war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

> Certainly if faced with what was basically a war of survival for
> them I don’t see why they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend
> themselves. The only previous use of Nuclear weapons in war was to
> reduce casualties. If that is acceptable then surely national
> survival must also be an acceptable reason.

The question is not whether Israel would have used nukes to survive, it certainly would have. What is unknown is the extent of the danger perceived by Israel’s top brass and the time and whether nukes were actually deemed necessary. On the one hand you’ve got comment supposedly made by certain people of the imminent fall of the state, and on the other is the fact that Israel eventually pulled through without the need for the bomb.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

Such claims have been made, but they are false. check out what HRW had to say about the subject :
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ANFAL1.htm#P41_8395 :

—————————————-

Books on the Iran-Iraq War have routinely echoed the unsubstantiated report that both sides had used chemical weapons in Halabja. This notion originated in a study for the U.S. Army War College: Stephen C. Pelletiere, Douglas V. Johnson II and Leif R. Rosenberger, Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East (Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1990). It is repeated in a later book by Pelletiere, a former U.S. intelligence officer, The Iran-Iraq War: Chaos in a Vacuum (New York: Praeger, 1992). This strongly pro-Iraqi work comments, “On May 23 (sic), in fighting over the town, gas was used by both sides. As a result scores (sic) of Iraqi Kurdish civilians were killed. It is now fairly certain that Iranian gas killed the Kurds.” (pp. 136-137)

The supposed factual basis for this conclusion is that the Halabja victims had blue lips, characteristic of the effects of cyanide gas–which Iraq was not believed to possess. Cyanide gas, a metabolic poison, would indeed produce blue lips, but they are far from being a specific indicator of its use. Nerve agents, which are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors that cause respiratory paralysis, would also turn victims’ lips blue.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

JJ

Well, at least Israel doesn’t use WMD on its own population, and neither on its enemies… I don’t see what Israeli nukes have anything remotely to do with this anyway.

JJ, the point being that the French who you were getting on about Osirak were also the ones that happily supplied Israel with it’s nuclear kit (namely, the Dimona reactor and the Jericho missile technology).

As for Halajah, aren’t they saying that it came from the Iranians now?

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

Good point Icarus but also a view with blinders: US supplied several tons of DIA intel. Looking even more at hindsight (years back) it looks like that Israeli strike against the French nuke reactor in Iraq using U.S. made aircraft was a good idea.

“We’re coming after YOU !”

Rabie,

I like the other Uncle Sam poster better that is popular in the USN:

“We’re coming after YOU !”

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

“> isreal seriously considered using nukes when it felt it was loosing
> aginst the arabs.

No one really knows for sure. Israel’s leaders at the time are now dead and it will decades before a defenitive answer is available.”

We can’t know for sure but I think we can make reasonable guesses.

I doubt they had nuclear weapons so they could commit suicide as Arab forces were walking up the steps (ie suicide to prevent capture).

Certainly if faced with what was basically a war of survival for them I don’t see why they wouldn’t use nuclear weapons to defend themselves. The only previous use of Nuclear weapons in war was to reduce casualties. If that is acceptable then surely national survival must also be an acceptable reason.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-02-03 AT 11:02 AM (GMT)]Two points:

The assumption that the USA will always come to Israel’s aid is not necessarily true. It may seem like the case today, but it was not always like this (1948, 1956, 1967) and it will not necessarily be so in the future. That is why Israel must first and foremost depend on itself – looking beyond the “now” is quite a good idea.

Also, Troy asked “whether Israel really needs WMD due to its strategic relationship with the US”. The question has it the wrong way around – Israel developed nukes exactly because there was a time when no such relationship existed. Most serious authors on the subject point out that Israel turned to developing nukes after JFK refused Ben-Gurion’s request for an official defence treaty between the two nations. Furthermore, Israel’s strategic relationship may very well exist due to the existance of an Israeli nuclear arsenal: The provision of military aid was designed, among other things, to prevent Israel from relying on unconventional weapons for its defence, providing it with a sophisticated yet conventional arsenal instead. Looking at it this way, you can also get an added measure of why the US aided Israel during the 1973 war when it didn’t do so before – because Israel wasn’t perceived to be nuclear before.

> a little bit of history that may have slipped ur mind is that
> isreal seriously considered using nukes when it felt it was loosing
> aginst the arabs.

No one really knows for sure. Israel’s leaders at the time are now dead and it will decades before a defenitive answer is available.

—————————————-
” So you think you are strong because you can survive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see. Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! “

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-02-03 AT 01:08 AM (GMT)]You do raise a valid question, Sauron. What exactly did Israel have to worry about back then and even now. We all know the US will come to its aid in its hour of need. Some can even argue whether Israel really needs WMD due to its strategic relationship with the US. Theres a reason why Israel is often referred to as the 51st state.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

Well if it was shown on TV it must be true.

