Diplomacy, UN, etc

[Xtro]

Just watching the latest on CNN before I try to desensitize myself to it all (ie. get pissed as its Friday night).

I think Saddam sure has got what he wanted - diplomatic chaos. Endless proposals and counter proposals, U-turns, everything. My head's starting to spin with all the proposed deadlines and demands tbh.

Do you think its just a case of WHEN the US is going to bomb Iraq to shit not if?

And are international relations (I'm thinking France/Russia - US mainly) going to be totally screwed after?

*vows to ponder over Stella Artois and then forget his name after 10 pints and get thrown out of boozer with fly undone whilst shouting TIGGR*

 

[MYstIC G]

Originally posted by Xtro
Do you think its just a case of WHEN the US is going to bomb Iraq to shit not if?

And are international relations (I'm thinking France/Russia - US mainly) going to be totally screwed after?

Yes, because frankly that is the US style historically anyway.

No because everyones still gonna have the nukes pointed at each other and without the balls to fire them.

 

[Testin da Cable]

I don't intend to think about anything tonight. I find the thought of someone, somewhere saying "ok people, let's get this war on" too surreal to even begin to comprehend, let alone comtemplate.

 

[xane]

As I pointed out in another thread, the current "no fly" zones put in place at the end of the last Gulf War were done without UN backing, only the US, UK and French agreed to them. There is no doubt the "no fly" zones have stopped Saddam from reprisal attacks against the Kurds and Shiites.

No country has ever seriously questioned or opposed these "no fly" zones to date, even though the allies have continuously abused them by attacking Iraqi SAM sites often with little provocation, in fact in the last weeks they have been attacking quite a lot as a build up to the ground invasion.

Why ? Because they "work" and it would undoubtedly be a worse situation if they were not in place, yet they remain out of UN approval and international law. No one wll object to a policy that saves lives no matter how "illegal" it is.

Similarly regarding the upcoming conflict, when (not if) the allies attack, if it turns into a bloodbath and/or a WMD shoot out, then the relationship between UN countries will be badly damaged and it could go the way of the league of nations.

If, however, the allies win through they will be able to say "told you so", and the pretentiousness of the US will be even more unbearable, if that was at all possible,

Personally I think the war may go on a bit longer than expected but they'll start discovering pretty nasty stuff inside Iraq, like when the allies discovered the concentration camps in 1944/45, not saying there will be something similar but something equally as nasty.

I reckon the US knows this, and in fact it will politically control the strategic plan of the attack to " discover" certain sites "by chance", thereby increasing its standing amongst the UN and creating an excuse after the effect.

I predict the initial attack will be swift, but they'll be bogged down in attacking Baghdad or other key cities, and that will take time as a seige mentality sets in, it is likely at this point Saddam will take his meal ticket out of Iraq or he'll sue for peace, depending on how mad he is.

Okay, it's not as flowery or indefinite as Nostradamus, but it'll do for now.

 

[old.UKTwister]

Lets just pray it's not seen as an attack against muslims

edit... I Also add while it seems like the US and UK are being bullies and ignoring UN regulations and stuff. I believe they know something else, something that could be very very scary indeed

 

[Trem]

It truly bothers me, I'm torn.

On the one hand people are going to die, innocents, on the other hand what would we be saying if we leave Saddam alone and he does get a nuke.

I think Russia is being like this because Iraq has done a deal with them and its worth billions of pounds to the russians, they will come round in the end when USA offers them financial aid. The French I just can't work out.

 

[throdgrain]

Get in there, beat Saddam quickly, they'll be dancing in the streets in Iraq. Then we'll see what people have to say.

 

[icemaiden]

Personally i find the thought of war disturbing. As soon as Iraq is attacked terrorists all across the world will start blowing themselves up at random, probably in America and Britain, taking as many of us with them as they can. I live 5 mins away from a large oil refinary/chemical plant(Grangemouth), and we've already been warned what to do if there was an attack there. Policemen this week visited a nursery to teach my 4 yr old daughters class what to do if there was an explosion. Not good at all. The whole thing is a no win situation, as soon as Saddam is gone the better imo.

