EagleSteve Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 By leading Germany and Belgium in vetoing Turkey's request for defensive support in the coming war with Iraq, France has now severly wounded NATO as well as the UN Security Council. Turkey has had to resort to the unprecedented use of article 4, requesting immediate assistance from member countries, stating that it's “territorial integrity, political independence or security” is under threat. My question is: what kind of alliance can stand when a country asks for help and is refused? BTW, the vote was 16-3. Sixteen of 19 NATO member nations were willing to defend fellow member Turkey. France, Germany and Belgium were not. It is time to move on from our old alliances. Remove all our forces from Germany and let them defend themselves. Sickening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 News Flash The USA is appearing to look like a bigger threat to world peace than Sadumbass to the Majority of Brits. Meanwhile he is arming his civilians and putting his army right in the heart of them . washingtonpost washingtonpost She is holding a gun in one hand and a peace sign in the other? Oh and the rest of the crowd she is with look real mean don't they, what a sick joke. Actually it looks like they are all scared. The old man looks like he is about to have a heart attack. How in the hell do you wage war in such an arena while trying to minimize civilian casualty. How can we tell a civilian who is fighting from one's that aren't? Now we are supposed to go in there and take out Sadumbass while having no idea where he is. In the proccess of hunting him down we kill a bunch of civilians, some of whom may very well indeed be forced to be armed and fight. Then we take a few out who are shielding soldiers. After the slaughter are we to expect them to then let us help them set up a new gov. ? Sadumbass is really leaning on the Muslim support using this angle. He already has France and Germany in his back pockets and now Belgium. Things are not looking good at all. Sadumbass is making this whole thing look as if the Evil Americans are going to war against the Muslim world, when the rest of the world (UN) is telling Bush to stand down and let the inspectors do their Jobs because Iraq is making "GOOD PROGRESS" As long as the world is playing into Sadumbass's game Bush is forced to play. When the UN say's they are playing and Sadumbass has Nato in shambles, we have no choice but to stand down and play his game. We are in a no win situation. If we couldn't find Laden what makes us think we'll get Sadumbass. What we will do is Kill a bunch of civilians and have the world looking at us like we are a bunch of oil greedy tyrants who will stop at nothing to get our way. Can someone tell me whats to stop this from happening? Bush has to beat Sadumbass at his game and invading Iraq will hurt more than help our war on Terrorism at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagsbch Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Ecclesiastes To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under Heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill , a time to heal: A time to brak down, a time to build up; A time to weap, and a time to laugh; A time to mourn , nad a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather tones togather; A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; A time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; A time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; A time of war, and a time of peace Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good. --------------------------- Iraqi Prime Minister Tariq Aziz blasts the Bush administration, saying inspectors should be given more time and that Bush should be sent into exile "to his Texas ranch." "If Mr. Bush is genuinely concerned about weapons of mass destruction, he should give the inspectors enough time to continue their work. But when he says time is running out, that means that he wants to put an end to their work," Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister :doh: It is obvious that Sadumb could care a less about the people of Iraq, let alone it’s army. His main obsession lies solely in seeing the United States of America fall flat on it’s face. Iraq is provoking Bush to war, but with whom the citizens of Iraq? what a PR nightmare. “I would call my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities,” Powell said. Glenda Jackson, an actress and Labor Party lawmaker who has spoken out against war with Iraq, said the document “is another example of how the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq. “And of course to mislead is a parliamentary euphemism for lying.” “It just adds to the general impression that what we have been treated to is a farrago of half-truths, assertions and over-the-top spin,” lawmaker Peter Kilfoyle, a member of Blair’s governing Labor Party, told British Broadcasting Corp. radio. Marashi said he would have given them more up to date material if only he had been contacted before they used his Grad student article. :doh: "This is a most unfortunate decision," said the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicolas Burns. "Because of their actions, NATO is now facing a crisis of credibility." "Crisis of Credibility" Ya that's just what we need:doh: U.S. stocks ended on an up note Monday as a new hope emerged that war with Iraq might be averted... Looks like The stocks are favoring a stall on the Battle as well... Isn't it about the economy Stupid? About 86 percent of 32,000 people who took part in a telephone poll Wednesday night on Mexico's most-watched television news show, El Noticiero, answered "no" to the question, "Should Mexico support a U.S. military attack against Iraq?" What not even Mexico want's in on this fiasco? We have a situation.:gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romo Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Jagsbch She is holding a gun in one hand and a peace sign in the other? B] She is trying to suggest something about the duality of Man. The Jungian thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Well, the purpose of NATO no longer exists. We won the cold war and the Eastern Bloc/Warsaw Pact is gone. NATO serves no purpose anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Nato is a joke and France is a bigger joke. Since when did France do anything for the good of the planet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Emmanuelle