Bad ally! Very bad ally! Go stay in the corner!

[Oddity]

Ever since the debacle in the Security Council I’ve seen complains on this weboard about how those nasty US allies didn’t want to go to war against Iraq, and actually tried to prevent ‘God’s own country’ from finding WMD’s, er, removing the regime, er, finding WMD’s, er, capturing Saddam.

But the question is: Were the Europeans obligated to ‘walk the US path’?

Let’s travel backward in time to September 11, 2002. What happened after the Twin Towers had been reduced to rubble? The Security Council in the UN agreed to a resolution about cooperation for calling the terrorists responsible into account as quickly as possible. The countries in the EU stressed in a declaration that the US were in their full right to strike back on the terrorists. And NATO activated the fifth article in the treaty as soon as the USA asked for help.

Now make a short jump forward and contrast this with the lack of European support concerning Iraq. US complaints about shortcomings in the report supplied to the UN by Iraq and claims that they possessed several thousand liters of chemical \ biological weapons, were understandingly met with skepticism by the EU since no evidence had been presented. They believed it would be difficult to justify an attack upon Iraq without proof that the Iraqi possessed weapons of mass destruction. The UN was of the same opinion, and the US couldn’t possibly make use of NATO’s Article Five without proof.

So why the difference in reactions?

1. Proof.
After the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, the US didn’t dick around but shortly afterward presented NATO with evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind it. Later, the US was unable to provide any kind of conclusive proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or Al-Queada connections.

2. A threat.
During September 11 the USA was directly attacked by a terrorist organization that had the backings of the government in Afghanistan. According to the NATO treaty such a situation is to be considered an attack upon all the members. Iraq, on the other hand, didn’t even have the capability to hurt the US.

3. American attitude.
The subsequent US attempts to bully themselves into a UN mandate only made the situation worse, and of course stirred up a lot of anger. The fact that the US seemingly couldn’t decide on a reason for invading Iraq didn’t help either, not to mention the declaration that the US maybe didn’t need evidence in order to go to war. Nor did the ‘intelligence info’ supplied to the UN weapon inspectors by the CIA; it was either wrong or so old it was useless.

Finally, let’s see what www.dictionary.com has to say about the word ‘ally’:

al·ly
v. al·lied, al·ly·ing, al·lies
v. tr.

1. To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
2. To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.

v. intr.
To enter into an alliance: Several tribes allied to fend off the invaders.

n. pl. al·lies

1. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France.
2. One in helpful association with another: legislators who are allies on most issues.

In other words, an ally is not someone who jumps whey you tell them to jump, or who unconditionally enters a war on the thinnest excuse.

The truly sad part is that the USA enjoyed a lot of goodwill in Europe after the attack on the Twin Towers. Instead of building upon this, the Bush administration has wasted it away by acting like a spoiled kid.

Now I shall eagerly await being flamed as an ‘anti-American’. [puts on flameproof suit and hides under bed]

[Stormbringer]

Of course our allies aren't obligated to do as we ask. They never are and never were. They are soveriegn nations; being a US ally doesn't change that and never should. If they have different goals then they're free to pursue them.

And to be honest the Bush Administration botched their handling of the whole affair. The terrorist connection was vastly overblown and misleading, the WMD and banned weapons arguement was not handled properly, and the sheer and staggering brutality arguement (while true and sensible) simply felt like a fall back position. Bush also should have been more careful. While France, Russia and Germany were in bed with Iraq and never would have signed on he needlessly pissed off a lot of friendly nations.

That said I detest the hypocrisy of nation's like France (not all peaceful nations). They couched their arguements in high minded moral bullshit to justify protecting their ally and client. They made a smear campaign to save their own little tin-pot dictator and call the US evil for trying to do something about it.

And they demand me wait for UN action yet we all know they never, ever would have allowed anything to be done. It's clear disarmament had failed yet they wanted to protect their investment at all costs.

[Vympel]

But the question is: Were the Europeans obligated to ‘walk the US path’?

The way some people tell it, yes. Especially in the case of France, who apparently 'owes' the US enough in order for it to throw it's national interests to the wind and invade Iraq. Let's forget that in Afghanistan French Mirage 2000 aircraft flew 10% of Coalition missions- 900 missions, 4,500 flight hours. Damn thankless French

That said I detest the hypocrisy of nation's like France (not all peaceful nations). They couched their arguements in high minded moral bullshit to justify protecting their ally and client. They made a smear campaign to save their own little tin-pot dictator and call the US evil for trying to do something about it.

And the USA isn't hypocritical for couching it's arguments in high minded moral bullshit about liberating the Iraqi people and saving them from brutal oppression, while propping up places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to the oppression the Turks commit on the Kurds?

