Old Europe left out in the cold?

[Winston]

That remark seemed a bit chauvinist to me, good Sir Ralph.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



but how can it hurt the efforts for synthesis on the opposing views if it disagrees with NOTHING that is in the stated EU position

I leave your imagination to grasp how this is hurting the EU

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Now Saddams fate is sealed.

in fact his fate is sealed when the US attacks.
and it will be much easier for the US to go in with Britain, and greater support in the region.
And British support and better support in the region will be helped when France supports a 2nd UNSC resolution.
And each european state that contradicts the French position weakens the French bargaining position, and reduces the blackmail the US will have to pay for a French yes (and also reduces the amount of source damaging intell we will have to share)
Latvia may not matter as much as Spain or Italy, but it matters.

[Bereta_Eder]

it will be funny to see what an 80% opposition to the war in most of Europe will do for the US image when it attacks.


we're talking about 500.000 people who you are going to kill and yo're just ready to drink french wine.

how charmant

[Lord Merciless]

I'm pretty sure that Russia and France will vote to support the military actions in the end, making Schroeder looking absolutely stupid.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Exactly LotM.

OTOH there will undoubtedly be much nashing of teeth on both sides f the issue as to whether resumptionof hositilites 'gainst Iraq needs UN sanction. France and Germany undoubtedly will look at the softer language they brokered in UN1441 one way while US will look at it in other ways.

Regardless, and not that I am a unilaterilist in this matter but there never wwas a peace treaty only a ceasefire signed by the US. Part of the cease fire agreement meant abiding by the UN resolutions all of which have been broken.

A resumption of war is inevitabe. Noice I said resumption as it does not require UN sanctioning as it falls under the heading of the 1991 conflict.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sikander


Try not to be so obtuse. Even destroyed weapons will leave traces, especially when there are tons of them. The Iraqis have offered no declaration that the X number of warheads catalogued in 1998 were destroyed in location Y (which is required by the current resolution), where you can still see some scraps. Nothing at all. The Iraqis are simply betting that the inspectors will not be able to find much without their cooperation, and are willing to let their friends on the Security Council (read: France) torpedo the war resolution regardless.

yup

TheStinger:
Im in agreence with you

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by paiktis22
we're talking about 500.000 people who you are going to kill and yo're just ready to drink french wine.
how charmant

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned

Quote:

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

Ok, then explain why.

As an example, I just recieved this in my mailbox. Sent by a fellow French-German student :

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq !
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it's all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

[Oerdin]

Spiffor that was written in the U.S. and has been floating around the internet for several months now.

[Spiffor]

oh, that's the first time I got it (granted I yell at most people sending me chainmails )
There is little doubt the US opponents to war have about the same reasons as EU opponents to war IMO

[Oerdin]

I'd have to agree they see eye to eye on most things. Generally, I'd say they are of a similiar political out look as well.

[Drake Tungsten]

Thanks for ruining my thread, Paiktis...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd have to agree they see eye to eye on most things. Generally, I'd say they are of a similiar political out look as well.

The US Democratic party has had a long history of aggressive foreign policy. Think of Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, Roosevelt and Kennedy. They changed with the Vietnam war. Think of McGovern. Bill Clinton was very reluctant to use American power to fix the world. But when he did act, it he acted effectively.

I see the Democratic party today divided. A significant number supported and continue to support Bush on Iraq. There are others, primarily from the Northeast, who are pacifist, including president Kennedy's own brother. But there are others, such as Hilary Clinton, who gave president Bush standing ovations last Tuesday.

It will be interesting to see how the next presidential race shapes up. The Democrats may have to choose their candidate based on whether he or she supported the War, or whether they opposed. Democrats tend to agree on most other issues.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Neither was it about FOPGian roles in supporting massacres in the balkans, nor in equating local acts of revenge by Kosovars with a planned genocide by the serbs.

I believe the last sentence was a joke or you started believing in Whorla del Pontes political hogwash. Especially coming from someone cheering for a war of agression.

[LaRusso]

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?

since when does reluctance for solving problems by war amount to a support of oppressive regimes. would you support a war against zimbabwe? iran? n. korea? china? does your reluctance to attack them mean that you are supporting their rulers?

duh

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Winston
Slovakia and Latvia are now backing the declaration by the European Eight.

well, brace for one more submarine (latvian) and a crack of slovakian special forces

[Ned]

Originally posted by LaRusso


since when does reluctance for solving problems by war amount to a support of oppressive regimes. would you support a war against zimbabwe? iran? n. korea? china? does your reluctance to attack them mean that you are supporting their rulers?

duh

This is a very qood question.

First, does the free world owe a duty to oppressed peoples to liberate them?

In the abstract, the answer should be yes. However, we then get into definitions of "oppression." China, in some views, oppresses its people because it denies them political and economic freedom. But they seem to be prospering because they have been given economic freedom.

But then we have Saddam and Kim Jong Il. These clearly are regimes that have to go.

But there are middle-ground regimes that are bad, but not extremely bad. I think of Castro and Saudi Arabia.

So the devil is in the details, better, in the degree of oppression. At some point, for example, when the dictatorship begins to kill thousands, I would say, it is time for a regime change.

I note that Europe supported a regime change in Yugoslavia. They are being inconsistent in not supporting one in Iraq.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Ned


This is a very qood question.

First, does the free world owe a duty to oppressed peoples to liberate them?

In the abstract, the answer should be yes. However, we then get into definitions of "oppression." China, in some views, oppresses its people because it denies them political and economic freedom. But they seem to be prospering because they have been given economic freedom.

But then we have Saddam and Kim Jong Il. These clearly are regimes that have to go.

well that means that a regime has to be 'free' or economically prosperous to avoid the ax

I note that Europe supported a regime change in Yugoslavia.

Milosevic won several elections because of international meddling in internal affairs of Yugoslavia. He finally lost because his regime was corrupt and not because anyone liked US or EU too much.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Thanks for ruining my thread, Paiktis...

Think positive : this thread has now many more posts than the other one

[Ned]

Originally posted by LaRusso


well that means that a regime has to be 'free' or economically prosperous to avoid the ax




Milosevic won several elections because of international meddling in internal affairs of Yugoslavia. He finally lost because his regime was corrupt and not because anyone liked US or EU too much.

I think people will put up with lack of freedom if they have enough bread.

What did Commodus say, "Bread and circuses?"

[Drake Tungsten]

Think positive : this thread has now many more posts than the other one

Very true...

Although I don't like having to depend on a Greek troll to achieve victory.