I think I did not express myself correctly. ( My english may not be sufficient)<br>The term UN troops I used is not correct. It should be troops from member countries, that carry out UN missions. <br>Redleg: The NATO is a defence organization for the American way of life whereever it may take place <br>IMO the wall came down because the people in the former Warsaw Pact states got fed up with the old system. The UN kept the governments from suppressing the people and the NATO was there in case that the Warsaw Pact states or anybody else would have liked to expand on the costs of a NATO members country. <br><br>About nuclear weapons: You are absolutely right that this stuff should not spread any further ! Still if some country has nuclear weapons.... they are a reality that can go kaboom so we have to take this into consideration first. <br><br>&quot;Month of musical chairs&quot; ??? I do not understand this ???<br><br>I really love a good discussion about almost everything possible. <br>Please be assured that my position to the US is one of respect, but sometimes disagreement. I hope we will manage to keep this thread clean. <br><br>AlpineRAM

 

[Redleg: The NATO is a defence organization for the American way of life whereever it may take place <br>I like that, but we still haven't achieved full conformity. <br><br>&quot;Month of musical chairs&quot; ??? I do not understand this ???<br><br>Musical chairs is a childrens game where you set up a number of chairs (one less than the number of children) in the middle of a ring of children. Music is played as the children walk in a circle around the chairs. The music is stopped and the children race to an empty chair. Whover is left without a chair is removed from the game. This continues until one is left.

 

[quote author=AlpineRAM link=board=10;threadid=10853;start=30#106334 date=1045639553]<br>I think I did not express myself correctly. ( My english may not be sufficient)<br>The term UN troops I used is not correct. It should be troops from member countries, that carry out UN missions. <br>Redleg: The NATO is a defence organization for the American way of life whereever it may take place <br>IMO the wall came down because the people in the former Warsaw Pact states got fed up with the old system. The UN kept the governments from suppressing the people and the NATO was there in case that the Warsaw Pact states or anybody else would have liked to expand on the costs of a NATO members country. <br><br>About nuclear weapons: You are absolutely right that this stuff should not spread any further ! Still if some country has nuclear weapons.... they are a reality that can go kaboom so we have to take this into consideration first. <br><br>&quot;Month of musical chairs&quot; ??? I do not understand this ???<br><br>I really love a good discussion about almost everything possible. <br>Please be assured that my position to the US is one of respect, but sometimes disagreement. I hope we will manage to keep this thread clean. <br><br>AlpineRAM<br>[/quote]<br><br>AlpineRam: I know from past threads that you can keep up an argument without getting personal, a skill that I admire. One of my pet peeves is people who can't discuss things without resorting to personal attacks and belittling... <br><br>My position toward the US is about the same as yours, actually. As governments change here, our foreign policy changes, sometimes drastically. Not every possible course is entirely correct; some may be more correct than others in certain cases. I will say this, though: a despot like Hussein does not respect weakness. Letting him continue to play his games of delay and hide and seek when the inspectors have already fulfilled their role of determining that he has not disarmed is a show of weakness. I have an idea why the governments of France and Germany are defending him so vigorously, but I'll leave that for another post.

 

jf, you're not trying to say that France and Germany might have a bit of dirt on their hands(and money in their pocket) from helping poor misunderstood Mr. Saddam out on some of his &quot;projects&quot;? Kinda like the old saying of &quot;don't bite the hand that feeds you.&quot;

 

[quote author=shortround link=board=10;threadid=10853;start=30#106459 date=1045669552]<br>jf, you're not trying to say that France and Germany might have a bit of dirt on their hands(and money in their pocket) from helping poor misunderstood Mr. Saddam out on some of his &quot;projects&quot;? Kinda like the old saying of &quot;don't bite the hand that feeds you.&quot;<br>[/quote]<br><br>Well... Yeah. I think he probably owes them more money, too, which they would like to collect. I think this is where the money from his oil sales has been going in violation of the sanctions following the Gulf War, instead of to the humanitarian purposes for which the exemption exists in the first place. I think they're afraid that a quick fall of Hussein's regime will allow confirmation of this, so they're hoping either to avoid military action or at the very least buy sufficient time for Hussein to destroy records and go into exile.<br><br>In all fairness, I should point out that our hands are not entirely clean with regard to Iraq either. The US has in the past helped him when the government of the moment thought it suited our purposes to do so.

