As I understand it, the American position is that:
All terrorists and people who harbour, support or fund terrorists should be hunted down.
If a country supports or harbours terrorist groups, then military force can legitimately be used against that country.
For many decades, the UK was subjected to terrorist attacks by the IRA. They killed many ordinary British people by planting bombs in crowded public places. Throughout much of their campaign, they were funded by Irish Americans. Their spokesmen would visit somewhere like Boston, they would be applauded at fund-raising dinners held in their honour, and they would take home wads of cash to buy semtex and guns.
After september 11, the flow of funds began to dry up. But it was only when members of the IRA were discovered in Columbia, training enemies of the US in terrorist tactics, that the IRA really fell out of favour in the US.
Why has no action ever been taken against American citizens who funded the IRA? Would it have been OK for Britain to bomb the USA until the American government took action to stop the flow of funds? When the American president met with Sinn Fein, would it have been appropriate for the BBC to hold a phone-in on breakfast television, debating where he should be exiled to? (I saw to my disbelief just such a debate about Sadam on american TV during a recent visit to the US)
BTW, please don't turn this into a debate on the Irish question, I'm well aware that if Cromwell and the English hadn't brutally occupied Ireland we wouldn't be in this mess. Taking the long historical view, its possible to argue that the IRA were freedom-fighters. I'm just trying to illustrate the dangers of applying simplistic, all-or-nothing, black-or-white reasoning to the real world.
As long as the US is perceived to be uncritically supportive of Israel, then it will have enemies in the Middle East. Israel is in breach of several UN resolutions. It is hypocritical for the US to use UN resolutions as justification for attacks on Iraq, and ignore UN resolutions which call for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.
This is how I imagine the Arab world sees the Palestinian question:
The Palestinians had their country stolen from them, and for 50 years they have been protesting against this injustice, but no-one has listened. They have no airforce, and no army to speak of. When their villages and schools are shelled and bombed by Israel (using american built F-16s), they have no military response. Every day on TV, you will see images of Palestinian kids throwing rocks at the Isreali tanks that have invaded their village. Now they are so desparate that they resort to suicide bombings. Have you ever stopped to think how hopeless you must be, how bleak must be your future and the future of your people, for such a course of action to become possible?
End of 'Arab viewpoint'
OK, I just presented a very one-sided view. I actually believe that there is right and wrong on both sides. But as long as the US persists in its view that 'Israel is always right, Palestine is always wrong', I don't think a peaceful settlement can be reached. And that is a tragedy for the region.
Now America (and probably Britain) is moving towards war with Iraq. Maybe there are good reasons for this war, but so far there appears to be no justification whatsoever for claiming that war against Saddam Hussein is a continuation of the war on terror. The only evidence of a link between al-Qa'ida and Iraq that I have seen was a claimed meeting between members of al-Qa'ida and an Iraqi official in Prague. It is now known that this meeting never happened, the identification of the Iraqi official was fabricated by the CIA, it was made up, to create the illusion of a link, to justify military action.
Al-Qa'ida is a dangerous, fanatical, fundamentalist religious organisation. Saddam Hussein's regime is secular. They have nothing in common. In fact, they are sworn enemies. Bin Laden sees Saddam as a major obstacle in his goal to spread Islamic fundamentalism through the region. Many Afghan Mujahadeen and al-Qa'ida fought with the Coalition in the Gulf War against Iraq. They are definitely not natural bedfellows. If indeed it turns out that Iraq has now formed links with al-Qa'ida, it will be a major failure and blunder of Western foreign policy. I personally think that there are no links.
Phil says that the US will only ever use nuclear weapons as a measured retaliatory response to an attack. Sorry Phil, your information is out of date. It is now the official policy of your government that pre-emptive
nuclear strikes may be used. The change in policy began last June. Here are the relevant policy statements:
1st June the President announced, in an address at West Point, that the US military would henceforth act not defensively but pre-emptively against terrorists and hostile states in possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
6th June Secretary of State Colin Powell announced to NATO officials that NATO could no longer wait for "absolute proof" of such possession before taking action.
