Backpedal much?

[Guest Vyce]

First there's this:

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi Republican Guard military units south of Baghdad may now have chemical munitions filled with a form of VX nerve agent as well as mustard gas, U.S. military officials Tuesday told CNN.

 

Officials base the possibility on intelligence reports that include the monitoring of Iraqi military communications.

 

The United States also has indications of sabotage against oil fields in the southern Iraqi region of Rumailah, where at least one oil well has been spilling crude into the desert for over 24 hours. The United States believes the spill is deliberate, and that it is an effort to create a physical obstacle in the desert to hinder the movement of U.S. troops.

 

Overhead surveillance has detected additional oil spillage under way at other wells. The United States is trying to determine whether the wells have been uncapped or if the safety valves have been removed. Those valves would automatically stop the flow of crude oil if there is an accident.

 

A U.S. military official also confirms to CNN that new radio messages are being broadcast into Iraq, telling Iraqi military units precisely how to indicate their surrender to U.S. forces.

 

The message calls for Iraqi troops to leave their weapons and vehicles in the field and return to their barracks. Iraqi officers would be permitted to keep sidearms. Iraqi military units who follow the surrender protocol and present no threat to U.S. forces will be left alone.

 

The Pentagon hopes Iraqi units will follow these rules of surrender so that the U.S. military will not be bogged down with potentially having to handle hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war.

 

 

******

 

Which leads to:

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.

 

"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation.

 

"But I confirm it would change completely the perception and the situation for us," said Jean-David Levitte, who told CNN he hoped that biological and chemical weapons would not be used.

 

In Paris, officials emphasized Tuesday that Levitte's remarks were based on what a spokesman in the foreign minister's office called a "strictly hypothetical question."

 

And an official in the French president's office referred to statements made Monday by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said, "If the U.S. and our allies face a new and unforeseen situation in a new crisis, France would obviously be on their side to show solidarity in the face of an exceptional crisis."

 

Although Levitte declined to give details on the possible shape of French participation, he said: "We have equipment to fight in these circumstances."

 

When asked why the situation would change matters, Levitte said that "no army is allowed by treaties to use chemical and biological weapons. This is absolutely forbidden and if Saddam Hussein were to use these weapons then he would a create a completely new situation for the whole world."

 

Levitte also said France would want the United States to go back to the United Nations and participate in a Security Council resolution that would include humanitarian aid and assistance for a post-Saddam Iraq.

 

Earlier Tuesday, Chirac said "force is the very last resort" in the standoff with Iraq.

 

"France's viewpoint is shared by a large majority of the international community. The last debates at the Security Council have clearly shown that they were not willing to hurry through measures that would lead to war," Chirac said in a televised statement.

 

"The United States presented an ultimatum to Iraq, whether or not this was concerned with the disarmament of Iraq or not or of a much-hoped-for regime change inside the country, there is no justification for this unilateral resort to war."

 

Chirac described U.S. President George W. Bush's ultimatum "a very serious decision, in the light of the Iraqi moves towards disarmament and while the inspections were proving to be a credible alternative to disarm the country."

 

The French premier urged maintaining the unity of the Security Council over Resolution 1441.

 

"It's also a decision that calls into question the future of the efforts to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," he said. "Whatever is the future of these events, this ultimatum puts into question the idea we have of international relations."

 

--CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel, Correspondent Jim Bittermann and Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report

 

*****

 

Too little, too late for me, Froggies.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

First there's this:

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraqi Republican Guard military units south of Baghdad may now have chemical munitions filled with a form of VX nerve agent as well as mustard gas, U.S. military officials Tuesday told CNN.

 

Officials base the possibility on intelligence reports that include the monitoring of Iraqi military communications.

 

The United States also has indications of sabotage against oil fields in the southern Iraqi region of Rumailah, where at least one oil well has been spilling crude into the desert for over 24 hours. The United States believes the spill is deliberate, and that it is an effort to create a physical obstacle in the desert to hinder the movement of U.S. troops.

 

Overhead surveillance has detected additional oil spillage under way at other wells. The United States is trying to determine whether the wells have been uncapped or if the safety valves have been removed. Those valves would automatically stop the flow of crude oil if there is an accident.

 

A U.S. military official also confirms to CNN that new radio messages are being broadcast into Iraq, telling Iraqi military units precisely how to indicate their surrender to U.S. forces.

 

The message calls for Iraqi troops to leave their weapons and vehicles in the field and return to their barracks. Iraqi officers would be permitted to keep sidearms. Iraqi military units who follow the surrender protocol and present no threat to U.S. forces will be left alone.

 

The Pentagon hopes Iraqi units will follow these rules of surrender so that the U.S. military will not be bogged down with potentially having to handle hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war.

 

 

******

 

Which leads to:

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.