 

jfpointer: thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I feel a little insecure because I think I can be misunderstood or that there are things I'd like to point outand can't express them properly. <br>I think that the accusation against Germany and France that is suggested here may not be the main reason: Just think of which countries will get the full stream of refugees. Also Europe in general is much more tied up economically with the near east than the USA. <br>But, as for what I have read the report did not mention a material breech of the UN resolution. <br>There is something really angering me about the US minister of defense right now. He complains that Austria is not allowing the USA to transfer troops through our state. The &quot;Staatsvertrag&quot; the treaty that is the legal base of the state Austria, signed by the allies in WW2 is explicitly ordering us to neutrality. The only excemption where our country may let foreign troops travel through our country is with an explicit UN resolution sanctioning a military intervention. Since there is no such resolution until now, Austria is NOT ALLOWED to let the USA transport troops or military material across its area. <br>So personally I am thinking that the US minister of defense should inform himself first before complaining about our state. I would have liked to see the US position if Austria had allowed the Russians to move troops through Austria when Yugoslavia separated itself from the USSR sphere of influence. The same laws that made Austria say no then still apply now. <br>So I'll kick the soapbox somewhere else for the moment...<br><br>AlpineRAM

 

I missed that one, but if they are getting ahead of themselves with Austria, I agree with you. I'd like to watch that one closer. Germany has some integrety to regain after the childish name calling they were doing. France is at the bottom of the barrell, after the tantrum their president threw, then threats he implied to U.N. applicant countries. Don't need that soap box to make a point, keep those ideas coming. Been listening to BBC on the way home from work just about everynight. Listen to Neal Conan on NPR on the way in. I think the UN should have assigned enuff inspectors to do the job effectively. They couldn't or weren't allowed to do it right the first time and still meet a UN set deadline, and can't give an answer on how long they need. Meanwhile, Hussein is still stockpiling and developing weapons. Where WE goofed was by stopping the first time before ensuring his capabilities were gone. Then having an eight year administration that further let our (and UN) credibility dwindle. People say the US doesn't have the authority to use force against Iraq. The authority comes from the fact that our forces were the primary reason the UN has any leaway against Iraq. Our forces are used to patrol and enforce the guidlines given by the UN after the first war. Our forces will again be the tool used by the UN to enforce anything further. How can we be expected to sit back and let all the lives, time and resources we've been investing to pacify this world hazard be lost in vain, because certain UN countries are content with letting their authority and credibility go to the wayside? The only time anybody would allow this is if they had a hidden agenda.<br><br>Next

 

AlpineRAM:
I wasn't aware of that treaty restriction, nor did I know that the US had any reason to move troops through Austria. I think your government should stand by the treaty you mention, as I think France and Germany should stand by their commitments to NATO. However, I would categorize several Iraqi actions such as firing on US and British warplanes and failing to prove the destruction of their WMD as material breaches of more than one UN resolution. As I understand the resolutions regarding inspections, the burden is not on the UN inspectors to chase all around the Iraqi desert playing hide and seek looking for stuff, but to verify the destruction of what Hussein was previously known to have. The absence of that proof constitutes a material breach.
Redleg:
Having been there the last time, I couldn't agree more with your view that we should have taken Baghdad then. Also, I agree that continuing to give last chance after last chance squanders credibility and only increases the danger to the world as a whole when dealing with the likes of Hussein, Kim Jong Il, etc. Things can only be punted along for so long before it's time to take action. But we Jarheads are trained mainly to attack and seize the advantage...

 