10 June Thomas E Ricks and Vernon Loeb reported in the Washington Post that under this new doctrine, according to Pentagon officials, the US would now consider using high-yield nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis. The use of such weapons would be reserved, according to these officials, for deployment "against biological weapons that can best be destroyed by sustained exposure to the high heat of a nuclear blast".
All terrorists and people who harbour, support or fund terrorists should be hunted down.
If a country supports or harbours terrorist groups, then military force can legitimately be used against that country.
For many decades, the UK was subjected to terrorist attacks by the IRA. They killed many ordinary British people by planting bombs in crowded public places. Throughout much of their campaign, they were funded by Irish Americans. Their spokesmen would visit somewhere like Boston, they would be applauded at fund-raising dinners held in their honour, and they would take home wads of cash to buy semtex and guns.
After september 11, the flow of funds began to dry up. But it was only when members of the IRA were discovered in Columbia, training enemies of the US in terrorist tactics, that the IRA really fell out of favour in the US.
Why has no action ever been taken against American citizens who funded the IRA? Would it have been OK for Britain to bomb the USA until the American government took action to stop the flow of funds? When the American president met with Sinn Fein, would it have been appropriate for the BBC to hold a phone-in on breakfast television, debating where he should be exiled to? (I saw to my disbelief just such a debate about Sadam on american TV during a recent visit to the US)
BTW, please don't turn this into a debate on the Irish question, I'm well aware that if Cromwell and the English hadn't brutally occupied Ireland we wouldn't be in this mess. Taking the long historical view, its possible to argue that the IRA were freedom-fighters. I'm just trying to illustrate the dangers of applying simplistic, all-or-nothing, black-or-white reasoning to the real world.
As long as the US is perceived to be uncritically supportive of Israel, then it will have enemies in the Middle East. Israel is in breach of several UN resolutions. It is hypocritical for the US to use UN resolutions as justification for attacks on Iraq, and ignore UN resolutions which call for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.
This is how I imagine the Arab world sees the Palestinian question:
The Palestinians had their country stolen from them, and for 50 years they have been protesting against this injustice, but no-one has listened. They have no airforce, and no army to speak of. When their villages and schools are shelled and bombed by Israel (using american built F-16s), they have no military response. Every day on TV, you will see images of Palestinian kids throwing rocks at the Isreali tanks that have invaded their village. Now they are so desparate that they resort to suicide bombings. Have you ever stopped to think how hopeless you must be, how bleak must be your future and the future of your people, for such a course of action to become possible?
End of 'Arab viewpoint'
OK, I just presented a very one-sided view. I actually believe that there is right and wrong on both sides. But as long as the US persists in its view that 'Israel is always right, Palestine is always wrong', I don't think a peaceful settlement can be reached. And that is a tragedy for the region.
Now America (and probably Britain) is moving towards war with Iraq. Maybe there are good reasons for this war, but so far there appears to be no justification whatsoever for claiming that war against Saddam Hussein is a continuation of the war on terror. The only evidence of a link between al-Qa'ida and Iraq that I have seen was a claimed meeting between members of al-Qa'ida and an Iraqi official in Prague. It is now known that this meeting never happened, the identification of the Iraqi official was fabricated by the CIA, it was made up, to create the illusion of a link, to justify military action.
Al-Qa'ida is a dangerous, fanatical, fundamentalist religious organisation. Saddam Hussein's regime is secular. They have nothing in common. In fact, they are sworn enemies. Bin Laden sees Saddam as a major obstacle in his goal to spread Islamic fundamentalism through the region. Many Afghan Mujahadeen and al-Qa'ida fought with the Coalition in the Gulf War against Iraq. They are definitely not natural bedfellows. If indeed it turns out that Iraq has now formed links with al-Qa'ida, it will be a major failure and blunder of Western foreign policy. I personally think that there are no links.