 

"If the war starts and if (President) Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons, it would change completely the situation for the French president and for the French government, and President (Jacques) Chirac will have to decide what we will do to help the American troops to confront this new situation.

 

"But I confirm it would change completely the perception and the situation for us," said Jean-David Levitte, who told CNN he hoped that biological and chemical weapons would not be used.

 

In Paris, officials emphasized Tuesday that Levitte's remarks were based on what a spokesman in the foreign minister's office called a "strictly hypothetical question."

 

And an official in the French president's office referred to statements made Monday by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who said, "If the U.S. and our allies face a new and unforeseen situation in a new crisis, France would obviously be on their side to show solidarity in the face of an exceptional crisis."

 

Although Levitte declined to give details on the possible shape of French participation, he said: "We have equipment to fight in these circumstances."

 

When asked why the situation would change matters, Levitte said that "no army is allowed by treaties to use chemical and biological weapons. This is absolutely forbidden and if Saddam Hussein were to use these weapons then he would a create a completely new situation for the whole world."

 

Levitte also said France would want the United States to go back to the United Nations and participate in a Security Council resolution that would include humanitarian aid and assistance for a post-Saddam Iraq.

 

Earlier Tuesday, Chirac said "force is the very last resort" in the standoff with Iraq.

 

"France's viewpoint is shared by a large majority of the international community. The last debates at the Security Council have clearly shown that they were not willing to hurry through measures that would lead to war," Chirac said in a televised statement.

 

"The United States presented an ultimatum to Iraq, whether or not this was concerned with the disarmament of Iraq or not or of a much-hoped-for regime change inside the country, there is no justification for this unilateral resort to war."

 

Chirac described U.S. President George W. Bush's ultimatum "a very serious decision, in the light of the Iraqi moves towards disarmament and while the inspections were proving to be a credible alternative to disarm the country."

 

The French premier urged maintaining the unity of the Security Council over Resolution 1441.

 

"It's also a decision that calls into question the future of the efforts to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," he said. "Whatever is the future of these events, this ultimatum puts into question the idea we have of international relations."

 

--CNN State Department Correspondent Andrea Koppel, Correspondent Jim Bittermann and Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report

 

*****

 

Too little, too late for me, Froggies.

Well, if we have a small area of Iraq we REALLY want the Iraqis to take back, I suppose we could deploy the French Surrender Force to get that job done.

-=Mike --- A War Without the French is like, well, World War II

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I don't think this is much of a surprise.

 

If they launch the WMDs, the UN's inspectors were wrong, and as such, more people are willing to get involved.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

A war with France is like having an accordion at a deer hunt. Or something like that.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Double Post

[Guest JMA]

I expect a lot of dumbass nationalist comments about this. Including, but not limited to:

 

"Hwah! Hwah! Hwah! The French are quitters! They always give up! I have a red, penis shaped car!"

 

"We don't need no stinkin' frogs!"

 

"Let's bomb France next!"

 

"They stole our flag colors!"

[Guest Powerplay]

I expect a lot of dumbass nationalist comments about this. Including, but not limited to:

 

"Hwah! Hwah! Hwah! The French are quitters! They always give up! I have a red, penis shaped car!"

 

"We don't need no stinkin' frogs!"

 

"Let's bomb France next!"

 

"They stole our flag colors!"

Hey, and we expected you to defend France for no good reason, like:

 

"Hey, they gave us help over 200 years ago (And incidentally, it was the last time)."

 

"Don't discriminate against the French even though they discriminate against you."

 

"Just because they refuse to let the UN work is not a reason to dislike them."

 

"Hey, after bailing them out in two World Wars and basically rebuilding them both times, they need not give us any respect."

 

Again, Dreamer, what have the French done to get any praise from us other than being uptight, holier-than-thou assholes?

[Guest JMA]

Again, JMA, what have the French done to get any praise from us other than being uptight, holier-than-thou assholes?

And we're NOT holier-than-thou assholes? Don't get me wrong, I've bashed the French before--but that was just in fun, it wasn't a vicious attack. I just don't want people judging and generalizing French citizens just because their goverment and ours don't see eye to eye.

[Guest Powerplay]

Again, JMA, what have the French done to get any praise from us other than being uptight, holier-than-thou assholes?

And we're NOT holier-than-thou assholes? Don't get me wrong, I've bashed the French before--but that was just in fun, it wasn't a vicious attack. I just don't want people judging and generalizing French citizens just because their goverment and ours don't see eye to eye.

You know, I've talked with many people who have gone to France before, and they said the citizenry treated them like dirt. The citizens and the government don't have much love for Americans, unless they were around during the 40's.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I expect a lot of dumbass nationalist comments about this. Including, but not limited to:

 

"Hwah! Hwah! Hwah! The French are quitters! They always give up! I have a red, penis shaped car!"