It's clear disarmament had failed

I dispute that. Firstly, the inspectors were given only 3 months on the ground; and in their time secured the destruction of well over half of the Al Samoud 2 missiles which were too close to the treaty limits for comfort (whether they actually were over the limit is in dispute). They even oversaw their destruction until the last day on which they left, and then some news agenices had the gall to chide Iraq for using it's remaining stocks when the US attacked

Secondly, Iraqi scientists who have turned themselves over to the Coalition *still* insist that Iraq does not have WMD. There are no Iraqi officials breathing down their necks anymore, why do they persist in this unless they honestly believe it? Two possibilities- they exist, but these scientists dont know about it, or they REALLY DON'T EXIST (always a possibility, however unlikely).

[Stormbringer]

And the USA isn't hypocritical for couching it's arguments in high minded moral bullshit about liberating the Iraqi people and saving them from brutal oppression, while propping up places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and turning a blind eye to the oppression the Turks commit on the Kurds?

Lets be honest, is Saudi Arabia or Pakistan really worse off under those dictatorships than with their own people in charge? Yes. They're not angels and the US should put pressure on them to clean things up but they're better than the alternatives of two new fundy states. Do you think the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Taliban MK 2?

And yes, I find the arguement that US should be the policeman hypocritical when we support Turkey and to a degree Israel. But I don't think that should mean we can never do the right thing. And that still doesn't make France or Russia any less hypocritical.

I dispute that. Firstly, the inspectors were given only 3 months on the ground; and in their time secured the destruction of well over half of the Al Samoud 2 missiles which were too close to the treaty limits for comfort (whether they actually were over the limit is in dispute). They even oversaw their destruction until the last day on which they left, and then some news agenices had the gall to chide Iraq for using it's remaining stocks when the US attacked

They were given 12 years and they didn't make progress except with the US poised to invade. That's pretty telling to me.

Secondly, Iraqi scientists who have turned themselves over to the Coalition *still* insist that Iraq does not have WMD. There are no Iraqi officials breathing down their necks anymore, why do they persist in this unless they honestly believe it? Two possibilities- they exist, but these scientists dont know about it, or they REALLY DON'T EXIST (always a possibility, however unlikely).

When we've found evidence that he's got banned weapons and some WMDs then I would say that it's pretty clear they simply kept a tight lid on it.

[Vympel]

Lets be honest, is Saudi Arabia or Pakistan really worse off under those dictatorships than with their own people in charge? Yes. They're not angels and the US should put pressure on them to clean things up but they're better than the alternatives of two new fundy states. Do you think the world would be better off with a nuclear armed Taliban MK 2?

So now the US gets to decide who gets to be oppressed by corpulent royal families and military juntas and who doesn't based on what it's comfortable with? How do you know what would happen in those countries? Why can you supposedly champion democracy in one (Iraq)and not the other? That's hypocrisy too.

And yes, I find the arguement that US should be the policeman hypocritical when we support Turkey and to a degree Israel. But I don't think that should mean we can never do the right thing. And that still doesn't make France or Russia any less hypocritical.

You're right, it doesn't, the only honest argument that could've been made for attacking Iraq was that no matter for what reason it's being done, the Iraqi people would be better off.

They were given 12 years and they didn't make progress except with the US poised to invade. That's pretty telling to me.

Up until 1998 the inspectors oversaw the destruction of many thousands of tons of WMD of all types- arty shells, raw material, missiles etc etc etc. That inspections stopped in 98 was the fault of the US: if they wanted inspections to continue they shouldn't have violated the inspectors mandate and seeded the inspectors with spies. The old '12 years and nothing achieved' rhetoric should make some of those inspectors wanna punch someone.

When we've found evidence that he's got banned weapons and some WMDs then I would say that it's pretty clear they simply kept a tight lid on it.

I guess we'll see, though I always found the 'WMD' rather amusing more than actually valid reason for attack in any sense of the term.

[Stormbringer]

So now the US gets to decide who gets to be oppressed by corpulent royal families and military juntas and who doesn't based on what it's comfortable with? How do you know what would happen in those countries? Why can you supposedly champion democracy in one (Iraq)and not the other? That's hypocrisy too.

No, it's facing the reality that at present neither nations would remain a democracy for longer than election day. Saudi Arabia and Pakistand would both lapse into extremist. terrorist, theocracies as soon as the ballets were counted. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Do you really want to see american or other western cities vanishing in mushroom clouds?


Like it or not this is the lesser of two evils. No Iraq style liberation is possible for these countries. What needs to be done is internal reform, something that happening in Pakistand and needs to be pushed for in Saudi Arabia.

You're right, it doesn't, the only honest argument that could've been made for attacking Iraq was that no matter for what reason it's being done, the Iraqi people would be better off.

