posted 12-16-98 07:19 PM ET            

They'd better knock Saddam out of power this time. All the way to Baghdad this time. Bush didn't do it, & look what Saddam did! I think if this gets prolonged, Baghdad will be a definate objective, this time.

posted 12-16-98 09:00 PM ET            

The Aussie PM will be holding a press conference shortly, I'll let you know what he says. Considering Butler is an Aussie, and we almost ALWAYs back the US and Britain, I dare say Howard will back it.

--------------------------
The French foreign ministry today deplored the chain of events which led to US strikes against Iraq and voiced regret the Iraqi leadership had failed to cooperate fully with the United Nations. China condemned the use of force against Iraq today as an emergency meeting of the UNSecurity Council broke up after reports that the United States had launched a bombing campaign against Iraq.

Iraq's UN Ambassador Nizar Hamdoon met UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan before the attacks began and asked him ``to try to do whatever in his capacity to dissuade certain members of the Security Council not to do anything that has not been adopted by the Security Council''.

But it was too late and the Iraqi envoy appeared resigned to a US attack.

China's UN Ambassador Qin Huasen was visibly angry when he emerged from the meeting.

``There is absolutely no excuse or pretext to use force against Iraq,'' he said.

``The use of force not only has serious consequences for the implementation of Security Council resolutions but also poses a threat to international as well as regional stability.''

Germany said it was regrettable that there had been a military strike against Iraq but Iraq had had plenty of chances to avert the use of force.

``The Iraq government was warned that the international community could not look away'' from its failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's spokesman Uwe-Karsten Heye told German radio.

``The German government regrets that it had to come to the military measure.'' Heye later added in a statement that the international community had repeatedly called on Iraq to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions. He said Iraq had not fulfilled a promise made on November 14 to comply with UN demands.

``The Iraq leadership was warned and had to assume that the international community could not stand by and watch in the event that Iraq did not fully comply with the UN inspectors.''

In the statement, Heye reiterated that the German government regretted that military measures were needed.

posted 12-16-98 09:20 PM ET            

BTW I don't think that Clinton ordered the attack mainly because of the impeachment stuff. Blair has said that the attack was necessary and during Wednesday the UN inspector team had left Iraq claiming that they can't do their job.

posted 12-16-98 09:41 PM ET            

In reply(also on 14 November), Tony Blair said, "There can be no negotiation, no further deals, no more amendments to what they have agreed. In the meantime, our forces remain on alert to the possibility of military action at any time _without_further_warning." Similar statements came from the US.

On 15 November, Clinton outline the 5 points on which Iraqi complience would judged:
1) Resolution of all outstanding issues raised by UNSCOM and IAEA.
2) Access for inspection and monitoring of all sites at inspectors' discretion without restrictions or conditions.
3) Release of all requested documents.
4) Iraq must accept all WMD related resolutions
5) Must not interfere with the inspectors.

posted 12-16-98 09:43 PM ET            

Anyway, i wonder this kind of action will have for effect in the game, one fraction doing something without the planetary council's approval ?

posted 12-16-98 10:13 PM ET            

To further break down our forces:
Navy ships
1 Carrier(USS Enterprise)
2 Ticonderoga class VLS cruisers(USS Anzio, USS Cape St. George)
3 Arleigh Burke class VLS destroyers(USS Arleigh Burke, USS Paul Hamilton, USS Hopper)
2 Spruance class VLS destroyers(USS Hayler, USS Fletcher)
2 RN navy ships:
HMS Cumberland(Type 22/3 ASW Destroyer)
HMS Grafton(Type 23 Frigate)
--- Above from CNN, the following are my thoughts
Several Los Angeles class subs
Assorted frigate and smaller craft

All cruisers, destroyers(with the exception of RN ships), and submarines are Tomohawk capable, with the most likely carrier for large numbers the Spruance class ships.

Aircraft:
Enterprise Air Wing(CVW-3) as of 25 July 1998
VF-32: 10-14 F-14A TARPS(Fighter)
VFA-37, VFA-105, VMFA-312: 12 F/A-18C each(36 total)(Strikefighter)
VAQ-130: 4 EA-6B Block 89(Electonic Warfare)
VAW-126: 4 E-2C Group 0(Early Warning)
VS-22: 8 S3-B(Sea Control)
VQ-6 Det: 2 ES3-A(Electronic Recon)
HS-7: 6 SH-60F, 2 HH-60H(Helicopter ASW)

Total airplanes: 62-66(not counting helos)
F-16C's and A-10's in Saudi Arabia and Turkey
14 B-52H at Diego Garcia(CALCM capable)
22 RAF planes(Tornado(not sure if ground attack or interceptor versions) and Jaguars)
Aircraft information from CNN, USS Salem organization, Federation of American Scientists

posted 12-16-98 11:57 PM ET            

Imran, excuse this comment, but obviously Clinton must have balls, else what would Lewinsky have entertained herself with?

