China, and the rest of UNSC except Bulgaria, Spain and UK.

I think this is going to be very interesting. Will the UN be destroyed an torn to shreds?

But in my opinion, he correctly states that the current rift is to be overcome as fast as possible - the only ones being happy with that rift are the terrorists who must be dying right now because their diaphragm is close to splitting - from laughing.

The problem is not Bush.

The problem is in Germany and France. The governments of those countries have decided they'd rather spit on Americans than lift a finger to honor the treaties they've signed.

Once the French and Germans change their governments and put more responsible, more mature, and more honest people in power, the "rift" will close. So long as they elect lying sacks of anti-American shit, the rift will continue to grow.

I think this is going to be very interesting. Will the UN be destroyed an torn to shreds?

Hopefully, that parliament of thieves will be destroyed. All it does is give dictators' relatives a reason to live in NYC without fear of being arrested for their crimes.

#27 hans

Well said. Don't forget to add the Pope to the Axis of Evil, for God's sakes.

I'm making a sign for the protest this Saturday: "Liberate the People of Iraq! Without War, Without Propaganda, Without Lies, Without Bribes, Without Cowboy Diplomacy! Can't we all just get along and get rid of the real terrorists? Our first responders don't even have money yet, we are unprepared for another attack on US soil, and why are we still at code yellow?!""

#28 Robert Crawford

Once the French and Germans change their governments and put more responsible, more mature, and more honest people in power, the "rift" will close. So long as they elect lying sacks of anti-American shit, the rift will continue to grow.

France: forget it. Not because the French wouldn't want to vote for responsible, honest people. But because France is an oligarchy, and while one can vote for someone who is not in the 'ruling class', they cannot be elected.

Short of a revolution, the French government will always be full of scumbags.

#28:

The governments of those countries have decided they'd rather spit on Americans than lift a finger to honor the treaties they've signed.

I agree as to the NATO episode. That was extremely dumb, but NATO will survive that as Schröder and Belgium have regained reason on the issue. What other treaties are there, I ask in my humble ignorance, that are violated? I think much of the fuss is going on about the "seroius consuequences"-thing; what does it mean? This is a true negative aspect of UN: resolutions are clad in such cloudy phrases that anyone can agree. This must be overcome.

21 as soon as possible??? is there no middle ground between "we will never trust them again" and " we will reconcile as soon as possible"

I think it is possible that we can and reconcile - i think it would be a mistake for the US to pretend as if nothing had happened. We must analyze carefuly the nature of what happened and the grand strategic rationales behind it - in particular the apparent French belief that the dangers presented by rogue states with WMD is less than that presented by the growth in American power. And that it is worth it to sand bag even such multilateralist figures as Colin Powell, and to organize a global campaign against the American strategy. There will HAVE to be consequences on diplomatic and economic fronts. The pace of reconciliation will depend on French behavior in the future.

#30:

"Liberate the People of Iraq! Without War, Without Propaganda, Without Lies, Without Bribes, Without Cowboy Diplomacy! Can't we all just get along and get rid of the real terrorists? Our first responders don't even have money yet, we are unprepared for another attack on US soil, and why are we still at code yellow?!""

You're either going to carry a sign of 30 x 45 feet, or choose font size 2, eh? :)

as one of the few americans on this forum who voted AGAINST George HW Bush in 1992, my I speak up???

I do hold the failure to oust Saddam in 1991 against Bush. It would NOT have required a march on Bagdad, as he dishonestly implies in his speech. The Kurds and Shiites were on the outskirts of Bagdad when the Republican Guard and its helicopters struck back. All that would have been required would have been continued air action against the Republican Guard. It was the least we owed the Kurds and Shiites, after we had encouraged them to revolt, they having been the chief victims of Saddams tyranny. Bush sr caved not to the UN, but to his Saudi friends, who feared a real deomcracyu in Iraq, as they still do today.

It is even more ironic and galling that Bush sr claims his failure to oust Saddam was responsible for the "success" of Madrid. In fact Madrid was a failure, and Oslo was an attempt by the Palestinians and Israelis to get around the failure of Madrid. It too failed in its turn, in no small part due to the strategic situation left in the middle east by Bush sr's failure to deal with Saddam.

So as far as I am concerned Bush Sr has absolutely zero credibility on Iraq, perhaps even less so than Jimmy Carter.

I wonder, if the US surrounded the UN with troops,
"for the safety of the delegates", and held them all
captive, how many months would their countries put up with it. Imagine the US having a friendly country
vetoing any action other then "inspector/observers
who would keep stalling and tipping off NYPD
about attempts to get the "protected" delagates out.

Noam Chomsky

What an idiot.

I hate this guy.

25 - are these people at all swayed by the capture of Khalid sheik muhammed??? Apparently Pakistan still manages to cooperate with the WOT. Can you name any nations that have lessened their cooperation???

"I'm making a sign for the protest this Saturday: "Liberate the People of Iraq! Without War, Without Propaganda, Without Lies, Without Bribes, Without Cowboy Diplomacy! Can't we all just get along"

cant we all just get along?? I dunno, why dont you ask some Iraqi victims of Saddam. You can tell them how you propose liberating Iraq.

#25--"....most people just don't like Bush's go-it-alone technique. "

Contrary to popular belief, we are not going it alone. Along with UK, Spain and Bulgaria...what about the 11 (or was it 17?) countries that signed letter of solidarity with us in the WSJ back in January?

People who are calling this "unilateral" are morons.

32 - serious consequences were prmised, rather than war, so that 1441 would not be seen as giving the US the right to go to war in the event of a minor, disputable violation by Iraq, such as a minor inaccuracy in their Dec 7 violation. AS Powell has stated, everyone knew that in the event of a clear failure of Iraq to cooperate that serious consequences meant war. AFAIK France has not disputed this statement by Powell.

#33:

we must analyze carefully the nature of what happened and the grand strategic rationales behind it

And in analysis, there are (at least) two strategies as well. We can use blame culture (islamic strategy, fundamentalism) or do some guilt search on our own. The US clearly have failed to reach unanimosity in UNSC. Reasons could be many, including:

- Weasels have been bought by Saddam.
- Anti-War protestors are going to become mullahs.
- Resisting war is fascism.
- etc. etc.

The arguments of the idiotarians are well known:

- OIL
- World domination
- Old enemy of Bush family
- etc. etc.

When we filter out this paranoia nonsense, true analysis can begin. I'm very interested in the results of these analyses. There WILL be consequences, but not long-time.

#41:

everyone knew that in the event of a clear failure of Iraq to cooperate that serious consequences meant war.

Serious consequences means serious consequences. The rest is interpretation. THERE LIES THE PROBLEM, as stated above. Had the resolution been, "resulting in war", there would not have been problems of understanding.

most people just don't like Bush's go-it-alone technique

If by "go-it-alone" you mean "without France and Germany", sure.

Un Permission? We don't need no Stinkin UN Permission. WE don't need no stinkin EU permission, hell, in WW2 we declared war on the Stinkin French when they wouldn't let us land peacefully in Nth Africa.

which brings up a further note- if they want to stop us, let em fight us - they won't, cowards all. THey would wait till the Dems got another weenie in office before actually forcing the issue with the threat of arms, the whole world knows that since Truman you can back down an American Democrat with out much effort.

(AP) -- Thousands of people rallied Saturday in cities around the nation in support of, and against, a possible war with Iraq. But leaders of at least one group, demonstrating in biker boots and chaps, insisted they weren't taking sides.

I love the USA. They are the country of superlatives - even concerning aims for demonstrations :)

I agree as to the NATO episode. That was extremely dumb, but NATO will survive that as Schröder and Belgium have regained reason on the issue. What other treaties are there, I ask in my humble ignorance, that are violated?

You need one beyond NATO?

Why?

If you really need another one, look at how they're using the UN. They're blocking the UN from doing what it was set up to do.

That's not incredibly surprising, of course. It appears from here that France and Germany are really worried the world will find out just how much help they've given Saddam, especially after the 1991 sanctions.

#40 jk

Contrary to popular belief, we are not going it alone. Along with UK, Spain and Bulgaria...what about the 11 (or was it 17?) countries that signed letter of solidarity with us in the WSJ back in January?

I would really appreciate if you mentioned the Czech republic, who has actually deployed troops, right there after the U.K.

Thanks.

re: 22 Ranbutan
You still miffed about their misguided attempt to stop Eldorado Canyon, Ranbutan? Me too.

#48:

That's not incredibly surprising, of course. It appears from here that France and Germany are really worried the world will find out just how much help they've given Saddam, especially after the 1991 sanctions.

Ah, I think that is largely known and would be no problem had France and Germany joined the club. Falluja 2, built by a British company, is a key component in Iraq's arsenal of chemical weapons. I find this WMD components trade despicable, but it is German companies, not Germany. Reason for Germany: Schröder's fundamental pacifism. Reason for France: usual business of kicking the US shins.

according to Fox

Chirac has threatened that if the US acts unilaterally in Iraq, the will "negatively impact the world WOT"

...what a nasty vile slug

Lips that touch French wine,
Shall never touch mine.

Boycott French Products!!

Gen Franks has left the building....

next appearance Qtar

Michael Ledeen (in the current National Review) is speculating that the Franco-German axis might just be doing exactly what we suspect them of doing:

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States ... This required considerable skill, and total cynicism, both of which were in abundant supply in Paris and Berlin ...