was pretty good. SO Id say they gave us good soft core porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Emanuelle? They have been using italian and eurasian babes in the sequels and showtime versions. France has given us a reference point as to whether or not we needed to use Zest and Sure. There is a reason Pe Pe Le Pew is French Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Jagsbch We are in a no win situation. If we couldn't find Laden what makes us think we'll get Sadumbass. What we will do is Kill a bunch of civilians and have the world looking at us like we are a bunch of oil greedy tyrants who will stop at nothing to get our way. Can someone tell me whats to stop this from happening? Unlike bin Laden, Saddam is the leader of a country. If you destroy his regime, which we can do fairly easily (and I use that word advisedly), then you can replace him in power. Killing him or capturing him is symbolic only and not necessary. Regarding civilians, the only recourse we have is to continue reminding the world community, which we're already doing, that Saddam has chosen to use them has cannon fodder to drum up anti-war sentiment, and that their deaths are attributable to him. Those who would ignore that will be against us no matter what anyway. Finally, we'll show we're not "oil greedy tyrants" the same way we did in 1991: by turning over our captured territory to the people who live there and by supporting the rebuilding process of the country. Again, those who choose to call us that are going to be against us anyway, so I frankly don't worry about that. We just need to focus on doing the right things, and simply let history determine whose rhetoric was right. And on those points, do you actually believe that refraining from attacking Iraq now will mean that terrorist cells will stand down their efforts to attack us and our allies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 gee....think there are any bullets in those rifles???? and those are not Iraqis...they are the ruling Baath party dictators....there is no homogenous Iraq to speak of. no voice of Iraq. no "Iraqi people". why didn't sean penn visit the kurds to the north or the shiites to the south? are they not "Iraqis" also? more nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 From Debka: If the UN dies on its feet, it is not only because Bush, in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, decided to take charge of America’s world war on terror and also defeat Iraq, but because the world body, and especially the Security Council, was designed for another age, when the excesses inherent in the clash of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, had to be contained for the sake of world equilibrium. The UN’s structure in relation to the current state of the world, its powerhouses and sources of danger is therefore an anachronism. India, for example, the second most populous nation and a world nuclear, economic and military power, is not a permanent Security Council member and has hardly any influence in the world body. Moreover, in the last decade, the world body has fallen down on at least four of its primary missions: Preventing nuclear proliferation, the war on AIDS, fighting the spread of world hunger and halting international terrorism. The tally of UN peacekeeping missions is just as dismal: Somalia – 1993; Bosnia – 1994 and 1996. More than one million human beings slaughtered in Ruwanda and the Congo in 1996 and 1997; the Kosovo campaign of 1998 and 1999, which has unfortunate repercussions to this day; the 2000 Israeli-Palestinian confrontation, which is still going on. Secretary General Kofi Annan is perfectly aware that that United States in going to war against Iraq without a UN mandate will administer the coup de grace to an organization that has long abdicated responsibility for world order. By the same definition, NATO is on its way out. It will be up to the historians to judge which side of the transatlantic alliance caused its demise, the American or the European. It is a fact that the only surviving superpower and military colossus is bent on relocating its strategic center of gravity from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. The determination to frustrate this epic move is behind the fierce antagonism manifested by Moscow and Beijing to an American takeover of Iraq. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=258 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 NATO was designed to keep the Soviet Union from crashing through germany and taking over western europe, nothing else. As long as it was the Frogs and Herms with their asses on the line, meaning they would be the first to be occupied, NATO was cool. Now that it is someone else's arse, they could care less. I guess it shows who our friends are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 NATO must be revamped at the very least. France, Germany and Belgium must be banned. Let them go start there own defensive organization. If we can't kick them out we must withdrawl and create a new organization. Air is right it was started to stop the Soviet expansion. There is no need for this organization as it is. France and Germany refused to send DEFENSIVE help to Turkey. NATO as it is must be changed. I for one don't want the French or Germans to have any info what so ever about ongoing or future military operations. They must be kept out of the loop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 in a word...no. in the long-run, our warfighting strategy depends upon multinational, coalition warfare. the French will find a way to quietly back out of this. the Germans will have to "unelect" their chancellor. the Green moment will have come and passed as a will-o-the-wisp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 in the long-run, our warfighting strategy depends upon multinational, coalition warfare. I agree with this part of your opinion. To greatly reduce the terrorist threat to our country we must have multinational support. I just believe France and Germany should not be a part of the military equation. At last count I heard it was over 30 nations willing to help. I believe they lack the loyalty and dedication to be considered trusted allies. France would stab us in the back in a heartbeat. The last 100 years of French history and the recent past proves they cannot be trusted. They are no longer a true ally of this country and one wonders if they ever really were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.