Recent Iraq War Legitimized/Are the Polish, Germans and Danish Going to War?

I guess you'll have to fill me in BTA...

My understanding was that this resolution was an agreement of cooperation within the UN on the rebuilding and future of Iraq, but had little (if anything) to do with the war effort. I saw this as more of a "water under the bridge...let's just get past it and press forward" thing rather than a legitimizing resolution.

But I've heard very little about this, so I don't know. Can you elaborate a bit on the specifics - for the sake of the thread, anyway?

 

Legitimizes the occupation yes...but how does it legitimize the war? Or did you just mean occupation, and not the military action?

ps - any links? I'd like to read about it too.

 

From what I read of it, it was more of a "UN trying to stay relevant after being ignored" resolution than an acceptance of the invasion.

It also seems to be the only way the UN will be in on the reconstruction with any authority.

This is especially interesting considering the CIA allegations of Rumsfeld's staff exaggerating possible links between Iraq and al Queda and the possibilty of WOMD development, which was in the news earlier today.

 

I guess so...seems like a weird way to think about it, though I do see your meaning. For lack of better explaination I'll go with yours for now.

 

BTA, Lol, I wanted to post a thread with the same topic, but I thaught it would not be appropriate for me.

But my thread title would have been: Are the Polish, Germans and Danish goingt to war ?

This is a listing with the concessions the Americans made:

But now to the part which is really worrying me. Now, my goverment is not allowed to sent troops in any foreign country. Well, it's not that we would have any significance at all. But I wonder, how those feel, who are actually sending troops.

So, the point which is worrying the most. As I stated before, there is a huge difference between conquering a country and occupying a country.

The infantry who is actually walking the streets in a foreign country is, if it comes to tensions, taking losses. So, the most risky part of the whole operation is now going to be laid on the back of the Europeans.

We all know, how the media reacted on British deads and on American deads in the last war.

I don't like the thought of Europeans sent to Iraq on a dangerous mission. They will not be in a fighter-plane nor in a tank. They will be walking the streets, open for any attack. And, again, that's the most dangerous part.

 

@ BTA

After reading the article, I tend not to agree. Here's why:

This doesn't legitimize the war because according to the council, it's not about military action, but economic action. Not so much saying "You were right," but rather saying "What's done is done...now there are more important things to focus on."

Or don't you agree?

 

Dam, am I the only one worried here ???

It's a dirty, dirty deal.

The Americans gave:

1. They make no longer fuss about the Iraqi debt to European countries.

2. Iraw is a very, very, very rich country. European companies will now share the big deals and get their share of the oil.

3. The UN has some say now.

What the Americans get: They get soldiers

Americans will still be in control, but they are not the occupying force anymore. The occupying force will be: Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Lithuania and Ukraine. And the Polish of course.

Except of Aragorn II and Chevalier, is anyone from those countries even on this board ?

I see the headlines:" 20 Ukrainien (Sp ?) soldiers died through a bomb attack in Baghdad".

"Ten Albanian soldiers died in a shooting in northern-Iraq."

 

You're not the only one worried, Yago.

Funny, this somehow reminds me of how the world let the Germans annex other countries before WWII, isn't ironic the Polish who were themselves divided in a similar way are now among those who divide.

So Iraq has been split, the vultures will now start to share the oil between themselves and the US/UK forces will be relieved by colonial militias (mainly from eastern Europe) to maintain colonial order in Iraq, pretty much as it is already happening in Afghanistan, after all that's what NATO is there for, right?

Don't worry, we won't see many headlines in the news about X or Y soldiers from whatever country as the "brave" US/UK forces no longer required in Iraq will attack yet another helpless country (probably full of oil or natural gas, how strange) in the name of God / democracy / imperialism / free trade / self-defense (pick one).

The news will be all about Bush's reelection then about the next war on the agenda. If there's a paragraph about Ablanians getting killed it won't be anywhere near the front page of your paper.

How long will this continue? Until the whole world declares war on the US and their allies? Until a nuke explodes in NYC?

 

Ah, Godwin's Law has been invoked, lock down the thread.

 

Hmm, maybe it's time to read a good author again for a change: http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/usgonemad.html

That they made a deal in the security council is one thing; the US action still is a crime.

 

Laches, I didn't know about this Godwin's law and after a quick search I learned it is about making comparison to Nazis. Please notice I didn't used the term "Nazi" in my previous post. I was referring to German political and military moves, not Nazi doctrine or whatever. I didn't mean to spoil the thread and I will avoid such comparisons in the future.

 

Yago -- You have to know that I'm concerned about it too. The Bush people will be saying what BTA is saying, and I agree with him -- again Bush gets a blank check to "carry on." It will be 2004 campaign material. Anyone who runs on an anti-war platform will now have a tougher case to make. Agreed, BTA?

 

Godwin? You most certainly mean Harold's father, don't you? Eh, never mind.

I don't really care. So long as 'our' forces there behave. I'm not going to see them abusing civilians. However, since 'our' most irresponsible and mentally incapable government made that in, they should make that out too. They won't get re-elected for playing Indians and Cowboys, that's sure, even though they apparently think otherwise.

Seems our 2000 boys cover quite a piece of land full of kind and compassionate Shi'ites... Like one guy for 80 square kilometres. Heh, we've done more impressive things, like kicking the asses of 14000 technologically more advanced Swedes with 3300 men in 1605 or cutting their musketeers into pieces with sabres in 1627 ('telly ho' tactics), but we had wise leaders at that time. Well, and only a few moderately talented ones after that time, to be more precise.

Personally, I don't believe anything good will come from that. Time will show how many bad things however.

Last thought is that wars aren't children to be so easily legitimatised.

 

Again, I am not a democrat, but the problem they face is that many of them gave Bush a blank check for war, especially in the senate. Now, those wanting to run against Bush will have to backtrack and try to find fault - not with the action, but how he went about it (unilateralist). The UN action does, IMO, make the war and occupation more legit than before. Dems, Kerry in particular, will have a tougher case to make to the American people. I think that the Dems will have to wait till 2008 (as an independent, I am also a realist). But they may have the last laugh, since Hillary might be the first woman prez. That would make Bill the First Man. How ironic!

 

But so many people (well about 3 if I remember right) have mentioned the elections. When abouts are they? I thought they were every 5 years there in USA, or am i wrong?