I think Chirac will oppose us before, during, and after the war, because he has cast his lot with radical Islam and with the Arab extremists. He isn't doing it just for the money — although I have no doubt that France is being richly rewarded for defending Saddam against the civilized countries of the world — but for higher stakes. He's fighting to end the feared American domination before it takes stable shape.

Just a theory, he says.

IF ... we pull out of United Nations, and
IF ... we pull troops out of S Korea, and
IF ... we pull troops out of Germany, and
IF ... we pull troops out of Saudi Arabia, and
IF... we stop giving money to countries like Egypt

.... then ... would that save us enough money to

... bomb Saddam
... re-build Iraq
... re-build Afghanistan
... re-fund NASA
... fund a national health-care program
... start taking aim at Iran / North Korean / Our Friends the Saudi's,

AND have enough left over for a tax cut?

16 Bender
...and let him puke on the French PM this time!

Lips that touch French wine,
Shall never touch mine.

What if the pilgrim groupies use straws?

# 49-Caton.

Sorry about that...

#4 thanks, re: the photos

the guy wearing the mask reminds me of the old TV show, What's My Line?

Masked Man: "Mystery Guest, are you a member of God's Army?"

Mystery Guest: "No, I'm the police and you are busted."

Masked Man: "Does that mean I go to heaven and have multiple sex partners?"

Mystery Guest: "The place you'll be going to ain't heaven, but you will have multiple sex partners."

#49: Do you mean the Czech troops stationed in Kuwait? They are there together with US troops and German troops.

Way back in the 70s NatLamp said it best:

FRENCH
Racial Characteristics:
Sawed-off sissies who eat snails and slugs and cheese that smells like people's feet. They take filthy pictures of each other with cheap cameras, wash nothing but their ****s, fight with their feet, and perform sex acts with their faces. Utter cowards who force their own children to drink wine, they gibber like baboons even when you try to speak to them in their own wimpy language.
Good Points:
Invented the blowjob.

Proper Forms of Address:
Froggy, froggy-wog, frog-eater, French-lips, Franco fuck-face, clit-lick.

An Anecdote Illustrating Something of the French Character:
A Frenchman goes home with his best friend and they find the friend's wife laying naked on the dining room table with her legs spread apart. The Frenchman takes a close look at her **** and says, "Zees looks like zee menstrual blood!" Then he bends down, takes a deep whiff, and says, "Zees smells like zee menstrual blood!" Finally he gets down on his knees, eats her out for about twenty minutes, and says, "Zees tastes like zee menstrual blood! Without a doubt, it eez zee menstrual blood! Mon dieu, I am glad zat we did not fuck her!!"

[Link: www.nationallampoon.com...]

#62
your posting was absolutely obscene and appalling...

but very funny and true.

thanks for the laughs!

#61 hans ze beeman

Do you mean the Czech troops stationed in Kuwait? They are there together with US troops and German troops.

Yes, I mean the chemical decontamination experts stationed in Kuwait that will move along with the U.S. and British troops.

43 - neither you nor i are privy to the conversations that took place in private over several weeks leading up to the passage of UNSC 1441. Colin Powell, who is, says everyone knew it meant war. Until someone who was privy to those conversations says explicity that it did not, I will assume he is right.

Note well: France has not focused on this ambguity - rather they have focused on the lack of a deadline - "we have not yet exhausted 1441" is what they say - because they know that when 1441 is exhausted that DOES mean war.

Thats why the initial 2nd (18th) resolution did not mention war either - all it stated was that Saddam had exhausted his final chance under 1441 - given the language of 1441 everyone knows that means war, and it is on that basis that France and Germany have opposed it.

Compliments of Mikes comments section over at cold fury

There was a Frenchman, an Englishman and Claudia Schiffer sitting together in a carriage in a train going through Provence. Suddenly the train went through a tunnel and as it was an old style train, there were no lights in the carriages and it went completely dark. Then there was a kissing noise and the sound of a really loud slap. When the train came out of the tunnel, Claudia Schiffer and the Englishman were sitting as if nothing had happened and the Frenchman had his hand against his face as if he had been slapped there. The Frenchman was thinking: 'The English fella must have kissed Claudia Schiffer and she missed him and slapped me instead.' Claudia Schiffer was thinking: 'The French fella must have tried to kiss me and actually kissed the Englishman and got slapped for it.' And the Englishman was thinking: 'This is great. The next time the train goes through a tunnel I'll make another kissing noise and slap that French bastard again.'

Fouad Ajami of the SAIS at Johns Hopkins University:

"...it should be recognized that the Rubicon has been crossed. Any fallout of war is certain to be dwarfed by the terrible consequences of America's walking right up to the edge of war and then stepping back, letting the Iraqi dictator work out the terms of another reprieve. It is the fate of great powers that provide order to do so against the background of a world that takes the protection while it bemoans the heavy hand of the protector. This new expedition to Mesopotamia would be no exception to that rule."

Franks is on his way to the gulf. No return date! Counting down (I hope)

I find this WMD components trade despicable, but it is German companies, not Germany.

And the German government, like Sargent Schultz, knew nothing, nothing!

#38 liberalhawk: "are these people at all swayed by the capture of Khalid sheik muhammed??? Apparently Pakistan still manages to cooperate with the WOT. Can you name any nations that have lessened their cooperation??? "

I think his capture reinforces the argument that we have to work together to capture the terrorists. I would say a lot of leaders of nations are fed up with Bush, and this certainly doesn't help. The spirit of cooperation we saw immediately after 9/11 has been replaced with pervasive worldwide anti-American sentiment due to the playground-level bickering instigated by the Bush Administration's oafish diplomatic style. And being pro-US doesn't always help either; Musharraf is on the verge of being ousted by Islamic fundamentalist factions fueled by hatred for Bush.

62 Sean

thats disgusting....

(I sent it to all my friends...hehe)

#40 jk: "Contrary to popular belief, we are not going it alone."

Well I said Bush's go it alone technique. He has said time and time and time again that "the US is prepared to go it alone." And I think it is not lost on people who keep up with the news that this is hardly a coalition of the willing, and their are only two other countries willing to supply troops at this point. To argue we have this huge willing coalition for war is pretty darn weak at this point.

#70,

They (e.g., the world) are helping because al Qaeda is a common enemy, not because they feel bad for us or love us. They've helped us will continue helping us for that reason.

Andrew Sullivan is on a roll today:

Spot The Difference
Bush and Clinton on Iraq
[Link: www.andrewsullivan.com...]
 

The USA should take France and Russia at their respective words . . . they each intend to veto a new security counsel resolution.

That being the case, why waste the Security Counsel's valuable time in another meaningless exercise.

GWB: "Jacques and Val, I believe that you will cast your vetoes, defeating the resolution. There is no point then in considering resolutions."

Jacques and Val: "But, but . . . we were only bluffing!!!!"

GWB: "I hold you in much to high regard to believe that you would bluff on such a matter. Thank you very much. The troops are on their way as we speak".

I would say a lot of leaders of nations are fed up with Bush, and this certainly doesn't help. The spirit of cooperation we saw immediately after 9/11 has been replaced with pervasive worldwide anti-American sentiment due to the playground-level bickering instigated by the Bush Administration's oafish diplomatic style.

This, of course, is a load of horseshit.

The anti-American sentiment didn't "replace" anything. It was always there, it was simply temporarily over-ridden by shock. It came back quickly as it became apparent that the US wasn't going to stand around asking "why do they hate us", but was, in fact, going to do something real.

The "playground-level bickering" has been instigated by the goddamned French, for one. The Germans, for some reason, have been slavishly following the French lead, and heaping on some rather ironic abuse of their own (c'mon, a German politician comparing an American to Hitler?!). The ultimate playground has been the UN, where endless games of "Simon Said" are being played out at the UNSC, with the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese talking out both side of their mouths AND their asses.

For "oafish diplomatic style" you need only look at Chirac. His remarks about the Eastern European countries should go down in diplomatic history as "things only complete asswipes say". How badly did he set back French dreams of Empire, er European Union?

Go peddle your crap somewhere else, "creedence". Maybe someone needs some fertilizer.

#42 hans: "The arguments of the idiotarians are well known:

- OIL"

Well at the risk of being ridiculed here, the Bush Administration are virtually all businessmen/women from the oil sector. Have you ever done an in-depth look into this, or do you simply toe the conservative line and consider it tinfoil hat territory? Have you done an investigation and satisfied yourself that the Bush Administration's massive profits from oil/defense sector investments are perfectly above board? You cannot deny the Bush Administration's multitudinous oil corporation connections, it's a matter of public record. The question is, do you see a conflict of interest?

It is so apparent it's almost painful.

#77 creedence
Instead of your normal long winded rants, just chant "Bush Bad, Bush Bad, Bush Bad" and stop wasting Charles' bandwidth.

#77, Creedence, Liberal democrat, "It is so apparent it's almost painful" ?

#76

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Have you done an investigation and satisfied yourself that the Bush Administration's massive profits from oil/defense sector investments are perfectly above board?

Yes, I have.

You cannot deny the Bush Administration's multitudinous oil corporation connections, it's a matter of public record. The question is, do you see a conflict of interest?

No, because they divested themselves of all those holdings. They're required to.

No go the hell away, please. Your idiocy is getting annoying.

Creedence, Tyler. Tyler, Creedence. Same same.

