[Troll]

Those of you who think that Schroeder is only against the war to make political gains in Germany, ask yourself why Bush is for the war. Might it have something to do with the state of the economy, the state of his foreign relations, the fact that he is losing the war against terrorism?

Polls show that US citizens prefer the French approach to Bush's approach. That means that the only difference between Bush and Schroeder is the fact that Schroeder is saying what his people think.

I have yet to meet a German or a Frenchman (and I come into contact with them daily) that is in favour of a war in Iraq. Irrespective of the level of support for Schroeder, German and French opposition to the war in Iraq is massively high.

I would think that if Bush follows the path of unilateralism that he debuted upon by refusing to sign the landmine treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the International War Crimes Tribunal treaty etc. etc., he will wind up destroying the UN ... and we all know what a happy place the world was before the UN.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I would think that if Bush follows the path of unilateralism that he debuted upon by refusing to sign the landmine treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the International War Crimes Tribunal treaty etc. etc., he will wind up destroying the UN ... and we all know what a happy place the world was before the UN.

The UN has never stopped a war without the use of national armed forces - usually American. The UN is, and always has been, a fig leaf for the major powers and historically, all of those major powers have reserved to themselves the right to act unilaterally. As an example, check French history to see what I mean. France exercises its military frequently, and rarely asks UN permission first. Whether you are talking about the Indochina war, or most recently in Sierra Leone, France acts alone.

So saying that if Bush and his allies act without a UN vote is laughable. The only reason there won't be a UN vote is if France, Russia, or China veto the UN from endorsing a vote that otherwise would win in the Security Council. That veto might undermine the UN, not anything the US would do.

Much more likely, the French will come around and either vote for the US/British resolution, or at worst abstain allowing it to go forward. There is a good chance of this. See here and here. France doesn't want to destroy the last institution in the world where it has real clout. The same goes for Russia. China has never used its veto unilaterally, and is unlikely to do so now. The UN will therefore probably endorse this war, if war is still necessary (i.e. if there is no coup in Iraq).


Incidentally, your comment about how most Americans agree with the French position is flatly contradicted by the most recent polls. See here in the Washington Post.

After the president's State of the Union speech on Tuesday in which he laid out the case for a U.S.-led invasion, the survey found that 66 percent of Americans favor taking military action against Iraq, up from 57 percent two weeks ago and the most support for war since mid-September.

[euphras]

Quote: originally posted by theolein

"Increasing military spending to around $500 Billion a year and plowing along with a $300 Billion deficit while at the same time trying to cut taxes around $670 Billion over 10 years doesn't sound like sound economic principles to me. Hmmm... I wonder if military uniforms are edible?
Aside from that the SPD got it collective butt kicked in those elections because the Germans are ultra pissed with the massive round of tax raises that Schr�der and co introduced. It's as simple as that. It doesn't have anything to do with the German government's anti-war stand. Most people (probably very much like your average Mohammed in Baghdad) are more worried about trying to make a living in a world that is rather ****ed economically and politically.
I'm one of them. I'm sh1t scared that a war in the middle east is going to go over the top and start an endless round of violence and economic collapse and indirectly lose me my rather tenuous job. I was recently unemployed for over a year and it was painful and humiliating and I was hungry sometimes and couldn't pay my medical insurance which I need because I'm disabled. Sometimes I felt like dying it was so bad. And for the ****ing love of God, I live in switzerland. I can barely think what life must be like for all those millions of poor ****ers in this world that no one will ever listen to, but will get bombed to **** in any case. All in the name of politics, religion and oil.
**** WAR!"

i second that

Only one point: If the CDU would had managed to win the election, do you think taxes wouldn�t have been raised???

Pat

[davesimondotcom]

I can't believe I'm responding to someone who's NAME is Troll...but...

Originally posted by Troll:
Those of you who think that Schroeder is only against the war to make political gains in Germany, ask yourself why Bush is for the war. Might it have something to do with the state of the economy, the state of his foreign relations, the fact that he is losing the war against terrorism?