Phil says that the US will only ever use nuclear weapons as a measured retaliatory response to an attack. Sorry Phil, your information is out of date. It is now the official policy of your government that pre-emptive
nuclear strikes may be used. The change in policy began last June. Here are the relevant policy statements:
1st June the President announced, in an address at West Point, that the US military would henceforth act not defensively but pre-emptively against terrorists and hostile states in possession of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
6th June Secretary of State Colin Powell announced to NATO officials that NATO could no longer wait for "absolute proof" of such possession before taking action.
10 June Thomas E Ricks and Vernon Loeb reported in the Washington Post that under this new doctrine, according to Pentagon officials, the US would now consider using high-yield nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis. The use of such weapons would be reserved, according to these officials, for deployment "against biological weapons that can best be destroyed by sustained exposure to the high heat of a nuclear blast".
Now you've really frightened the willies out of me. I suppose the only saving grace is that nobody will willingly irradiate the oil.Maxwell said:
Silly boys. If we wanted to "steal" oil, we'd invade Saudi Arabia- there's more there and it's an easier target. And there's even a pretext- 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and there's all kinds of Saudi money trails to terrorist organizations.
But I suppose going after a tougher target with less payoff and less pretext is just one more indication of how diabolically clever the Bush administration is.
But I suppose going after a tougher target with less payoff and less pretext is just one more indication of how diabolically clever the Bush administration is.
Till he is not my president. If you'll look at my location you will find that I am not American.
As for the US election, I will not argue that their were definate irregularities on both sides, that Gore won a larger percentage popular vote nation wide, however still well within the margin or error of the election. Statistically the election was a tie. However like it or not the law of the land was followed. Votes in the electoral college is what counts, not popular vote. Agree or disagree with with it (Personally I think the electoral college should be dissolved and popular vote used instead). The laws of Florida laid out the policy to follow in these sorts of events and the dates that the election had to be certifed. Again agree or disagree (Personally I think the laws in Florida governing elections should be completely revamped). These were the laws in place when the election was called and they should be followed and the flaws in them be rectified before the next election. Lastly in the end like it or not Gore conceeded he withdrew his challenges and the job fell to W. If the citizens of the US disagree with his policies and choices 18 months from now they can send him packing.
Brett, claiming that W is only in it to 'steal' Iraqi oil is just as jingoistic as those who claim it is only to 'fight terrorism'. The world is not black and white, it is shades of grey. I'm sure oil is an important element driving the decisions, so is the welfare of the Iraqi people, so is fighting terrorism, so it removing a dangerous regime. Rarely does a nation have only 1 reason for war. One thing to remember is that the US did not plunder Germany and Japan after WWII, they did not plunder Afghanistan, nor Kuwait, nor Serbia.
Still no one has answered my question? What option is there in the Iraq where there is no loss of life? Any decision you make will result in bloodshed. Action or inaction people will die, what option do you choose?
Remember the credibility of the UN is at stake here. What use are UN resolutions if they are never enforced?
As for the US election, I will not argue that their were definate irregularities on both sides, that Gore won a larger percentage popular vote nation wide, however still well within the margin or error of the election. Statistically the election was a tie. However like it or not the law of the land was followed. Votes in the electoral college is what counts, not popular vote. Agree or disagree with with it (Personally I think the electoral college should be dissolved and popular vote used instead). The laws of Florida laid out the policy to follow in these sorts of events and the dates that the election had to be certifed. Again agree or disagree (Personally I think the laws in Florida governing elections should be completely revamped). These were the laws in place when the election was called and they should be followed and the flaws in them be rectified before the next election. Lastly in the end like it or not Gore conceeded he withdrew his challenges and the job fell to W. If the citizens of the US disagree with his policies and choices 18 months from now they can send him packing.
