Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words

JavaFox

Germany, France, and Belgium said no such reasonable thing. They vetoed a proposal to send defensive hardware to Turkey, simple as that. Like I said, this isn't about war. We aren't trying to get NATO to agree to fight with us, we're trying to get them to defend Turkey. And Germany, France, and Belgium don't want to.

It's interesting that you said what you said about population. Germany, France, and Belgium have approximately 153,292,429 between the three of them. The United States alone has 280,562,489 people. So you're going to tell me that the populations of Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, AND the United States are wrong and three dissenters are right?

Judge it by population if you want, or on a nation-by-nation basis. Either way you come to the conclusion that most people in NATO see it as an obligation to defend their ally Turkey.

Although I think saying Turkey has "imperialist" aspirations of its own is a huge leap in logic based on very little, at least you realize that Germany, Belgium, and France don't oppose this war on alturistic grounds. It's just about economics for them.

JavaFox

Actually, it is readily disputable. AWACs aircraft are converted commerical planes. They take Boeing 707s and fit them with RADAR domes. That's it. They aren't very fast or particularly maneuverable. Their only purpose is surveillance; they aren't fitted with weapons systems.

NATOs own website explicitly states that the E-3A AWACs has no armament.

If you're going to debate with me, you need to use facts. AWACs cannot be used offensively. Nor can Patriot missiles.

raid517

"Originally posted by JavaFox [/i]
Germany, France, and Belgium said no such reasonable thing. They vetoed a proposal to send defensive hardware to Turkey, simple as that. Like I said, this isn't about war. We aren't trying to get NATO to agree to fight with us, we're trying to get them to defend Turkey. And Germany, France, and Belgium don't want to."

Then clearly you do not follow the European news. Strong mood noises were made today by government representatives that this was very much their strategy. Clearly you might not like that they are keen to adhere to the provisions and regulations set out by the UN, but it doesn't make it any less real.

"It's interesting that you said what you said about population. Germany, France, and Belgium have approximately 153,292,429 between the three of them. The United States alone has 280,562,489 people. So you're going to tell me that the populations of Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, AND the United States are wrong and three dissenters are right?

Judge it by population if you want, or on a nation-by-nation basis. Either way you come to the conclusion that most people in NATO see it as an obligation to defend their ally Turkey."

Lol, if you want to break it down into a simple numbers game then fine. The point wasn't the numbers, it was peoples right to determine their own destiny. If 153,292,429 million people did object to the war (although it isn't quite so clean cut, since saying that 280,562,489 million people agree with the war is also likely to be misguided) then this is still a significant body of people who's voices should be listened too. Add to this the some 85% of UK citizens who object to the war and the fact that I can point you to almost equally strong peace movements in almost every other country you mention above, then no doubt I could quite easily see your 280,562,489 million and raise you by several million more. Again you make the classic JF mistake of being unable to separate government from the people. The people in these other countries do not feel so obliged as you to tow their government line.

"Although I think saying Turkey has "imperialist" aspirations of its own is a huge leap in logic based on very little."

Well I would take care (as ever) before commenting on this too much JF. Let me ask you how much you know about the war that is currently being conducted between the Kurds and Turkey in Iraq at this point in time? Did you even know there was a war? Or that the US had promised to defend the Kurds after the last war, but has consistently done nothing to stop the mass scale suppression, torture, assassination and general subjugation of the Kurdish people by Turkey that has taken place the over the last 13 years?

Turkey has no noble motives in Northern Iraq whatsoever other than its motivation for oil. As for empire, well if you understood the Turkish perspective, you would know that they retain fond memories of their days as a global power during the Ottoman Empire - and see a close affiliation with the USA as a means of restoring some of that past glory.

"at least you realize that Germany, Belgium, and France don't oppose this war on altruistic grounds. It's just about economics for them"

As it is for all concerned. I think very few are convinced that this is just about a war on terror. Indeed the case for this is far from established. So in conjunction with political, strategic and economic interests I do not think the USA is any more morally superior to any one else. It is unsurprising therefore that these nation states would wish to defend their own National interests, or at least have these interests fairly represented in any final outcome. Don't forget, when this is over, it will be the US who controls all of these interests and who will then decide how they are allocated. To say this won't happen is to deny that such resources even exist.

