Political:Powell Spoke.

[Ramage]

Good article, qerlin

Reminds me why I have always loathed Andrew Jackson, though...

[Kevin]

If there is a feeling by Europeans that have opinions contrary to Americans that their opinion is being disreguarded as just being irrational US-hatred, stupidity and moral hypocrisy. Then I would say there is a tone that opinions contrary to the European view are viewed as being held by a blood thirsty, warmongering, jingoistic, barbaric, blindly obediant, chest-thumping "goosesteppers". Having your opinion being discounted due to prejudice hurts doesn't it?

You see we can go tit for tat here. One could say that because the US government supports war that Americans who supports the war only do so out of a patriotic/nationalistic ferver. Can one also assume that German and French views agianst the war only come from their Governments' stance against the war? That they too are only following the party line? Either America doesn't hold a monoply on being in lock step with the government or Germany and France doesn't have a monopoly on critical thinking.


Perhaps a new rule should be not to place your fear as their reasoning.

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by First of Two
If it were anything BUT a decon truck, why would it be neccessary to get it out of there in a hurry, when you're supposed to be being open with the inspectors?

Frenzied activity around a military base just one day before an inspection has but one rational explanation. Deception.

First of all I do not say that it was well done by Iraq, and this deception may indeed point to WMDs, however it is just a 'may'.

The photos shown in the meeting were taken with a months-span between them not one day. And I already said what another explanation would be. This could be a smuggling truck for oil, which the Iraqi's of course want to hide. Second even if it is a decon truck that actually proofs nothing. Germany has decon trucks as well - yet we do not have WMDs, which are forbidden by our constitution. But we use such decon vessels in case we are attacked with WMDs.
Some past inspectors did some spying, which UN had sadly to admit, and therefore Iraq might want to hide its capability of defense as they might fear in a war chemical weapons will be used.

[Capt.Hunter]

My question on the whole Ivory Coast thing is when will the French troops there surrender? (No, that's not a serious debate remark, but in fact was a cheap shot. That's all I can afford until my next paycheck...)

Yes, it was a cheap shot Cybrludite, and one I get a little tired of. Yes, the French government surrendered to the Germans during WWII. The French Army fought and in many cases continued to fight long afterward. Ever heard of Charles De Gaul? The blood of his troops was split right alongside that of Britain and the US during the liberation of Europe. And if you think otherwise, you've been watching too much Spielburg...

[Calcoran]

Originally posted by First of Two
By the way, maybe the French guys can riddle me this...

If military intervention is a bad, bad thing...

What are French troops doing in the Ivory Coast?

Not to bring the thread off course to far, but this deserves an answer I think.

Frankly, there's a huge difference between waging war against Irak and what French troops are doing in the Ivory Coast. As far as I understood, the French troops have been sent there for two reasons:
- Protecting French citizens in case civil war breaks out. Most of our former colonies maintain very friendly relationships with France. That and the fact that they actually speak French and not some other complicated language have led a lot of French companies and citizens to live/work there. We're speaking thousands or even tens of thousands here, something worth protecting, don't you think?
- Enforce cease fire between belligerent factions when one is agreed upon. As said, there are friendly political ties between both countries, and having lived there for four years, I'm pretty happy France is trying to help, cause I'd hate seeing what Ivory Coast is at the present, what Ouphouet Boigny (sp?) even if he wasn't flawless as a president, spent a big part of his life to achieve, destroyed. Why France and not UN troops ... good question. I do not know.

But one thing is for sure: the French troops there are <b>not</b> there to help one faction or the other, they are not trying to keep Gbagbo in power because of some secret agreements for oil or ore as we've had in the past (mind you, Ivory Coast doesn't have much oil nor ore to speak of). Nor are they trying to help some opponents because we don't like Gbagbo (even if his legitimty is rather questionable as an elected president). Nor are we waging war in any case. You'd think we'd use something a bit more threatening than infantry and light armored vehicles if we were, wouldn't you?