#78 reaganite

Hey, you're the guy who vehemently denied there was such a thing as "shock and awe"! Talk about wasting bandwidth.

Hey, you're the guy who vehemently denied there was such a thing as "shock and awe"! Talk about wasting bandwidth

No maroon, I denied your definition of it. I know, I know, don't confuse you with facts.

#76

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

This has as much meaning as the rest of your posts.

What's wrong, don't like the complete failure of the French government pointed out? Don't like hearing that, in fact, the problem is not with the US, but with the failure of Europe to act with the least maturity?

Andrew Sullivan made a great point today: The US policy towards Iraq has not changed since Bush's election. The difference is, everyone knew Clinton was just talking, while Bush actually means to solve the problem.

[Link: www.andrewsullivan.com...]

It's the solution they cannot stand. A free Iraq, out from under UN sanctions and Saddam's dictatorship, wouldn't have to honor sweet-heart oil deals with France. The French would lose a cheap source of oil and a ready market for weapons.

Hey, you're the guy who vehemently denied there was such a thing as "shock and awe"! Talk about wasting bandwidth.

Are you one of those lunatics who wets his pants when he hears the phrase "shock and awe"?

Read this and be educated:

[Link: www.unlearnedhand.com...]

Creedence, Tyler. Tyler, Creedence. Same same.

Certainly looks like it.

Pathetic.

#81 Robert Crawford: "No, because they divested themselves of all those holdings."

Oh my God. You're kidding, right?

Ever heard the term "revolving door", Robert? These guys go back in forth from US government to oil/military industry faster than you can count, it's an established fact. Ever seen the Texaco tanker "Condoleeza Rice"?

FYI, Cheney bought (1995) and still owns the company that just received the pre-war contract to put out any Iraqi oil well fires. Fact. And his "former" company Halliburton, who he will go back to running when he's done as VP, got the contract to build gitmo and the contract for the Afghani oil pipeline that is being built as we speak. Fact.

When they finish Halliburton's Afghanistan pipeline, it will have to be guarded from terrorists, and the guards will be US military funded by US taxpayers.

This ain't tinfoil territory, Robert.

Okay, put your blinders back on and go back to saying what Rush and Karl tell you to say. And remember if anyone says "oil", cover you ears and sing "Yankee Doodle" real loud.

Creedence, Tyler. Tyler, Creedence. Same same.

All of the French, foreign and domestic, are starting to sound the same. Even The New Republic has come to realize it:

French President Jacques Chirac revealed perhaps more than he intended last week when he blurted out that "disarmament must happen peacefully." This gives the game away. Disarmament could only come about either through war or the threat of war. If disarmament must be peaceful, then there will be no disarmament. And, when Democrats insist that war must have U.N. approval, they are attaching themselves to the French position.

#88 creedence

Facts, huh? Dig me any 'fact' on an Afghani oil pipeline... Keep in mind there's no oil in Afghanistan.

#86 "Read this and be educated:"

He conveniently left out the money quote, where the Pentagon official stated that there would not be a safe place in Baghdad. A city of 5 million, half children. Whether true or not, this is an example of the oafish diplomacy that I have a problem with.

Keep in mind there's no oil in Afghanistan.

Tinfoil Hatter Rule #1: if the US is involved, there's oil. There's even oil in Grenada.

#92 James

Yeah, well, I wear a tinfoil yarmulke. Doesn't work the same.

#91,

I would like to see the full quote. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad" doesn't cut it, because when I googled it every result that turned up was not the actual quote, but an article or a web site deploring and interpreting the quote.

Did he say, for example, "There will not be a safe
place in Baghdad for Saddam and his henchmen"? Maybe he didn't, but how could I know without seeing the full text of his comments? Wrenching a quote out of context to support any thesis is quite simple.

#76:

It came back quickly as it became apparent that the US wasn't going to stand around asking "why do they hate us", but was, in fact, going to do something real.

First of all, let us define anti-Americanism. If it is defined as "unreflected hate and rancour of America", there is very few anti-Americanism, at least in Europe. If we define it as "not agreeing to Bush's current diplomacy and strategy", there are millions of anti-Americanists. Most people are aware that a war on terror is taking place (see e.g. today conviction of 4 Algerian terrorists in Frankfurt, receiving high really sentences for German standards). Most people I know - even those that criticize Bush - and I say BUSH - are not against America, they just - criticize Bush. No flag burning, no hate rallies. I admit though that in some TV coverages there were some sneaky idiots among the crowd, waving Palestinian flags etc. They are a minority. The one who is criticized is Bush, and he is criticized on content level - most people think diplomacy has not reached its end as Iraq is destroying weapons - and process level - his diplomacy being perceived by many as bullying (recently saw Robert Byrd in an interview). I have not yet seen such a fierce onslaught here on the personal level of politicians as is carried out in US media.

I'm just trying to state facts that I perceive in Europe. We are united in war on terror on many levels. Most just still don't really get the threat of Saddam to US grounds. It is not the consequens but the antecedens people don't get. Most don't get the sudden US affection for the Iraqi people either.

UN is at stake and a world order is at stake. I have heard some voices that stated they are beginning to be afraid of America. No hate just fear. If the patriot act e.g. allows an attorney with a "give peace a chance" t-shirt to be threatened of one year in jail after refusing to pull out the shirt after entering a NY mall - and if US universities are beginning to create "free speech areas" - people think. I do not want to say we are better, but the US has always been a model in many things (look at our constitution - it took much from the US constitution). Some restrictions of freedom are comprehensible in war times. But I fear that FBI and Ashcroft are getting too much from their wish list (e.g., if you buy something in the US, and the product is in relation with terrorist organizations - you might not even be aware of that - your civil rights might simply be removed, whoopy-doo).

And there are more things going on. France wants to dominate Europe. One of the reasons for the diplomatic catastrophe of the US is that most countries want to keep a certain control instrument for the only super-power alive (remember how angry the US was in 56 when France and GB invaded Egypt -> Suez without UN mandate?). GB knows they will fall to irrelevance if they do not cling to the US, the GB people being far more against war than e.g. Germany. Bulgaria has just freed from the Soviet yoke and wants good US relations. Spain is a dwarf and is trying to gain weight.

The following days are going to be very interesting. It depends on Bush. UN destroyed or not. Either way, there will be great changes.

Personally, I HOPE there will be consensus on a resolution or action. Seldom has the world been thus divided. Robert Byrd said he had never felt that alarmed - only in Cuba crisis. I have not experienced that myself. But I hope this century will be a century with a short, successful - and united war on terror. We will not solve the problem otherwise. Even the US needs allies. And stable ones.

#91 creedence

If me or one of my former colleagues is after you, there won't be one safe place in the world for you, despite 6 billion people and half of them children.

You can read whatever you want into the above statement.

Creedence, these guys in on the oil conspiracy as well?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
 

creedence: as Caton pointed out, you've already screwed the pooch with your FACT! regarding Halliburton's "oil pipeline" in Afghanistan. Oops.

Now, as for the proposed Afghan GAS pipeline; last I saw, the three governments in question had signed an agreement in principle; but were having trouble getting takers to build it. Only one foreign contractor, a Japanese firm, expressed any interest. So... I guess the Afghan campaign was all done in the name of Japanese construction interests. And WHO, by the way, do you think benefitted from those American A-bomb tests in the 50s, which awoke Godzilla, who went on a rampage in Tokyo necessitating lots of subsequent costly re-construction? Makes you think, doesn't it? I read it in Chomsky.

#91 creedence

He conveniently left out the money quote, where the Pentagon official stated that there would not be a safe place in Baghdad. A city of 5 million, half children. Whether true or not, this is an example of the oafish diplomacy that I have a problem with.

You lost this argument already. You don't remember getting smacked down a few nights ago? The clue by four didn't work huh? I have a 4x4 if you want to lose this argument again.

#99 reaganite

I think it's safe to assume creedence has none...

#90 caton: "Facts, huh? Dig me any 'fact' on an Afghani oil pipeline... Keep in mind there's no oil in Afghanistan."

"3.2B Afghan Pipeline Deal Imminent

Thursday December 26, 2002 2:20 PM

ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan (AP) - Leaders from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan met Thursday to work out the final details of an ambitious deal to build a gas pipeline through war-ravaged Afghanistan.

The long-delayed $3.2-billion natural gas pipeline, known as the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, would carry gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan."

This has been in the works for years, caton. UNOCAL had a deal with the Taliban to do it back in the late '90's, then the deal went sour and well, you know the rest...

James #92:

There's even oil in Grenada.

And don't forget all that other high-end real estate the US has gone after in the last decade. Somalia! Kosovo! Afghanistan! And the jewel in the crown, Haiti! I mean, who wouldn't want to control the vast wealth locked up in these earthly paradises?

#101 creedence

So, it's not an oil pipeline, and as pointed out by Occasional Reader in #98, it's not going to be built by Halliburton.

Wanna play again?

#101 Tyler

natural gas pipeline

.

This has been in the works for years

It's all about the oil!!! You are such a twit. Get your argument worded correctly we might not laugh when you post. Clinton was an oil baron?

recently saw Robert Byrd in an interview

Hans, for your info, Robert Byrd is not a man to pay attention to:

[Link: www.capmag.com...]

This might add some context.
 

#102 Occasional Reader

Bah, that's nothing. Wait till the U.S. captures the famous North Korean oilfields...