I do not though think this is all about economics. I do however think that for everyone concerned economics is a factor. I also do not think it quite fair to say that the ordinary citizens of these countries who do object (however many millions that might be) to this war all object on financial grounds. I for one have no vested financial interest in Iraq... Nor I imagine do the vast majority of the 85% of my fellow country men who have clearly stated their objections to this war. This is why the UN security council and NATO are regarded as partnerships - and not simple majority/minority rule bodies. And it is also why parners have equal rights of veto, because it is important that the views and interests of such vast numbers of people be fairly represented. It is meant to stop one partner from bullying another partner into a position that a govenment and their people would find impossible to accept. It is the nature of this equal body of partners - and very principals of parnership itself that the US seems all too ready to forget. (Or at least she no longer appears able to understand it, or the need for it). So again, saying its all about money is oversimplifying matters.

In any case I think that you are failing to see the bigger picture here, or at least acknowledge that a bigger picture exists. Typically you have done nothing but follow your Governments line on almost every topic to date. I am sure if you can look past the sound bytes and the propaganda you might at least begin to see some of the reality.

Q

bluelight

Thats right.They have no arms.They have computers and telecommunication systems meant for directing arms from elsewhere.That is also...offensive weaponery.


BlueLight

merry

It's one quote of many possible.

If those aircrafts have no armament, they won't do a lot for Turkey's defense, should it be the case.

The point is in the pro/anti war dispute. As much as I can make of it, the US and the UK want a war with Iraq, France and Germany don't. There is a plethora of small countries that got involved on either side... but small countries' politics are dictated by smaller interests.

I usually watch BBC World, they have the most detached comments and presentation of the facts. There were some very interesting comments yesterday on Poland's attitude - and of Romania's, for that matter. Eastern European countries would see in the US the better military ally (and I can tell you that all those years of soviet ocupation have a lot to do with this) but eventually they will need EU integration more...

Basically I think you would agree that sending - unarmed - AWACS to Turkey won't be much of a military support. Both France and Germany can do a lot more, should it be the case. For the time being, they - along with the other NATO countries - were asked for political support in the form of minimal (symbolic) military support for Turkey. Sending (even unarmed) military aircraft in that area would mean for them to agree war is iminent. Which they don't.

bluelight

No you are completley wrong.They were asked yo be part of the American war planning against Iraq.Somthing they refuse at this stage.

Furthermore 8 governments in Europe has expressed their unlimited support for whatever Usa does about this affair and ypou are very pleased about that i understand.....But......

That is what the leaders of these countries say.Surveys about how the population looks uopn this shows that 80 percent want this handled by the UN even in these 8 countries whos leaders expressed they will blindly support anything you say.

This is an affair fior the UN.

BlueLight

JavaFox

OMFG, are you being serious, sir? This is like saying walls around your base don't do anything for defense, since they can't attack. AWACs are used to for surveillance. It is used to "look down to detect, identify and track enemy and friendly low-flying aircraft ." It "can detect, identify and track airborne enemy forces far from the boundaries of the United States or NATO countries." It is just a RADAR system in the sky. Are you saying that ground-based RADAR have no defensive purpose?


I wouldn't agree that at ALL. Did you know that THREE AWACs AIRPLANES can provide complete RADAR coverage of Central Europe. THREE. I am an armchair general just like you are, but please try to think this through. Maybe I can put it in perspective. E-3A (AWACs) craft are equipped with sophisticated software that can identify friends or foe from the air. Three of them can completely cover Central Europe. They can track enemy fighters beyond the range of nearly anything else. They give generals a birds eye view of the battlefield. And yet you would maintain that they aren't significant? WHY WOULD WE HAVE AWACS AT ALL?! There is nothing symbolic about AWACs and Patriot missile coverage. AWACs serve as an early-warning and enemy tracking system and Patriot missiles can SHOOT DOWN OTHER MISSILES. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU SAY THAT THIS WOULD ONLY BE SYMBOLIC SUPPORT?