Or how about the fact that terror and Iraq are linked? And do you have any facts that we are losing the war on terror? Like how many terrorist events have occurred on American soil since September 11, 2001?

Originally posted by Troll:
Polls show that US citizens prefer the French approach to Bush's approach. That means that the only difference between Bush and Schroeder is the fact that Schroeder is saying what his people think.

Could you point me to that poll? The last poll that I saw showed approval for military action in Iraq up to 66 percent and Bush having an approval rating of well over 50%.

Originally posted by Troll:
I have yet to meet a German or a Frenchman (and I come into contact with them daily) that is in favour of a war in Iraq. Irrespective of the level of support for Schroeder, German and French opposition to the war in Iraq is massively high.

This is a rather strange statement. First you say that Shr�der has the majority of his countrymen with him. Then you cite people who are against him. Then you say that despite the election results, the people are against the war. What?

Originally posted by Troll:
I would think that if Bush follows the path of unilateralism that he debuted upon by refusing to sign the landmine treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the International War Crimes Tribunal treaty etc. etc., he will wind up destroying the UN ... and we all know what a happy place the world was before the UN.

Unilateralism. The favorite word of the anti-war left. Do you even know what that word means?

How can one be acting "unilaterally" when they have most of Europe (except France and Germany) and many other countries with them? That seems pretty MULTI-lateral to me. Or is it unilateral until you agree with it?

As far as Kyoto, how many other nations have signed it? Hell, CLINTON didn't even want to waste political capital pushing for it.

War Crimes Tribunal? Do you mean the World Court? That's some scary ! The US isn't like most of the EU - we don't want to sign over our sovereignty to the UN...

Oh, and as for the UN, is the world really better off with it? Since the UN has come about, after all, look at what has happened:
[list=1][*]Israeli/Palestinian Conflict[*]Korean War[*]Vietnam War[*]Global Terrorism[*]Boy Bands[*]SUV's[*]Global Warming[/list=1]

Admittedly, the UN can't be blamed for it all, but I would like to know one thing that the UN has really done to improve anything.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The UN has never stopped a war without the use of national armed forces - usually American.

How bout the Cold War? Didn't the UN stop that? How many world wars were there between 1945 and 2003? How bout the Cuban missile crisis, how bout the end of apartheid? Oh come on, since the League of Nations, many conflicts that would have been sorted out violently have been solved peacefully. I'm not saying the UN is perfect, but it's a lot better than what went before. I think even numbskull Bush understands that the UN system benefits the US.

So saying that if Bush and his allies act without a UN vote is laughable. The only reason there won't be a UN vote is if France, Russia, or China veto the UN from endorsing a vote that otherwise would win in the Security Council. That veto might undermine the UN, not anything the US would do.

Does that first sentence even make sense? Or the second? How does one veto if one doesn't vote? Exercising the veto would clearly strengthen the UN system. The veto is there for a very good reason.

France doesn't want to destroy the last institution in the world where it has real clout.

This is just a silly statement and if you listened to Chirac, you'd understand why this is silly. If France goes against its principles on this and goes along with the US, then the "last institution where it has real clout" has already been destroyed.

Incidentally, your comment about how most Americans agree with the French position is flatly contradicted by the most recent polls. See here in the Washington Post.

Might I quote from the Article you referenced? "But most Americans -- 57 percent -- would like to see Bush present more evidence before using force." That sounds pretty much exactly like what Chirac is saying.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
As a result we're dropping our home here ASAP and are moving back to London for now.

didn't you want to move to canada?

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wow! I wish I had your optimistic, sunny disposition!

didn't you mean to say my "clear and very realistic" assesment of the situation.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I hate doing the interweave answers thing, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Originally posted by Troll:
How bout the Cold War? Didn't the UN stop that? How many world wars were there between 1945 and 2003? How bout the Cuban missile crisis, how bout the end of apartheid? Oh come on, since the League of Nations, many conflicts that would have been sorted out violently have been solved peacefully. I'm not saying the UN is perfect, but it's a lot better than what went before. I think even numbskull Bush understands that the UN system benefits the US.