 

"We don't need no stinkin' frogs!"

 

"Let's bomb France next!"

 

"They stole our flag colors!"

I love that France's blatantly economic reasons for opposing all of this has gotten so little play with the left.

 

I mean, how many times have we heard that Bush is doing this for oil?

 

We know, for a fact, that oil is why France opposes this. Ditto Russia. It's not even a topic for debate.

 

What make France's stance moral?

-=Mike

[Guest NoCalMike]

Okay, then would it be fair to say France is taking their stance to avoid losing oil, and we are doing this to gain more oil? Look Bush had to to flip-flop a few different times as to why exactly we are going to pre-emptively strike Iraq, and I am almost positive we are yet to hear the truth.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Okay, then would it be fair to say France is taking their stance to avoid losing oil, and we are doing this to gain more oil? Look Bush had to to flip-flop a few different times as to why exactly we are going to pre-emptively strike Iraq, and I am almost positive we are yet to hear the truth.

Bush has never once claimed oil and oil was never a major reason (if oil was a reason, we would have conquered Iraq years ago).

 

He's said we're doing this to make the U.N relevant (true, but horribly misguided)

He's said we're doing it because he's a threat to us (also true)

He's said we're doing it because he supports terrorism (true).

 

The only OTHER reason I MIGHT buy is payback for Saddam trying to kill his father a few years back --- which is a much better reason to attack Iraq than to cover up a hummer from a chunky intern.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

Bush has never once claimed oil and oil was never a major reason (if oil was a reason, we would have conquered Iraq years ago).

You might not agree oil is the main reason for war (and it isn't, IMO) but you can't deny it IS a factor. Heck, even some conservatives on the board admit that.

 

Edit: forgot to put "not."

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Bush has never once claimed oil and oil was never a major reason (if oil was a reason, we would have conquered Iraq years ago).

You might agree oil is the main reason for war (and it isn't, IMO) but you can't deny it IS a factor. Heck, even some conservatives on the board admit that.

It is not a motivating factor.

 

Again --- if we wanted the oil, we could've taken it years ago.

-=Mike

[Guest NoCalMike]

Bush has never once claimed oil and oil was never a major reason (if oil was a reason, we would have conquered Iraq years ago).

 

He's said we're doing this to make the U.N relevant (true, but horribly misguided)

He's said we're doing it because he's a threat to us (also true)

He's said we're doing it because he supports terrorism (true).

 

The only OTHER reason I MIGHT buy is payback for Saddam trying to kill his father a few years back --- which is a much better reason to attack Iraq than to cover up a hummer from a chunky intern.

-=Mike

Well of course Bush isn't going to say we are going into a country to take their resources, I am sure that would win some people over!?! Bush needed a reason for people to get behind. Sept 11th inadvertantly(sp?) happened, which he first tried to use as his first reason, which never amounted to much. Why do you think the possibility of war in the middle east was so high on Sept 12th, but has been declining ever since?

 

Why is Iraq a threat to the USA? What "plans for an attack" have been talked about? Why is it that Bush has fumbled and stumbled through several empty explanations as to why we are pre-emptively striking Iraq, all of which fell through and conviently never mentioned again(When was the last time he has linked Saddam to 9/11, rather than just "terrorism" in general)

 

The one point I won't even try to refute is that he supports terrorism.

[Guest DrTom]

Why is Iraq a threat to the USA?

The one point I won't even try to refute is that he supports terrorism.

You answered your own question there.

[Guest NoCalMike]

"supports terrorism" is a very vague statement though. It is perfectly acceptable to assume he has little to nothing to do with any attack on or against America.

[Guest teke184]

We can't even refine the particular variety of oil found in Iraq without some major modifications to our existing equipment. The oil companies have plants all up and down the river where I live and people who have worked there say that the equipment is all set up for the lower-grade oil from places like Venezuela.

 

If we were going to war over oil, we'd be down in Venezuela trying to solve the goddamn civil war there and get things back to normal.

 

That being said, the oil companies ARE screwing people over right now... Any oil bought today would not reach the marketplace for TWO YEARS due to the extensive refining and manufacturing process, so this outrageous rise in prices over the last two months is blatant profiteering. Hell, when prices all over the nation were above $2 a gallon around 9/11, my area was still only paying about $1.50 or so a gallon because of all the oil plants in the area... Today, our average price has gone above $1.70 and is reaching record levels while areas with no oil production are seeing prices only slightly above average.

[Guest JMA]

I think it's safe to assume that every dictator in the Middle East "supports" terrorism.

[Guest NoCalMike]

It is also safe to say we have supported terrorists. So I guess we have the unique privelage to pick and choose when a terrorist is with us or against us.

[Guest Powerplay]

It is also safe to say we have supported terrorists. So I guess we have the unique privelage to pick and choose when a terrorist is with us or against us.