Brett, claiming that W is only in it to 'steal' Iraqi oil is just as jingoistic as those who claim it is only to 'fight terrorism'. The world is not black and white, it is shades of grey. I'm sure oil is an important element driving the decisions, so is the welfare of the Iraqi people, so is fighting terrorism, so it removing a dangerous regime. Rarely does a nation have only 1 reason for war. One thing to remember is that the US did not plunder Germany and Japan after WWII, they did not plunder Afghanistan, nor Kuwait, nor Serbia.
Still no one has answered my question? What option is there in the Iraq where there is no loss of life? Any decision you make will result in bloodshed. Action or inaction people will die, what option do you choose?
Remember the credibility of the UN is at stake here. What use are UN resolutions if they are never enforced?
I checked out the Bowling for Columbine site and it has a few nice video clips.
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php
<img src="http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/images/media/clips/filmphoto.jpg">
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/media/clips/index.php
<img src="http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/images/media/clips/filmphoto.jpg">
Ampex's success was founded on the looting of German ferric oxide tape developments. Werner von Braun and his team (plus their V2 rockets) founded the US space program in return for immunity from prosecution for war crimes (von Braun was a member of the SS, which automatically made him a war criminal whatever his activities). BSA (Birmingham Small Arms) in the UK and various Eastern European companies looted the German 125cc motorcyle and early BMW boxer twin (Neval). And those are only the ones I can remember.tomtt said:
I think the issue here is one of sovereignty.
What most of the anti-US sentiment is all about comes down to whether or not the US has the right to meddle in another country's affairs. The US has a long history of it. All over the globe.
Little people in little countries have the right to be upset about it.
It is an issue that strikes at the heart of most peoples notions of democracy and personal freedom.
I believe that "rogue states" need to be dealt with, but the forum for this is an international body, not unilateral action by a country that has no common borders with the rogue state.
🙂
What most of the anti-US sentiment is all about comes down to whether or not the US has the right to meddle in another country's affairs. The US has a long history of it. All over the globe.
Little people in little countries have the right to be upset about it.
It is an issue that strikes at the heart of most peoples notions of democracy and personal freedom.
I believe that "rogue states" need to be dealt with, but the forum for this is an international body, not unilateral action by a country that has no common borders with the rogue state.
🙂
SY, I do agree with you that the oil theory seems not very
likely. Yet, many people outside the USA seriously believe it
is all about the oil, including my own father, and the same
arguments were frequently heard in the case of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, as Kelly said, it may still be one of several
factors, although I would then rather think it is political control
of an instable political element in the oil-producing region that
matters.
However, this frequently occuring theory goes deeper than
the actual claim, touching at an issue that has implicitly been
hinted at by many postings in this thread, including some of
my own, although noone has thought about saying it out aloud.
Maybe because some of think it is so obvious that we forgot
it may not be obvious to americans. This issue is that many,
many people outside the US have very little confidence in
George Bush as a politician, especially when it comes to
foreign policy. Of course, many people have always been
suspicious about the motives of the US when it comes to
foreign policy. This is partly because of many events in the
past, but I also think it is an understandable reaction to
suspect the motives of any superpower. Of course we did not
trust the Soviet union any more than we trusted the USA.
However, in this case Í think it goes much further. Although
Bush might have a way of expressing himself that appeals to
many US citizens, he very often talks in a way that many
non-americans, including myself, cannot interpret in any other
ways than that Bush is very naive and ignorant of the world
outside the US. Considering that he is the man who has the
authority to push the button to the most powerful weapons
system in the world, it is easy to think of him as a child having
access to very, very dangerous toys. Something that quite
understandably scares many of us. I do not for a second mean
to imply that he should be deliberately evil, but if he did not
have Colin Powell as restraining factor, I would be truly worried
about what might happen in the future. I think I am not alone
in thinking that the world has become a much less safe place
to live in since he was elected president. I would probably be
less inclined to question the motives for going to war against
Iraq if Clinton were still the president. After the collapse of the
Soviet union, there is no strong restraining factor on US foreign
policy, which means that to a large extent you can do pretty
much whatever you want, since noone dares to truly oppose
you. I cannot help sometimes feeling that perhaps the world
was a safer place during the cold war, since there was a
balance where nobody dared going too far. However, don't get
me wrong, I do not for a second wish to be back in the era of
the Soviet union. Anyway, I think this is something that many
americans are probably not aware of, and might find hard to
understand. Given the current superior power position of the
US, you are not only electing a president for your own country,
but also to some extent a president for the rest of the world.
