warhawk
-
Content Count
1,317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by warhawk
-
-
@Pavelow
Yes I make a HUGE GIGANTIC AND COLLASIAL MISTAKE. I did mean internment camps. Thank you for pointing that out. Talk about a very very bad way to start a thread. And no I am not arguing one point or the other just wanting other peoples opinions on the subject. Yes I agree that the US is based on certain freedoms and detaining people just because of their eithnic background or religious believes is a dangerous thing to do. My point was to bring to the surface something that I have been discussing with people on a more private level.
As I said originally, do we as a people go to the extreme of protecting ourselves and our children from terrorist attacks by adopting a policy similiar to the one used after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. This was not just a policy that was unique to the US at the time mind you. For the most part I do not agree with it. However, I have to be honest (even if it means lowering someone else's opinion of me) when I say I do understand some of the reasoning used by people who are promoting this idea.
For example, one has stated that is was not British, French or Danish citizens that were responsible for 9/11. And that many people who are of not only Arabic decent but are muslims themselves, as you don't have to be Arab to be muslim.
@Ruin
I think he's asking a question; not voicing opinion. Merely arguing either side.
You are 100% correct on this.
I am looking for honest open debate and not voicing one opinion one way or the other. As far as the Holocaust goes, nothing rots in the pit of my soul more than that. For reasons that I will not go into here. So Pryo you can back off of me just a notch I would appreciate it.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Moderator Edit: WARNING: The following thread may contain images and discussion unsuitable for children. Please be advised of the content of this thread.
I am starting this thread becuase I happen to still be on the fence about it. With war with Iraq looming on the horizion should countries participating in that war take extraordinary procedures to protect it's citizens? Should we go back to the mind set of World War II and inter those of Arab decent just becuase some of them might be a part of a terrorist organization?
Part of me says no way. Do not do this. But then I am reminded that some of the hijackers of 9/11 were living and working in the US. And to some extent even respected by their neighbours. It's a tough question that some may see has a simple answer. What do you think?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
Let me start out by saying thank you for your spirited debate on this issue. It has forced me to broaden my knowledge in some key areas.
I'm not defending France and Germany's positions, only their right to have a different position from the US
Yes they do have a right to have a different position than the US. As I have said this shouldn't be about that. I still believe that they have an obligation to Turkey under the NATO treaty. It is my opinion that they are not honouring their obligations under the spirit and intent of that treaty.
Now that war seems inevitable its only right for me to throw my weight behind my country (Australia) and hope for the best.
Of all the things you have ever said, unless I am misinterrepting what you are saying here, I am glad to see this the most. Whether a person agree's or disagrees with their countries foreign policy they should always back those in the military. Give the men and women in uniform you undying affection and appreciation. Because whether they agree with the cause or not they do not have a choice where they go and what they do once they put on those uniforms.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
Article 3 is not about whether or not a country has enough defences or not. The whole point behind NATO was to form a union to stand firm against any agression that would threaten world peace. Additionally this treaty was put in place to give legal grounds for actions to be taken to protect one another. As you well know your own personel level of security is not based on what someone else tells you is enough.
As I have said before France, Germany, and to a greater or lesser extent as I don't know their official stance on war with Iraq, and Belgium are using this as a way to try and either stall or stop the impending war with Iraq. At least this is the way it appears to me and others. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE action by a NATO member. NATO is not supposed to be about political views. It's supposed to be about protecting member nations. And providing whatever protection a member nation requires.
But these are attacks on Israel, not the US
Israel is, like it or not, a matter of national interest. They are according to the US Government one of the only democratic countries in the arab region. Not to mention the fact that Israel is an Ally of the US.
Nor have they been given proof that Saddam's weapons program is back on track - so far the inspectors have found next to nothing.
Obviously you haven't seen the news today. The weapons inspectors found 10, count them TEN, artillery shells that had Mustard Gas in the warheads. Now (insert sarcasim here) we all know that Saddam doesn't have them right? I mean after all he would have had to declare those. What I don't know is if they destroyed those shells today or if they are going to do it tomorrow. However, these are not to be confused with the previously undeclared rockets that the inspectors found earlier. If you or anyone else needs further proof of his Bio/Chem weapons ability then I don't know what to say.