Frankly, I find it absurd that people still believe that this war is all about oil. There are so many other legitimate reasons to disarm Iraq by force if necessary that the oil issue is at the very bottom of a long list, if it's there at all.
BTW, I saw on one site that Chirac announced on TV that France would veto. Anyone have a link? (The link I tried didn't work.) Thanks.

#101 creedence: you don't even read your own excerpts very carefully, do you?

"OIL" AND "GAS" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. So your attempted "in your face" to Caton simply leaves you looking ridiculous.

The other part of the article you conveniently forgot to read:

The Japanese conglomerate Itochu has expressed interest in participating, but no company has joined the project. Unocal said it has no plans to do so.

Let's repeat; "Unocal said it has no plans to do so." OOPS!

#106 Caton:

NO BLOOD FOR KIMCHI! NO BLOOD FOR KIMCHI!

Umm...Tyler? Got an answer yet? Oh wait, Bush Bad, Bush Bad, Bush Bad.

Bush's cronies have direct ties to Kimche it's a FACT!

#101 continued

The negotiations with the Taliban for the Afghani pipeline, which had gone sour after the bombing of the USS Cole, were re-instituted by the Bush administration, and soured just five weeks before 9/11.

#72 Creedence

"Well I said Bush's go it alone technique. He has said time and time and time again that "the US is prepared to go it alone." And I think it is not lost on people who keep up with the news that this is hardly a coalition of the willing, and their are only two other countries willing to supply troops at this point. To argue we have this huge willing coalition for war is pretty darn weak at this point."

Yes, President Bush has time and again reiterated his determination to protect U.S. national security with or without the cooperation of other countries. Fortunately, there are about three dozen (give or take a few) countries who ARE willing to give support, whether material or rhetorical, because their governments have determined that it is in their long-term interests to do so. The U.S. has welcomed their support but, unlike you, not belittled them for the amount of their support.

Creedence, it isn't a matter of other nations being unwilling to supply troops. It's that the U.S. doesn't NEED them. The U.S. is IT, militarily. The British are a distant second place and it will be their intelligence capabilities, not their military, that will be of prime importance in the coming clash with Iran. The coalition of the willing will supply what is needed but, for the most part, the need is not military.

You seem to want to have both sides of the argument:

1. That darn unilateral Bush wants to go it alone.

2. That darn coalition-building Bush sure didn't build much of a coalition. By who's standard? Well, mine, of course!

Yup, PoMo-thinking at its finest. But fortunately for the U.S., Bush is strictly Jacksonian.

i am beginning to wonder

is bush weak willed?

the frogs have made it abundantly clear they will veto "whatever the circumstances" that means they will veto anything unseen

it wont get clearer than that

it is only doing further damage to our position to keep trying to persuade the unpersuadable

watching all this from australia were he has our prime minister hung out to dry and held to redicule while he tries the impossible

is he on the verge of backing down?

#112 creedence
Meekly posting a comment once again without a link to back it up. Oh, this is too easy. LGFers, this can't be Tyler. Tyler had more spirit.

Why are you folks still arguing with TP?

Anyway. Funny: why Germans oppose the war.

#114:

is he on the verge of backing down?

No. Additional problem in this situation is that involved politicians cannot afford to back down unless they do not want to be reelected. If Bush backs down, he won't. But that is not the reason why he won't back down. He will go in regardless of what UN says, as France and the rest will veto regardless of facts. SCHTOOPID situation.

#114 millersnose
Ever play poker with a Naval commander? The President is playing Texas hold'em. Show your cards, in the end, only the winner collects the pot. He's doing this to prove one point. Who is with us. This is about what's right. He is NOT backing down.

This ain't tinfoil territory, Robert.

Hi, Tyler.

Still spewing the same old crap, I see.

Idiot.

#116: The average German is stupid. The average American is as well. Recently, a German TV team asked people in the US why they were going to war with Iraq. "Iraq could hit our West (!) coast with missiles..." "They have nuclear weapons..." " The center of al-Qaida..."

hmm...

OT - New French Military magazine now being published! Take a look here for the English language version.

i understand your point guys

but our prime minister here in australia is backing bush
rightly

but the longer this game goes on the stupider he looks

at the end of the day does it matter who is with you?

get the thing done and over with

I dont understand why oil shouldn't be a consideration when we go to war with Iraq. Oil is a powerful blackmailing tool, especially in conjunction with a nuclear weapon. If saddam developes a nuclear weopon and takes over the oil fields of his neighbors and the world becomes too afraid to fight back, and he turns off the oil supply, it could plunge the world into a depression. He could also just threaten to turn off the oil supplies in order to get contries to do as he pleases.

#122 millersnose
As a career member of the US military, you hit it correctly.

get the thing done and over with

OT - did anyone catch the news that came out a few moments ago that we are supposedly only "hours" behind OBL? I just caught the tail end of the news item. Anyone have anything more in-depth?

"When they finish Halliburton's Afghanistan pipeline, it will have to be guarded from terrorists, and the guards will be US military funded by US taxpayers.

This ain't tinfoil territory, Robert."

Bush and Cheney must be morons after all.

Where the U.S. gets its imported oil

Here they are building an enormously expensive oil pipeline through a barren, chaotic, dangerous hellhole when they could send a few regiments into Sources 1,3, and 4 and get the oil without a shot being fired. Hell, there's U.S. troops ALREADY in Source 2; that'd be even easier. Hell, Bush ain't gettin' my vote in '04. You lefties are wrong, apparently he's too stupid to be a moron! And I have you, Creedence, to thank for spurring me to do the requisite 30 seconds of research to reach this astounding, yet surely logical, conclusion.

I knew if I mentioned oil you guys would go nuts.

Hee hee.

Bye now.

Translation of #127:

"I have made myself look like a complete idiot! VICTORY!!!!"

reganite

he is backing down

and extending

i hear yet again that they are drafting yet another stupid resolution

he will begin to test the US public water

"what will happen if we back down"

he can do this "honorably" by agreeing to a 6-12month long deadline

i think thats what he is doing

there is no other plausible explanation

bush is piking out

Charles
Let me guess, Tongue Boy and creedence are the same person?

If the patriot act e.g. allows an attorney with a "give peace a chance" t-shirt to be threatened of one year in jail after refusing to pull out the shirt after entering a NY mall - and if US universities are beginning to create "free speech areas" - people think.

Hans, if this is the level of understanding Europe has for events in the US, you are all woefully ignorant.

What happened in the mall is open to question. The officers (police and security) said people were causing a disturbance, and were asked to leave. They didn't, and so were charged with trespassing. Malls are private property; the owners can ask you to leave at any time, and, if the officers were honest, they certainly had reason.

I have no idea what you're referrring to when you mention "free speech areas". Speech is endangered on college campuses not from the government, but from the far-left political wing that has all but taken control of college governments and faculty. Those groups are much, much more likely to support open treason than to crack down on dissent on the war.

Hell, they're entirely likely to treat support for the war as a "hate crime" and punish those who support the government.

Robert Byrd said he had never felt that alarmed - only in Cuba crisis.

Byrd also said he never took part in a cross burning while he was in the Klan.

Byrd is a particularly low, disgusting character; morally he's on par with Fischer. Why he gets quoted overseas is a mystery to me.

Tyler/creedence:

The negotiations with the Taliban for the Afghani pipeline, which had gone sour after the bombing of the USS Cole, were re-instituted by the Bush administration, and soured just five weeks before 9/11.

Uh, sure. Right.

Did the reptilemen tell you this? Or was it the greys?

Wait. Isn't this the "theory" peddled by that French bastard who wrote the book calling 9-11 a "fraud"? The guy who claimed the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile, not an airplane?

Nice company you keep, creep-ence.

#129 millersnose
I'll bet you a case of beer you are wrong.

#132--reaganite--speaking of beer, have you found that Anchor Steam "Liberty Ale" yet?

reganite

if we get moving ill send you a crate of beer

i guess i am just frustrated at the news of yet another draft of a resolution

if it was about "who is with us" they wouldnt need it just go with the existing one

the only reason they would do this is to try for more votes

maybe i am just being theatrical in my frustration but this new "draft" makes me wonder

Since no one replied to my post, I'm going to ask again: does anyone know anything about Chirac's speech on TV? I'm just curious as to what he said.

Byrd is a particularly low, disgusting character; morally he's on par with Fischer. Why he gets quoted overseas is a mystery to me.

He says what they want to hear.

#49 Caton,

The Czechs, the Slovaks, Albania, Poland, the Balts, just about the entire fuckin' Warsaw Pact except East Germany, the Russians, and the Ukraine (I haven't heard how the Ukraine views it).

You have no idea what that means to me. These are the people we betrayed to Stalin to try to appease the monster (I have always maintained that Yalta was one of the worst mistakes of the 20th Century), yet they, or at least their governments, are standing behind us while France and Germany (yeah, I hold it against the Germans too) play their games.

I spent half my life living in the fallout zone downwind of Y-12 weapons plant (Oak Ridge, Tennessee. They built missile warheads there. Think the USSR might have targeted it in the event of a nuclear war?). Most everyone I knew just kind of ignored it. I, OTOH, knew full well what could happen. When I was a kid, I did my High School theme papers on CBR warfare. I did my science fair projects on fallout patterns and radiological effects.

