Till-
I think your posting Jeff's comment is something that would make Halojoy very happy. BTW, I would add beer to the list.
SteveA
I think your posting Jeff's comment is something that would make Halojoy very happy. BTW, I would add beer to the list.
SteveA
till said:
Chirac sure doesn't seem to be showing much tolerence to the prospective nations of the EU that don't agree with his position.
Would you support the war if the UN voted for it? Even if it meant dropping thousands of tons of bombs, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and harmed millions through environmental damage?
Chirac will be pro war. His problem is not war in iraq. One of his problem is the manic and offensive behavior of Bush and Rumsfeld. The other is the offensive way of acting of the small eastern countrys (and some others as well) which don´t respect how to act as EU memberts and demontrate they only choose to be members of EU because they can´t choose to be members if USA.
If a more eloquent US policy would lead this war and promise france one or two oil field like they do with the turks....
No. Not this way. Its no solution for a problem, its uncvivilisated, barbarinan, egomanian. Using weapons like bombs and missilies etc is nothing that would lead to a solution. It´s more or less masturbation for military maiancs to use this weapons. But useless for what Bush pretends he wnats - bringing freediom and peace to iraq. Weapons should only be used for shelf defense if needed. I don´t belive the CIA, Mossad, Russians etc are unable to kill selective those men who abuse power inn iraq or elswere. If they want, they could. (At leats Mossad demontrated this) Not to use this option proofes someone here don´t want a change but a war. I still belive a destructive war against iraq is motivated from innerpolitical reasons of Mr Bush and this is not legitime.
I would support a UN style war with main point in not to kill people. Send soldiers there to controll as much as possible. Let them controll food, industrie, employment of iraqis, let the controll cash flow, install dollar or euro as money used, substitue the stucture of power from bottom to top not otherway, overtake the system in a non violent way.
War in the way conventional done - remember Viotnam, Korea, USSR vs. Afghanistan, GB vs Egypt etc will not lead to solutions.
Take some look and analyze what happend in DDR, Hungary, Czech ...
right. let`s not talk about policies that reek of moral bankruptcy. let us forget names like marcos, noriega and sooner or later hussein so we can move on to next dictator du jour. let`s not talk about the US policy of supporting despots, despotism and corruption. let`s not talk about the civil rights records of countries like israel, turkey, saudi arabia, kuwait, pakistan etc etc because they are current allies of the united states. indeed, let us not talk about how history repeats itself unless at least one country possesses the moral courage to stop the cycle of violence.
let`s talk about hockey while the world prepares for war.
let`s talk about hockey while the world prepares for war.
joe dick said:
What country has the "moral courage" you speak of?
For the sake of argument, let say France has it since, obviously, the US is "morally bankrupt" and France has been on the leading edge of supporting SH. Now, what is France going to do with SH? ..... I am waiting to hear...... I hear nothing...oh, that is the answer? Nothing? Oh, it might proposed to send in some peacekeepers as Til suggested earlier, but without the US around, do you think SH will allow it?
Without the US and its courage to do something, SH will not be contained.
It is nice to dream of world peace, and dream that some nation will somehow step in and come up with a magical solution, but when dealing with ruthless, barbaric despots like SH, we have to think in the real world.
I am still waiting to hear some workable alternatives to the Iraq problem.
a pschologist would have a field day in this post...
notice how America is so obviously gung-ho hey ho silver...
and no admission to their new world order strategies....
....and you know what?
I am still waiting to hear some workable alternatives to the USA problem.
notice how America is so obviously gung-ho hey ho silver...
and no admission to their new world order strategies....
....and you know what?
I am still waiting to hear some workable alternatives to the USA problem.
till said:
I don't recall reading anything in the EU charter that says you must obey the will of France and Germany to be part of the EU. It seems that you have a policy of tolerance only as long as they
agree with what you think.
Thats the trick about tolerence, its easy to tolerate the things you like, its hard to tolerate the things you don't like, but without the ability to do that, tolerence is just a meaningless buzz word.
??? Ahh yes give France an oilfield and then its all ok, and you call the US policy offensive and morally bankrupt? Its not the American's to give away, I wasn't aware that they were giving one away to Trukey.
Unfortunately assasination is against US law, and even if it wasn't it wouldn't solve the problem. Knock one strong man out and another will take his place. Notice how Mossad's assassinations haven't stopped Hamas or the other terrorist organisations one bit.
And what might those be? Bush isn't the only one supporting this policy.
