It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Allies what allies?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 06:25 PM
link   
story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20030306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_diplomacy

UNITED NATIONS - Britain took the lead Thursday in trying to forge a compromise a day before a critical Security Council meeting, offering a short deadline for Iraq to prove it has eliminated all banned weapons or face war

.....

Is Americaís closest friend getting cold feet? Also, not addressed in this story. But when pressed on the issue of regime change BFS Jack Straw said that Britain only supports disarmament as laid out by 1441 and if Iraq can show it is complying; Saddamís regime can stay in power. Hmmm..deadlines and no regime change sounds like the British are getting skittish.

do we still support regime change if we loose our friends in the GB due to the unpopularity of this war?



[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Saphronia]




posted on Mar, 6 2003 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Saphronia have you noticed how in the news there have not been any reports of Russian, French or German Troops massing in Iraq to stop the USA from
invading her?

Have you noticed that no country in the world has presented and argument that it would even consider doing the same thing?

Those allies Saphronia, the ones that have not threatened war are allies. I submit that what is being debated at present is who will accept the cost of rebuilding Iraq once the war ends. If anything those countries that have had anything to do with Iraq in the very recent history. Want to distance themselves from any Liability in regards to going to war. Some of that liability is in relation to losses what is the result of loosing valued contracts made with the present day authority of Iraq. But other liabilities are in respect
to clear evidence of where exactly those WMD came from.

As far as offering a short deadline what the British specifically are proposing is a deadline of 3 to 7 days from Friday. This means that they are saying that by no later than the 14th, if Saddam Hussein has not accounted for all of the weapons of mass destruction he is know to have that day war will
begin. Personally my impression is we should wait until the 15th before we attack.

As far as the UN is concerned, let me state for the record that I was probably premature in suggesting it is a paper tiger. Fact of the matter is, despite American and British activity in the no fly zones. The Nations of the world while in a difficult financial situation, have not dishonored the lives lost as a reuslt of Genocide.

May God Bless the USA

[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 08:48 AM
link   
here's some of what the story read since the link doesn't work..

ìHe (Jack Straw) did not spell out the details during a news conference. But British diplomats floated the idea of attaching a short deadline with the resolution, either as an amendment or a statement that would accompany it. The deadline would give Saddam a brief period to prove he has no more banned weapons, or face war.

"We are open to discussion on the wording, but the principle we are holding firm to," he said, emphasizing that Iraq has squandered its final opportunity to disarm peacefully.

U.S. diplomats in recent days have signaled a willingness to hear suggestions on the wording so long as there were no changes to the substance of the draft. U.S. officials said Washington had "not completely signed off" on the British ideas

British diplomats said discussions were going on among capitals at the United Nations but it was too early to talk about the amount of time Saddam would be given. Several council diplomats expressed surprise that British hadn't approached them to discuss their ideas.

The proposal seemed similar to the one offered by Canada that would give Saddam until the end of the month to carry out a series of disarmament task.î
ÖÖÖ

My friend, it seems you are alone in you assertion that everyone wants to get rid of Saddam because of his past human rights abuses. While your stance maybe noble-our governments are not. Mr. Blair appeared on MTV UK yesterday trying to drum up support. heís put himself in a pickle it seems so far as public opinion. This is just the start of some back peddling on his part, imo. While no one is massing troops to stop the US no one is jumping out of their chairs to help either. With Turkey waiting to see if the resolution passes before it decides whether to take another vote or notÖPakistan on the fence, France and Russia threatening a veto and China nodding their head in agreement with them; this has turned out to be more dramatic than my favorite a soap opera. Difference is no one really gets killed on the soaps; its no where near reality.

The only ones talking of regime change is the USG. Like I posted earlieróStraw said Britainís goal is only disarmament and they would prefer it be peaceful (meaning through inspections). Albaradi will ask for more time and Blix will hint at the same thing saying ìthey are being more cooperativeî. The longer this thing goes (date has been pushed back to early April) the further away the world community gets from regime change and now we see Britain backing way from it completely. the new resolution pass or fail wonít save Blair. If it fails he will have to choose a side-either commit political suicide or back out ungracefully. Either way our ìallianceî isnít healthy when you start getting into the particulars of the long haulÖwhen Tony is gone who will support the re-building, and he will go either way.