Just a sidenote. Austrian air force jets ( some more than 30 year old swedish Draken stuff) are now regularly intercepting and communicating with US warplanes that do cross Austria without any kind of permission and who do not respond to radio calls. <br>Sometimes we have to deal with Tepper Aviation Inc transport planes. <br>( HMMM what is this.. some setup like air-america ) <br>I think that this kind of behaviour of the US over here will make people withdraw their support. <br><br>Redleg: The french president did pose threats against countries that are membrs of the UN and the NATO. They want to become members of the European Community. And since the &quot;adoption&quot; of a new member is a democratic process, if these countries are in opposition to the views of the major part of the EU citizens... no way for them to get in. I think it was not PC how he spoke. But still this can at least delay these countries becoming members or even hinder this completely.<br><br>I did not read the UN resolution myself. ( something I should have done)<br>Austrian and several other &quot;experts&quot; said that there had been no material breach of the resolution. I think if there was some proveable material breach the UN should simply make a new resolution which clears up the usage of military force, the goals of the mission, the government and control after the military mission, a plan for a transition to democratic elections etc. <br>Redleg: you say &quot;The authority comes from the fact that our forces were the primary reason the UN has any leaway against Iraq. Our forces are used to patrol and enforce the guidlines given by the UN after the first war. Our forces will again be the tool used by the UN to enforce anything further.&quot; Another very sarcastic point of view could be: The US forces the UN to let them have their way. The real interest of the US is to get rid of some outdated weapon systems ( firing is cheaper than disassembly) and then there is some oil there. <br>These are lines you can hear in cabarets over here. <br><br>Any European must be interested in a solution that will make people stay there. We would have massive problems with refugees from there. <br>And the loudest complaints about our position comes from countries that were a source of refugees 15 years ago ? <br><br>Pondering Possibilities<br><br>AlpineRAM

 

AlpineRAM:<br><br>Good thing we're not having this conversation in German. My contributions would be limited to a couple of numbers and a few phrases I translated via babelfish.com from the diagnostic panel of my M3... Spanish might work, but I'm rusty enough that it would take a lot of dictionary thumbing. How difficult is German to learn for a non-native speaker? English is supposed to be quite hard, because of its extensive use of idioms, slang, and weird conjugations, etc.<br><br>I wouldn't want you to get the impression that I or any other American thinks everything we do is right. For example, I can't agree with violating Austria's airspace. I'm not an expert, but isn't there some altitude at which airspace is considered international? The Tepper Aviation thing sounds interesting. If it is indeed a CIA front company, we know from news reports that CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan, so I would expect that the same is true in at least part of Iraq. As to what they're doing, your guess is as good as mine.<br><br>With regard to UN Resolution 1441, I hate to disagree with the experts, but it sure looks like Iraq is in material breach of paragraph 8, because they have fired on planes enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones. Even illuminating those planes with fire-control radar appears to be a material breach, since it would constitute a threat against a member state upholding a resolution. Further breaches are the missiles that were found that exceed the range that Iraq is allowed to have, and the incomplete disclosure documentation provided to the UN.<br><br>The US doesn't need a war in Iraq to get rid of what the Army considers &quot;outdated weapons systems.&quot; They just give them to the US Marine Corps. (Bit of inter-service humor there, hope the Army guys don't get mad at me. ;D) I'd give more credence to the oil thing if not for the fact that plenty of other countries have oil, too, and more of it than Iraq, but are not under UN sanctions and therefore are not facing the consequences of violating those sanctions. Besides, we have plenty of oil here in the US. It's just cheaper monetarily and politically to buy it elsewhere. When that's no longer true, we'll use our own. Perhaps by then it will no longer be necessary, who knows?

 

Morning JFpointer!<br>As to languages: I didn't think that english was hard to learn. Especially if you don't mind that people can tell you are a foreigner. I think it's something like that: A base knowledge to go shopping etc is very easy to obtain in english. Getting close to a native speaker is a completely different task. <br>In german it seems that it is very difficult to obtain the basic priciples. But then yopu are good to go. ( If you manage to get the basic principlesv without errors)<br>About airspace being international: To my knowledge ( very poor on that subject) this boundary is somewhere in space. AFAIK this treaty was signed for low orbits. <br>The airspace violations and some apparent bending of laws like using a C130 starting at an US airbase in Germany and going to an US airbase in Italy declaring being a civilian flight... and then being registered to a company with a history of transporting weapons to places where the USA are running clandestine or military ops .... <br>Personally I do think that this is just extremely impolite from the European point of view. Hence the reactions.<br>I can not comment on the resolution 1441 simply because I didn't read it yet. I think that shooting at the planes.... does not leave any room for interpretation. Just illuminating with radar leaves the possibility for interpretation. ( It says no flight zone, not no radar zone )<br>The oil interpretation is still valid to me because the oil prices do react massively on minimal disturbances. And most of the economy of the developed states is directly dependant on the oil prices. <br><br>About oil no longer being necessary: I posted some stuff here on the biodiesel and some other energy forms. <br><br>AlpineRAM<br>

 

Wow, this thread really took off. I prefer peace to war anytime it is possible. In this case when a man like Hussein(sp?) war is not only a valid option, but a NECESSARY step to take. i DO NOT agree with US planes doing what you say they are, but then again you I do not know the entire situation. Again i do prefer peace to war, and believe that war should be avoided at ALMOST any cost, but in this case, its time to go.