No, the UN didn't stop the Cold War. In fact, the UN was almost completely paralysed by the Cold War. That was because both superpowers had vetoes on the Security Council. They therefore both bypassed the UN and held head-to-head summits.

The Cuban Missile Crisis had nothing to do with the UN. The only UN involvement was when the US Ambassador used the Security Council to debunk the Soviet lies about not having missiles. Adlai Stevenson showed U2 imagery of the missiles. Other than that, the crisis was solved by bilateral diplomacy between the US and the Soviet Union.

The same can be said for all of the other Cold War superpower crises. They were all resolved outside of the UN, although the UN sometimes provided the forum for discussions. To use an analogy: renting a church hall to hold a meeting does not imply that the church made the meeting successful. The meeting was successful or not because of what the participants did. The reason those crises didn't become violent also wasn't because of the UN, it was because the consequences of what would have been a nuclear war were well understood by both sides. It wasn't the UN that kept the peace, it was mutual nuclear deterrance

The UN does have its uses. You just have to remember that it is more of a rubber stamp for what the great powers have already decided than it is any kind of independent deliberative body. If you think that it is an independent body, then you don't understand how the UN is structured.

Does that first sentence even make sense? Or the second? How does one veto if one doesn't vote? Exercising the veto would clearly strengthen the UN system. The veto is there for a very good reason.

A French veto would weaken the UN system because it will be ignored. The UN (and by extention, France) would thus be exposed as powerless. A similar fate befell the previous body, the League of Nations. Once resolutions get passed to no effect, the body loses its authority. France's best course is therefore to vote with the US, or to abstain. Either would keep the UN in the process and save face.

This is just a silly statement and if you listened to Chirac, you'd understand why this is silly. If France goes against its principles on this and goes along with the US, then the "last institution where it has real clout" has already been destroyed.

Welcome to the real world. France isn't at the high table any more and really hasn't been since World War II. But we preserve the illusion that France is still a great power in the UN, where France has a permanent seat in the Security Council. That's why the UN means much more to France than it does to the US. This means Chirac loses this round.

Might I quote from the Article you referenced? "But most Americans -- 57 percent -- would like to see Bush present more evidence before using force." That sounds pretty much exactly like what Chirac is saying.

Which is precisely Chirac's wiggle room, and what will allow him to endorse a second resolution that will allow the use of force. He will argue that the case has been made.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
How bout the Cold War? Didn't the UN stop that? How many world wars were there between 1945 and 2003? How bout the Cuban missile crisis, how bout the end of apartheid? Oh come on, since the League of Nations, many conflicts that would have been sorted out violently have been solved peacefully. I'm not saying the UN is perfect, but it's a lot better than what went before. I think even numbskull Bush understands that the UN system benefits the US.

Wrong. The UN did not stop the Cold War. The Cold War ended when the USSR collapsed under it's own weight. Give much more credit to Ronald Reagan than the UN.

Negotiations and paper don't prevent conflict, nor end it. Ask Neville Chamberlain.

Originally posted by Troll:
Does that first sentence even make sense? Or the second? How does one veto if one doesn't vote? Exercising the veto would clearly strengthen the UN system. The veto is there for a very good reason.

So, if the entired UN Security Council were to vote for action against Iraq, except France, who would be the one acting Unilaterally? Bush or Chirac?

Originally posted by Troll:
This is just a silly statement and if you listened to Chirac, you'd understand why this is silly. If France goes against its principles on this and goes along with the US, then the "last institution where it has real clout" has already been destroyed.

The French don't want war because they always lose. We need the French in this war like a "fish needs a bicycle."

Originally posted by Troll:
Might I quote from the Article you referenced? "But most Americans -- 57 percent -- would like to see Bush present more evidence before using force." That sounds pretty much exactly like what Chirac is saying.

