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

Remove all ads!

Sorry, Ruler -- I really thought that BTA was speaking to the implications of the UN resolution. That would of course cover many areas. IMO, it will really help Bush's prestige and credibility here in the states. Unless you live under a rock here, you would understand the impact it has had on the psychology of the American electorate. What else does he have to hang his Texas hat on without the "war on terror?" Not much, IMO. The elections are every four years.

 

I looked up Godwin's law too. I don't think it has been invoked. Poland's history consitsts mainly in being no independent state and being divided by it's neighbouring countries (Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Russia) over and over and over again. That happend also in WW2, but has no direct connection to the German-leading-party at that time. It was just a sort of "follow the old tradition". Today, Polands history is all invoked all over newspapers in Europe, because it is such an obvious link, a country which was occupied for centuries (and has a history of fighting foreign occupation) is now going to occupy others.

Sidenote: Polish history gives cities like Cracow it's unique Italian-Austrian-Polish flair.

 

If i see Albanian troops in the Iraq i will die from laughing these guys can't protect their own country or enforce the law in their country now they will go abroad we are talking about a total parody.
Anyway i don't think that the UN resolution legitimizes the war. I believe it just let it pass without a comment.
The real worry is not to have Bushs brain to get a new idea in repeating this with other countries (which belong to the axis of evil) as well.

 

BTA,
you're perfectly right - the point is that for the average US citizen international law is far out and the nature of the UN a mystery. The US president is much closer, much more familiar. The UN for them is an alien body and met with distrust, further fueled by destructive right-wing propaganda.

It's some kind of a bitter joke: The problems of the world are globalising and the US decide that they can only meet them alone only to see that this is not that easy (some may remind the stationing dispute with turkey in the prelude to the iraq war).
The "we stand alone" approach at home is even welcomed as the US seemingly are drunk for joy in face of their own firepower. But every economy has limitations and a war, costing $ 1.000.000,-- per shot, isn't something you can repeat on and on. The same applies to bribery.

After the brilliant US-voting success: Has anyone asked what price the US paid to make the others agree? Most certainly the rest of the world didn't suddenly recognise the moral superiority of the US and stopped dissenting in regret.

The US were forced to make a compromise - the UN forced itself back into iraq (allowing french and russian influence and participation) and lifts the sanctions. This resolution is a french and russian success - they got out the best result possible after not beeing able to stop that war. The US wanted the UN out of iraq originally. That didn't qquite work: Now it's back in and the US celebrate a success. Oh yeah, sure

 

Besides, the resolution didn't legitimise the war against iraq. The war, as a violation of international law, namely the UN charter, remains illegal! That, besides, was clearly expressed by the german minister Fischer.

The new resolution is mainly about how to govern post-war iraq. Nothing less, nothing more. The US had to make quite a compromise. They had to agree that the security council has to check on the success of this very resolution for further development of iraq and there is the option in it to re-establish UN inspectors in iraq.

I clearly remember Rumsfeld ranting something like "There is no role for the UN in post-war iraq!". The resolution is a "glorious defeat" for the US. Powell stating that france made a step in the right direction is a little misleading. The US were the ones to step - step back. France led. It's like dancing tango

 

Bad, very bad. I don't think they teach Polish history anywhere, but heh, it does belong to general Europe's history and that is taught.

Poland was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria during the three partitions - 1772, 1793 and 1795. Several mock-independent states had been created. Poland reclaimed independence in 1918 to lose it in 1944 (communist usurpation, another mock-independent state, People's Republic of Poland, excuse my swearing) and then reclaim it again in 1989.

As the history of Poland as a state begins in 966 together with the Baptism of Mieszko, the Prince and Duke at that time, basic calculation proves that the 123 years of being partitioned constitute 12% of 1037 years total. That's not most of the time Well, one could add another 80 years of de facto dependence from Russia, 5 years of Czech rulers occupying the throne (1300-1305) and a few forced vassalisations to German Emperors (revoked immediately after they left ), 2 years under almost total Swedish occupation (however freed by own army with relatively small foreign reinforcements and that's all the Swedes had got from us apart from asskicking even when they otunmbered us 5 to 1) and two electors of Saxony 'chosen' as Kings (1697-1733 and 1736-1763) who behaved like the Georges of Hannover in England, but that's still like 30% even if we count periods when Poland existed as a state. Being partially or in whole under physical occupation is another thing, heh.

However, Poland does know what foreign occupation is. Hell yes, wars all the time, won 99% of them until 1795 - yes, it didn't take a war but corrupt parliament members to partition Poland. We also know how difficult it is to rise from such a condition and rebuild it all practically from scratch with about 30% population killed one way or another. That's why I don't really like to see Polish troops as occupants, simply as it is.

However, someone must keep the order there, once this Dubya's war is finally over and there's no real difference what country the soldiers are from as the job simply has to be done. From what I know they are really going to keep the order until the Iraqis finally form some government suitable for US enough to withdraw and not exercise occupant's rights and duties in practice as though they were in a conquered country. I believe it will be so, since the soldiers know their history (well, just imagine our education system )...

 

Lol, chevalier, I actually was hoping you jump in.

