Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Rumsfeld Says NATO 'Disgrace'!!!


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:26 PM

The actions of Belgium, France and Germany are absolutetly
disgraceful. The 'old Europe' rears it's ugly head unwilling
to boost defenses for fellow NATO country Turkey.
----------
Rumsfeld Says 'Disgrace' NATO Not Bolstering Turkey
Mon Feb 10, 3:06 AM ET


PARIS (Reuters) - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview on Monday it was a disgrace that France, Germany and Belgium were blocking NATO efforts to boost Turkey's defenses before a war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld told eight European newspapers that these countries, which he referred to simply as "certain member countries," would be condemned by their own people and other members of the 19-nation Atlantic Alliance.

France, Germany and Belgium refused to go along last week with NATO efforts to boost defenses in Turkey, which could be one of the staging points for an attack on neighboring Iraq.

Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said Belgium and France would block a NATO plan to boost Turkey's defenses in case of a war with Iraq.

Michel told France's Europe 1 radio that the two countries would voice their objections to the plan before a 4 a.m. EST deadline on Monday, after which the 19-member alliance would reinforce Turkey's defenses if no state opposed this.

"Certain member countries have blocked this request. I think this is a disgrace," Rumsfeld said, according to the French text in Le Figaro.

"These countries will be judged by their own people and the other members of the Alliance," he said.

Rumsfeld said Turkey had asked NATO to give it protective measures such as AWACS planes and equipment to counter chemical and biological weapons.

Diplomats said the standoff at NATO, in itself of little substance, is a glaring symptom of the malaise in relations between the United States and countries that Rumsfeld has labelled "old Europe."

From Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell told "Fox News Sunday" he found the move "inexcusable."

"I hope they will think differently by the time that they have to make a judgment tomorrow," Powell said.

"This is the time for NATO to rally and to stand behind one of our NATO colleagues that may be put at risk, not by the United States but by Iraq. And so I hope that the Germans and the French and the Belgians will think differently about this over the next 24 hours."
  • 0

#2 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:34 PM

Rumsfeld better hope Blix bails him out of this mess.
  • 0

#3 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:44 PM

The US has serious reservations about Blix's assessments that Iraq is showing cooperation by opening more doors.

Iraqi cooperation should have occured from day one! Not as wedge to divide NATO!!!
  • 0

#4 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:47 PM

The goal should be disarmament without war.

Blix is the only one who can get there, from here.

Rumsfeld's job scope is rather limited in this context.
  • 0

#5 Gospel

Gospel

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:52 PM

Roflmfao....

France and Germany both oppose Turkey's
inclusion into the EU --- at the same time there
is a spat over the role of 'God', the Christian
faith et al, in the European Constitution.

Methinks Chirac and Schroeder have their
ducks in a row... but has Rumsfeld the stone's
to knock 'em off?

Blair has got his balls in the water by
standing with a foot in each camp. Sod the
ramifications --- this is better than Dallas.
  • 0

#6 Soddem

Soddem

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2118 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:53 PM

god bless true democratic countries like france and germany
think its called giving america the finger
  • 0

#7 gonzo

gonzo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14844 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:55 PM

a question to vig or other non war mongers please,
What is the definition of disarmament in Iraq? What weapons are they allowed to have. I have never read up on the details on this, If anyone has a link let me know.

I think Iraq should be able to keep the basics as far as anti aircraft etc. Maybe they can, i do not know?
  • 0

#8 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:57 PM

I think the way to research this is through UN Security
Council Resolutions aimed at Iraq. Legally, they can have
conventional weapons but not WsMD.
  • 0

#9 gonzo

gonzo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14844 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 03:58 PM

Blix may end up being the hero out of this, his mood is changing and i think he has opened up his eyes in the last week.
  • 0

#10 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:00 PM

"Legally, they can have conventional weapons but not WsMD"

Well, SCUD's are coventional weapons, but Iraq can't have those. What is the maximum range Iraqi ballistic missiles can have? Is it 150 Km?
  • 0

#11 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:01 PM

Hans Blix gives the following interview:
---------

In an interview with Reuters at the end of a visit to Baghdad, Blix applauded some suggestions from Iraq to help his teams searching for weapons of mass destruction, but said all-out Iraqi cooperation was the only way for Baghdad to prove it did not have banned weapons.

---------
Opening doors is not cooperation.
---------

"This time they presented some papers to us in which they focused upon new issues. Not new evidence really as far as I can see, but they have nevertheless focused on real, open issues and that is welcome," Blix said on arrival in Athens.

---------
Why weren't these papers given earlier?
---------

Blix and nuclear agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei held two days of talks with Iraqi officials ahead of their crucial report Friday to the U.N. Security Council, which could shorten the countdown to a U.S.-led war against Baghdad.

Washington accuses Iraq developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has threatened military action to disarm it. Iraq denies the charge.

Asked if war was now inevitable, Blix replied: "That's not for me to answer. We are to report on the progress of inspections ... to the Security Council. And it is the council, its members and Iraq ... who determine whether we get to disarmament through inspections or disarmament through arms."