I do not dispute that Saddam was asking for it, it's just that i also think that Clinton is one shrewd and sneaky guy who wants to maintain his power by any means necessary.

posted 12-17-98 12:51 AM ET            

"Yay!!! Go Clinton"
"Blow **** up"
"Kill them all!"

posted 12-17-98 12:56 AM ET            

PAX!

posted 12-17-98 01:52 AM ET            

I'm still uncomfortable with the concentration on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Are they really the only nation that is suspected of creating bio- and chemical weapons? Why doesn't anyone care about those ones?

posted 12-17-98 03:00 AM ET            

If the US pulled out, they wouldn't beable to veto every resolution that condemns their actions. That's too important for their propaganda, so it isn't going to happen.

posted 12-17-98 03:07 AM ET            

I disagree with Imran here. The US should be a member of the UN, and should be an honest member. If that means limitations of some sort on our veto power, well, I've already sounded off on that.

posted 12-17-98 03:40 AM ET            

I'm pretty sure that Saddam's not the only one who has said that the amount of oil that Iraq has been allowed to sell hasn't been enough to properly feed and medicate the people.

posted 12-17-98 03:51 AM ET            

Do you really think this helps Clinton? When EVERYONE is saying he is only doing this because he wants good PR? I do not think so, he is just doing his job. There is NO political gain what so ever.

O yea, We should be in the UN. It really is the only somewhat usefull organisation in the world. But what people do not seem to understand is that without the US there would be no UN. We are the only reason it exsists.
Only problem is that any time we ever do what the UN asks us to do we get insulted by the Euros for being "inperialistic". Gets annoying...

posted 12-17-98 04:08 AM ET            

1) I believe there is no excuse to delay the impeachment vote. Why won't the congressmen do it? Because it will look bad to the American people, or so they think.

2) The reason for the bombing is because the UNSCOM report came out last night, and Ramadan is coming this weekend. It isn't charity on the US's part to stop for Ramadan, it's because if we didn't the Middle East nations would get really pissed off at us.

3) As for the Security Council acceptance, I wish it had been possible. But since most of the members are still voting as if the Cold War existed still, nothing would be done to Saddam. And since France/Russia/China never seem to provide troops to the UN, and just complain all the time (granted they are right sometimes), why should the US spend million redeploying and backing down every couple of months when Saddam decides to tick us off. The Security council has been frowning on Saddam's actions, and yet they propose to do nothing??? Six years of diplomacy has gotten us this far, and while I'm glad that we did all we could (remember the Prez called of the last attack while trhe planes were in the air), it was time to break this pattern we had going.

4) As for civilian deaths, is it our fault that Saddam has often placed his factories in high populated areas... Hmmm, is this a coincidence? I think not. It would be dumb to avoid all such sites, if one is truly serious, which I think the US is.

posted 12-17-98 04:11 AM ET            

Sheesh, never thought i would have something good to say about the Redcoats

posted 12-17-98 04:14 AM ET            

Personaly if i wanted to look for Iraqi Nukes i would look in the basement of the first Iraqi kindergarden.... They seem to hide weapons near children for some reason.

posted 12-17-98 04:24 AM ET            

Why not? Is your opinion more important than someone else's? The US tells other nations how to run things all the time.

posted 12-17-98 04:35 AM ET            

What i ment. Was that the UN does not have "strenght" because it has no bases for strenght. It has to ask for that power. And its the US which is the true power of the UN. You will NEVER see anything inportant done by the UN without the US helping.

The only reason to have the UN is to keep people talking. That way we kill less people. Although now and again its the only option...

posted 12-17-98 04:45 AM ET            

For that matter, what would you call trying to gain influence in the policy and government makeup of nations around the world?