And as far as I was concerned, the Cold War was about France, Germany, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe. I know now, of course, that there was a lot more to it, but when you are 15 you tend to see only the obvious.

That's why I got so pissed off at the French. Iraq is a threat. That is obvious to anyone with the good sense G-d gave my parrot. Yet many of the nations we were pointing missiles at when I was a kid are behind us, when two of the nations we were pointing the missiles to protect want us to wait until we ge hit again.

After 9-11.

After this, if the krauts decide that Alsace-Lorraine should belong to Deutschland, I don’t care which side wins. If they decide they want Poland…

That’s why we have Ohios.

#133 Occasional Reader
Yup, had it. Not bad but I'm a Lager lout.

#134 millersnose
If you want to talk about frustration, ask my 20+ teams spread around the AOR.
We'll split the rack of beer then.
But, the "more votes" thing is to only try and help Blair. Got a link for the new draft?

#91 Caton: "If me or one of my former colleagues is after you, there won't be one safe place in the world for you, despite 6 billion people and half of them children.

You can read whatever you want into the above statement."

Can I laugh? Is that allowed?

#139 creedence
Laugh at Caton at your own peril. If he was serious, you, little boy, would be in for a world of hurt. Luckily for you, Caton does have a sense of humor.

#136:

He says what they want to hear.

That sounds about right.

That a Klansman says what the Germans want to hear is a sad statement in itself.

Amazing Creedence, in the span of one day you haven't supplied a single useful argument or thoughtful subject. I wonder if all your days are as meaningless as this?

#142 valentine
It hasn't been a day, it's been a week or so. He's a Tyler clone

Oil!

Challenge: prove that these are lies, back it up with credible evidence. If not, you are all pansies.

That a Klansman says what the Germans want to hear is a sad statement in itself.

Oh no, no, no. Former Klansmen.

Creedence has fisked himself, he quoted fromthewilderness.com. I quess we know who the "pansy" is.

I finally found a news site talking about this: France and Russia to veto U.N. resolution
Meanwhile, President Jacques Chirac said Monday that France was prepared to veto the U.S.-backed resolution on Iraq if necessary, joining Russia in saying it would vote against giving Hussein a March 17 deadline to disarm.

It was the first time Chirac explicitly said France would use its veto power as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to block the United States' quest for world body approval for war.

"Our position is no matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no.' Because we think tonight there is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed - the disarmament of Iraq," Chirac said in a televised interview.

In a news conference Monday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer opened the door to the possibility of further changes in the wording of the resolution, or the March 17 deadline.

"There are ideas that are being explored and looked at," Fleischer said. "And so it is too soon to say what the final document that will be voted on will include."

Fleischer also said that a showdown Security Council vote would not come Tuesday, but could come anytime later in the week. The council was scheduled to discuss the resolution late Monday.

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, who opposes the rush to war and wants Iraq peacefully disarmed, also threatened to veto the resolution.

"Russia believes that no further resolutions of the U.N. Security Council are necessary and therefore Russia openly declares that if the draft resolution that currently has been introduced for consideration and which contains ultimatum demands that cannot be met is nonetheless put to a vote, then Russia will vote against this resolution," he said at the Moscow State Linguistics University.

#122 millersnose

get the thing done and over with

That calls for a Foster's. Thanks.

#126 TongueBoy

Here they are building an enormously expensive oil pipeline through a barren, chaotic, dangerous hellhole [...]

Yeah, and that same 'oil pipeline' would go from a place without oil to another place without oil. Really, really stupid.

#129 millersnose

he is backing down
and extending
i hear yet again that they are drafting yet another stupid resolution

Trust me on this: Bush is not backing down, he's not extending, and he won't give another month to Saddam.

#137 Iron Fist

The Czechs, the Slovaks, Albania, Poland, the Balts, just about the entire fuckin' Warsaw Pact except East Germany, the Russians, and the Ukraine (I haven't heard how the Ukraine views it).

Ukrayne has sided with Saddam. East Germany is leading the anti-war in Germany (hanz, correct me if I'm wrong). Russia -- is being Russia.

You have no idea what that means to me.

No, I don't. But, you have no idea what that means to me, either.

In 1991, some Israeli units entered Iraq the day after Kuwait was invaded. We mostly roamed the country, found out what was hidden where, looking for Scud launchers, SAM sites and so on. When DS-1 started we illuminated targets for precision air strikes. Most boring job you can imagine. But, hell, I know exactly how Iraqi were living back then, and I know that it only got worse. I want those people free. I want the family of the chap that showed us where the wells are and how to put back the rocks safe. Most of all, I want Saddam and the whole Baath regime hanged. I'll even pay for the rope.

#139 creedence

What? You don't want to start running around and screaming I'm talking about killing everybody in the world? What happened? You lost your tinfoil hat?

#141 Robert,

That a Klansman says what the Germans want to hear is a sad statement in itself.

Are you surprised? Kleagle (sp? What the hell is a kleagle anyway? Some fucked-up hybrid of a beagle and a Klansman? Some sheet-head inbreed screwed a pooch, and out poped Robert Byrd?) Byrd is, was, and always will be a Klansman, and the Klan is, was, and always will be no different than the Nazis.

And there is a reason Nazism took root in Germany. The Germans. You can sell this shit to ignorant inbreeds (hence the Klan), but a sane people reject this kind of bullshit (the Klan is all but dead in the South today. When the inbreeds rally, there are usually more cops protecting the losers than there are sheet-heads spewing their filth).

Anyone get the idea I despise the Klan? Good.

(Full disclosure: I used to date a chick that was half-German. She was a real bitch, but she was good in bed :-)

[BANG]

Damn the Keeper and its shockrod. One day I will eat its liver.

#146 reaganite: "Creedence has fisked himself, he quoted fromthewilderness.com. I quess we know who the "pansy" is."

Errnt! Pansy #1 registered.

creedence in #127 said:

I knew if I mentioned oil you guys would go nuts.

Hee hee.

Bye now.

Why is this entity not banned? It's posts are clearly contributing nothing to the discussion here, and it is self-admittedly simply trolling.

#148 Caton

Most of all, I want Saddam and the whole Baath regime hanged. I'll even pay for the rope.

Very merciful of you. I want the motherfucker for myself.

I'll propose a compromise. We have a Friday night class where most of the senior instructors turn out to really dig deep in the art. We bring these guys to the States (you fly over as well), and we’ll experiment with these fuckers.

One of my instructors is ex-VSOG Special Forces. Could be amusing :-)

Not going to happen, of course.

But wouldn’t it be gratifying to crush Saddam’s testicles, pour gasoline on him, and wait for him to wake up?

I might have to smoke a cigarette. For a few puffs…

#150 creedence
I'll laugh at you one more time. Just like last week you cite laughably "credible" sources. Come on, please, just one reliable source, if your argument is so valid can't you find just one source that isn't a "conspiracy theory" site?

Come now Creedence you can do better than that surely? Why not talk about the "vast oil fields" that are waiting to be taken over by the Imperialist Bush Adminstration and its Halliburton minions over in the Spratly Islands where can easily go and enforce our will thanks to our might sea power? At least if you're going to spout conspiracy theorys make em good reading dammit!

Oh and I'm sure the bids for reconstructing Iraq have got you making your tinfoil hat all ready. Yep its a VAST CONSPIRACY and we're all coming for you creedence! Mwhahaha. Mebbe you can even give us a conspiracy on how the Bush junta wants to use the Bechtel Group to further its aims in this if you can't I'm afraid I must relegate you merely irrelevent rantist who spouts cliche phrases rather than a true x-files loony lefty! Come on Creedence dont disappoint me now ;)

And there is a reason Nazism took root in Germany. The Germans.

Excuse me, but I'm half German. There's nothing wrong with the German people; it's their horrendous political system and its attendant apparatchik class that's the problem.

Creep-ence: There's no reason to "refute" that site because there's no information there to refute. It starts with the assumption that the Afghan campaign was about a pipeline, without bothering to support that assumption.

In any case "From the Wilderness" appears to be a cesspool of lunacy, akin to the sites that used to (and probably still do) detail the lists of those Clinton had killed, why, and who he paid to do it.

Find a source that doesn't have so much drool on its chin, OK?

#152 Iron Fist

But wouldn’t it be gratifying to crush Saddam’s testicles, pour gasoline on him, and wait for him to wake up?

No. I want to experiment with screwworm flies, screwworm maggots, and screwworm myasis. I want to know if Cochliomyia hominivorax lives up to its reputation.

What do you think?

#156 Caton
Dude, that's just plain evil! ;-)~

#157 reaganite

Thank you :-)

100% completely OT. I found out today I have been given my release from purgatory(CENTAF HQ). Monday the 17th, I get to go back to my operational unit. I'm going back to the field! Anyone who wants a few rounds (no shit beer), come to Fort Bragg/Pope AFB I'm buying.

Hell, I'd even buy for creedence so he could meet my SF buddies.

#154: "Valentine: Come on Creedence dont disappoint me now ;)"

Aw, I'm just funnin' Valentine. If any one of y'all could prove these Bush Administration people aren't war profiteers, I'd rest easier at night. So git along now, and don't let that revolving door between guv and oil/defense hit you on the way out.

#153 reaganite: "I'll laugh at you one more time. Just like last week you cite laughably "credible" sources. Come on, please, just one reliable source, if your argument is so valid can't you find just one source that isn't a "conspiracy theory" site?"