1) Which terrorists did we support AFTER they became terrorists? We supported Osama indirectly by supporting Afganistan against the Russian invasion, gave a token amount of weapons to Saddam before we found out what he was capable of, but who after that?

 

2) Saddam gives $25,000 American to the families of homicide bombers. He's gave millions of dollars to Osama Bin Laden in the mid 90's. This is not supportive of terrorism?

[Guest JMA]

It is also safe to say we have supported terrorists. So I guess we have the unique privelage to pick and choose when a terrorist is with us or against us.

Sad, but true.

[Guest B-X]

1) Which terrorists did we support AFTER they became terrorists? We supported Osama indirectly by supporting Afganistan against the Russian invasion, gave a token amount of weapons to Saddam before we found out what he was capable of, but who after that?

 

1951- CIA is involved in a coup to overthrow nationalist Primeminister Dr. Muhammed Mossadeq in Iran. Supports Iranian military in massacre of Mossadeq supporters and returns the Shah to power.

 

1963- The CIA have South Vietnemese president Ngo Dinh Diem overthrown and assasinated for supporting negotiations with the north.

 

1965- CIA provokes a coup that leads to the overthrow of Indonesian leader Sukarno, who is replaced by General Suharto. In the follow ing weeks between 500,000 and one million people are murdered by death squads using lists provided by US State Department.

 

1973- After interfering in Chilean elections in 1958 and 1964, the CIA begins a campaign of sabotage and terror after leftist Salvadore Allende is elected president in 1970. In 1973, a CIA supported coup overthrew and assassinated Allende and installed fascist General Pinochet, resulting in thousands of murders over the next two decades. This year in France, former U.S. secretary of state, Henry Kissinger was served a (mostly symbolic) warrant for arrest as a war criminal for his role in the coup.

 

1989- US invades Panama to overthrow and "arrest" Manuel Noriega, who has been on the CIA payroll since 1966 and supported through decades of drug running, political assassination and corrupt elections. After the invasion, which included the fire bombing of an entire urban ghetto, human rights observers uncover mass graves and estimate that over 4,000 died during the invasion.

 

I could go on and on. And this is only one agency folks. Looky at all them names folks. All of the biggest dictators of the latter 20th century, and they all share one lovely link.

[Guest teke184]

We didn't support Pol Pot or General Idi Amin to my knowledge and they were high on the list for wanton killing of their citizens.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Another time we have supported a dictator was in Gautamala... and because of that, many people have been slaughtered (My girlfriend spent three years down there as part of the peace corp, and she told me about that) over the years.

 

And we gave a lot of aid to Iraq back in the 80's, before we realized that0 "gee, maybe this Saddam guy isn't such great a guy".

 

One last thing about our history, I wish we had learned the French's lesson of not getting invloved in Indochina, and stayed the F*** out. 60000 dead US soldiers and over 2 million dead Viatamese later, to prove that old addage "Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat".

[Guest NoCalMike]

it is a fucking joke and insult to our own CIA/intelligence groups to suggest we didn't know "what Saddam was capable of" or that Osama Bin Ladin was a fucking nutcase terrorist. As if they just suddenly turned anti-american over night. Traditionally our government has used whoever and whatever it needs AT THE MOMEMT, and worries about the consequences later.

[Guest Brian]

Actually, Bush came out during his speech and told the Iraqs not to burn their oil fields, rather blatantly. Surprised the hell out of me.

[Guest DrTom]

... or that Osama Bin Ladin was a fucking nutcase terrorist. As if they just suddenly turned anti-american over night. 

Actually, they pretty much did. It's widely accepted that Usama bin Laden didn't develop his hatred for the US until 1991, when we "occupied the Holy Land" during Desert Storm (when our troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia). In the 80s, we supported him because he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

 

A lot of these things look terrible in retrospect, but hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, we felt we were making the best decisions. Have we been wrong? Of course. Is there blood on our hands? Certainly; no country is perfect and no country is wholly innocent. However, to cite examples of what we did in the past and try to say that we're no better than terrorists is moral relativism, which is both incredibly stupid and dangerous.

[Guest DrTom]

Actually, Bush came out during his speech and told the Iraqs not to burn their oil fields, rather blatantly. Surprised the hell out of me.

Think about it. A burning oil field is a big problem to contend with in combat, and the fumes will spread around the area, affecting both soldiers and civilians. It's an ecological nightmare. Also, presuming we're able to install a new government in Iraq, precisely what marketable commodity do they have to sell besides oil? If Saddam burns the oil fields (and removes the safety valves, which stops the auto-cutoff feature), he's potentially crippling the economy for whichever regime follows him.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Unfortunately, I think Saddam will do just that. He did it before in Kuwait. I think Saddam will try to bring everything down with him.