 

Good morning, everyone. I have followed this thread very closely, and find the opinions very interesting. One point of clarification for AlpineRAM is that the U.S. military (and most other military's, as well) consider illumination by Target Tracking and/or Fire Control radar to be a hostile act. If an aircraft is &quot;locked up&quot; or painted by a radar of this type, they will use all measures, including lethal force, to defend themselves. This is true for both ground-based and aircraft based TT/FC radars.<br><br>As far as the CIA's involvement, and intentional overflight by C-130's registered to a civilian corporation, I'll not comment. :-X I can say, however, that after spending 20 years working for several &quot;organizations&quot; in the Department of Defense, I would prefer not to go to war. I have good friends that never came home during those 20 years. However, I believe that the time has come for Mr. Hussein to go, either on his own, or with a little help from his friends. <br><br>As a sidenote, I have to applaud everyone's ability to discuss such a contentious issue in a calm, non-personal way.

 

Well I must first express my respect for the people who do participate in this thread. Unlike other forums you can discuss these matters here in an athmosphere of respect and seriosity. <br>I do agree that in my view Mr Hussein is not a person to rule a state. <br>Something I must say after travelling some parts of northern Afrika nad some other places is that in fact the population is anti-American. But they are this way because they made an educated decision based on the information they have. (Naturally controlling the information is the first goal of a dictator)<br>Still, I think that the US, especially president Bush and the minister of defense used a language that is very easy to manipulate by citing them in some abbreviated form. So the cutters working in the TV studios can actually take the speeches of the said persons and generate a picture of two blood raving lunatics for the population of Iraq. I assume that they do so, plainly because this is in the 101 of dictatorship. <br>I do not question the moral standpoint of the US that says (as I read it) &quot;OK,we watched long enough, we gave any chance to cooperate that can be given, so now we have to react and make this stop, even for the price of war&quot;<br>The one thing that really gives me the creeps in this situation is that I consider it as a shure thing that any kind of military operation will lead to an increase in fanaticism on the side of the islamic populations. And it will lead into a wave of anti-americanism and terror. And, as I know the region, this hate is not short tempered. <br>So, im my opinion the world now faces a decision between two evils. Let Saddam Hussein go on (with all the consequences) or become an excellent &quot;Sheitan&quot; for the whole muslimic world. (With consequences that go far beyond the carnage and the sufferings of the war)<br><br>Something the allied forces did in WW2 which had AFAIK great results was that they made their own radio programme for the regions still under the reign of the *****. Even though listening to enemy radio was punishable by death, the information found its way around. I consider this as a very important point in history that saved lots of trouble after the occupation of the formerly **** reigned regions. <br>Personally I feel that this should have been started much earlier in these regions. If you take away the control over information from a dictator he loses a lot of his power. <br> <br>Pondering about lots of things that are far beyond his reach<br><br>AlpineRAM

 

In my opinion, AlpineRAM, each and every one of your assertations is true. The use, misuse, denial, et.al. of information is not only Dictatorship 101, but it is also Successful Military Strategy 101, as you so clearly pointed out. And FWIW, these psychological operations have been going on for quite a while in that part of the country. Unfortunately, the US military, and support organizations, have a shortage of qualified linguists for that region, or at least they did when I was involved. So, you are correct in saying that we could have done a much better job at winning the &quot;hearts and minds&quot; of the general population. However, the hatred of America is an emotion that is caused by numerous things. Misperception is certainly one, and is usually caused by lack of information. Another reason, as you pointed out, is that our leaders, particularly in this administration, use rhetoric that is not politically correct. In politics and statesmanship, it is never proper to directly accuse another nation of anything, nor is it considered good form to draw a line in the sand, so to speak. After 9-11, however, I believe it is time to call things as they are.<br><br>AlpineRAM, blood-thirsty fanatics have always been a part of history, particularly in Europe. They are now a fact for us, as well. If we did not strike out at them because we fear that they will rise up and attack, would we not be giving in to the terror? I, for one, refuse to live in terror. I spent way too much time in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia (along with a lot of other places), where I saw what fear did to people. We, as a nation, as a global population, can not be afraid to stand up for our beliefs. The terrorists aren't.<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Teddy