 

[Gumbo]

If we're doing a prediction thread, mine is that the war will happen (obviously), next week (probably), and will open with the most awesome, huge destructive barrage of bombs and missiles this earth has seen.

In my opinion this will likely last no more than 2, maybe 3 days before what is remaining of the Iraqi armed forces rolls over and a coup is staged, bringing the fighting to an immediate end, and the new regime will invite the Americans in to assist with humanitarian efforts.

People say how Saddams grip of fear will prevent this scenario, however I'm sure most of the Iraqi Generals now know that the Americans are coming anyway, probably with us, and that they won't stop until Saddam is removed. So in order to protect themselves they'll take over the country. Thats my guess anyway, I suppose we'll see over the next week what happens, I just hope it's as quick and painless as possible, and I agree that a lot of the peaceniks will realise that the long term benefits of this war for the people of Iraq, might almost make it worthwhile.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by Trem
It truly bothers me, I'm torn.

On the one hand people are going to die, innocents, on the other hand what would we be saying if we leave Saddam alone and he does get a nuke.

I think Russia is being like this because Iraq has done a deal with them and its worth billions of pounds to the russians, they will come round in the end when USA offers them financial aid. The French I just can't work out.

Many people have and will continue to die under Saddam.

The French most probably have some past dirty deals which might be revealed with a little probing.

 

[Lester]

Originally posted by icemaiden
terrorists all across the world will start blowing themselves up at random,

No offence but I find this thought amusing.

I just imagine one walking down the road and going "aww fuck it" and blowing up.
Pythonesque, but I am a bit weird.

And yes on balance I'm pro-war.

 

[Wij]

tbh i do not think this will cause a great increase in terrorism. Most muslims in the middle east dislike Saddam.

In the long term it may even help as countries that routinely bankroll terrorists like Iran and Syria start to get a bit worried.

 

[Wij]

By the way I'm still not particularly in favour of a war, I just hate following popular opinion

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by xane
As I pointed out in another thread, the current "no fly" zones put in place at the end of the last Gulf War were done without UN backing, only the US, UK and French agreed to them. There is no doubt the "no fly" zones have stopped Saddam from reprisal attacks against the Kurds and Shiites.

No country has ever seriously questioned or opposed these "no fly" zones to date, even though the allies have continuously abused them by attacking Iraqi SAM sites often with little provocation, in fact in the last weeks they have been attacking quite a lot as a build up to the ground invasion.

Why ? Because they "work" and it would undoubtedly be a worse situation if they were not in place, yet they remain out of UN approval and international law. No one wll object to a policy that saves lives no matter how "illegal" it is.

Similarly regarding the upcoming conflict, when (not if) the allies attack, if it turns into a bloodbath and/or a WMD shoot out, then the relationship between UN countries will be badly damaged and it could go the way of the league of nations.

If, however, the allies win through they will be able to say "told you so", and the pretentiousness of the US will be even more unbearable, if that was at all possible,

Personally I think the war may go on a bit longer than expected but they'll start discovering pretty nasty stuff inside Iraq, like when the allies discovered the concentration camps in 1944/45, not saying there will be something similar but something equally as nasty.

I reckon the US knows this, and in fact it will politically control the strategic plan of the attack to " discover" certain sites "by chance", thereby increasing its standing amongst the UN and creating an excuse after the effect.

I predict the initial attack will be swift, but they'll be bogged down in attacking Baghdad or other key cities, and that will take time as a seige mentality sets in, it is likely at this point Saddam will take his meal ticket out of Iraq or he'll sue for peace, depending on how mad he is.

Okay, it's not as flowery or indefinite as Nostradamus, but it'll do for now.