Yes, thanks for the detailed outline. My point still is, which you are actually supporting, it has something traditional to it, and no specific relation to the German goverment of the 30ies.

You know what worries me the most. Taking the polish is actually a brillant idea. They have ties to Iraq, they're troops are better prepared then the Americans and a lot of Polish know the country.

That is what bothers me. The Americans have found a very able ally, while on the same time celebrating their "unliateralism". The Polish troops will, at least that's what I read, be able to do the job a lot better then the Americans. But don't expect the Americans to be thankful. The Polish have to be thankful to have been sent to Iraq, not Americans, that the Polish are trying to get the coal out of the fire for them.

Still, there is a risk, that a civil wars or an "uprising" breaks out in Iraq. Who's going to be in the frontline then ?

 

Probably the Polish lads

Like in the war. We can't take that hill, so we have Poles go there and they do, heh.

 

Jeez. I used to think I was cynical about Shrub's motivations, and then I started encountering Orwellian theories such as this one. There is such a thing as being too paranoid.

Tal, you're right, it is rather disturbing that the hawks never even mention WMDs now. It's even more disturbing that the supposedly liberal media here in America isn't calling them on it. It's ridiculous.

I also definitely agree with you that my nation's dominance in the international arena is a serious problem. Hey, I like my country, but one nation having so much power and influence is rather dictatorial. Sure, we're mostly a benevelent dictator, but still a dictator. (Before anyone points it out, I do realize the limitations on America's power in the world are more significant than, say, the limitations on Jong-Il's in North Korea. It's analogy. It only goes so far.)

 

Benevolent dictator ... ... well, the last remaining superpower unfortunately is a wee bit generous with how to judge its deeds and how to judge other's deeds. For quite a lot of countries they US aren't benevolent by any means - sure, they bring freedom and democracy. Economical freedom (as long as you have money) and political freedom (as long as you don't prefer to vote for commies and islamists) ...

It is a little more than just a beneviolent dictator: The US have announced to want to fight a perpetual war, over years and years and that Iraq has just been the first battle in it. Yeah, speak about fighting terror

Ah yes, terrorists: Indeed, once upon a time there were a couple of people who called themselves Al-Quaida ... now we only hear about the axis of evil. This axis is naming three countries, that, in the eyes of the hawks, are on the target list for 20 years now, beeing evil "rogue states". Worse! Now the axis consists only of two countries? Who'll be filling the gap?

It's just question of time until Rumsfeld spooks see in their swoolen crystal balls that North Korea is giving it's WMDs to terrorists - I **** my pants already by only thinking about it.
Listen America! It is true that NKs missiles can't reach you - even more as you under the mighty (yet unproven) shild of our mighty, multibillion dollar National Missile Defence ... ... but their terrorists can reach you while you sleep ... or worse: watch football ... and take your babies away to make them braindead suicide bombers!

Iran's humiliated the US by holding it's embassy hostage for a year or so during the revolution, worse, the mighty US were unable to rescue their people. Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney and Wolfowitz sat in the pentagon these days. Seemingly they've never forgot that.
For their closeness to israel the neocons are also called Likudniks - so it has to be added that the iranians were financing the Hizbollah, the group that eventually managed to drive out israel ouut of lebanon - another blow for the west. Evil mullahs will continue to spook their nightmares.

Besides, recently Bush has mentioned something like dealing with cuba ... bay of pigs galore! They want to free the (well, indeed they are) oppressed cubans from the evil whip of their commie dictator. Besides of beeing ruled authoritarian the cubans have a splendid medical system (not high tech but a good average standard) and a very high alphabetisation rate, unmatched even in the US - things they are rightfully proud of.
The cubans are indeed a threat to the southern flank, the soft underbelly of the US (even more with their reputation as hot latin lovers - lock your wives away, the cubans come!). Every cigar and every cuba libre contains a subversive commie message! There are rumours that they continue to plot evil: Seemingly they intend to flood the US marked with the RED Che Guevara coke! That cannot be tolerated! Cuba is a threat for the american way of life! They are extremely evil and highly dangerous, but hey, admittedly thay are a piece of cake militaryily ... .... another glorious vioctory is closer than ever. Hmm, maybe they eventually found a worthy predecessor for Iraq.

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030420Eland.html

 

Everybody needs someone to be afraid of - some more, some less The US make a policy of fear, demonising their enemies, none of them who's not at least megalomanic, otherwise insane or an 14th or 15th Hitler ... ... that makes it easier to be afraid of them ... but we're getting

 

Going back to Tal's post above, Bush didn't actually make up the plan to go after Iraq/Saddam. Bill CLinton did.

He signed the bill authorizing a policy of regime change in Iraq prior to leaving office.

**************************************************

Here's an interesting quote I stumbled across. I kinda liked it:

Powell Quote


When in England at a fairly large conference,
Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury
if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the
United States has sent many of its fine young men
and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we
have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those
that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

 

Does the silence of a British lord legitimize wars in the Middle-East ? What had the Middle-East to do with the Second World War ?

 

One doesn't need any sovereignty over land to rule, economic means are enough. Or the innocent name of 'protectorate'. Whatever.

Oh, and it seems US has as many female soldiers as male ones and the traditions of hiring each gender of soldiers are equally old. Long live political correctness, heh.