What exactly is a "UN style war", The Korean War?? The Gulf War?? Unfortunately the Iraqi military might have a slight problem with thousands of "UN soldiers" (by the way there is no such thing) showing up in thier country and taking over all food, industry and employment and changing the structure of power. They might not be that supportive about this plan and might do something inconsiderate like shoot at the people trying to take over thier country.
What exactly are you referring to here? The Soviet invasions of these countries?
Stryder said:
Well, this is a really informative, useful post!
You can't address the issues so you bash the US. SH loves people like you - helps to keep him in power by diverting from the real issues.
Jeff R said:
blah blah blah
America is John Wayne
Freedom and the American way
**** you and the horse you rode in on.
Seriously.. I don't give a **** if you ban me! Some of you ***** need to wake up and smell the coffee. Mark my words: the USA will become the most hated nation this decade. Even Europe will come to overwhelmingly loathe their manipulative NATO 'partner'....
So.. you going into China and North Korea next are you?
Your nation is doomed; your nation will doom us all.
Kelly McDonald said:
Actually, I think they have revoked that law since 9/11. It is still
against international law, however.
The change wasn´t made by killing the leaders. It came from the roots. You will not be able to install a democratic system in an islam state, every citizen still alive after bombing hates you. The only way to change the system is with the people living there. Not against them.
Stryder said:
Wow. Tell me how you really feel! 🙂
I never said a word about banning you! What was up with that? You seem to be responding to things that were never said. Do you hate Americans for made-up reasons or something?
Who said we were going into China or North Korea? We probably _ought_ to go into North Korea if they start selling nukes to rouge nations, but remember, North Korea is the one who threatened to attack the USA pre-emptively not long ago. I guess that thought makes you happy. I doubt we will mess with North Korea, though, precisely because we take their threats seriously, and we will work through the UN to try to get them to not sell their nuclear technology. China would have few qualms about lobbing a few nukes our way if we interfere with them, but I feel China will soon be free a nation. North Korea isn't going to change until their leader dies, at the earliest. His people are too oppressed to revolt against him, and you obviously don't want any other countries trying to help them out any.
Yes, unfortunately, the rest of the free world will go down if America goes down. But are we doomed? No nation in history has ever remained a dominate power for more than a few hundred years. Our time may be running out - it is only natural. We certainly can't continue to police the world forever without finally going bankrupt. Heck, maybe before too long, we can be one of those has-been countries that sits back and complain all day, clinging to our veto power to make us believe we are still relevant, like certain other countries do.
Maybe the world will come to hate us more and more. I don't know. I guess I see a lot of the dislike due to simple jealousy, and perhaps due to the fact we sometimes point that out. I mean, face it, the UN is pretty much irrelevant. It can hardly do anything without the US. It can pass resolutions all day, but if the US won't enforce them, no one else will! Why make the US enforce things it doesn't care to? Why don't other nations enforce things for once? And when we try to enforce something, you all get angry with us. What gives?!
I guess, help me understand! Don't bash me, explain!
And explain to me why SH should be left alone!
tomtt said:
<sarcasm mode on>
Looks like an unbiased treatment to me
<sarcasm mode off>
I never bother with this kind of sensationalist crap on either side of an issue. I'd just as quickly discard a "book" where Bush was portreyed as purer than Mother Teresa.
I'll ask you and Stryder and all othe others what I keep asking myself. What peice of information or data would convince you that your position is wrong or incorrect? If your answer is nothing, then your reason for having that position is not rational. Any position that is arrived at through fact and reasoning can just as easily be discarded through fact and reasoning.
I am more than willing to discard my position that using force to enforce the UN resolutions is justified. However no one yet has provided a reasonable alternative that will resolve the problem.
Jeff R said:
Hi Jeff
The general feeling in Europe, as far as I can tell, is that the USA only gets involved when it's own economic/ military wellbeing is involved. It is partial to the interests of it's Politico/economic system, and ignores any problems that do not involve this. It has it's own dictators and oppressive regimes that it supports, some equally as nasty as SH, but chooses only to war on those that do not fit into this category.
In Europe, we have had a troubled past, with many wars and conflicts on our own soil. We know what war is like first hand. We know why we should fight against dictators, our relatives and parents experienced this first hand.
That is why in modern Europe we choose diplomacy rather than conflict. Diplomacy has halted more conflict than any invasion. Then if we do choose war, we realise that it has to be carried out first hand, this is why remote control warfare as practiced by the US, was such a failure in Yugoslavia. Yes, in the end the result was achieved, but countries like Britain and Germany, who wanted to put troops in on the ground were vetoed by the US in favour of an air war, with all the resultant (honest) mistakes that were made.