I know the Iraqis haven't exactly been helpful but they haven't successfully hindred investigations either. Either Saddam has nothing to hide or they need more time to find it, but member nations think that it is too early to star letting the bombs fall yet.
It is not up to the inspectors to find it, it is up to the Iraqi government to disclose it. That is what 1441 says.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@snakebite1967
maybe we should relegate the French to somthing their good at ?
What's that? Oh you mean parades. That's about the only thing the French army is good for.
@viper
Now that the US is ###### off both the UN and NATO, would you think that it is Bush's fault for being to pushy, or every other country for dragging their feet?
You know Bush may just be a little more pushy than some would like. But those few have been coddled long enough by former President Clinton. Now they don't seem to like it when someone reminds them of the things they have to do.
You have made some very good points.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
I still don't see how France Germany and Belgium could be shirking their duties however. They probably feel that their obligations to provide a mutual safetly umbrella are already met by numerous military and intelligence exchanges and well as participating in whatever defense infrastructure NATO has that includes Turkey. I other words they are not obliged to help Turkey make any further preparations for a war with Iraq
As I have said before, Turkey has asked for specific help not general help. They are asking for things like Patroit Missile Batteries and Chemicial and Biologicial decontamination/treatment facilities to help in the event that Saddam launches missles loaded with chem/bio warheads. This is Article 3 covers.
Terrorism is not his game although he has dabbled lightly in the past for vindictive purposes
Giving money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel to me smacks of something more than just dabbling.
France and Germany, I don't know so much about Belgium although they do appear to be closely tied to Germany, are using NATO to further their own stance at the UN. This stance has nothing, as far as I can see, with what NATO members are and are not supposed to do and more with just yet another manuver to block the US and it's allies from attacking Iraq.
As additional fuel to the fire on this front, it was reported today on CNN that a russian company was caught trying to sell illegal arms via a third party to Iraq. And people don't think that countries like Russia and France don't have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power? I am not saying that it was official Russian policy to sell illegal arms to Iraq but I am sure that someone in the Russian Government was getting paid to look the other way.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Some additional news I think is worthy of repeating at this time. The UN weapons inspectors either today or will in the immediate future, destroy 10 artillery shells filled with mustard gas that were found in Iraq. (Insert sarcasim here) Since we know that Saddam does not have ANY chemical or biological weapons it can be his right?
This is just yet one more shinning example of how Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions. For those that can't see it, this would mean that the complete disclosure it was supposed to have given late last year was indeed false. Not to mention that it has been saying all along that all of it's chemicial and biologicial weapons were destroyed in the first Gulf War.
What does this tell North Korea now that it's material breachs of several international agreements have been handed over to the UN Security Council? I think that the way the security council has dragged it's feet with Iraq will give North Korea the idea it can do the samething as Saddam has done. After all look how long the security council let him get away with his games. It is percisely for reasons just like this that I and others have been saying you must act decisively with Iraq. If you keep telling Iraq do this or else other countries are going to look at it as the example they will follow. I certainately hope that countries like France, Russia and Germany, just to name a few, are happy with what they have done.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
Sorry Warhawk, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but I misinterpreted your point there.
Unless you are also using the nickname Wep_magnum then my rebuke about putting words in my mouth wasn't directed at you. I appreciate however the thought. At least you are kind enough to offer apologies when you feel it necessary.
As for the rest of your post I will respond to it later. Must get back to work.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Wep_Magnum
Interestingly, Haliburton in one of the first US firms in line for getting the oil out of a new Iraq. Conspiracy? Maybe not, but it does raise some questions. For those who don't know, Haliburton is ###### Cheney's former company.
Since you seem to want to bring this point up then I would ask you your opinion on the untold amounts of money that Russia has invested into Iraqi oil? Do this not count as well for an ulterior motive on Russia's part?
Also regarding the NATO treaty, there is nothing in there to suggest that if a NATO country attacks another, then all NATO is bound by treaty obligations to attack along side.