That's the truth. I think the US isn't doing this solely for the good of the Iraqi people, we need a real, secular Arab ally, but they'll denifite greatly none the less.

Up until 1998 the inspectors oversaw the destruction of many thousands of tons of WMD of all types- arty shells, raw material, missiles etc etc etc. That inspections stopped in 98 was the fault of the US: if they wanted inspections to continue they shouldn't have violated the inspectors mandate and seeded the inspectors with spies. The old '12 years and nothing achieved' rhetoric should make some of those inspectors wanna punch someone.

When he's still got weapons and quite possibly the means for producing them then I think nothing meaningful has been achieved. And indications are that's exactly what happened.

And that stupid policy was the result of Bill "Wad the Dog" Clinton. Short sighted and stupid no doubt but not Bush's doing.

I guess we'll see, though I always found the 'WMD' rather amusing more than actually valid reason for attack in any sense of the term.

It's your prerogative.

[RedImperator]

I still marvel at what a clusterfuck the diplomatic buildup was. I was in favor of the war, and I wasn't buying the administration's arguments.

Look, this isn't a difficult case to make. Saddam Hussein was determined to outwait the UN, inspections or not. They had been in violation of the 1991 cease-fire almost since the day they signed it. The west was faced with either giving up (demonstrating its impotence in the face of one recalcitrant tin-pot dictator), resigning itself to containing Saddam Hussein for the next 20 or 30 years (condemning millions of Iraqis to malnutrition and disease thanks to the sanctions and artificially inflating world oil prices), or taking direct action to remove him (an enormous political risk that will undoubdetly kill thousands of people). September 11 demonstrated that potential threats cannot be allowed to fester, making the third option the lesser of three evils. The fact that it's the morally right thing to do as it will remove a brutal dictator who owed his success partially to the west tips the balance even further towards the more limited evil of war. Phrased in this way, removing Hussein is in the interests of all permanant members, and if consistently argued, it doesn't insult the intelligence of the entire world.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Let’s travel backward in time to September 11, 2002.

Don't you mean 2001? That's when the terrorist attacks actually happened. September 11, 2002 was the one-year anniversary of the attacks.

[Gil Hamilton]

It took the Bush Administration, what, five times before they could find an excuse they could sell to the American people? I mean, come on the "He tried to kill my daddy!" excuse was just too much. It bothers me that the good moral argument (Saddam was skullfucking his people) was their last resort, that they first tried stuff like "Iraq has links of all sorts of terrorist groups in the region!" (not really, the bulk of the terrorist groups in the region hated him almost as much as they hate us) just seemed so forced. Of course, I don't blame them, since they wouldn't have garnered popular support with "We want to knock down Saddam's regime to create a stablized democratic partner in the Middle East that is a bit more consquential and less wishy-washy than Qatar and Jordan, plus all that good oil is a nice thing to have."

Plus, I resent how the war was marketed. Basically, with the way they sold the war to the public (and the media picked this one up in spades) is that if you had a problem with how this is all being done, then you are unpatriotic and unAmerican. I supported the war and all, but turning the thing into a huge nationalistic shitstorm of forced patriotism was a bit much.

[Enforcer Talen]

dont wars have to be marketed?

[Gil Hamilton]

dont wars have to be marketed?

Yeah, but I'd just as soon not have it marketed as "If you aren't 100% totally with us, you are a traitor."

[Enforcer Talen]

domestically or internationally?

[Gil Hamilton]

domestically or internationally?

Either or.

[Sea Skimmer]

Let's forget that in Afghanistan French Mirage 2000 aircraft flew 10% of Coalition missions- 900 missions, 4,500 flight hours. Damn thankless French

Flying a Mirage 2000 off a carrier would be quite a trick......

[Vympel]

Flying a Mirage 2000 off a carrier would be quite a trick......

... They weren't ... on a carrier.

[Sea Skimmer]

Flying a Mirage 2000 off a carrier would be quite a trick......

... They weren't ... on a carrier.

Then where they flying from? France's main base in the area is pretty far away from the country, the only missions over Afghanistan I've ever heard off where carrier based Rafales.

[Vympel]

Then where they flying from? France's main base in the area is pretty far away from the country, the only missions over Afghanistan I've ever heard off where carrier based Rafales.

Ganci Air Base, Kyrgyzstan, but actually it was French aircraft total that flew 10% of all coalition missions, not just Mirage 2000s, whoops slight misquote.

Most missions were close air support for ground troops. They remained on station after the Charles De Gaulle left in May 2002.

[Sea Skimmer]

Then where they flying from? France's main base in the area is pretty far away from the country, the only missions over Afghanistan I've ever heard off where carrier based Rafales.

Ganci Air Base, Kyrgyzstan, but actually it was French aircraft total that flew 10% of all coalition missions, not just Mirage 2000s, whoops slight misquote.