A very tough responsibility, not to be taken lightly. Hopefully,
this can help explaining some of the difficulties for americans and
europeans to understand each other in the current matters.
Actually, I have wondered many times if the events of sep. 11
would have taken place if Gore had won the elections. My guess
is that they probably had, but I am far from convinced about it,
and I think it is a question well worth thinking about.
likely. Yet, many people outside the USA seriously believe it
is all about the oil, including my own father, and the same
arguments were frequently heard in the case of Afghanistan.
On the other hand, as Kelly said, it may still be one of several
factors, although I would then rather think it is political control
of an instable political element in the oil-producing region that
matters.
However, this frequently occuring theory goes deeper than
the actual claim, touching at an issue that has implicitly been
hinted at by many postings in this thread, including some of
my own, although noone has thought about saying it out aloud.
Maybe because some of think it is so obvious that we forgot
it may not be obvious to americans. This issue is that many,
many people outside the US have very little confidence in
George Bush as a politician, especially when it comes to
foreign policy. Of course, many people have always been
suspicious about the motives of the US when it comes to
foreign policy. This is partly because of many events in the
past, but I also think it is an understandable reaction to
suspect the motives of any superpower. Of course we did not
trust the Soviet union any more than we trusted the USA.
However, in this case Í think it goes much further. Although
Bush might have a way of expressing himself that appeals to
many US citizens, he very often talks in a way that many
non-americans, including myself, cannot interpret in any other
ways than that Bush is very naive and ignorant of the world
outside the US. Considering that he is the man who has the
authority to push the button to the most powerful weapons
system in the world, it is easy to think of him as a child having
access to very, very dangerous toys. Something that quite
understandably scares many of us. I do not for a second mean
to imply that he should be deliberately evil, but if he did not
have Colin Powell as restraining factor, I would be truly worried
about what might happen in the future. I think I am not alone
in thinking that the world has become a much less safe place
to live in since he was elected president. I would probably be
less inclined to question the motives for going to war against
Iraq if Clinton were still the president. After the collapse of the
Soviet union, there is no strong restraining factor on US foreign
policy, which means that to a large extent you can do pretty
much whatever you want, since noone dares to truly oppose
you. I cannot help sometimes feeling that perhaps the world
was a safer place during the cold war, since there was a
balance where nobody dared going too far. However, don't get
me wrong, I do not for a second wish to be back in the era of
the Soviet union. Anyway, I think this is something that many
americans are probably not aware of, and might find hard to
understand. Given the current superior power position of the
US, you are not only electing a president for your own country,
but also to some extent a president for the rest of the world.
A very tough responsibility, not to be taken lightly. Hopefully,
this can help explaining some of the difficulties for americans and
europeans to understand each other in the current matters.
Actually, I have wondered many times if the events of sep. 11
would have taken place if Gore had won the elections. My guess
is that they probably had, but I am far from convinced about it,
and I think it is a question well worth thinking about.
Meh
I just hope that the non-US residents of this board know that Bush does not speak for all of us, let alone the majority of us. Not all Americans are gun-toting-big-belt-wearing-war-mongering-money-hungry jackasses.
I certainly did not vote for Bush. I support a Palestinian state.
I want this ignoramous out of my leadership, as well as my country. I don't want to be represented by such people.
I think if people can realize that Saddam might be ruthless, but his people are starving and pitiful, then people can realize that although Bush is in power he certainly doesn't have the complete approval of his country.