I never said there was any treaty obligations to attack along side. What I am saying is that France Germany and Belgium (I forgot them in my original post) have an obligation under Article 3 to provide the aide that Turkey has requested. It is only should Iraq attack Turkey, as spelled out in Articles 5 and 6 that those countries would then have an obligation to the Treaty that they signed to fight along side Turkey. I would have thought with the lenghty post that there wouldn't have been any need to try to put your own words into my mouth.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
The French President's name is Chirac. The attitude being displayed by France right now is consistent with their overall view since the late 1950's. So it shouldn't suprise anyone really. They have just gotten worse over the years. I sometimes think that this attitude is out of some type of jealousy over the fact that they are no longer the world leaders that they once were. But that is just my own personal opinion.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@snakebite
The day I see the British government/people get led around by another country, especially the US, is the day I fall over dead. I agree 130% with everything you said.
@Budgie
Don't tell us nobody cares when three thousand Americans die. Plenty of people shed tears for 9/11, I remember the global shock, so don't tell us nobody cares about America. A large number of countries are convinced that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't assume because they all have brown skin and pray to Allah that they're all conspiring against America with Osama bin Laden. And if Iraq is no threat to them or America in their eyes, they might not want to go to war.
I agree with this part enough said.
Too many peopl eon this forum are assuming Dubya's "with us or against us" stance.
You might want to be careful just how wide a brush you decide to paint with. Depending on the US's next move, most likely with North Korea, will dictate my stance with President Bush. I have my own feelings on that issue but this is not the forum to discuss that.
Don't just think they are "against" the US. They are under no obligation to follow the US into a war that it has cooked up itself.
This was what you said about Germany and France, just so you dont have to find what I am refering to. They most certainately are not under any obligation to follow the US/UK/Austrailia/Spain/Italy/Poland, just to name a few, into war. The way I see it, if they don't want to be a part of it then when the vote comes up in the security council abstain. If they do anything less they will jeopardize the legitimacy of the UN.
As for any conspiracy theory about them benefitting from the status quo - show us some proof
If we apply this theroy to those who say "the only reason Bush wants to go to war with Iraq is for control of the oil fields" those who espouse those ideas would be forced to do the same. When people bring up these kinds of ideas, even me, they are theroy's. I put nothing up here that have not had some basis in more than two news sources. I consistantly quote CNN but I do not quote anything they say unless I can confirm it from another independent source. Say what you will about Russia and France not having any ties to Iraq but if you are going to put them on that playing field then put everyone there.
The French and Germans don't want to be led by the nose the way it appears the British leader is
So are those of us that support the US and it's allies to assume that we are being led around by the nose too. Last time I checked I didn't come equipped with a nose ring. I guess then it follows too that the US did indeed make up the evidence it presented to the UN. The same evidence that President Chirac of France said left no doubt in his mind that Saddam was in material breech of UN Resolutions. The fact that he still doesn't want to back a war with Iraq speaks volumes to me as to what he thinks of the UN. I guess then following your logic on this issue if we all decided that those that oppose this war were right then they would be leading us around by the nose wouldn't they?
As far as your questions about the NATO charter. The issue before NATO is covered under three seperate articles.
ARTICLE 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
This is the article that France and Germany have seemingly forgotten about. This article is what binds them to assiting Turkey. Now with regards to your statement:
By hosting US troops attackling Iraq, Turkey is practially attacking Iraq itself
This is covered by articles 5 and 6, posted here for your reading enjoyment.
ARTICLE 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all, and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective selfdefence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually, and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
ARTICLE 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
You will notice that Article 6 refers to Turkey and was written at a time when Turkey was not even a member of NATO. I hope that this clears things up for you a little.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Pyro_Monte I am responding to your post where you were wanting to know what support for Turkey meant. I am hoping that in answering you Wep Magnum will also see my point as well.
Just for the record, what is this "support" for Turkey that the French are refusing to provide? What exactly does it entail? I haven't heard any specifics on this matter (heck, when do we ever hear specifics nowadays? All I ever hear is the same repeated rhetoric) so does anyone know?
If you haven't heard any specifics then do a little more research. As it was reported on CNN the kind of support that was asked of NATO was in the form of things like Patriot Missle Batteries and Bio/Chemicial treatment and detection facilities and equipment.