Go ahead and name "some," I can only think of one other in the modern world.

posted 12-17-98 05:47 AM ET            

IMHO, the difference between US troops acting as US troops but with UN approval and US troops acting as UN troops is a mere matter of semantics and is largely immaterial(I think the major problem the US has with this is a fear of inept foreign leadership. The last time we placed US troops under foreign leadership(an Italian in Somalia, IIRC) bad things happened.). The more important problem(we seem to agree on this point, Zan) is the veto power. The ability to veto sactions against one's own actions is virtually carte blanche to do as one will. Your solution seems workable, but I'd still be concerned about situations where a party's involvment cannot be clearly defined. I think a better solution would be to restrict the veto to changes to the UN structure. As I said before, I don't want to see the UN become an absolute world government[1], but I would like to see it with some teeth. I think a stronger UN would be a great stabilizing force in the world and that if this can only come about at the cost of a small amount of the sovreignty of its members, so be it.

Now, as to the US influencing the governments of other countries, I have no problems. Where the troubles arise are when you look at the methods sometimes used. No matter how much you try, you can't replace a dictatorship with another dictatorship and expect to end up with a democracy. Likewise, you cannot support a dictator and expect to end up with a democracy. The only justification I can see for supporting any sort of authoritarian means of governance is in the early days after the overthrow of an authoritarian government to stabilize the situation. Even then it is a shaky proposition at best because "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and there is no guarantee that power will be reliquished.

posted 12-17-98 05:58 AM ET            

IMO, the only time that a nation is justified in acting on its own is to fight a war of defense, or to come to the aid of an ally, who has specifically asked for it, in the same kind of war. I feel that international law and the UN are the appropriate avenue for any other international problem.

posted 12-17-98 06:25 AM ET            

Mentioned somewhere: use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein took place against kurdish civilians in the eighties and in the Iran/Iraq war.

Hothram: "Only problem is that any time we ever do what the UN asks us to do we get insulted by the Euros for being "inperialistic". Gets annoying..."
"Can we say Korea? Or Somolia? Or the Original Iraq war? Not to mention our boys in the Balkins. I think that counts as doing the UN's dirty work."

I'm not sure what to make of this. I can't remember any incident where the US acted within the UN rules AND got critisised for that by the Europeans. The UN's dirty work in Korea and Iraq was very much in line with the US national (and western world) interest. Somalia was a disaster as the US somehow got the idea to play John Wayne and go after a certain militia leader (forgot the name). The UN mission in other areas of Somalia was conducted mostly by Europeans (and Canada, and ?) and they did not get into this kind of trouble.

Hothram again: "Personaly i would not want some 3rd world country tring to tell me what to do..."

But it's fine for the US to tell 3rd world countries what to do ? Beyond requiring them to respect international law, which legitimacy does the US have for that ?

And Imran on a similar note: "If the US doesn't control the UN (which it never will), I'm in favor of removing the US from the UN and go unilaterally. It's not like the US will listen to the UN anyway."

This will work for the US as long as it has the clearly strongest military and is willing to pay the price for using it. But a frequent violation of international law will get the rest of the world pretty pissed at the US, and that is bad for both (US and rest).

posted 12-17-98 07:06 AM ET            

Well, Saddam lovers, i got news for you. Trying to keep it simple - Saddam is a schizophreniac maniac with chemical and bioweapons. Maybe even nukes (I mean, what was he hiding then?). People in Canada and Europe and the US are far away, and Iraqi SCUD missiles can't reach'em. They are safe. The guys in Israel, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region ARE NOT. Arabs have oil. The world drives cars. They like driving cars. They would not like their gas stations raising prices, saying "North Sea Brent Crude Processed Oil Twice As Expensive as Arab" or something. Therefore it is in the world's interests to keep the region peaceful and stable, and Saddam seems a number one persona non grata there. Why not use a little force? And, sincerely, does anyone care about the civilians? They tolerate the bastard and allow him to rule. They're his thugs. F.uck'em.

posted 12-17-98 10:14 AM ET            

George, I DO CARE ABOUT INNOCENT CIVILIANS, but I doubt that the casualties were actually civilians as the source claiming this is an Iraqi source.

posted 12-17-98 03:47 PM ET            

Now, do I care for the civilians of Iraq? Yes. Should the US and GB bear some responsibility for the civilian casualties they incur? Yes. But so should Hussein. It was, after all, his actions wrt WMDs that led the US and GB to decide to strike(granted, there is some question(justified, IMHO) as to the timing of the strike).

posted 12-18-98 07:13 AM ET            

"And you trust the AP? There just as much US propagandists as any of the Iraqi press are Iraqi propagandists" - you gotta be kiddin', this is COMPLETE paranoia.

posted 12-18-98 01:25 PM ET            

MR CLINTON , YOU CAN NOT WASH DIRTY SPOTS ON A WOMAN'S DRESS USING INNOCENT PEOPLE'S BLOOD...