Anyhow, the sad truth is that I'm not sure we're achieving much in the end. We've tried to host talks, enforce the cease fire, and when finally they agree onto compromise, this stupid president goes back to his capital and refuses to accept the compromise. He even managed to imply that France coerced him into agreeing, and is trying to put some bloodthirsty rebel in the governement. So now the opponents hate us because they think we protect Gbagbo, and Gbagbo partisans hate us because they think we're giving all the power to the rebels. I guess we'll just help evacuate the remaining French citizens and let him have his civil war and destroy Ivory Coast. It's really sad when you've actually lived there, seen how peaceful the people were there ... and how bad it is getting. This all makes me wonder if we've all got this aptitude to violence ... if something like this could happen in so-called civilized countries. To tell the truth, it worries me quite a bit too.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Yes, it was a cheap shot Cybrludite, and one I get a little tired of. Yes, the French government surrendered to the Germans during WWII. The French Army fought and in many cases continued to fight long afterward. Ever heard of Charles De Gaul? The blood of his troops was split right alongside that of Britain and the US during the liberation of Europe. And if you think otherwise, you've been watching too much Spielburg...

Off topic and just for abit of color commentary:


The American opinion of the French military is based on the lack of will to fight the Germans in 40 which was quite evident when whole divisions just disintegrated before the Germans at the mere mention of the word tank. (Of course no body ever mentioned how ill prepared they were to face such a threat) When US forces first entered the theater who did they first fight? French troops in North Africa who fought (read fire there weapon three times) and surrendered. (Agian no body ever thought that the will to defend those beaches for Vichy and Hitler might have had sometig to do with it as well as destroying the French fleet at Al kir bir (SP?).) When They did see French troops they were North African colonials mainly (Few metropolitan forces fought in the Free French at that time) and I have to admit unfortuantely that with the amount of racsism in the US military at that time Black troops did not impress US troops, plus US troops hated Arabs, post war studies showed of all the areas where GI's fought they disliked the Arabs the most just below the Japanese. Most of this Info could then be moved on to Italy, where the French fought under British command and US troops rarely if ever saw them.

By Normandy when the Metropilitan Free French got there first real big chance to fight it was in such small numbers (never more than five divisions) that they could not reveres the US opinion/perception of them. I mean think about the two most significant pictures which emerged from the Liberation of Paris one is of US troops (MY state's 28th Division PANG and Region's 110th Intrantry Regiment to be Exact) marching beneath the Arch of Triumph and of French troops and citizens dashing for cover when a sniper open fire. Of course running for cover is a natural reaction and would have been done by anybody but in this case it only reinforced a perception of French ineptness in military matters. Then add the defeats in Vietnam and Algeria, and the perception that "we saved there butts" in 17-18 and the total defeat of the Franco Prussian war and you can see how the US would get this erronous perception of the French surrendering (read as Loseing) in every war they fight.

Now you may all retrun to you regular scheduled rants

[Calcoran]

Actually, you may have a point there Eric ... I guess we'd have to go back to Napoleon to contradict you.
Mind you, we lost in Indochine, but Vietnam wasn't exactly a piece of cake for you either. And Algeria was pretty bad too.
Another point to consider may be that you have to ascertain the price you're willing to pay for victory or defeat. In the Ivory Coast I mean: is maintaining the ceasefire worth killing the very people you are trying to protect from themselves? How many Ivorian deaths are worth a bruised French army ego or reputation? Of course, one might argue that an army's reputation can save lives to ... that's a tough decision indeed.

Anyhow ... just trying to get my own ego back in working order .

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

Wow this is what happens when you don't log on for a day or two.

I didn't see the Powell speech (mostly because my TV still doesn't work ), but I didn't need convincing on a war with Iraq. I've seen enough and I've made up my mind.

And just off topic on the French militaries image problem, I remember my grandfather saying that the French were poor soldiers in his opinion, BUT, he held in high esteem (and so do most Polish people) the French Foreign Legion. Also, during the brieg 1920-21 war between Poland and Russia, it was a French division or regiment (made up mostly of Polish men) which was released to go fight back home. Amongst them were some French volunteers, including none other than Charles DeGaulle, whom many Poles still respect him for the deed.

And now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Eric R.]

Originally posted by Calcoran
Mind you, we lost in Indochine, but Vietnam wasn't exactly a piece of cake for you either.

And you guys tried to tell us but we just had to learn for ouselves didn't we.

Actually thats a good point many in the US military and government had the opinion that we would not loss as we were not the French. The military leadership at that time was made up of men who had been Platoon, Company and Battalion leaders in 44-45 in France. Right off the bat I can think of Abrams who was a Tanker company/battalion commander and Westmoreland who was a platoon/company leader in the 101 Airborne.