(making me want to move to New Zealand and be a sheep farmer)
-American Maz
I just hope that the non-US residents of this board know that Bush does not speak for all of us, let alone the majority of us. Not all Americans are gun-toting-big-belt-wearing-war-mongering-money-hungry jackasses.
I certainly did not vote for Bush. I support a Palestinian state.
I want this ignoramous out of my leadership, as well as my country. I don't want to be represented by such people.
I think if people can realize that Saddam might be ruthless, but his people are starving and pitiful, then people can realize that although Bush is in power he certainly doesn't have the complete approval of his country.
(making me want to move to New Zealand and be a sheep farmer)
-American Maz
Christer: Random and thought-free responses to your thoughtful post:
Don't ask me to defend Bush, it's not like I voted for the guy. And the practical alternative was just as bad, maybe worse. But don't get me started on that. I can't think of any world "leader" that I could have confidence in; when you consider Bush's peer group globally, he suddenly doesn't look quite as bad. There are some good people running countries (Havel is one that comes to mind), but that doesn't necessarily translate to "competent." And truly smart and moral people like Havel are a distinct minority- Mugabe is more the rule.
We're living sweet now from all the oil we stole from Kuwait when our tanks rolled through there during Bush I.
People believe all kinds of things that don't make sense. It's no surprise to me when that transfers to considerations of economics and politics.
Excuse me, I'm getting back to this fascinating Bernard Lewis book.
Don't ask me to defend Bush, it's not like I voted for the guy. And the practical alternative was just as bad, maybe worse. But don't get me started on that. I can't think of any world "leader" that I could have confidence in; when you consider Bush's peer group globally, he suddenly doesn't look quite as bad. There are some good people running countries (Havel is one that comes to mind), but that doesn't necessarily translate to "competent." And truly smart and moral people like Havel are a distinct minority- Mugabe is more the rule.
We're living sweet now from all the oil we stole from Kuwait when our tanks rolled through there during Bush I.
People believe all kinds of things that don't make sense. It's no surprise to me when that transfers to considerations of economics and politics.
Excuse me, I'm getting back to this fascinating Bernard Lewis book.
Here is an article from the London Times about the letter of support for the US position drafted by eight European leaders.
Many European countries are angry that France and Germany claim to be speaking for all of Europe. It further shows that France and Germany's position has more to do with serving their own political and economic ambitions by publicly opposing the US than with any moral opposition. In fact last week, a Deputy Minister in the EU blamed France and Germany of acting unilaterally.
****************************************************
Eight leaders rally 'new' Europe to America's side
By Philip Webster, Political Editor
EIGHT European leaders today call on the Continent to stand united with America in the battle to disarm Iraq, while warning the UN that its credibility is on the line.
In a calculated rebuff to France and Germany — denounced by America last week as “old Europe” — the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic have combined to make an unprecedented plea in The Times for unity and cohesion. They say the transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of President Saddam Hussein’s threats to world security.
“Our strength lies in unity,” they argue, adding that Monday’s UN weapons inspectors’ report confirmed Saddam’s long-established pattern of “deception, denial and non-compliance”.
The appeal, contained in a joint article published on page 24, gives Tony Blair and President Bush an important boost as they prepare for their summit at Camp David tomorrow.
But it also lays bare Europe’s divisions. The words reflect the anger of some countries at the misgivings voiced by President Chirac and Gerhard Schröder and at what they consider to be their presumption to speak for Europe.
The joint appeal was suggested by José María Aznar of Spain, whom Mr Blair will meet in Madrid today. His office produced a draft article which other leaders read, amended and signed.
Señor Aznar, Mr Blair, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, José Manuel Barroso of Portugal, Péter Medgyessy of Hungary, Leszek Miller of Poland, Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark and President Havel of the Czech Republic say that the Iraqi regime and its weapons are a clear threat to world security that has been explicitly recognised by the UN.