Most missions were close air support for ground troops. They remained on station after the Charles De Gaulle left in May 2002.

Kyrgyzstan hun? I wonder how many planes needed reskinning after the acid rain got them.

[Vympel]

Kyrgyzstan hun? I wonder how many planes needed reskinning after the acid rain got them.

See! Even more sacrifices made by France for it's American allies!

[Sea Skimmer]

See! Even more sacrifices made by France for it's American allies!

Yes, and clearly France disliked the idea of an invasion of Iraq because they'd expended there stock of NBC suits protecting the ground crews.

[Oddity]

It's clear disarmament had failed yet they wanted to protect their investment at all costs.

You know, that's one thing I've never been able to understand. If it was the economic interests in Iraq the French wanted to protect, surly trading with a democracy would have been better than Saddam's regime? Or am I missing something totally obvious here?

I dispute that. Firstly, the inspectors were given only 3 months on the ground; and in their time secured the destruction of well over half of the Al Samoud 2 missiles which were too close to the treaty limits for comfort (whether they actually were over the limit is in dispute). They even oversaw their destruction until the last day on which they left, and then some news agenices had the gall to chide Iraq for using it's remaining stocks when the US attacked

They were given 12 years and they didn't make progress except with the US poised to invade. That's pretty telling to me.

One moment: Didn't development on the Al Samoud 2 missiles start after the UN inspectors had left?

That's the truth. I think the US isn't doing this solely for the good of the Iraqi people, we need a real, secular Arab ally, but they'll denifite greatly none the less.

Have you noticed that the cheering Iraqi crowd has changed into angry demonstrators demanding US forces pulled out of the country? With dictatorships to the east and the west it shall be interesting to see how long Iraq will remain a US ally.

[Oddity]

I still marvel at what a clusterfuck the diplomatic buildup was. I was in favor of the war, and I wasn't buying the administration's arguments.

Look, this isn't a difficult case to make. Saddam Hussein was determined to outwait the UN, inspections or not. They had been in violation of the 1991 cease-fire almost since the day they signed it. The west was faced with either giving up (demonstrating its impotence in the face of one recalcitrant tin-pot dictator), resigning itself to containing Saddam Hussein for the next 20 or 30 years (condemning millions of Iraqis to malnutrition and disease thanks to the sanctions and artificially inflating world oil prices), or taking direct action to remove him (an enormous political risk that will undoubdetly kill thousands of people). September 11 demonstrated that potential threats cannot be allowed to fester, making the third option the lesser of three evils. The fact that it's the morally right thing to do as it will remove a brutal dictator who owed his success partially to the west tips the balance even further towards the more limited evil of war. Phrased in this way, removing Hussein is in the interests of all permanant members, and if consistently argued, it doesn't insult the intelligence of the entire world.

Tell me; once US forces are out of Iraq, what keeps some asshole from stealing the election and set himself up as President for the next thirty years? Again, we'll have a dictator who owes his success partially to the west. What is the US going to do then? Invade Iraq a third time? That'll sit well with the international community, I can imagine.

Iraq has no democratic background to build on, which means that you can't just invade and declare the country a democracy. If the Iraqis are going to build a democracy they can't even keep the damn constitution! And if the 'American infidels' try to change it, we'll have suicide bombings and people declaring jihad in no time.

In short; I'm not convinced the lesser evil was chosen.

[Oddity]

Don't you mean 2001? That's when the terrorist attacks actually happened. September 11, 2002 was the one-year anniversary of the attacks.

Heh. Of course you are right. I have this bad habit of mixing those two dates.

[salm]

In other words, an ally is not someone who jumps whey you tell them to jump, or who unconditionally enters a war on the thinnest excuse.

The truly sad part is that the USA enjoyed a lot of goodwill in Europe after the attack on the Twin Towers. Instead of building upon this, the Bush administration has wasted it away by acting like a spoiled kid.

so true, so true!

[Stormbringer]

You know, that's one thing I've never been able to understand. If it was the economic interests in Iraq the French wanted to protect, surly trading with a democracy would have been better than Saddam's regime? Or am I missing something totally obvious here?

Yes. Saddam's Iraq owed them and had traded with them extensively. They wanted to protect that.

One moment: Didn't development on the Al Samoud 2 missiles start after the UN inspectors had left?

Not that I'm aware of. Iraq already had them.

Have you noticed that the cheering Iraqi crowd has changed into angry demonstrators demanding US forces pulled out of the country? With dictatorships to the east and the west it shall be interesting to see how long Iraq will remain a US ally.

Yes, I have noticed. A lot of the long term sentiments are going to be determined by what happens after the war. Right now opnion is so fickle and divided that what's made CNN today doesn't mean much overall.