French call for stronger EU to keep America in check

[CSM]

Saddam had murdered the Kurdish people in Iraq with chemical weapons.

After 9/11 proliferation of WMD's was one problem. The US assumed
he still had weapons or could easily produce some, and may give
them to AL Quaeda.

So whats wrong with taking out Saddam Hussein ?

It wasn't just the US who believed he had WMDs. Many other governments filed intelligence data supporting that claim. There were many other issues involved as well that have somehow been conveniently ignored in the ongoing debate about US/Iraqi relations.

 

[j07950]

Iraqi missile batteries fired on US planes enforcing the no fly zone almost daily.

I wasn't aware of that...but then again was there ever a plane shot down? And since these Iraqi missile sites are bombed anytime they are discovered does that really call for a war?
If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...

 

[nosarcasm]

weak argument, just because you cannot do it everywhere you
intervene nowhere. Come on.

 

[j07950]

Saddam had murdered the Kurdish people in Iraq with chemical weapons.

After 9/11 proliferation of WMD's was one problem. The US assumed
he still had weapons or could easily produce some, and may give
them to AL Quaeda.

So whats wrong with taking out Saddam Hussein ?

Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?

 

[dilloduck]

I wasn't aware of that...but then again was there ever a plane shot down? And since these Iraqi missile sites are bombed anytime they are discovered does that really call for a war?
If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...

easy---look who was president then

 

[CSM]

I wasn't aware of that...but then again was there ever a plane shot down? And since these Iraqi missile sites are bombed anytime they are discovered does that really call for a war?
If the US is after whoever attacks them then why didn't they do anything when 18 soldiers were killed in somalia when trying to Capture Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid. They simply left... Since then Somalia is in a poor state...Like other nations where nothing has been done, like Darfur etc...

Again, the situation is more complex than just the incidents that occured while trying to enforce the no fly zone.

Somalia was a poor state before the US entered. Your implication that the US caused the poverty in Somalia is either deliberately misleading or naive at best. Mr. Adid was given sanctuary by another nation and the US naively assumed he would be dealt with through diplomatic channels.

I have to ask what makes you think the situation in Dafur is soley a US problem? Why hasn't Europe (with it's much vaunted morally superior foreign policy) taken the lead is resolving the problem?

 

[j07950]

It wasn't just the US who believed he had WMDs. Many other governments filed intelligence data supporting that claim. There were many other issues involved as well that have somehow been conveniently ignored in the ongoing debate about US/Iraqi relations.

That's true...but over the years and all the UN inspections no trace had ever been found, you can't just assume, in today's world you need proof. I would have been the happiest if you had found weapons, that way I would have been proven wrong, but that isn't the case. Too bad.

 

[no1tovote4]

Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?

With Iraq we have the unique opportunity of surrounding a country that is close to internally becoming a democracy with Democratic Governments. When Iraq votes in January, there will be three Democratically elected governments surrounding Iran, a likely nuclear power. Internally the younger generation in Iran is working towards westernizing their culture, if we are successful regardless of being undermined by the UN and our "allies" we will be able to begin supporting those who look to creating a Democratic Iran. This will make it so we can avoid another costly war.

 

[dilloduck]

That's true...but over the years and all the UN inspections no trace had ever been found, you can't just assume, in today's world you need proof. I would have been the happiest if you had found weapons, that way I would have been proven wrong, but that isn't the case. Too bad.

Why were members of the security council selling Saddam weapons and circumventing sanctions ?

 

[CSM]

Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?

An old debate that has been gone through many times on this board. Synoptically, Saddam had shown that he was more than willing to use those WMDs (even against citizens of his own country) while no other nation since WWII has done so.

 

[j07950]

Again, the situation is more complex than just the incidents that occured while trying to enforce the no fly zone.

Somalia was a poor state before the US entered. Your implication that the US caused the poverty in Somalia is either deliberately misleading or naive at best. Mr. Adid was given sanctuary by another nation and the US naively assumed he would be dealt with through diplomatic channels.