So in summary:
Why make the US enforce things it doesn't want to- We can't, and if it doesn't want to it won't.
Why don't other nations enforce things for once?- we do, most of the UN peace keepers around the world are not US troops, the US moves on as soon as it can to the next issue.
And when we try to enforce something, you all get angry with us- I can't explain this in a single sentence, see above thread😉
"Maybe the world will come to hate us more and more. I don't know. I guess I see a lot of the dislike due to simple jealousy, and perhaps due to the fact we sometimes point that out. I mean, face it, the UN is pretty much irrelevant. It can hardly do anything without the US. It can pass resolutions all day, but if the US won't enforce them, no one else will! Why make the US enforce things it doesn't care to? Why don't other nations enforce things for once? And when we try to enforce something, you all get angry with us. What gives?!
I guess, help me understand! Don't bash me, explain!
And explain to me why SH should be left alone!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can assure you this is NOTHING to do with jealousy! That sort of suggestion is really going to cause animosity.
I think the problem is that the premise for the "war" is not considered wholy moral by a huge number of people. The reasons have already been elucidated - some excruciatingly clearly by Joe D. The US is not generally seen to be an impartial, altruistic force. Therefore people dislike and distrust the US administration.
I think alot of people would like to see the US act more fairly on the Israel/Palastine issue before using moral arguments about Iraq.
The ROW thinks the UN is the *rightest* (US English? 😉 ) body to decide moral premises for action. The US is seen to be undermining/manipulating the UN process and using UN resolutions in an a la carte manner. You are right that the UN is weak if not supported by all countries...but there is a difference between supporting it and manipulating it (like threatening its longevity).
Another problem is Bush's style of rhetoric. It honestly does come across as cowboy. This gets in the way of his message.
I think everyone realises Sadam is a tyranical dictator who none of us would like to be ruled by. This, however, is not the point. This is a different point for war and one the UN has not discussed.
I don't think most people buy the "he had WMD 12 years ago and we don't know where they are now" as a reasonable reason to invade on its own.
Some people see US policy in the middle east as a contributor to terrorist motivations. People do not see the US dealing with these policy hypocrisies. Some see Iraq invasion as compounding this rather than resolving it.
So there are some reasons for all this anger about the US. Personally, I think if the US made a gesture of policy fairness in the ME to demonstrate the US is thinking global rather than local then the mass of public opinion would turn pretty fast. In fact if the US did anything that was perceived as selfless and against traditional US interests in the area I think we'd all back Bush. But can he do it? Can you Americans make it happen through your elected representatives?
I guess, help me understand! Don't bash me, explain!
And explain to me why SH should be left alone!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can assure you this is NOTHING to do with jealousy! That sort of suggestion is really going to cause animosity.
I think the problem is that the premise for the "war" is not considered wholy moral by a huge number of people. The reasons have already been elucidated - some excruciatingly clearly by Joe D. The US is not generally seen to be an impartial, altruistic force. Therefore people dislike and distrust the US administration.
I think alot of people would like to see the US act more fairly on the Israel/Palastine issue before using moral arguments about Iraq.
The ROW thinks the UN is the *rightest* (US English? 😉 ) body to decide moral premises for action. The US is seen to be undermining/manipulating the UN process and using UN resolutions in an a la carte manner. You are right that the UN is weak if not supported by all countries...but there is a difference between supporting it and manipulating it (like threatening its longevity).
Another problem is Bush's style of rhetoric. It honestly does come across as cowboy. This gets in the way of his message.
I think everyone realises Sadam is a tyranical dictator who none of us would like to be ruled by. This, however, is not the point. This is a different point for war and one the UN has not discussed.
I don't think most people buy the "he had WMD 12 years ago and we don't know where they are now" as a reasonable reason to invade on its own.
Some people see US policy in the middle east as a contributor to terrorist motivations. People do not see the US dealing with these policy hypocrisies. Some see Iraq invasion as compounding this rather than resolving it.
So there are some reasons for all this anger about the US. Personally, I think if the US made a gesture of policy fairness in the ME to demonstrate the US is thinking global rather than local then the mass of public opinion would turn pretty fast. In fact if the US did anything that was perceived as selfless and against traditional US interests in the area I think we'd all back Bush. But can he do it? Can you Americans make it happen through your elected representatives?
be sure in Afghanistan they still do so.
Do you really think past that long years of wars in Afghanistan they think USA brought them peace? You bring them 1 new pipline - everything else goes one like before. - Worse - Taliban regime took ocer the first province of Pakistan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.