Allies, what allies? The only reason we are even going through the auspices of a new resolution is because Tony Blair feels he needs one for his own personal political goals. Everyone is tending to their own interest-from turkey to GB. After all of this one thing is perfectly clear; there are no real allies and anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly mistaken. flim-flammed or as Brotha Malcolm (peace be upon him) would said hood-winked.

(note)
I saw a cartoon on a UK website where Blair was Dubyaís lap dog. (I was a little offended by some of the material on that site, but I had to chuckle at the sight of that.) While some will disagree a real politican knows it is all about public opinion.


[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Saphronia]



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 08:58 AM
link   
That's called saving face with the EU. Not that they are skiddish, but wanting to leave an open door for themselves.


dom

posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The real issue with Blair is that he has very little support to go to war without a second UN resolution. A few weeks ago the polls stood somewhere like this...

52% of the British people are against war, in any case.
9% of the British people would support war *without a second UN resolution*

Blair's political party is split along the same sort of lines. Without a second UN resolution it is likely that Blair would face an outright revolt within his own party if he went to war with Iraq. i.e. Blair would be deposed, and someone would be put in charge who would not support a war without firm UN backing. That's why Bush is backing Blair, without Blair in charge of the UK, the US will have to go it alone... or possibly with the Australians (although public opinion is comparable in Australia too)

Blair is most definitely for war, but he knows he may lose his job if he just follows along behind the US.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 03:38 PM
link   


UNITED NATIONS (March 7) - The United States, Britain and Spain on Friday proposed a March 17 ultimatum for Iraq to cooperate fully with disarmament demands or face war, but their UN draft resolution still lacked a majority and faced a possible veto.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announced the new resolution at a tense United Nations Security Council meeting. The text was circulated shortly afterwards and could come to a vote next Tuesday.

''Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity ... unless on or before March 17, 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation with its disarmament obligations,'' it said.


Thought about putting up the rest of the article but then considered its relevance when any veto, will not in Reality pertain to any country sending assets to
Support Saddam Hussein.

Saphronia war is not about politics its about weapons and a reasonable conclusion that victory is certain. As far as the motion set by Mr. Blair giving Saddam Hussein until the 17th is in all probability more than enough time to guarantee, he retains his political position.

This discussion in the UN is about declaring war Against Iraq. Those who state they are opposed do so with no implication and or no active effort. To interfere militarily against the forces that are prepared to fight.

By the very nature of this act, those who are opposing war. Are not in reality opposing it to the extent that what in history is generally accepted (again in reality) real opposition against an attack upon Iraq.

And why is this happening? Because Saddam Hussein is a ruthless murderer and a man who has committed Genocide.




[Edited on 7-3-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 04:29 PM
link   
i watched BFM Jack Straw and he didn't mention regime change, not even once. he didn't say immediate force-he said the credible threat of force to get Iraq to comply was needed. he maintained that it doesn't take long for Iraq to fully comply with 1441 when they bare down on them with a credible threat of force and that the british goal is full compliance with 1441 not regime change or war. as it stands the FFM Dominque de Ville said they would veto any resolution with a deadline. this March 17th is just a date of deadline for Iraqi complicance in the new resolution; not a concrete date for the start of any military action.

Mr. Straw was the most animated and it seems he has to be. he's not only trying to convince the deadlocked councel but his people at home. Colin-sat there blah, blah, blah. reading from off his prepared statement. Mr. Straw and his Russian counterpart gave the most notiable speeches, imo. the Russians laid out the compliance such as unfettered access and the testing of sites where Iraqis say they have disposed of Anthrax, VX, and Serin.

they are deadlocked and unless there is a drastic change in the situation one way or the other...i don't expect the resolution to pass not even with this new deadline attached to it.

though, this is about the British position. it isn't the same as the US's. it isn't regime change; it's disarmament. i suppose a list of task will be laid out and Saddam will comply (because he has no other choice) and the British will back down from military action. that's where i see this thing headed but i never said i was always right...just hardly ever wrong.