In what appears to be a reminder to M Chirac and Herr Schröder, they say that “we Europeans” had reiterated backing for Resolution 1441 and the wish to pursue the UN route at both the Prague Nato summit and the Copenhagen European Council. In doing so, they sent an unequivocal message that they would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam’s deadly weapons.
“We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed,” they write. “The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully.”
They say the resolution is Saddam’s last chance to disarm peacefully and tell the Security Council that its task is to preserve international peace and security. To do so it must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions.
“We cannot allow a dictator systematically to violate these resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.”
The article is likely to infuriate France and Germany, which are already seething over Donald Rumsfeld’s description of them as “old Europe”. Asked about the mood in Europe last week, the US Defence Secretary said: “You are thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe. If you look at the entire Europe today the centre of gravity is shifting to the east. Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem. But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They are not with France and Germany on this. They are with the United States.”
Europe’s divisions were further underscored at Nato yesterday when France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg refused to discuss an American proposal to send Patriot missiles and surveillance aircraft to Turkey to protect it from a possible Iraqi attack. The four argued that moves to protect Turkey would be inappropriate while diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict with Iraq continued.
The article is also an important show of support for Mr Blair at a time when he is under increasing domestic pressure. Yesterday he lost patience with Labour MPs heckling him in the Commons over Iraq and told them bluntly that North Korea was next on his list for action.
When a Labour MP shouted “Who’s next?” at him, he retorted that after Iraq, “yes, through the UN we have to confront North Korea about its nuclear programme.” Another MP barked “Where does it stop?” bringing the response: “We stop when the threat to our country is fully and properly dealt with.”
Mr Blair also said for the first time that Britain had evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda, following up the warning in Mr Bush’s State of the Union address that Iraq might be arming terror groups.
************************************************
The US will not be acting unilaterally, with over 50 countries already pledged to giving assistance, just because old Europe wants to sit this one out. We'll take care of it *again*, with or without the UN or old Europe.
I'll just add the old Arab saying: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."
Many European countries are angry that France and Germany claim to be speaking for all of Europe. It further shows that France and Germany's position has more to do with serving their own political and economic ambitions by publicly opposing the US than with any moral opposition. In fact last week, a Deputy Minister in the EU blamed France and Germany of acting unilaterally.
****************************************************
Eight leaders rally 'new' Europe to America's side
By Philip Webster, Political Editor
EIGHT European leaders today call on the Continent to stand united with America in the battle to disarm Iraq, while warning the UN that its credibility is on the line.
In a calculated rebuff to France and Germany — denounced by America last week as “old Europe” — the leaders of Britain, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic have combined to make an unprecedented plea in The Times for unity and cohesion. They say the transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of President Saddam Hussein’s threats to world security.
“Our strength lies in unity,” they argue, adding that Monday’s UN weapons inspectors’ report confirmed Saddam’s long-established pattern of “deception, denial and non-compliance”.
The appeal, contained in a joint article published on page 24, gives Tony Blair and President Bush an important boost as they prepare for their summit at Camp David tomorrow.
But it also lays bare Europe’s divisions. The words reflect the anger of some countries at the misgivings voiced by President Chirac and Gerhard Schröder and at what they consider to be their presumption to speak for Europe.
The joint appeal was suggested by José María Aznar of Spain, whom Mr Blair will meet in Madrid today. His office produced a draft article which other leaders read, amended and signed.
Señor Aznar, Mr Blair, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, José Manuel Barroso of Portugal, Péter Medgyessy of Hungary, Leszek Miller of Poland, Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark and President Havel of the Czech Republic say that the Iraqi regime and its weapons are a clear threat to world security that has been explicitly recognised by the UN.
In what appears to be a reminder to M Chirac and Herr Schröder, they say that “we Europeans” had reiterated backing for Resolution 1441 and the wish to pursue the UN route at both the Prague Nato summit and the Copenhagen European Council. In doing so, they sent an unequivocal message that they would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam’s deadly weapons.
“We must remain united in insisting that his regime is disarmed,” they write. “The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully.”