[The Transformed Man]

Guys, thought I would chime in here at this point. Some of you may remember me from the old LUG days, when I would periodically post an opinion here or there, and participate in #LUGTrek chats.

For those that don't know me, my name's Yancy, and I live in Phoenix, AZ. I served in the US Army for eight years as a 96B (Intelligence Analyst). I served almost all my time in the Republic of Panama.

I was one of USARSOs (US Army South), primary political/economic analysts covering Panama, and was one of the primary analysts tasked with following terrorist organizations and their activities in Latin America (spent a lot of time covering Sendero Luminoso aka "Shining Path" as well as following Hezbollah activities in the region).

Anyway to my point, I was mainly writing because so many people had questioned the validity of the imagery photos Sec of State Powell had shown in his UN briefing.. "how do they know what that is???" "How do they know that's a decontamination truck, it looks like a grey blob??"

Well the reason they know is simple... training. Imagery analysts are highly trained individuals who pour over hundreds of photos at a light table (usually at the cost of their sight... they don't go blind, but staring into a light table for hours on end usually results in the analyst needing glasses later on). These people know what they are looking for. They know the equipment the "bad guys" use... So when an imagery analysts says "that's an NBC decon truck," they KNOW that's what it is.

One of the main reasons it's fairly easy to determine what Sadaam is using is that he almost exclusively uses Russian/Soviet equipment (with the exception of some French, and Chinese stuff)... Heck, his armies use old Russian military doctrine... He's a pretty easy nut to crack. So, knowing that he uses primarily Soviet-era euipment, the analyst looks at the image and says,"what kind of Soviet vehicle configuration does this truck match?" Well, it could be the old Zil-131 or a Ural 375. Both trucks have a certain profile when configured for use in NBC decon... if someone put a gun to my head I'd guess the Ural 375 since the Zil is so antiquated.

Anyway, that's why these guys know what they're doing.. they know what they're looking for.


Just some thoughts,

Yancy

[The Transformed Man]

Just a note on the French. While I am none to happy with France's continued opposition to a possible war, and their assertion that the inspections must continue (hey guys, haven't we been playing this game for some 12 years now???), I do understand where Frances aversion to large-scale fighting comes from.

Simply put, France was devestated during World War I. Some statistics indicate as many a 1 in 3 men between the ages of 18-40 died fighting the war. Some smaller villages had almost their entire male population wiped out. For years Frances ratio of births compared to deathes was very alarming.

While I feel they do need to take a firm stand against Iraq, I cannot find it in myself to call the French a "bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys," like my friend Ed is inclined to call them. Heck I'm part French, my mother's maiden name was Varney, the Anglo version of Vuarnet... mainly Welsh though (I'm a second generation American).

However, also keep in mind the French are having serious internal problems with Islamic terrorists (mainly Algerian), probably more than any other European country, and France has a large Arab immigrant populace... so the French have been trying to play this delicate balancing act for fear they might incur the wrath of more Islamic terrorists.

Yancy

[qerlin]

Welcome aboard, yancy. FMR 98G/AD here...

[The Transformed Man]

HOOAH!

Ahhh, a 98G.. a "pop up target" as we were fond of calling them. Man I felt sorry for you guys.

Yancy

[Captain Novaes]

Off-topic as hell, but there you go: what are your personal opinion on the state of Latin America today ? Just curious, not trying to bait a flamewar or somesuch...

[First of Two]

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
The photos shown in the meeting were taken with a months-span between them not one day.

Um, sorry, Evan, but WRONG.

from the transcript of Powell's speech (Emphasis mine):

Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone, it's been cleaned up, and it was done on the 22nd of December, as the U.N. inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.

At this ballistic missile site, on November 10, we saw a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components. At this biological weapons related facility, on November 25, just two days before inspections resumed, this truck caravan appeared, something we almost never see at this facility, and we monitor it carefully and regularly.

At this ballistic missile facility, again, two days before inspections began, five large cargo trucks appeared along with the truck-mounted crane to move missiles. We saw this kind of house cleaning at close to 30 sites.

Days after this activity, the vehicles and the equipment that I've just highlighted disappear and the site returns to patterns of normalcy. We don't know precisely what Iraq was moving, but the inspectors already knew about these sites, so Iraq knew that they would be coming.

We must ask ourselves: Why would Iraq suddenly move equipment of this nature before inspections if they were anxious to demonstrate what they had or did not have?

And Transformed Man handled the rest of your assertion, so I won't cover that.