So... this support must translate into some euphamism for either "pre-emptive strike/unprovoked attack" (LOL, I'm kidding, don't get hung up on the wording ) or "retaliation", right? Seeing as the attack itself cannot be prevented in an entirely defensive manner, it must consist of either stopping Iraq from making the attact in the first place, or getting revenge after it. Am I on track so far?
You are completely off track IMHO so far. Imagine if you will that Saddam's army has been pushed to the gates of Baghdad, as they will be, and he is facing utter defeat. How much of a stretch of the imgaination would it be for him to retaliate against any country that has supported the US/UK and Austrailian forces? People say it would be political suicide but it wasn't suicide for him to attack both Iran and Kuwait. In his mind I am sure he wouldn't have a problem with attacking yet another muslim state.
I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong on this matter, just that people needn't try and make two cases against France when clearly there is only one.
I wouldn't be making a second case against France if France hadn't provided me with the ammo. France's stance at the UN is one thing. If they want to oppose the war that's fine. Refusing, at least to this point, to assist another NATO member when they ask for assistance as is required by Article 4 of the NATO treaty is an entirely different matter.
@shadow2k1
It's that kind of "nuke em all let God sort them out" attitude that is dangerous. Use of weapons of mass destruction nuclear or otherwise is not the way to go. Besides if and when Saddam uses WMD's on the US and it's allies there are many conventional ways of responding that are just as bad as nukes. The world has yet to see just what kind of convential weapons the US and UK have. On that Pyro_Monte and I agree. As I think, and I am not trying to speak for anyone here, most of those who have worn a military uniform ( like me ) would too.
Pyro I want to just reinterate that while I disagree with what you said I am not just singling you out. I used your statements to make my point to all.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@300Mag
I couldn't have said it better myself. Too many times people have wanted to say that Gore would being doing a better job right now. That scares me. I can just see him saying "lets just all sit around the camp fire and sing some songs" Liberal politicians too often embolden these lunatics and ultimately someone has to deal with it. All to often, by the time it gets to that point people have had just enough "Can't we all just get along" shoved down their throats that they forget that sometimes peace does really come at a price. Freedom is not given it is earned.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Wep_Magnum
What Turkey is wanting is protection from Iraq's chemicial and biological threat. The nations that make up NATO, this includes the Germans and the French, have an obligation under teh NATO Alliance to come to the aide of any member country that asks for it's help. The threat posed by Iraq may not be felt in a pre-emptive strike but rather as retaliation for Turkey allowing US forces to be based from there.
If France and Germany don't for what ever the reason have the stomach to stand behind not only the US but the United Kingdom and now Australia as well as all the other nations that are for military action in Iraq, then that is one thing. The probable war in Iraq does not have so much to do with NATO per se as it does with the security of not only the reigion but with the rest of the world. However, the members of NATO do have a responibilty to protect one another.
That is why NATO was founded. NATO main reason for being may have been to provide for a strong military response and deterrance in Europe but it's responsibilities are now widening with the addition of other countries. If France and Germany do not want to honour their treaty obligations then they need to formally back out. What Turkey is asking for is not so much a large military commitment of ground and air forces but rather just the means of dealing with the threat posed by Iraq.
If NATO won't honour it's obilgations then, according to the BBC World, no matter what the French decides the US will protect Turkey and I can only assume that so will Britian and all the other US Allies.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Budgie
When it comes to Tiawan and South Korea. The US will never stand idly by while China and NK absorb these two countries. Let me tell you why. As you so aptly pointed out they are beacons of freedom in Asia. We haven't let down either country yet. Additionally, Austrailia would see the invasion of these two countries as near and dear to their own National Security. And for that reason too the US would act. The US is not going to soon forget who stands by it and who doesn't. Just ask Britian. Lastly, the two countries that are seen as a threat, China and North Korea in this case, are both Communist countries. That too will act as motivation for the US to do something. Not to mention the economic reasons as well. If for some unforseen reason the US didn't do something, President Bush would loose at least one supporter that I know of. ME!