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 06:35 PM
link   
No it does not take long all the WMD they are known to have, are simply placed in a parking lot and destroyed one by one. The whole process would take about 48hrs and as a reuslt the US would order its troops back home. But this has not happened
and as a result the situation is what it is.

If he destroyed items which were disallowed after Desert storm and then rebuilt them what evidence exits as to his compliance. To date what evidence does exist is that he will develop WMD and the means to deliver them despite his agreements that he will not do this.

Be assured Saphronia that no one (especially Britain) would go to war with the US as a reuslt if this country attacking Iraq. And one of the principal reasons is Saddam Hussein behavior in response too decent, in his own country. If I thought for one moment that George Bush would respond to those who disagreed with him as Saddam Hussein already has, my way of responding would be much different. The United States is governed by people and given that people are not perfect those who govern the USA cannot be seen as perfect either.

But they will not kill you because they feel they are wrong and or disagree with your points.




[Edited on 8-3-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 07:46 AM
link   
there are political prisoners living in underground federal prisons all over this country...what do you call the Commie hunt of the 50's? what do you call what was done to the Black Panthers and the anti-war movement. Fred Hampton was just 21 years old when he was murdered in his bed sleeping along side his pregnant wife in this country--not Iraq. when the way of life of a government--be it Saddam or the USG or any other governmental system-- is threaten death and false imprisonment are the tools that they use. just look up Lenard Peltier and you will see exactly what i mean.

but, this thread was about what the British government is saying and supporting. and it's not regime change like our government but disarmament. which is a totally different thing. their views are closer to the French, Russians, and Chinese. they only have different views on how to treat the situation and if Iraq has complied enough. the only government openly calling for regime change is the US...that's why this is important to talk about. on our news all we hear is that Britian is with us. but i heard right out of Mr. Straw's mouth his government is not about regime change but disarmament. So if Saddam complies enough for them they could back out and save themselves.

show me where Britain says regime change is necessary and the only option left just like our government has been saying. don't preach to me about the moral highground of murder. those who know my views well will tell you my position on any type of war even war for a so called just cause.

let's not get back on our same soapboxes.

[Edited on 8-3-2003 by Saphronia]



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 11:59 AM
link   
And OBVIOUSLY time has proven the ONLY way to disarm Iraq is regime change.

"they only have different views on how to treat the situation and if Iraq has complied enough."

If they think their compliance can be a subjective matter, they are very stupid and don't know what is going on. The ONLY compliance acceptable is FULL compliance. The question is whether they have fully complied, not how much they have complied. DDDUUH. This upcoming military action is the very very very much postponed last ditch last resort. How can anyone not see that?



[Edited on 8-3-2003 by Shady]



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Saphronia the topic of the Thread is Allies What Allies?. My point is that unless any other country chooses to send forces into Iraq, for the purpose of defending Iraq. Then by that act they have allied themselves with the United States, itís really just that simple.

As far as Panthers they were found to have engaged in discussions with the KKK and American Nazi Party. For the purpose of planing with them a means by force to overthrow this government. Will need to see a link to your underground political prisons it sounds pretty absurd. Leonard Peltier was convicted of committing murder Saphronia he was placed in Jail. None of the people you mention were killed with WMD.

That the Kurds were instantaneously killed by the 100,000s is another story and regarded what I meant.



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 04:33 PM
link   
really it was less than a month before folk in washington where yelling material breech. for those that have been saying Iraq will never comply a peaceful resolution has always been an unattainable goal (duuuh). now we get closer and closer in 3 months he has went from no inspectors inside his country to letting the inspectors go anywhere they want at any time. alllowing U2 flights. Test on the soil to prove that he destroyed chemicals. destruction the alsamud missiles. the longer you inspect the closer they get to full compliance. one thing is for sure if you stop inspections now--you will never get full compliance and some of the weapons that you seek to destoy could make it out of Iraq into the hands of Hamas or Hizballah or some other organization or even be used against our troops. you will only get what some were after from the very beginning and that isn't full compliance.



posted on Mar, 8 2003 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Accourding to current estimates Saddam Hussein has 10,000 war heads capable of delivering Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons. At the current rate he is proceeding it will take 83 years for him to complete
the destruction of those warheads. This says nothing in relation to the time invovled in destroying the chemical,
biological or nuclear payloads, currently at this disposal.