If you can't put this into perspective, imagine playing Command and Conquer with no mini-map.

JavaFox

So radios are offensive weapons?

bluelight

I figure yes..if it is part of a system that directs fire to a specific area...yes..definitley...that is one of the main uses of these planes.

BlueLight

JavaFox

Wow, so we have one guy saying AWACs have no military use, and we have another guy saying AWACs are an offensive weapon. The mind reels.

ByteMe

I wonder were you get these ideas. When has the USA attacked a country to expand? It seems to me that if the USA wanted to expand it could of been at least twice it's current size by just keeping what it won from WWII on.

raid517

Lol I think some folks are just playing with words here - and they know it. Of course AWACs have an offensive military capability. Just as people sitting in the deserts of Utah can direct an unmanned craft to assassinate political undesirables thousands of miles away in Yemen, an AWAC can guide a flight of F16s or several Cruise missiles, or an entire army on the ground towards a specific target, even though they are able to do so from a considerable distance away. It all just comes down to a meaningless debate about who actually pulls the trigger. So saying that AWACs have no offensive military capacity is plainly nonsensical.

Indeed on this occasion, it is explicity clear that there is no danger of Iraq attacking the USA first, it is in fact quite the opposite. So how can their use be described in any way as being defensive, when it is you who plans to attack Iraq? Don't forget they would be running under Nato operational command within the Kurdish controlled areas of Northern Iraq, so their 'other role' would be to direct US forces towards relevant targets in that region. Unless of course you believe that there are no viable military or economic targets in Northern Iraq? Somehow I think even you will be able to see just how improbable that really is...

Q

bluelight

Funny that someone who is probably working with computers all the time does not understand what a "weapon system" is.

It is also funny that anyone can be unaware of how modern warfare is carried out...i mean they have been hammering out the "humanistic perspective" with "smart bombs" etc etc... for 15 years now...

Well in order to use this technique they need someone to lead and direct....also when it comes to ground battle the need of someone "above" directing is useful.

This is where awacs come in.

Yes they are part of offensive weaponsystems. yes.. ..there is no doubt about that.


BlueLight

merry

egarrard

I just wonder how many dead Turks it will take piled up in front of them before France and Germany decide to help a nation they have a mutual-defense treaty with?

It's just a question of them fulfilling their obligations as part of NATO. But after the billions of dollars the US poured into Europe to rebuild it and it's economies, this is gratitude for you. We should have left them in rubble. Or let the Soviets have them.

The US doesn't need the UN's approval to remove Saddam. It would be nice, but 3000 dead bodies, a year and a half ago, authorized us to do what we're doing. You can either help, or not, depending on how much character you and your country have. It really doesn't matter, though. Our President was forced into this pursuit of terrorists by the terrorists themself. I'm sure he'd rather be doing something else. I sure would.

You're right about the AWACS though, bluelight. They can be used for offensive or defensive operations. But you are extremely offensive in your assertion that the US brought the 9/11 attack upon itself. It did not. We were just a target of opportunity. One that the terrorists and their friends are going to pay a very high price for. You want to support Iraq? Go to Baghdad and stand out in front of the first military building you come to. Let's see if they appreciate the gesture.

bluelight

Can you please point out where im stating that Usa has itsef to blame for 9/11.



I am stating that Usa sold weapons to Iraq all the way from the fall of the Shah of Iraq up until the Iraq´I invasion of Kuwait.


Im also staing Usa supported Bin Ladin in Afghasnistan throuh Cia.I have myself seen interwiews with former and current Cia people on public tv that worked with Bin Laden.Some of them warned thje politicians about him but got little or no response.

These are well known facts.

Nothing else.

Any other conclusions as when it comes to what triggers what etc etc..is something i might have teories about but i havent written about it here.

Finally ..I do not support either Saddam or Bin Ladin.

I support common sense.

Looks like the world is lacking in this today unfortunatley.