OK, pay close attention to General Powell tomorrow then...

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

Or how about the fact that terror and Iraq are linked?

Iraq and terror are linked? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that. If not for us then at least for Donald Rumsfeld who has been scouring all sources for some link to present to the world. If you understood anything at all about Arabs, you'd understand why the chances of Al Qaeda and Iraq working together are pretty much zero. Heck, even Bush doesn't accuse Saddam of working with Al Qaeda. This piece of candy has a WMD wrapper not a terrorism wrapper!

And do you have any facts that we are losing the war on terror? Like how many terrorist events have occurred on American soil since September 11, 2001?

Oh come on, you aren't trying to say that the US is winning the war on terror? Bin Laden is neither dead nor has he been captured alive. Same goes for Mullah Omar and most of the al qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda is as active as it ever has been (in fact more so) and has been responsible for a number of US casualties all over the world. Attacks like 9/11 are once in a lifetime events. They take years to plan. There's no evidence that another one isn't going to happen. In the meantime, we have Bali, Kenya, Peshawar, the French bus bomb, the tanker attack, cells in London, Paris, Madrid and Rome being broken up, US officials and troops being assasinated left, right and center. By trying to out-terrorise the terrorists, the US is creating terrorists not eliminating them. You think a war in Iraq will make more or less people decide to dedicate their lives to destroying the USA?

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

This is a rather strange statement. First you say that Shr�der has the majority of his countrymen with him. Then you cite people who are against him. Then you say that despite the election results, the people are against the war. What?

Uh, do you understand that a majority doesn't mean every last one? Do you understand that the election was not a referendum on whether to send German troops to Iraq? The point is most Germans are against the war irrespective of whether they vote for or against Schroeder in an election. This is really basic English, my friend!

How can one be acting "unilaterally" when they have most of Europe (except France and Germany) and many other countries with them?

Where do you get that from? Donald Rumsfled says that it's only old Europe that is against the war and you think "most" of Europe is for a war. That is just plain crud. Of the 12 European nations, the majority is still against a war without UN backing. Rumsfeld might want to have a look at the political makeup of the EU or the size of the economies of European states and then think about who really matters in the EU. Hint: it's not Poland!

As far as Kyoto, how many other nations have signed it?

Uh, pretty much every other nation on earth actually. 93 to be precise. Of course, the world's biggest per capita polluter hasn't.

War Crimes Tribunal? Do you mean the World Court? That's some scary ! The US isn't like most of the EU - we don't want to sign over our sovereignty to the UN...

No actually, I mean precisely what I said. Not the World Court, but the International War Crimes Tribunal. There is criticism of the US position on the IWCT that you can read, but basically, it doesn't make sense to me that an issue of soveriengty is raised where a US soldier is accused of raping and Iraqi woman during battle, doesn't stand trial in the USA and is then brought to trial before the IWCT. It's not as if US courts are paragons of justice and if the guy isn't guilty why not try him yourselves. Bush makes me laugh when he says he'll haul Saddam before the IWCT if he uses WMD against US soldiers!

[deekay1]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
So what WOULD change it? Raising taxes and increasing government spending?

meh. wtf? why do you think that anything WILL change it at all?

[Atef's corpse]

boo-yah! Simey & dave puttin' the smack down. Now that's a brass-knuckled backhand.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by deekay1:
meh. wtf? why do you think that anything WILL change it at all?

because most Americans are overtaxed as it is. It's their money the government takes, not the government's money to begin with.

besides, decreasing taxes is an effective way to increase government revenue. Kennedy and Reagan did so by lowering income taxes, including those taxes on the wealthy. Government revenue went up.

Western Europe could take note, but they tax their populations into governmental dependence and mental numbness.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
Iraq and terror are linked? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that. If not for us then at least for Donald Rumsfeld who has been scouring all sources for some link to present to the world. If you understood anything at all about Arabs, you'd understand why the chances of Al Qaeda and Iraq working together are pretty much zero. Heck, even Bush doesn't accuse Saddam of working with Al Qaeda. This piece of candy has a WMD wrapper not a terrorism wrapper!