Anyway, what did Israel have to worry about? …after all it was only surrounded by a dozen countries who wished to kill it’s entire population which was outnumbered 100 to 1. Nothing to worry about.

Sauron

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

a little bit of history that may have slipped ur mind is that isreal seriously considered using nukes when it felt it was loosing aginst the arabs.

and no, i didnt just get that from ‘the sum of all fears’, it was on a documenty shown on the history channel in england.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 10-02-03 AT 10:59 PM (GMT)]Well, at least Israel doesn’t use WMD on its own population, and neither on its enemies… I don’t see what Israeli nukes have anything remotely to do with this anyway.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

Great link, Icarus!

And be sure to thank the French for Dimona and your *ahem*
indigenous Jericho missiles.

Yes, France has got quite a history of vague arms deals. Sometimes they are called Nesher.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

And be sure to thank the French for Dimona and your *ahem* indigenous Jericho missiles.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

I am wondering myself why there should be an agreement. Most europeans won´t never accept the war and most americans approves it. So why are we trying to convice each other?. We have the right to oppose the war and not going and the US to go alone. Why the insistence is finding allies support?.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 10-02-03 AT 11:39 AM (GMT)]And where’s the picture showing a young PM Chirac and Saddam, with Chirac looking especially happy after selling Iraq a nuclear reactor?

Here’s an interesting read:
[link:www.timmerman2000.com/news/insight_iraqwmd.htm|How Saddam Got Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam’s European helpers]
[link:www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2003122152014.htm|France motivated by its own oil argument]

Interesting read, don’t you guys think?

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld…

Nough said. Look no further than the U.S to see who supplied what to Iraq.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

Don´t think only Germans and French public oppinions don´t support the war, but all the single countries. I feel that they are the only ones to do what their populations want them to do. Why they do it?. well, they are powerful enough to say what they really feel. The rest of the european countries who have shown shy and a forced aproval are into a net of interests to support the US administration (for example, Spain the support and assistance of the White House in our fight against ETA, and the American support in the Ceuta and Melilla conflict with Morocco). Appart from listening to their citizens will, they have economic interests as far as France is concerned and in the case of Germany (which pacifism is quite strong) it would mean the end of Schroeder. Also, interpret it as a attempt to gain an independant outlook to the UN decissions, and to restore european dignity. Of course to lead the way for future european independence.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

rabie :9
Attachments:

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 05-02-03 AT 10:36 AM (GMT)]I can’t believe what I am reading.

Germany and France are not wanting war in Iraq because they are guilty of supplying the Iraqis with dual use machinery?

Germany and France don’t want democracy to spread through the middle east.

Germany and France want to feel powerful again because the US is so strong.

Couldn’t possibly be because the threshold for going to war should be to defend against agression rather than to change a government that is not currently popular.

The US can’t even offer democracy to the new Iraq… what would happen if the Kurds wanted a referendum for autonomy?
That would be wonderful for stability in the region… how long do you think it would be before Turkey has to invade Northern Iraq and finish the job saddam started.
Even if they tied the Kurds into a binding agreement not to be a problem I don’t think democracy in Saudi Arabia is on anyone in the wests agenda.

I saw UK foreign secretary Jack Straw say that there are no direct ties between Saddam and Al Qada. What saddam is guilty of is allowing an environment in which Al Qada can grow and operate. Of course he doesn’t mention that that environment is Northern Iraq in the UN enforced no fly zone and that the Al Qada are just filling the vaccuum created when the US initiated an uprising and then abandoned those who rose up.

It is also Ironic that Blair and others have criticised the German leader for making a statement that would not allow for a change of heart later… I kinda thought that was what Bush and Blair were doing when they started their “lets remove saddam from power” campaign.

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

You want the reason for the current german position. Internal politics. The current social democrats/green government is very weak. They only won the last general election by playing the anti war card – and even then they barely won.
The last weekend saw elections in 2 of the federal states (Bundesländer) and even though Mr. Schröder again played the anti war card (“Vote Social Democrats to stopp the war in Irak”) the social democrats were clearly defeated.

The current government is desperately holding on to power as it has lost support with the majority of the population. The unemployment rate has reached the highest numbers since reunfication, german economy is down, fuel costs more then ever before, taxes have reached an all time high, …..

Given these problems the anti war stance was/is the only chance for the current government to find support in the population. And that is why they are taking that position.
Or in other words the government is so weak, it can not risk to behave against the public opinion in that question.

And public opinion is against the war in nearly every european country.