They say the resolution is Saddam’s last chance to disarm peacefully and tell the Security Council that its task is to preserve international peace and security. To do so it must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions.
“We cannot allow a dictator systematically to violate these resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.”
The article is likely to infuriate France and Germany, which are already seething over Donald Rumsfeld’s description of them as “old Europe”. Asked about the mood in Europe last week, the US Defence Secretary said: “You are thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don’t. I think that’s old Europe. If you look at the entire Europe today the centre of gravity is shifting to the east. Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem. But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They are not with France and Germany on this. They are with the United States.”
Europe’s divisions were further underscored at Nato yesterday when France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg refused to discuss an American proposal to send Patriot missiles and surveillance aircraft to Turkey to protect it from a possible Iraqi attack. The four argued that moves to protect Turkey would be inappropriate while diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict with Iraq continued.
The article is also an important show of support for Mr Blair at a time when he is under increasing domestic pressure. Yesterday he lost patience with Labour MPs heckling him in the Commons over Iraq and told them bluntly that North Korea was next on his list for action.
When a Labour MP shouted “Who’s next?” at him, he retorted that after Iraq, “yes, through the UN we have to confront North Korea about its nuclear programme.” Another MP barked “Where does it stop?” bringing the response: “We stop when the threat to our country is fully and properly dealt with.”
Mr Blair also said for the first time that Britain had evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda, following up the warning in Mr Bush’s State of the Union address that Iraq might be arming terror groups.
************************************************
The US will not be acting unilaterally, with over 50 countries already pledged to giving assistance, just because old Europe wants to sit this one out. We'll take care of it *again*, with or without the UN or old Europe.
I'll just add the old Arab saying: "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on."
SY, I don't ask you to defend Bush. You seem to be one of the
well-educated, well-informed and thinking americans here. I
also completely agree that there are a lot of incompetent world
leaders, however, most of them do not have as much power and
influence on the world, which is why Bush is more worrying than
most. I do not, however, in any way mean that he is dangerous
in the sense of ruthless dictators like Saddam and others.
well-educated, well-informed and thinking americans here. I
also completely agree that there are a lot of incompetent world
leaders, however, most of them do not have as much power and
influence on the world, which is why Bush is more worrying than
most. I do not, however, in any way mean that he is dangerous
in the sense of ruthless dictators like Saddam and others.
In reality, the power of a US President to act unilaterally is quite circumscribed. We have a balance of powers- to take any action beyond limited-duration emergency measures requires assent of Congress, both as a practical matter and as a matter of law. Getting such assent is quite akin to herding cats. So Bush (or any other US President) could lob a few missiles, but beyond that he's got 535 other people in on the decision, a majority of whom he needs to convince. Clinton's inability to do so is one reason why, other than the liberation of Kosovo, he was restricted to some ineffectual and limited missile-tossing.
So, you Swedes can rest easy tonight. We're not going to knock off your Government or nuke Finland just because the President had a bad night.
So, you Swedes can rest easy tonight. We're not going to knock off your Government or nuke Finland just because the President had a bad night.
SHRAPNELLS
Hi,
I can hardly imagine Bush as president of any European country...
he simply wouldn't have a chance of being elected.
Same goes for quite a number of previous US presidents for that matter.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
I can hardly imagine Bush as president of any European country...
he simply wouldn't have a chance of being elected.
Same goes for quite a number of previous US presidents for that matter.
Cheers,😉
Yeah, but you guys put mayonnaise, for god's sake, on your French Fries. Hardly the mark of a civilized society.
FRENCH???
Hi,
Actually they're a Belgian recipe...and it's mayonaise not mayonnaise.
Ketchup regards,😎
Hi,
Actually they're a Belgian recipe...and it's mayonaise not mayonnaise.
Ketchup regards,😎
SY said:
Odd, I know. But I believe that they make their "French Fries" from named vegetables (potatoes). And they use mayonaise, not "salad cream."
Catsup regards
- Status
- Not open for further replies.