Who was the first (and only) country to come out in praise of 9/11? Iraq. What country provides money to the families of suicide bombers? Iraq. What makes you think that if Iraq develops WMD that they won't use them on us or our allies? Or SELL THEM TO TERRORISTS?

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh come on, you aren't trying to say that the US is winning the war on terror? Bin Laden is neither dead nor has he been captured alive. Same goes for Mullah Omar and most of the al qaeda leadership. Al Qaeda is as active as it ever has been (in fact more so) and has been responsible for a number of US casualties all over the world.

Prove that Bin Laden is alive. You can't. Because he isn't. Why would the US government announce his deather if they knew about it? To make him a martyr?

Originally posted by Troll:
Attacks like 9/11 are once in a lifetime events.

I certainly hope so. I'd hate to see that again.

Originally posted by Troll:
They take years to plan. There's no evidence that another one isn't going to happen.

Yeah, Terrorists don't plan on a sequel for their largest success. WHAT?

Originally posted by Troll:
In the meantime, we have Bali, Kenya, Peshawar, the French bus bomb, the tanker attack, cells in London, Paris, Madrid and Rome being broken up, US officials and troops being assasinated left, right and center. By trying to out-terrorise the terrorists, the US is creating terrorists not eliminating them. You think a war in Iraq will make more or less people decide to dedicate their lives to destroying the USA?

How many terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11? Many, I am sure.

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh, do you understand that a majority doesn't mean every last one?

Yes, I do know what a majority is. Do you still not understand what unilateral means?

Originally posted by Troll:
Do you understand that the election was not a referendum on whether to send German troops to Iraq? The point is most Germans are against the war irrespective of whether they vote for or against Schroeder in an election. This is really basic English, my friend!

And what Shr�der or Germans think doesn't matter to me. The US will do the right thing anyway, and history will judge us to be correct.

Originally posted by Troll:
Where do you get that from? Donald Rumsfled says that it's only old Europe that is against the war and you think "most" of Europe is for a war. That is just plain crud. Of the 12 European nations, the majority is still against a war without UN backing.

Problem for you is that as of right now, the UN is on the US's side. As far as 12 European countried, you might want to consult a map.
[list=1][*]Albania[*]Andorra[*]Austria[*]Belarus[*]Belgium[*]Bosnia and Herzogowina[*]Bulgaria[*]Croatia[*]Czech Republic[*]Denmark[*]Estonia[*]Finland[*]France[*]Germany[*]Gibraltar[*]Greece[*]Hungary[*]Iceland[*]Ireland[*]Italy[*]Latvia[*]Liechtenstein[*]Lithuania[*]Luxembourg[*]Macedonia[*]Malta[*]Moldova[*]Monaco[*]Netherlands[*]Norway[*]Poland[*]Romania[*]Russia[*]San Marino[*]Slovakia[*]Slovenia[*]Spain[*]Sweden[*]Switzerland[*]Ukraine[*]United Kingdom[*]Vatican City[*]Yogoslavia[/list=1]

I'm pretty sure that's more than 12.

Originally posted by Troll:
Rumsfeld might want to have a look at the political makeup of the EU or the size of the economies of European states and then think about who really matters in the EU. Hint: it's not Poland!

You might want to look at who's economy makes the world economy tick. Hint: It isn't run by Jacque Chirac! I guess that means that the US can do what it wants because it matters more.

Originally posted by Troll:
Uh, pretty much every other nation on earth actually. 93 to be precise. Of course, the world's biggest per capita polluter hasn't.

Name them. The fact is, it's easy for a country that would benefit from putting restrictions on the US to sign it. But the fact is, whatever Bush does with Kyoto doesn't matter. CONGRESS has to approve it. And it won't. And it shouldn't.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
boo-yah! Simey & dave puttin' the smack down. Now that's a brass-knuckled backhand.

ooh, ahhh impressive...NOT!