Xane can you ever post a reply in less than 4 words. Go on. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh go on

 

[stu]

Well, the irony is that if there's one way to prove if Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction or not, it's to go to war.

Because if he does, it will cause a WMD attack on Israel. Which will in turn provoke a WMD (and possibly nuclear) response.

So if we just waltz into Bahgdad, it'll show that the French were right all along. Not that it will matter by then.

 

[Sawtooth]

Originally posted by old.UKTwister
Lets just pray it's not seen as an attack against muslims

I think when you start a war someones going to take offence at it.

Sadams not exactly popular in the muslim world but Im sure there's reason enough in there to do a few more terrorist attacks. After all Sept 11 was about the US using Saudi Arabia as an airbase during the Gulf war.

 

[Munkey-]

What annoys me. Is that the US and UK guys (along with the portugese or something I think. I'm basing this on my early morning news report) have gone into talks for a few days.

Not to decide how to resolve this current crisis

but how they are going to force the U.N. to fight for them.




And apparently, according to one of my teachers, France is beginning to waiver on its position because its tourist revenues from Americans is expected to fall dramatically.

 

[Testin da Cable]

my money doesn't jiggle-jiggle, it folds

too bad about the french, I'd rather be poor and rate some respect than be less poor and have another nation doing me up the back passage in the interest of international relations :/

 

[Cdr]

The economic sanctions the US can put on a country is huge - like Munk said, a lot of the tourists visiting France come from the US. They'll be losing a lot of revenue if the Yanks stop going. Then there's various trade tariffs the US can whack onto French imports, so big that it becomes impossible for US business to trade with France. Ban exports to France, or put massive tariffs on them aswell, and you get the same effect. France could be slowly sufficated until it rolls over or has an economic crisis. Yes, they might not take any direct action on France (although I'd like to see us and the US invade), but it can certainly make life a living hell for them.

As for war, it's when and not if, and am I pro-war? I'll be behind our lads all the way if they (the British) attack, because the worst thing for a soldier is to know he doesnt have public backing.

 

[Shocko]

That's stupid logic. I'm not against the soldiers, i'm against the politicians sending them to war. If a war started, i would protest against the war, but i wouldn't be against the soldiers themselves, as it were.

If the US imposed trade sanctions on France, then i very much hope that the EU would respond in kind. It would cripple both the EU and the US, in equal amounts, and would probably make them think twice about being such arrogant cunts again any time soon


Predictions:
US attacks within next 2 weeks. UK takes part, but Blair dancing on a knife edge, and risk being sacked by Labour.
Much protest around world, Arab leaders make lots of noise. Israel kills lots of Palestineans.
Iraqi army beaten easily, Saddam dissapears.
America sets up puppet government, uses "trust" fund, that oil money goes into, to replace all the bombs they used. Everyone forgets about how US breaks international law at will, and is generally full of twats. Everyone also forgets that Blair is a twat and disobeyed his people. Surives, and his political carreer manages to stay afloat. Twat

 

[Testin da Cable]

you forgot saddam building a giant space laser to menace the american devils with.
I'll forgive you this time though.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by Shocko
Everyone also forgets that Blair is a twat and disobeyed his people. Surives, and his political carreer manages to stay afloat. Twat

I think it is to the great credit of Tony Blair that he is pursuing this line. He obviously believes what he is doing is the right thing to do, even at the risk of his political career. That's good enough for me.

It is possible to be in a majority, and still be wrong.

 

[throdgrain]

Me too Tom. Tony Blair is a great bloke imo .

 

[rynnor]

Its just the law of the big stick.

The US spent 343 billion dollars on their military last year - the next largest spender was Russia with a comparatively measly 56 billion - next china with 39.5 billion and then oddly enough the UK with 34.5 billion.

If you add together all the military spending of the world excluding the US it adds up to about half what the US spends!

Iraq spent 1.4 billion - its an illustration of how one sided any conflict is likely to be.