I have to ask what makes you think the situation in Dafur is soley a US problem? Why hasn't Europe (with it's much vaunted morally superior foreign policy) taken the lead is resolving the problem?

I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done.
I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.

 

[nosarcasm]

Most regime have weapons of mass destruction, or it can be assumed (like Irak) so why not take them all out?
The Kuridish people got gazed before the golf war, so why was Saddam left in place...why wait more than 10 years when nothing is left of the country it ounce was?

They should have done it earlier but during the cold war it was considered
too risky, not to mention the containment strategy of Iran, the country that had taken US hostages.

Saddam is still guilty of the murder of these Kurds.

Why now, because after 9/11 the public was willing to support war efforts.
Other countries that are part of the so called Axis of Evil are considerable
stronger then Iraq. Attacking North Korea would be too costly not only
for the US but also for South Korea.

Read the link I put up earlier. You still lack a valid argument why getting
rid of Saddam is wrong.

 

[no1tovote4]

I've talked about Darfur before and said it wasn't only the US' problem, that europe wasn't doing it's share, but it's up to the UN, they are the ones not doing what needs to be done.
I never said the US caused somalia's poverty, in no way was I saying this. Only that more should have been done.

It's up to the UN? That means that the UN sends troops, whose troops will they be? Which nations would be the ones that the UN can "send" anywhere? This is one reason they are so ineffectual, they simply cannot do anything to enforce their decisions other than hope the US will back them up.

 

[Mr. P]

Yeah like you'd know. Especially since it's not Student lead/ conducted learning it's class debate, what we learn outside of this is structured, and adresses certain topics and themes, we as students dont learn what we choose, how stupid to think this.

I only know what you've posted...

... As for our class discussions, it's "we" students who direct it, the teacher is only there to make us develop our ideas and thoughts, he is in no way influencing us as we have to do our own research first.

So like I said, it's not just a phrase.

 

[j07950]

With Iraq we have the unique opportunity of surrounding a country that is close to internally becoming a democracy with Democratic Governments. When Iraq votes in January, there will be three Democratically elected governments surrounding Iran, a likely nuclear power. Internally the younger generation in Iran is working towards westernizing their culture, if we are successful regardless of being undermined by the UN and our "allies" we will be able to begin supporting those who look to creating a Democratic Iran. This will make it so we can avoid another costly war.

This end result would be ideal, I'd love to see that happen and I'll pray for it to happen.

 

[no1tovote4]

This end result would be ideal, I'd love to see that happen and I'll pray for it to happen.

As will I.

 

[j07950]

Why were members of the security council selling Saddam weapons and circumventing sanctions ?

You've got a point!!!

"The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.

The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."
http://www.sundayherald.com/31710

 

[j07950]

It's up to the UN? That means that the UN sends troops, whose troops will they be? Which nations would be the ones that the UN can "send" anywhere? This is one reason they are so ineffectual, they simply cannot do anything to enforce their decisions other than hope the US will back them up.

I agree that the UN is weak but no one is making a move foward to do something about it so it's up to the UN...France would send troops if needed, as would other nations I'm sure. We have troops all over the world under UN authority so the UN has to make a descision.

 

[dilloduck]

You've got a point!!!

"The five permanent members of the security council -- Britain, France, Russia, America and China -- are named as allowing companies to sell weapons technology to Iraq.

The dossier claims 24 US firms sold Iraq weapons. Hewlett-Packard sold nuclear and rocket technology; Dupont sold nuclear technology, and Eastman Kodak sold rocket capabilities. The dossier also says some '50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises conducted their arms business with Iraq from the US'."
http://www.sundayherald.com/31710

WHich should provide you with all the evidence you need to understand that the UN sanctions had NO CHANCE of keeping Saddam in check. He was only getting stronger and becoming more of a threat to the US and the entire area !!!

 

[j07950]

WHich should provide you with all the evidence you need to understand that the UN sanctions had NO CHANCE of keeping Saddam in check. He was only getting stronger and becoming more of a threat to the US and the entire area !!!

That's right but where are the weapons? New York and LA have more illegal weapons circulating than in Irak. (That's only being sarcastic but still)