On a lighter note budgie come on in to the light my friend.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
What's scary is that I was guilty of one or two of those during my military career.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@300mag
Just when I thought I had a topic I could start for a change you step up.
Since you covered most of what I was thinking I will only say this.Firstly on your original comments: Absolutely
Secondly to add to them I would ask. What does this say to other non Nato countries? To those who want to join Nato I imagine they have to be having second thoughts right about now. If NATO can be stopped from fullfilling it's obligation to Turkey under Section 4 then these prospects can't feel too comfortable. To those that would be opposition to NATO I am sure they see the beginnings of another faltering alliance.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Where do I start?
@Pyro Monte
The UN was founded with the intent origianally to give countries a neutral place to work out their differences. In this setting other countries, it was hoped, would voice their own opinions and try to put foward their own solutions to problems between nations in the hope that war could be averted.
Unfortunately over the years, and I have had a few in which to watch the change, this has indeed changed to what the UN has become today. The UN and countries like France and Germany, have decided that once again peace is the only solution even if it means giving into those whose mental state is such that they are compariable to that of oh say Hitler. The problems in the former Yugoslavia are just but one example of this. The Serbs were allowed to go unchecked for how long? Saddam is still yet another shinning example of this.
UAL Havok is right. If the UN decides to do nothing they will become of little importance to others in the world who would decide to challenge the UN. North Korea is one and China is a close second.
What we have to stop and asks ourselves right now is what are the ulterior motives of countries like France, Russia, China and Germany. Lets start with France. How much do they have invested in Iraqi oil production themselves. This is not just some shot in the dark by a "hawk". This very point was brought up on CNN during Wolf Blizters show "Showdown with Iraq" some months back. Now ronin could also be right in that France may not want the world to find out that some of it's companies have been selling illegal items to Saddam. I personally haven't heard that they have but at this point anything is possible. As far as France not wanting to fight? I have my own personal opinions on this based on France's history.
Look at the vichie French in World War II. They were Nazi sympathizers. Then in the late 1950's France asked the US for help in Vietnam. Vietnam was a french colony at the time. When the US commited itself to helping the French the French pulled out saying goodbye your're on your own. Then as early as the 70's the French started demanding that the US and UK start pulling it's forces out of France. Those forces were there to help ensure the security of not only Europe itself but of France too. So do the French like to fight? No I don't think they do. In fact I don't think they have the backbone to fight their way out of a wet paper bag! This is just my opinion.
As far as Germany goes I think that ronin is on the right track and the only thing that I would add to that is at this point it appears to be cool to be anti-americian in Germany right now. Fine with me.
As far as China goes, I think that they would love to see the demise of the UN. That way the world may not be able to act united when it finally decides to expand it's borders. Heaven knows that North Korea may take it as a sign as well. So why wouldn't China want to undermine the UN in any way it possibly can.
In closing the UN has but one real question before it now. Will it stand against tyranny or will it become something to be ignored?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
WHOA!!!! What a rush!
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Cool....now i have a clear vision of this issue.
Dont you guys think that before 1948, it was easier to tell good guys from bad guys?
P.S. Patton never actually said that.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
When you say before 1948 what in your mind makes this specific year the magical cut off date?
-
Surprise? Nothing about gates surprises me.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
In trying to get a Win98 driver that was DX 9 Compatible I finally read the small print in the DXDiag window. Here is what I finally saw.
Current drivers tested for a WHQL are only available on Windows ME, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. New Windows 98 drivers are no longer tested for WHQL logo's.
So for all of us who are still using Windows 98, I guess this is Microsoft's way of saying spend yet more money. As if!
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
No I'm talking like changing what types of enemies appear on the maps. Say like adding snipers to the embassy mission as an example.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Godd point. The media may be responsible for many people's image of the mideast as a hotbed of america-haters. Unfortunately it is also the squeaking wheel that messes up the ride.
The squeaking wheel in this case is Saddam. Since that, as you so aptly pointed out, is what messes up the ride it will be replaced.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
Internment Camps
in "Off Topic" Posts
Posted
@yodasplat
You are 400% right. It was a poor, poor choice of words on my part. If I offended anyone it was completely unintentional on my part and I offer my apologies.