Discredit the source with facts, reaganite. that was the challenge. I chose a liberal site to make it easier for you. C'mon. Show me how this information is wrong please.

#162 Tyler clone
Sorry, I won't bother to waste my time. By the way, come up to Bragg for a beer, I'll show you some facts. Otherwise, you're on ignore.

#159 reaganite

100% completely OT. I found out today I have been given my release from purgatory(CENTAF HQ). Monday the 17th, I get to go back to my operational unit. I'm going back to the field! Anyone who wants a few rounds (no shit beer), come to Fort Bragg/Pope AFB I'm buying.

I won't be able to come. And believe me, I'm sorry.

#164 Caton
To you and your ilk, the offer is always open.

see more on this french duplicity at my blog

Caton,

[Demonic cackling]

I love it. I still like fire, though. Fire reaches beyond the conscious mind, and attacks at an animal level.

#157 reaganite

That's chaotic evil to the likes of you :-)

#167 Iron Fist

I think we can abort the experiment once he's half-eaten. Then you can burn him.

Halliburton Unit Is Tapped
To Oversee Oil Fields in Iraq

By CHIP CUMMINS and THADDEUS HERRICK
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Pentagon said it is tapping a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, to oversee efforts to control oil-well fires, should Saddam Hussein torch Iraq's oil fields in the event of a U.S. attack.

Wall Street Journal, today:

"ChevronTexaco (nyse: CVX - news - people) has stopped unloading crude oil from Iraqi ports. Other U.S. oil firms also have curtailed purchases, possibly for fear of political backlash."

The real reason for the space program was so we could take over the oil fields on the moon. And Halliburton was to get the contract for the pipeline back to earth.

Mr. Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton until 2000, when he stepped down to become the running mate of President Bush.

Once again, you have fisked yourself. Try again...

#168 Caton,
Compromise complete

You and I should be our countries respective representatives at the UN. I somehow doubt that ole Saddam would be so difficult :-)

Now let's talk about Kim Jong Il. I've never skinned anybody alive before...

[Demonic cackling]

#169 creedence

The Pentagon said it intends to use a plan developed by Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., a unit of Houston-based Halliburton, if Mr. Hussein sabotages his fields. The plan also addresses assessing damage to oil facilities, the Pentagon said.

The development positions Kellogg Brown & Root as a leading candidate to win the role of top contractor in any petroleum-field rehabilitation effort in Iraq. The job could involve coordinating dozens of smaller specialty contractors that do everything from helping clear mines and build roads to putting out fires and repairing damaged wells.

So a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., Vice President Dick Cheney's former company, is giving away for free a plan to the Pentagon, in the hope of signing a contract.

What's your point?

Last December, the US Department of Defense made a no-cap, cost-plus-award contract to Halliburton KBR's Government Operations division. The Dallas-based company is contracted to build forward operating bases to support troop deployments for the next nine years wherever the President chooses to take the anti-terrorism war.

#173 Iron Fist

Kim Jong-Il? Let's respect his country's traditions. They had something called, IIRC, the 'cage of hidden pleasures'.

Or we could check that a bamboo really grows up to 20" a day...

#175 creedence

You should also check the contracts awarded to SAIC. No link with Cheney or Bush, alas.

ChevronTexaco (nyse: CVX - news - people) has stopped unloading crude oil from Iraqi ports. Other U.S. oil firms also have curtailed purchases, possibly for fear of political backlash.
Funny, there's no context to your "proof" You're doing better, good source, no back up. Try again. Try the original source to get the whole text.

Creedence did you even bother to read the link I posted? Five companies, read em, Five! have submitted bids via USAID to rebuild those critical infrastructure for Iraq, Halliburton is one of them (its job is to help douse out oil well fires) but another big name (the biggest in the business of building and famous for dousing out the kuwaiti fires) is Bechtel Inc. SO AGAIN lets go over this ONE MORE FRIGGIN TIME, you are not spouting anything new, you are not spouting anything worth even debating and you definitely are not even bothering to read information people give you. In fact had you read the article I linked to you would have realized almost ALL the companies have experience in heavy duty oil work and and have experience in building conditions for the Middle East.

At least make your damn conspiracy theories interesting rant reads dammit!

Oil and Gas Industry Exempt From New Clean Water Rules
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
NY TIMES

WASHINGTON, March 7 — New clean water regulations requiring small construction sites to develop plans for storm water will not apply to the oil and gas industries, officials of the Environmental Protection Agency said today.

This has to be one of the funniest columns I've read lately:

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

It covers it all - the human shields, the nudies for peace, Ms. Hynde (Ende), the whole shebang.

We could all use a chuckle.

#181 Amy

Thanks! I needed that.

credence,

Do you think anybody cares about your stupid articles?

#176 Caton,

Or just impale them and be done. There's something to be said for finality.

Damn. I have rarely found someone who would/could talk the brass tacks of what sometimes must be done like this. Back in the early '90's I had a buddy who was a lifer in the Outlaws, and we'd mess with people's minds talking like this. Too much fun :-)

Creedence, hon, consider this. Caton and I are at best only halfway joking with one another. If you peaceniks win, and then the US gets hit again, people like us are going to get elected to office (maybe not in France, I'll defer to Caton on that. But one of my homies from high school is a State Congressman in South Carolina, and I have worked with various candidates in Tennessee. In the US, I really could get elected President, if all the right circumstances came together).

I have asked you before for a policy to deal with Iraq, etc. Weapons of mass destruction are real. They could be used at any time against the United States. What do you think we should do? At least as far as I know, you have never given an answer.

Once more, let us posit your victory. Saddam stays in power (and rapes women daily, etc. but you don’t care about that). W loses the 2004 elections (the only thing that matters to people like yourself).

11 September 2005 a 40 kiloton yield nuclear weapon goes off in downtown Manhattan.

What do you advise President Clinton to do?

#180 creedence--

Good god, why didn't you post that article sooner??? Exemptions for storm water drains??? It's all clear to me now, the scales have fallen from my eyes! Afghanistan, Iraq--all for oiiiilll, and storm water drain exemptions! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEEEEEPULLL! PEEEPULLLL!!! TELL THEM! TELL THEM!!!

11 September 2005 a 40 kiloton yield nuclear weapon goes off in downtown Manhattan.

Kinnehora!!!!!

#186 Amy

Huh? What does 'Kinnehora' mean?

Wouldn't it be worse torture and longer-lasting to treat him just like any other street thug? Stupid, little, coward, locked up with all the other stupid big cowards -- and like Sirhan Sirhan, being denied parole for the umpty-teenth time in 25 years. Having to wait his turn on the phone to call his mommy.

I don't know that we should give the Arabs the satisfaction of seeing us get all het up about capturing him -- some dancing in the streets and celebration, yes. (We could even pass out sweets, but celebratory gunfire is tres tacky.) Thinking up new ways of torture seems like a waste of a perfectly good and every extensive remedial prison system (in case he needs to be passed around from prison to prison -- for security purposes).

Last time I danced in the streets was when Nixon resigned. And before that was when my school beat UCLA. This would be another excellent occasion, and to show the poor Palestiniains what a proper street celebration *should* look like.

#184 Iron Fist

Bah. We are not joking, we are venting our frustrations. I would not torture Saddam or Kim Jong-Il, I'd just kill them, as quickly and painlessly as possible. And you would do the same.

#188 heretic

I have a problem with your argument. A very basic and simple one. When you need to shoot your dog, you do it yourself, you don't farm it out.

That's what's wrong with the U.S. prison system. Prisoners get raped, beaten etc. outside the justice system. You are farming out the repression, and you are farming it out to common thugs.

All occidental countries are doing the same, I can hear the bullshit already. Well, syndicalism does not replace justice. 'Everybody does it' is not an excuse. It's an indictment.

Caton: the point is, your way, the dog's dead. done. over with. frolicking with virgins. my way, the dog's alive, whining, suffering. year after year after year ... maybe even decade after decade if we hook him up to a dialysis machine.

but doubtless you are the expert, so I cede to your plan.

go for it.

#191 heretic

If I had to torture him for years, I already explained how I would do it. See #156. But I'd do it myself.

Caton,

"Bah. We are not joking, we are venting our frustrations."

True enough. I said at best halfway.

I'm never at my best :-)

you definitely are not even bothering to read information people give you

Yep. That's Tyler.

No vote tomorrow -- another round of delays.

Powell must go. Now.

The only way this same-old runaround would make any sense would be as disinformation or a last-minute rejiggering of plans upon Erdogan's taking official control. But I'm skeptical.

Hans wrote:

If the patriot act e.g. allows an attorney with a "give peace a chance" t-shirt to be threatened of one year in jail after refusing to pull out the shirt after entering a NY mall - and if US universities are beginning to create "free speech areas" - people think.

Hans, don't necessarily believe every media story.

Here is the actual complaint from the mall against the people causing trouble at the mall:

State of New York Local Criminal Court

FACTS:

To Wit; on the above mentioned date [March 3, 2003], the defendant did enter and remain unlawfully on Crossgates Mall property, after being advised to leave Crossgates Mall property by Crossgates Mall Security Officer Robert Williams and Calvin Wilson on March 3, 2003 at approximately 7:03PM. Security officer received complaints about defendant wearing a T-shirt "Give Peace a Chance" and defendants partner wearing other T-shirt stating Give the inspectors a chance. Received complaints that they were stopping other shoppers. Security asked defendant to leave property and defendant refused.