--------
Hans Blix says his primary job is to report
progress of inspections. Not to disarm!
That's Iraq's job!
--------

Asked whether more inspectors could do a better, faster job, he said: "The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the active cooperation of the Iraqi side, as we have said many times."

--------
Bingo! Not more inspectors, but cooperation!!!
--------

Germany and France are discussing plans to avert war by beefing up U.N. inspectors in Iraq.

Blix said that Iraq, in a sign of cooperation, had promised to drill into the ground to prove it had destroyed banned weapons, and also had suggested new methods of investigation for his weapon inspectors to better prove its case.

"They themselves suggested new physical signs, new methods of investigating whether material they declared unilaterally destroyed, whether it was actually there."

There would be methods to ascertain whether liquids dropped on the ground could still be detected. "I do not have any assessment yet from my scientific people whether it's feasible but it was a constructive proposal," Blix said.

He said Iraq had set up a special commission under the leadership of former Oil Minister Amar Rashid "to go through the country and open doors. That's a hopeful sign."

"If there are any documents which have been destroyed in a particular area, then it's all the more important that you are able to talk to people," Blix said.

--------
What??? New ideas, open doors. Nothing but
delays and deception!
--------

"There must be a lot of people who have been engaged in these programs. It will be desirable to meet and talk to them under circumstances of credibility."

On the need for interviews with military officers and factory managers who might have been involved in weapons programs, Blix said his teams were still meeting problems.

We have some difficulties. The individuals themselves insisted on Iraqi representatives being present," he said.

On the separate issue of interviewing Iraqi scientists alone, he added: "We have had some interviews now. A few have been without any Iraq representatives and any tape recorder present and I hope for better evolution in that area."

During the Baghdad visit, Baradei said he and Blix had seen "the beginning of a change of heart on the part of Iraq" in cooperating with inspectors.

---------
Interviews still a problem! And it will
continue to be a problem as long as
Saddam keeps sending the scientists
death certificates!
---------
  • 0

#12 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:02 PM

Short of Israel range, no doubt.
  • 0

#13 Dormaphaea

Dormaphaea

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:09 PM

Roflmfao....

France and Germany both oppose Turkey's
inclusion into the EU --- at the same time there
is a spat over the role of 'God', the Christian
faith et al, in the European Constitution.

Methinks Chirac and Schroeder have their
ducks in a row... but has Rumsfeld the stone's
to knock 'em off?

Blair has got his balls in the water by
standing with a foot in each camp. Sod the
ramifications --- this is better than Dallas



:)
It's funny cause it true
- Homer Simpson
  • 0

#14 IceHawk

IceHawk

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:16 PM

gonzo,

UN res 687 forbids ballsitic missle with a range of better than 150km. The SCUD has a range of 800km.

As far as the NATO question goes, By charter they are required to provide mutual protection when requested by a member. Secretary Powell is now reminding Germany, France and Belgium that they have Legal responsibilities under this charter and that political maneuvering is a recipe for disaster.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see a major shakeup in NATO along with the UN. I personally would love to see Japan put on the Security Council and be able to help with world affairs.

Good Day
  • 0

#15 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:38 PM

Proposed Security Council:

China
Japan
India
EU
US
Russia
  • 0

#16 fu2

fu2

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 25082 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:47 PM

As far as the NATO question goes, By charter they are required to provide mutual protection when requested by a member. Secretary Powell is now reminding Germany, France and Belgium that they have Legal responsibilities under this charter and that political maneuvering is a recipe for disaster.

Only if the agression is real and on the member nation soil. This was the case with Afganistan, and there are NATO member military contingent overthere. Also the NATO sent warplanes to monitor the US airspace.

The Iraq obviously do not fell into this category, because Iraq do not possess any immediate treat on any NATO member more than say Israel, where some moonies did statements that Israel should nuke most of the European capitals.

Actually the NATO members should vote for the US to participate in the proper reaction against the Israel treat.
  • 0

#17 gonzo

gonzo

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14844 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:49 PM

As far as the NATO question goes, By charter they are required to provide mutual protection when requested by a member. Secretary Powell is now reminding Germany, France and Belgium that they have Legal responsibilities under this charter and that political maneuvering is a recipe for disaster.



I see this as political black mail by the United States, The point you make is like a lawyer using the law to get a rapist and killer back on the street. it is just but is it right?
The latest manouver and hope for the Americans is that some aggresion is shown towards Turkey. Saddams best policy is lay low. Let let the West bicker with each other while anti americanism grows.
  • 0

#18 chisinau

chisinau

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1129 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 04:52 PM

What does this war-criminal want ?
  • 0

#19 baltoga

baltoga

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3626 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 05:08 PM

16 of the 19 NATO members supported Turkey's request, but only the 'old Europe (France, Belgium and Germany) opposed!
  • 0

#20 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 10 February 2003 - 05:11 PM

They'll work out a compromise. (BBC reporting a NATO
commenator) Of course, what's he going to say?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru