Old Europe left out in the cold? - Page 7

Ned · January 31, 2003, 15:14

paiktis, saying that 80% of the EU are against the war is like saying that 80% of the EU is in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Why do 80% of the EU favor keeping Saddam Hussein in power?

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 15:19

whats your IQ again?

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 15:20

80% of EU against the war and thats the way it is

Ned · January 31, 2003, 15:24

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
80% of EU against the war and thats the way it is

Ok, then explain why.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 15:25

because 500.000 people being killed for oil is wrong

Ned · January 31, 2003, 15:28

Paiktis, of couse killing 500,000 people for oil is wrong. You will not find even one person in the US even who will disagree with that statement.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Quote:

80% of EU against the war and thats the way it is

Ok, then explain why.

In the European public opinion, it is considered obvious that Saddam Hussein isn't a threat, and that the war will only serve US's imperialistic interests, while spilling blood of Iraqis.
The media-brainwashing is rather oriented towards the oil interests here, rather than explaining how evil Saddam is, and why we should carpet-bomb Baghdad for the good of the Iraqis

Also, it is here clear that Bush always find new reasons and new evidences to justify a war, while he's simply playing Empire.
Europeans tend to dislike the sheer stupidity of the "Crusade" from the "Good Ones" against the "Axis of Evil". We have had enough religious bloodbaths in our history, and we don't want this nonsense to be used again.
Many Europeans are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, which doesn't raise the popularity of America, especially of American warmongering against Arabs.

And most Euros just don't like spilling blood, because we deeply know how much it hurts.

Edit : bolded. The fact that Saddam isn't considered as a threat here simply explains why the war has no support. All other arguments explain why the war has so many opponents.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 31, 2003, 15:37

80% of the US populace didn't want involvement in WW1 or WW2 look what isolationism led to.

If the EU is truly wanting to be a world power it needs action, not internal bickering.

Truth is US is the only world power that can project its will in distant lands.

I take exception to those whose view is that the EU's sole purpose is to act as a block to the growing US hegomony. The US and the EU must act as partners full and equal in order to act in the common interests that they supposedly have. Those being the spread of democracy, human rights, etc.. Simply acting contrary for contrariness sake is the worst approach as the two sets of nations have more in common than opposition.

Best article I've read on US motivations for war. See here .

While self serving it also is what the US believes is the best interests for the world at large. The EU if truly dedicated to those ideals would subscribe to that philosophy.

Instead it becomes apparent that France is taking a stand for reasons of continued declaration that they are a world power and will not kowtow to US will and secondly for reasons of economic gain as their trade relationship with Iraq grows.

Germany chose the tact as it was politically expedient in election years to become anti-american in lightof the growing muslim population segment.

Blair's influence on GWB has been admirable, his attempts to get the US to break its unilateral rehtoric is commendable.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

why we should carpet-bomb Baghdad

DO you really think we're going to carpet bomb bagdad???

After 9/11 they kept saying "dont carpet bomb Kabul" We didnt carpet bomb Kabul. We did have b52's drop a bunch of bombs on some taliban positions and everyone said "SEE thier carpet bombing, just like we said"

Expect the same this time - no matter how good we do at minimiizing harm to civilians the usual gang will talk about the US atrocities, and will twist evidence to get there.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 15:50

I don't think you'll carpet-bomb Bagdad (notice the cute smiley), but I implemented some exaggeration the pro-peace here sometimes use.

However, I think the US army will not care of civilian losses during the battle of Bagdad if things become hard. For the generals, better have 1000 dead Iraqi civilians than 100 dead American soldiers (which is normal from their perspective). And the US army will also not care if human shields are used to protect military buildings.

In the end, the war will kill tens of thousands. Curiously enough, Europeans aren't happy about this.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 15:53

As many here in the US believe, Saddam is a threat to threat to both the US and Israel, and if he were to take the entire ME, which he can if we withdraw, to Europe. He is a threat to Israel because of his WoMD and because he actively supports terrorism there. He is a treat to the US because he actively supports terrorists in general and because he has al Qaida connections.

Besides, we cannot maintain the no-fly zones and sanctions forever, can we? If we withdraw now, the Shi'ites and Kurds will be massacred. How many time should we betray them?

I don't understand the European's focus American control of Iraq's oil. We won't control it. Any new government the Iraqi's establish will control it.