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Atef's corpse:
because most Americans are overtaxed as it is. It's their money the government takes, not the government's money to begin with.

yawn! come back to me when lowering taxes really changes anything in 2003 and there after...


but then you could always start a war...hey, now there's an original idea!

[Troll]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Who was the first (and only) country to come out in praise of 9/11? Iraq. What country provides money to the families of suicide bombers? Iraq. What makes you think that if Iraq develops WMD that they won't use them on us or our allies? Or SELL THEM TO TERRORISTS?

The "War on Terrorism" generally refers to events linked to Sept 11. It doesn't refer to te Palestinian liberation movement or to ETA or the IRA or any number of other "terrorist activities." Iraq has no proven links to Sept 11 or Al Qaeda. There is no link therefore between the "War on Terrorism" and Al Qaeda. As for Saddam selling WMD, that's no more a likelihood today than it was 10 years ago. Furthermore, there are a bunch of other countries that are as much in danger of doing this. Why not bomb them too? Besides which, can we see some proof that Iraq has WMD? Can we maybe let Blix and his men do their job? I'm all for getting rid of WMD but no one has proved that Iraq has them. Also, I think the US would set a good example if it got rid of the ludicrous number of WMD it has!

Iraq apparently provides money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers in much the same way as the US provided money to UNITA and to Saddam Hussein and to countless other despots or the way Russia funded the ANC's terror campaign in South Africa. Giving money to Palestinian martyrs' families shouldn't qualify Iraq to be invaded.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

Prove that Bin Laden is alive. You can't. Because he isn't. Why would the US government announce his deather if they knew about it? To make him a martyr?

Oh please. Suddenly the onus is on Bin Laden to prove he's alive. Suddenly Dubya ranting about we will get him dead or alive is all forgotten. Of course the US would announce Bin Laden's death if they could prove it. And if being a martyr is as powerful as you suggest, why hasn't Al Qaeda announced his death? Anyway, there are countless other Al Qaeda leadership figures that are still at large and Al Qaeda is at least as powerful today as it was 3 years ago. Point is, Bush is making more terrorists through his policies. I can't see how anyone can give Bush a pass grade for the job he's doing.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

How many terrorist attacks have been prevented since 9/11? Many, I am sure.

Actually, Messrs. Chirac and Schroeder are doing more to break up terrorist cells than Mr. Bush is.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

And what Shr�der or Germans think doesn't matter to me. The US will do the right thing anyway, and history will judge us to be correct.

Now you're talking. This is precisely why the US is making enemies out of its friends and precisely why it's making worse enemies of its enemies. It's astounding how quickly George Bush spent the political capital he had after Sept. 11. The US doesn't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks or what it does to the rest of the world. Not a great way to make friends. I hope the US does the right thing. Doing the right thing at the moment doesn't mean invading Iraq!

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
As far as 12 European countried, you might want to consult a map.

There are 12 countries in the European Union. I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about Europe in the political rather than the geographical sense. In any event, would you care to put together a list of which of those countries is prepared to go to war without a UN resolution.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

You might want to look at who's economy makes the world economy tick. Hint: It isn't run by Jacque Chirac! I guess that means that the US can do what it wants because it matters more.

No one denies that the US is the most powerful nation on earth. It's an empire. The point is that France and Germany are the biggest players in Europe. It's laughable to say they are not significant players when it comes to Europe and that is precisely what Rumsfeld implied.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

Name them.

Here you go,

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

The fact is, it's easy for a country that would benefit from putting restrictions on the US to sign it. But the fact is, whatever Bush does with Kyoto doesn't matter. CONGRESS has to approve it. And it won't. And it shouldn't.

You have no idea do you. You really think other countries want to keep the US down by forcing it to be as efficient as they are. Do you realise that Kyoto sets per capita targets? The earth is a shared resource and the US is using it irresponsibly. If the US reduced its emissions the way Europeans have, they'd make the world a better place for themselves too. And developing nations face far more difficulties in complying than the US does. Btw, the US did sign the protocol. It just decided afterwards to invent the concept of unsigning a treaty.


Look, I'm fed up with trying to rationalise with you war mongers. I'll make my case one last time. Schroeder and Chirac are probably playing political games with the Iraq question. That's precisely what Bush is doing though. All three are trying to divert attention from other issues through Iraq. The difference is that Bush's countrymen actually don't support an attack on Iraq without UN backing whereas Schroeder and Chirac's people do support their stance on avoiding the loss of innocent lives at all costs and letting the UN do its job properly. The US has presented no compelling reasons as to why an attack on Iraq is necessary at this time. We'll see what Powell says tomorrow, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I think some of you don't realise that innocent people are going to die if the US goes into Iraq. Apart from the fact that killing these people for no good reason is morally reprehensible, innocent dead people have family that get mad when you kill their relatives. Angry relatives become terrorists. Why don't you try this story replacing Bush for Hussein and think of how you'd feel if the roles were reversed. Then ask yourself if the inspectors route might not be worth pursuing.

[Spliffdaddy]

get a grip

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Troll:
There are 12 countries in the European Union. I think it's pretty clear that I was talking about Europe in the political rather than the geographical sense. In any event, would you care to put together a list of which of those countries is prepared to go to war without a UN resolution.

Two links for your consumption:

234 to 142

Weasel/Non-Weasel Scoring

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

234 to 142

Weasel/Non-Weasel Scoring

Viva the New (Non-Weasle) Europe!

[theolein]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

...

A French veto would weaken the UN system because it will be ignored. The UN (and by extention, France) would thus be exposed as powerless. A similar fate befell the previous body, the League of Nations. ...Once resolutions get passed to no effect, the body loses its authority.

...

You mean like all the resolutions on Israel that get vetoed by the USA? What about their Weapons of Mass Destruction? When is the USA going to present evidence against Israel and call for massive military strikes against them for developing and posessing around 200 nuclear warheads? In truth we all know it'll never happen as long as there is a strong jewish lobby in the US and Israel doesn't piss the USA off too much. But for very large parts of the worlds population, questions like this and curiosity about the USA's treatment of North Korea vis a vis it's treatment of Iraq are confusing at best and the cause of anger and hatred at worst.

Most people simply do not see any real pressing reason to attack Iraq. I, for one don't doubt that Iraq has WMD, but I fail to see why exactly Iraq is being painted as such a terrible danger? If it were my government I would be asking why they are making such a big thing of this instead of worrying more about things like the economy or is it an attempt to divert attention away from the economic problems of huge military spending, high deficits and tax cuts to the wrong people at the wrong time? The constant threat of war is fukking with nearly every country's stock exchanges, including Wall Street.

So why?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by theolein:
You mean like all the resolutions on Israel that get vetoed by the USA? What about their Weapons of Mass Destruction? When is the USA going to present evidence against Israel and call for massive military strikes against them for developing and posessing around 200 nuclear warheads? In truth we all know it'll never happen as long as there is a strong jewish lobby in the US and Israel doesn't piss the USA off too much. But for very large parts of the worlds population, questions like this and curiosity about the USA's treatment of North Korea vis a vis it's treatment of Iraq are confusing at best and the cause of anger and hatred at worst.

Good think you are Swiss - your argument has as many holes as your cheese.

Moral equivilency between Israel and Iraq? You must be kidding.

[Atef's corpse]

Originally posted by theolein:
You mean like all the resolutions on Israel that get vetoed by the USA?

those 'resolutions' are little more than Arab and left-wing European antisemitism that makes its way into Security Council business by way of the truly virulent and nausea-inducing General Assembly.

What about their Weapons of Mass Destruction? When is the USA going to present evidence against Israel and call for massive military strikes against them for developing and posessing around 200 nuclear warheads?

So why doesn't France do it? Or Russia? Or China? Fact is, the Powers aren't concerned about Israel's nukes because Israel can be trusted with them. Israel is a developed, democratic country. Regimes and countries like Saddam and Kim Il are the antithesis of Israel. You know it, so don't spout off next time before thinking through.

questions like this and curiosity about the USA's treatment of North Korea vis a vis it's treatment of Iraq are confusing at best and the cause of anger and hatred at worst.

that's their own fault for being irrational, short-sighted, ignorant, and permanently attached to the Tit of Propaganda.

Most people simply do not see any real pressing reason to attack Iraq. I, for one don't doubt that Iraq has WMD, but I fail to see why exactly Iraq is being painted as such a terrible danger?

The rest of the world is incapable of taking action, and in the event of a catastrophe or in the event action were (again) needed, they would crawl to the United States, begging for help and aid, yet spitting on it when it would render such aid.

The world doesn't see the danger because it wouldn't be responsible for cleaning the shite when it would hit the fan. The stench would foul the entire world, and the splattered feces would reach all over, yet everyone would look to the United States for post-shite-hitting-fan action and leadership.

[Troll]

Originally posted by theolein:
You mean like all the resolutions on Israel that get vetoed by the USA? What about their Weapons of Mass Destruction? When is the USA going to present evidence against Israel and call for massive military strikes against them for developing and posessing around 200 nuclear warheads? In truth we all know it'll never happen as long as there is a strong jewish lobby in the US and Israel doesn't piss the USA off too much. But for very large parts of the worlds population, questions like this and curiosity about the USA's treatment of North Korea vis a vis it's treatment of Iraq are confusing at best and the cause of anger and hatred at worst.

Most people simply do not see any real pressing reason to attack Iraq. I, for one don't doubt that Iraq has WMD, but I fail to see why exactly Iraq is being painted as such a terrible danger? If it were my government I would be asking why they are making such a big thing of this instead of worrying more about things like the economy or is it an attempt to divert attention away from the economic problems of huge military spending, high deficits and tax cuts to the wrong people at the wrong time? The constant threat of war is fukking with nearly every country's stock exchanges, including Wall Street.

So why?

My sentiments exactly. Israel too is in breach of UN resolutions for its weapons of mass destruction which it continues to develop unmonitored or the fact that it has a history of sharing those weapons with pariah states or that it is not a signatory to any WMD treaties or that apart from anything else, giving the appearance of treating Israel with a fair hand is important to peace in the middle east. The truth is that Iraq is not that dangerous. The IAEA and UNMOVIC said they got 99% of the weapons the last time round. The war itself destroyed less than 1% of the WMD's so which is more effective? WMD is a ruse. It's about as important to this war as women's rights was to Afghanistan.

Everything is so dumbed-down by the American media and government so that it can be easily consumed by Americans, that they no longer have the capacity to handle concepts that aren't presented as black and white, good or evil, with us or against us. That's why Bush is so popular.

Powell speech wasn't aimed at persuading the weapons inspectors or the Security Council (it didn't do that). It was aimed at persuading the average American that you saw coming to the fore in the recent National Geographic survey. Those people aren't going to ask themselves the kinds of questions you posed or question whether a modified vehicle is something other than what Powell implies or whether those pictures mean anything. Now, when are we going to see more pictures of babies getting thrown out of incubators...

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:


---Patronising comment snipped---

Moral equivilency between Israel and Iraq? You must be kidding.

Have you ever listened to the more conservative members of the Israeli government? The comparison isn't as far fetched as you're trying to make out.

[theolein]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Good think you are Swiss - your argument has as many holes as your cheese.

I'm not Swiss, just live here. Good Think, no?

[Troll]

BBBBOOOOKKKKKKEEEEE

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by theolein:
I'm not Swiss, just live here. Good Think, no?

Gee, sorry, I made a typo.

[theolein]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Gee, sorry, I made a typo.

No, you made a mistake.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by theolein:
No, you made a mistake.

Yes, a typo is a mistake, thanks for the clarification. But I do know English well enough to have not intentionally said "Good think" when I meant "Good thing."