These numbers are based on what was left to him after Desert Storm and does not include anything secured after that.


dom

posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Being in the UK right now I thought I might just clear up a few things on Blair's motivations here...

1) He has indeed used regime change as an argument as to why "this war is moral". He only resorted to this recently realising that the WMD excuse was crumbling, and he also knows that regime change is not a legal reason to go to war.

2) In my opinion I think Blair wanted to prevent the US moving unilaterally, he hoped by involving the UN that we would get somewhere through negotiations about the way forwards. Unfortunately he didn't count on Bush and the US administration being quite so bloody-minded about it all. As a result he's left the UN in a very serious position where it may be totally undermined by the US. To be honest I think he was right to do this, the US can't be allowed to play cowboy all over the world, however at some point he's got to admit defeat and pull out of backing the US position.

And outside of Blair's motivation...

a) 10000 warheads post-Gulf War, which were destroyed. They are inspecting destruction sites at this very moment to confirm the numbers destroyed.

b) The problem with verifying the numbers of chemical/biological weapons is that we only know the numbers pre-Gulf War. During the war a lot of facilities were destroyed (storage etc.) and after the war Iraq claims to have destroyed anything that remained. Verifying that you can find proof that these toxins/agents were destroyed takes time...

c) It is very important that any war in the Middle East is *legal*. Without the cover of legality we're entering a very dangerous time in international relations, when anyone can attack anyone else as long as they percieve a threat. That's not a nice world to live in.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 11:53 AM
link   
It's legal, the first Gulf War was ended dependent on Iraq disarmament. Since that didn't happen, we are going to finish the war.


dom

posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I'm afraid the war was fought by the UN, not the US. Therefore it is not for the US to declare war, it is for the UN to do so. Legality here is not cut and dry.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The argument over whether 1441 allows for war or not will continue for a long time. There is no explicit statement that military action will follow a lack of committment from Iraq, just "serious consequences". And from the fact that inspections are continuing, I'd argue that the UN is currently not accepting that "serious consequences" must follow.

Can you imagine what will happen if the US/UK attacks Iraq while inspectors are still trying to verify disarmament? Bush and Blair will look like total loonys!



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Regardless of anything else, it's the right thing to do for the US. It isn't acceptable to me for any foreign governing body to get in the way of my countries safety.



posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 04:42 PM
link   
We gave the Iraqi Regime a chance to change its ways about possessing weapons of mass destruction. We did this by ending the 1st Gulf War, and give Iraq a chance. This is 12 years to disarm, how much longer do you need?
The only 2 true allies that the U.S. has at this time are G.B. and Australia. The others are Shadow Allies as I call them.
It saddens me that we forget the past so easily. France alone owes its very existence to the U.S. When is France going to pay the U.S. back for this only God knows?
At least Australia has the courage to stand up against Terrorism. Thank God for Prime Minister John Howard or 'Little John' as we call him! We have a Gutless opposition in this country. Absolutly Spineless.


dom

posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Yeah, and in 12 years even the US admits that 90-95% of WMD's have been destroyed. Iraq is claiming the 100% end of that spectrum, and that has to be verified by UN inspectors. If we find that he has been hiding stockpiles, that's when we attack, and not until then. The appropriate time to have attacked would have been after the last UN inspectors left Iraq, not 4 years later...

It's not about having a spine, it's about what's right.

Shady - I really don't think you have anything to worry about from Iraq. All previous bio/chem attacks have used locally created, or locally obtained materials (i.e. anthrax attack, Tokyo underground, etc.). So I'd think you'd do better spending $50 billion on improving security at these facilites rather than pounding Iraq, which has not attacked the US recently, and has made no attempt to either.

The day you can prove that:
a) Saddam sponsors Al-Quada
or
b) Saddam has attacked the US
or
c) Saddam is developing WMD's in contravention of the UN security council
or
d) Saddam has stored large quantities of WMD's which he claims to have destroyed
... is the day you get my backing for war



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join