But clearly oil is a problem. In the hands of a nuclear Iraq, Saddam could again equip a vast army with modern weapons, including nuclear, chemical and bio, that could conquer far and wide.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't think you'll carpet-bomb Bagdad (notice the cute smiley), but I implemented some exaggeration the pro-peace here sometimes use.

However, I think the US army will not care of civilian losses during the battle of Bagdad if things become hard. For the generals, better have 1000 dead Iraqi civilians than 100 dead American soldiers (which is normal from their perspective). And the US army will also not care if human shields are used to protect military buildings.

In the end, the war will kill tens of thousands. Curiously enough, Europeans aren't happy about this.

I wont be happy with one civilian death during the war myself. Nor am i happy with the deaths of civilians at the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 16:00

As many here in the US believe, Saddam is a threat to both the US and Israel, and if he were to take the entire ME, which he can if we withdraw, to Europe. He is a threat to Israel because of his WoMD and because he actively supports terrorism there. He is a treat to the US because he actively supports terrorists in general and because he has al Qaida connections.

Besides, we cannot maintain the no-fly zones and sanctions forever, can we? If we withdraw now, the Shi'ites and Kurds will be massacred. How many time should we betray them?

I don't understand the European's focus American control of Iraq's oil. We won't control it. Any new government the Iraqi's establish will control it.

But clearly oil is a problem. In the hands of a nuclear Iraq, Saddam could again equip a vast army with modern weapons, including nuclear, chemical and bio, that could conquer far and wide.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 16:07

The new gov will by a US pupet regime.
So all the good oil deals will go to US companies.

Its called sucking a country dry and it wont be the first time.

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 31, 2003, 16:12

I see your an expert on sucking.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 16:13

not like you sucked 3.000 victims in the world towers no

Ned · January 31, 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
The new gov will by a US pupet regime.
So all the good oil deals will go to US companies.

Its called sucking a country dry and it wont be the first time.

Puppet or friend?

I am sure, though, that the new Iraqi government will know who its friends are and better, who are not.

But, isn't this a good argument to join the coalition? We had 77 countries in the last one.

BTW, how have the oil and other contracts gone in Kuwait. Does anyone have any hard data?

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 31, 2003, 16:16

You can do better than that.

Bereta_Eder · January 31, 2003, 16:17

Ned, puppet regime.

Ogie, how about this: but your bloodlust was satiated after dropping bombs, that are designed to clear entire forests, on people in Afganistan?

Harovan · January 31, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
paiktis, saying that 80% of the EU are against the war is like saying that 80% of the EU is in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Why do 80% of the EU favor keeping Saddam Hussein in power?

Ned, Saddam is of course a bloody dictator, and I wish nothing more than the Iraqi people could overthrow him and establish a more human, may be even democratic government. However, having a dictator does not justify an invasion. If it did, the United States would have to invade many of the other countries in ME, half of South America and 3/4 of Africa too. In fact, the US is even actively supporting many of these Micro-Hitlers, just like they formerly supported Saddam.

On the question of WoMD, well, put facts on the table. Saying "we are convinced, that Saddam has WoMD" proves nothing. I'm sorry to say this, but hardly anyone in Europe considers GWB to be a reliable source of information. Statements without prove are hearsay, not more. Either put the smoking gun on the table, or tell Blix, where he can find it. Bush keeps to brag with his outstanding intelligence data. Why doesn't he use it to convince the world with facts? I dare to say, that he would get much, much more support, in France, Germany, and elsewhere, than with lying, wardrumming and threatening. At least I would say, ok, there's the prove, now go and remove that bastard.

Instead of this, he makes with his "axis of evil", "who's not with us is against us" and similar bull more and more enemies everywhere in the world. The worlds opinion has never been as anti American, as it is now. In the case of France and Germany Bush and Rumsfeld clearly show their outstanding diplomatic skills. If I want to achieve something, it's of course the best choice to piss off my opponent. That letter of the 8 had also not the effect it should. It was made up like a commercial ad, who likes them? Blairs position was known before. Italy, oh well... Bush and Berlusconi are an awesome couple. Let's better be silent about Italy. For Spain I feel a bit sorry, I had a better opinion about Aznar. The other countries are, sorry, insignificant. Danmark helps you how, with 40-60 "hunters" (according to Winston)? What do they hunt? I'm sure they'll be the make or break in this war.