[Link: www.thesmokinggun.com...]

In a nutshell:

1) The two idiots were harassing other shoppers on private propertry.

2) The two were asked to leave private property by security.

3) The two refused to leave private property.

4) At which point they became tresspassers on private property.

End of story.

My advice, save the above web page, send it to others, as Time magazine has already written a story on this false "first ammendment issue", which is actually a harassment and tresspassing issue.
 

Since no one replied to my post, I'm going to ask again: does anyone know anything about Chirac's speech on TV? I'm just curious as to what he said.

I think he said, Chirac es un ver.
 

Creedance-
Once and for all:
Making outlandish statements and claiming that if they are true until disproven is an elementary fallacy.
Example: I am an extra-terrestrial (one of the Nordic types that look like an illustration on a romance novel) and it must be true because you can't prove otherwise.
Go back under the bridge, Reynolds Wrap Boy!

Creedance Your homework assignment for this week is: Read Achmed Rashid, Taliban: Militant Islam,Oil, and Fundimentalism In Central Asia. Condence contents into coherent summery of Five pages or less. Review Clinton administration collaoration with Taliban in one page or less. Cite footnotes. Do not return until assignment is completed.

#95 Hans. People are not "beginning to say they're frightened of Bush". This has been the dominant theme song of the surrendernik/socialist/communist marchniks for around four months now. "Bush is more dangerous than Saddam Hussein." "Bomb Bush not Saddam". Ring a bell?

In France, they don't hate America. They sneer at America and Americans and shrug helplessly as, as everyone in the world knows, Americans are total morons and don't understand "sophisticated European diplomacy" (another phrase for "surrender"). French "sophisticated European diplomacy" has a depressing tendency to cause France to always be on the losing side. It was "sophisticated European diplomacy" that Chirac employed when he was mayor of Paris and siphoned off billions of francs in bribes. (It is expected that he will be charged with corruption the minute he stops holding elected office in France.) It was "sophisticated European diplomacy" when France's candidate for the new head of the absurd "European Bank" employed when he cooked the books of national bank Credit Lyonnais. Lawsy, Miz Scarlett, all this "sophisticated European diplomacy" is giving me a headache.

Anyway, France is a back number and their vote is inconsequential either way. If the UN survives this, and I sincerely hope it does not, then irrelevant France must be replaced on the Security Council by India, which has a far larger population and a better record as an ally of democracy. France has nothing other than vituperative anti-Americanism to bring to the table. They weren't even among the victors of WWII, so by rights, they shouldn't be on the Security Council anyway.

Despite what you think, the politically unsophisticated and the hard left are united in hatred of the United States. It's jealousy, spite and a deep sense of impotence.

Strange how, being so incompetent and naive, the Americans always manage to win wars, create the best technology, invent all the new methods, have the most dynamic economy, make the best movies, make the funniest TV shows, start all the fashion fads, invent all the catch phrases. And if there's a new invention that everyone wants, you can bet it will be American who thought of it, executed it and marketed it.

I'm not an American, but I lived there for 16 years and it is the best country on earth. I doubt very much whether even their legendary generosity will impel them to come over and rescue your ass one more time. The continental Europeans owe America a debt of loyalty. They're welshing on it. Why is no one surprised?

I heard a BB2 Newsnight interview last Friday, with a Russian foreign minister/envoy - sorry I can't remember his name I just had the news on in the background (which I always do these days). The presenter asked a question along the lines of 'why do we need a 2nd resolution' The answer was

"the problem with resolution 1441 is that is does not define the term immediate"

Anybody want to join me in raising funds for dictionaries for Russia? - I mean if it averts a (self) destructive veto from our new friends it'd be worth it.

Also today in OpinionJournal Kofi Annan argues the UN's case, he starts;

The Charter of the United Nations is categorical. "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations,"

Well that pretty much shows how ineffective the UN has been doesn't it?

Somebody needs to pull him up on the moral equivalency though - he's slipping - in an article titled DEALING WITH IRAQ he mentions Iraq nine times, and Israel only twice.

[Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

#201:

Hans. People are not "beginning to say they're frightened of Bush". This has been the dominant theme song of the surrendernik/socialist/communist marchniks for around four months now. "Bush is more dangerous than Saddam Hussein." "Bomb Bush not Saddam". Ring a bell?

I was not talking about marchers but about common people in Germany that oppose Bush politics, at the same time being fans of American values.

Despite what you think, the politically unsophisticated and the hard left are united in hatred of the United States. It's jealousy, spite and a deep sense of impotence.

Nonsense. That's blunt labelling and simply wrong, concerning the politically unsophisticated, it's true for the extreme left. Concerning extremists/radicals in any political shade: look at chemistry. Radicals (e.g. oxygen) never live long.

And if there's a new invention that everyone wants, you can bet it will be American who thought of it, executed it and marketed it.

Listen, I am a big US fan myself. A good deal of trends and inventions comes from the US, but Europe has a smaller still significant share as well. And the US greatly profit from the brain drain. The centre of gravity for science and research lies in the US, so the best go there.

The continental Europeans owe America a debt of loyalty. They're welshing on it

Yes, no doubt, we are grateful. But concerning the politicians who disagree with Bush - it is their (not mine) firm believe that they save Bush from an error. You tell your friends when you think he's doing wrong and do not put your head in his ass all the time. That's not a friend but an ass-kisser. I always thought those people weak who surround themselves with ass-kissing friends.

hans,

Radicals (e.g. oxygen) never live long.

baaaad joke... fortunately, I still remember enough chemistry to find it funny...

#204: Oh, Ariel, I did NOT refer to Palestinian suicide bombers, but to radical lefties and righties, sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't think of that when I wrote it.

#76 Robert Crawford
Everything you wrote was was right on line ,
especially this:

The anti-American sentiment didn't "replace" anything. It was always there, it was simply temporarily over-ridden by shock. It came back quickly as it became apparent that the US wasn't going to stand around asking "why do they hate us", but was, in fact, going to do something real.

I could puke over the continual mindless prattle as to 'why they hate us?'
I just hope the "doing something real" which
you suggested comes to fruition. At this moment,
I am not sure. Bush is now deep into the agenda
of other's by bowing to this foolishly needless dance of diplomacy with a world organization which due to it's impotence has forever been rendered worthless.
To my horror if we don't speed up the pace of this twelfth hour waltz everything will backfire.

Furthermore if we are not careful this new world order with their shameful agenda, the very ones who are pulling our strings and pushing our buttons will
render everything which truly matters, impotent.

Hans #203:

Look, I've heard the "Europe has our best interests at heart" line before, and I'm not buying it, even if (as you say) people in Germany are. Sure, Chirac says from time to time that he's just being a true friend to the US by stopping us from making a disastrous mistake in Iraq, etc. etc., but it's just not the case. France and Germany are acting in what they think is their own best interest. Fine. But it is exceptionally grating to be condescended to, and the refrain of "we're just trying to help" is condescension.

If Germany does not want a war, they should have put the kibosh on Resolution 1441, with its "serious consequences" vagueness. Ditto for the French. To oppose us now, with our troops deployed and on the verge of war, is insane. Should the US fold its tents and go home, the results would be catastrophic. The scavenger nations of the world would see the US as weak again, and Saddam Hussein's prestige would be hugely enhanced - he would become the man that stared down America twice. Al Queda's pronouncements always contain boilerplate about American lack of will to bolster the troops. We do not need a gigantic display of lack of will right now.

Were Germany and France the true friends they pretend to be for the American media, they would have stated their opposition privately but absolutely back in November, when this whole rigamarole got started, and allowed the US a chance to avoid any posturing on Iraq. Now it's too late, and working to avoid war is working against American interests. It's too late for the "I know better than you, I'm only trying to help" protestations.

Smit #202:

Too true. The purpose of the UN seems to be to decide nothing. Or, when pressed, to pass resolutions that mean nothing and get on with the business of deciding nothing. Heck, they just failed on Cyprus this morning. Want a situation to fester forever? Send in the United Nations!

P.S. Always glad to see another Smit around. We're awfully thin on the ground here in Wisconsin.

#207 SparkVark

heh, we're 10 a penny in London ;)

#187 Caton

kine Ein Hara...

no evil eye.....said very quickly with a Litvak accent, it sounds like one word....

#207:

France and Germany are acting in what they think is their own best interest. Fine.

I suppose you are right, there. Schröder saved his ass in last year's elections partly due to his anti-war stance. He is rather a fundamental pacifist, I believe, and I guess it would be the LAST promise he would break if he went to war. Apart from his dumb and irritating fundamental pacifism, he is quite a bad leader at home, you know. France: usual business there with the US. But let us not forget the US pursue their own interests as well. In this single (but important) point of the war on terror - the war against Iraq - we don't share opinions. I hope the detrimental rift will not split the alliance of war on terror.

If Germany does not want a war, they should have put the kibosh on Resolution 1441, with its "serious consequences" vagueness. Ditto for the French

No. They did not put the kibosh on that - because it WAS vague. That's the evil of UN resolutions. Fuzzy, cloudy phrases that are chameleons. So - everyone agrees, and we are the world united. The time seems to be over.

Were Germany and France the true friends they pretend to be for the American media, they would have stated their opposition privately but absolutely back in November, when this whole rigamarole got started, and allowed the US a chance to avoid any posturing on Iraq.

The US have the power to roam as they will! So it is not Europe who can "allow" anything to the US, we can merely state positions. Schröder DID state his anti-war stance in September last year already, before troops were stationed there. Bush knew that. Apart from some unexcusable ramblings from an ex-minister here (Däubler-Gmelin), he chose the looming war on Iraq as a topic for election, which I found totally inadequate (and inexcusable as well). For a war on Iraq was planned in hawk-circles far before 2001. And Rummy wanted to enter Iraq right after 9-11.

It will be interesting to analyze the causes and results of this US diplomacy catastrophe (and I say that without the slightest schadenfreude). Bush Sr. - though not solving the Saddam problem - was capable of assembling the whole world (nearly) behind him. What is the difference now?

Let us assume a thing. If Schröder is not anti-American (if we define anti-Americanism as "blind hate and rancour"), if he does not want to cover the secret trades of WMD components of German companies and Iraq (I suppose there are some, but not that huge amounts), if he is not interested in oil (is there any large German oil company anyway...?), what would be his motivation?

Hans:

I am well aware that the US acts in its own interests - and war in Iraq is in our interest at the moment, even if it is not in the interest of France or Germany. That's life. I don't expect any two nations to agree 100% of the time. The issue is that parts of the French and German governments are maintaining the pretense that they're just trying to help, when they are actively working against the interests of the US. I find that last bit insulting.

In a sense, part of the anger with the current UNSC standoff is the sense that the US was led into an ambush. Bush was quite prepared to enter Iraq without any kind of UN resolution at all, and entered UN negotiations reluctantly. Then he settled for 1441, without any kind of fixed consequence or timetable. There are rumors that this was because the US had assurances from France that they would not oppose a second resolution should Iraq refuse to disarm. So, 1441 passed, Iraq did not disarm (does anyone realistically argue otherwise?), and Blix returned to report Iraqi gamesmanship. Then, the Security Council refused to recognize Iraq as being in material breach, and demanded a second resolution that has no chance of passing. Hence the current diplomatic fiasco the US finds itself in. Had France and Germany indicated the extent of their resistance to war, I find it hard to believe that Bush would not have attacked without consulting the UN, having a fresh congressional authorization in his pocket.

The results of the catastrophe remain to be seen. Either the US will attack against UNSC wishes, dealing the UN a massive blow to its prestige and perhaps precipitating a US withdrawal from that body, or the US will engage in a humiliating climb-down over Iraq, and suffer for it for decades, just as our defeat in Vietnam caused a massive loss of prestige and believability.

To your final two questions - In 1991, there was a clear situation where Hussein had gratuitously flouted international norms of conduct by invading another nation. As well, it was impossible for him to pretend to leave Kuwait while really remaining behind. Today, the US is attempting to stop him before he commits another atrocity, and Saddam is able to lie through his teeth that his nation is disarmed without the lies being brutally obvious. Add to that his seizing of European "human shields" and general bellicosity, and what's amazing is not that so much of the world supported Bush Sr., but that his support was so thin. I remember close votes in congress, "Give sanctions time to work" speeches, and the lot.

And why is Schroeder opposing war? Well, maybe it's because of his personal pacifist leanings, but I would guess that he wishes Germany to join with France in dominating an EU explicitly constructed as anti-American, as a counterweight to American power, and he is establishing his credentials.

P.S. That Germany is at least somewhat pacifist in leanings brings me joy, even if it causes the US political problems in the present. So much better than the opposite alternative, wouldn't you agree?

SparcVark, very interesting post!

The issue is that parts of the French and German governments are maintaining the pretense that they're just trying to help, when they are actively working against the interests of the US. I find that last bit insulting.

I agree, it is insulting. The problem is just that the matter of war and peace IS such a fundamental thing. Debating over it even can strain individual friendships *sigh*

There are rumors that this was because the US had assurances from France that they would not oppose a second resolution should Iraq refuse to disarm

These rumors seem plausible, but I would be careful to choose rumors as the fundament of reasoning.

Had France and Germany indicated the extent of their resistance to war, I find it hard to believe that Bush would not have attacked without consulting the UN, having a fresh congressional authorization in his pocket.

Well - schröder at least has done so. He said, "Germany will not participate in adventures" in September. As ridiculous as the phrase is, he made it clear very early.

but I would guess that he wishes Germany to join with France in dominating an EU explicitly constructed as anti-American, as a counterweight to American power, and he is establishing his credentials.

I have thought of that as well. There might be some truth to it. But at least Schröder wants Europe to be organized in a federal way, whereas the French as usual want centralism (the British as well). Germany is paying a lot into the EU for a long time, but in my opinion has been relatively moderate in defining returns of investment. Europe is miles and miels away from becoming a counter-weight to the US. Our economy might be larger - but our military power is ridiculous compared to the US. Personally, I am a big supporter of the transatlantic bridge. And most of Germany's opposition are as well (German opposition leader was recently enjoying royal treatment in the US, meeting Rumsfeld - Cheney - Rice - Wolfowitz - and more).

That Germany is at least somewhat pacifist in leanings brings me joy, even if it causes the US political problems in the present. So much better than the opposite alternative, wouldn't you agree?

Certainly!! Germany has done enough harm for a nation in the last century. This is why pacifism is a strong position here held by many. But some prefer freedom to peace at the cost of freedom. I predict this opinion will spread here.

If Schröder was a Pacifist (he isn't, remember the Kosovo War) then he could say: Germany won't fight, but the German government, with the history in mind, takes a political pro-liberation stance. I'd appreciate this, but unfortunately he doesn't. And I can't remember that someone had called Germany to fight.

To explain the roots of his stance it's essential to keep in mind that he speaks for the majority. This is an opinion piece linking the present national consensus in Germany to the situation of Iraq: Death of an Illusion

Hans:

Schroeder may have been against war from the beginning, but I for one was not aware of how far he would take his opposition. As Leo said, it's possible to refuse to participate in a war, but not oppose those who are planning to wage it. Germany could have washed its hands of the planned invasion or speak out against it without joining a UNSC faction dedicated to torpedoing any American resolutions authorizing force. Likewise, France could abstain to avoid supporting war without using its veto.

It's all a matter of how deeply committed both sides are to their positions. Will France and Germany risk fundamental breaches in their relationships with the US to stop the war? Will the US accept fundamental breaches to wage it in the teeth of their opposition? I can understand why Bush is willing to take great risks and great losses to depose Hussein, but I (like many Americans) have a hard time thinking of why Schroeder and Chirac are.

A EU counterweight wouldn't have to challenge the US militarily - only diplomatically. France has nuclear weapons and a reputation for throwing its weight around - and is insisting on a "common foreign policy" for the EU, and berating candidate members that don't tow the French line. That looks to me like they plan to control a united Europe with German acquiescence, to accomplish at the negotiating table what Napoleon was unable to accomplish on the battlefield. They plan to form a power that will compete with the US, counting on American isolationism and morality to prevent any kind of military rivalry. Only the fact that the last attempt at a pan-European military operation (Bosnia) was such a disaster keeps me from being more worried.

You know better than I, Hans, but to this American, the EU state that is forming looks ominously centralized, undemocratic, and unconcerned with civil liberties. And for those reasons and reasons of power politics, I don't think such a state would be any friend to the US, much less an ally. And that would be a true diplomatic catastrophe - to divide the West in the face of its enemies and drive the one Western power with truly global reach and power back into its early 20th century isolationism. I hope the German opposition can depose Schroeder sooner rather than later, and break away from an ominous French design. I think Germany would be poorly served by a centralized, French-dominated EU, and would prefer to retain Germans as our allies.

#213:

If Schröder was a Pacifist (he isn't, remember the Kosovo War)

Ethnic cleansing and more going on there, remember? I am far from supporting Schröder. He tried to convey that pacifist image himself, at least during election campaign, when he sensed that a majority would support him, especially his custom voters. He's the worst chancellor ever after WW2.

#214:

You know better than I, Hans, but to this American, the EU state that is forming looks ominously centralized, undemocratic, and unconcerned with civil liberties

I agree that we are in a difficult moment of evolution towards a more united Europe. EU is already dishing out more than 50% of laws on former national level - and many EU citizens don't even know the name of a single EU comission member. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this. There is still a great national concurrence in Europe, the big try to dominate, the small feel pressed to the wall. From an American point of view, I can understand the dislike of the Mount Everest bureaucracy developing here. I greatly dislike that myself. I do NOT think we will reach more rational grounds through evolution and genuine European endless debates. I guess we need a kind of rupture or something. Not a war, but some real crisis. I'm getting really sick of the European attitudes at times.

I hope the German opposition can depose Schroeder sooner rather than later, and break away from an ominous French design. I think Germany would be poorly served by a centralized, French-dominated EU, and would prefer to retain Germans as our allies.

Oh, I have fought for that far and wide, rest assured. There is a very strong tie between the US and Germany that will endure current strains. And many think as I do. If Schröder is not taken down before 2006 by impeachment, he will never be reelected. All these sluggish, fat-assed beton-head trade unionists that form about 70-80% of his party will not allow any necessary changes (they are afraid of "dismantling the welfare state", utter crap) and will prefer to let German socialism flourish. Disgusting and pathetic. We would need some true Thatcherism here - or some genuine American pragmatism.