As the worlds sole superpower the US is now doing whatever the hell it likes regardless of morals or international law. Even when they do things through the UN they use a stick and carrot approach.

At a vote a few years ago Mexico was a temporary security member - after it voted against the US the ambassador reputedly said to the Mexican representative "that was the most expensive vote you ever cast' and promptly removed a ton of US funding/aid/contracts...

Not sure what the solution is - unless the rest of the world unites to condemn them they are unlikely to change tack and theres no real chance of that since they can 'buy' a lot of votes...

Still history teaches us that all empires come to an end - in another ten or twenty years I hope to see a united Europe on top of the heap.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
I think it is to the great credit of Tony Blair that he is pursuing this line. He obviously believes what he is doing is the right thing to do, even at the risk of his political career. That's good enough for me.

It is possible to be in a majority, and still be wrong.

And it's also possible to totally believe you're right, but still be wrong.

I agree that Blair thinks that he is doing the right thing, and that it will pay off. However, we think that he is thinking of different things. You think that his stance on disarming Saddam is what's going to eventually prove to be right. I think that it's his stance on supporting the US that he belives in. Blair isn't doing what he's doing, because he believes in helping the Iraqi people, or protecting the world from Saddam(read as: stopping Israel getting what's coming to them)! He's doing it because that's what the US wants

I don't like America very much anyway(Their way of life is very cheesy and surreal), but the thought of doing something that's morrally wrong, for the sake of getting money and influence, is sickening to me

 

[Tom]

How anybody can say this war is immoral is beyond me. Sounds to me like you wouldn't cross the street to help somebody, because 'its not my problem'

It doesn't matter what the reasons are, the end result is the main consideration. Iraq can hardly get worse without Saddam Hussein, can it? These peace protesters are living in a dream world if they think that changing foreign policy will mean no more cruelty in the world. It simply won't happen. There will always be cunts in the world, and you need to be a bit ruthless to deal with them.

 

[throdgrain]

So speaks the voice of realism, as opposed to the voice of idealism.

 

[lynchet]

I am still undecided about the whole thing, although I would very much like to see UN backing but as for Toms statement

Iraq can hardly get worse without Saddam Hussein, can it?

Yes it could get an awful lot worse. Think of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Im not saying that would happen but it could. There is no way the Iraqis will accept an American backed government for long and although id love to see a democracy there, if you look around at the surrounding states its not likely, far more likely is a fundamentalist Islamic government. It is precisely that, I beleive, that stopped us pushing forward on Saddam in 1991 -- it was viewed that unpleasant as he may be, he was better than the likely alternatives.

 

[Munkey-]

of course. their islamic. they cant POSSIBLY have a normal government.

 

[Quige]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
How anybody can say this war is immoral is beyond me. Sounds to me like you wouldn't cross the street to help somebody, because 'its not my problem'

for me it's not that the war is necessarily immoral, it's just the context in which it becomes immoral. It's the possible flouting the democratic outcome of the UN process by two of the "biggest" proponants of the democratic system, that would in my opinion shift it towards the immoral end of the spectrum. It's like the US and UK go around the world trying to push the democratic tradition (not perhaps a bad thing at all), but when it doesn't work for them they just go do what they want anyway. It underminess peoples faith in the democratic process and the UN.

And it seems to me that most people do recognise that ultimately something might have to be done militarily ... but why does it have to be now, why are the US and UK so determined to force the issue now rather than wait for the inspectors to finish their work? Could it be something to do with how much it's costing to keep all those soldiers and equipment out there? Could it have more to do with George B needing something to show his people for 9/11, since he hasn't managed to get Osama Bin Laden?

Well I guess we're all going to find out how it going to go this coming week. If it's all goes up, let's hope the technology has got better since the Gulf war, it's quick, and not too may of 'our side' shoot each other, and not too many innocent civilians and children die. That last seems to have become much more important to me since I've become a father myself.