BlueLight

Falstaff

I went to bootcamp in San diego, and our brother company were Iraqi's, they were impressive sailors. During the Stark incident, we clearly should have seen what was coming. I agree our foriegn policy has been poor attempts to secure some sort of temporary advantage. Espionage and intrigue not withstanding, we will support anyone that allow us to perpetuate our secret attempts to wrest control from those governments that are not friendly to our interests, I think we have had our fingers in too many pies. Washington and Jefferson really used spys successfully against the british, french and the russians as well, and I suppose they set the whole machine in motion. I believe that Lewis and Clark were successful spies as well as great explorers. but I digress.
The USA waffles on lots of key issues regarding who we will and will not support. Bin Ladin is a good example, but so is Chairman Mao, Ho chi min and Marshall Tito too. We even provided Hussien with lots of support during the Iran/Iraq war. will it ever stop.....nope...sad but true.

bluelight

No you are right about all you say here.Everyone is doing it.Therefore the UN is the only reasonable solution.

The Un is what the members make out of it.If the major powers fall out because the UN does not fulfill "their" needs then the organisation of course becomes useless.

This is an ongoing thing that will never end either but basically with the UN as a base the tools for mutaual agreements to everyones liking will be bigger that if single nations impose on others what to do by power.


That is why i support an attack on Iraq if accepted by the UN.It is also my belief that this is what will eventually happen.....unless Saddam gives in first but unfotunatley i dont think he will.

The biggest obstacle in this as i see it is the way....your current government has demanded absolute obeyance (word?) from others in "their way of solving this".

Well it seems to me thay have only managed to didvide people.

This issue is now just as much a thingh about not letting Usa drag the rest of the world around on its termes rather than focusing on solving the real issue whatever the solution top it may be.


Bluey

raid517

Erm... Is it just me, or can anyone else here spot the accidental error? Really if you ask me I think this whole thing would have been better off played purely and simply as an attempt to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people (given that there would no doubt be a fair amount of posturing involved in this position too). It is all this talk of 'links with international terror' and 'weapons of mass destruction' that is causing people to experience this sense of mass incredulity. It is much harder to prove these links (indeed by all accounts it has proved nigh on impossible) than it is to say that the Iraq people are suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein and that sanctions may be harming them more than a war would. (Again though, one shouldn't ignore the propagandist line even in this train of thought). This is how you got into this whole mess about 'inspections' - and became embroiled in a search for 'evidence' which may well not exist. I would be far easier to make an emotive case about dying babies and sanctions not working, than trying to convince the world that a tin pot dictator like Saddam Hussein poses any serious threat to international peace and security.

My own position on this remains unchanged, I want to see America act within the auspices of the UN, I want to see a common position adopted by all sides - and if this is to be achieved I feel that the USA must be more conciliatory towards other UN security council members and must engage in a more determined diplomatic effort to convince members of their case. (So far the perception is that all America really has been engaging in is a very public attempt in international arm twisting and thoughtless economic bullying). If any thing the biggest mistake that the US has made is in failing to understand or address the interests and concerns of other member states. It seems if this fault is to be repaired this US administration must work extremely hard to relearn the art of international diplomacy. Whether they do so or not may determine the fate of the UN, Nato and any number of other international bodies.

Q

raid517

This is a very astute point - and one I have been trying to make all along. With UN agreement any action that is taken will have a great deal of validity and credibility among the many nations of the world who make up the member states of the UN. With such agreement few can argue with the outcome and none can say that any single nation was 'acting in its own self interests'.

However if individual nations do act on their own, this can inspire all kinds of accusations, many of which have already been expressed on this forum. And if doubt and mistrust can exist on this forum, then surely this can only be amplified in the eyes of others who have even greater reasons to mistrust the USA than we do? That is the fear - and very soon it may be the reality too.

This is where many people feel that this will only worsen the risks of international terror - and where they feel America's attitude towards the UN to be extremely unhelpful and short sighted.

It is crucial that America addresses these issues now, if this growing sense of resentment an mistrust is ever to be averted.

Q

ByteMe

Oh really? What if the US backs off and Saddam unleashes a rein of terror (worldwide) never seen before?

raid517

Brilliant point dude, why didn't I think of that?

Q