Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Russia going to support Ger&Fra proposal!

Russia going to support Ger&Fra proposal! (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:10 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do we need this slur?
Slur? Come on Simey.. a slur for what? It was a joke.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by willed:
No sh!t sherlock. It really amused me in other threads about this when Zimphire ranted on saying 'France and Germany are alone, fcking Old Europe!' when in fact it was America and the UK that were alone! The rest of the world pretty much is against this - most of the UN Security Council, and most countries outside it. When are you Americans (or Americans like Zim and Atef) going to realise it's France and Germany who are the only ones standing up for what the rest of the world doesn't have the balls to say.

Actually it's just Germany. France is always on it's knees doing exactly what Germany wants anyway.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:23 PM
 
Originally posted by driven:
Actually it's just Germany. France is always on it's knees doing exactly what Germany wants anyway.
Not true. If anything, the Germans tend to bow to France's wishes.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Slur? Come on Simey.. a slur for what? It was a joke.
Pansies = anti gay slur. And I take offense.
     
deekay1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: here and now
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:31 PM
 
Originally posted by willed:
it's France and Germany who are the only ones standing up for what the rest of the world doesn't have the balls to say.
kudos! EXACTLY what you said.

hedonist, anarchist, agnostic, mac enthusiast and a strong believer in evolution and the yellow m&m conspiracy
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:38 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Pansies = anti gay slur. And I take offense.
It is? I thought pansies ment someone that was you know, yella bellied, a chicken, etc. That is what it meant where I grew up.

But thanks for that bit of information.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:43 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
It is? I thought pansies ment someone that was you know, yella bellied, a chicken, etc. That is what it meant where I grew up.

But thanks for that bit of information.
That was an educaton for me as well. I *never* thought of pansies as an anti-gay slur.

(Actually I had a gay friend call me a pansie because I didn't want to go on a thrill ride when we went to an amusement park last year.)

Now .. I'll have to ask him what he meant.
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Every Bushie here on the board have been saying "Oh no, it's not about oil!". But at the same time you tend to always mention it.
I for one am not a "Bushie."

Of course this is about oil. France, Germany and Russia are against the war: clever, that, because their people are too. But I think it's not just because these politicians are now peacenicks. Instead, they're looking after their own oil needs and profits. For example,

As of October 2002, Iraq reportedly had signed several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimates $38 billion total on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals come to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believes is highly unlikely).
See the whole analysis here.

I think Germany, France and China are happy with the status quo, which a war would obviously shake that up. And, at least in Europe, one gets a lot of political mileage from standing up to the US. It's too bad Bush and Rumsfeld make European pol's work of demonizing Washington so easy. It's also too bad that the current administration has, to my mind, no strategy for winning the peace--a true requirement for lowering the threat of further terrorist attacks on the US.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by driven:

(Actually I had a gay friend call me a pansie because I didn't want to go on a thrill ride when we went to an amusement park last year.)

Now .. I'll have to ask him what he meant.
Maybe he was hitting on you
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Zimphire:
Maybe he was hitting on you



(Seriously ... I doubt it. He know's I'm straight ... I know he's gay. A few times he'll comment on a guy he sees and I look at him with the "WTF???" look and we laugh about it.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 01:14 PM
 
Originally posted by driven:
That was an educaton for me as well. I *never* thought of pansies as an anti-gay slur.

(Actually I had a gay friend call me a pansie because I didn't want to go on a thrill ride when we went to an amusement park last year.)

Now .. I'll have to ask him what he meant.
Actually, most of the standard "you are a weakling" slurs either boil down to accusing someone of being gay or female. E.g. calling someone a "pussy."

This one is one of the anti-gay types. Actually, it is an old UK english slur and very commonplace on that side of the Atlantic. Like a lot of words that people use, it is possible that when it crossed the Atlantic people started using it without understanding the derivation. For that reason, I'm happy to accept that Zim didn't mean it as an anti-gay slur.
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 01:16 PM
 
nevermind
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 01:35 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For that reason, I'm happy to accept that Zim didn't mean it as an anti-gay slur.
Then we are all good.
     
Developer
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: europe
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 01:42 PM
 
Confusing news about this proposal is that Fischer didn't know about it, France doesn't know about it, and now they are called "just ideas".

What remains is the fact that Schrļæ½der is apparently a major loser.
Nasrudin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side: "Hey! how do I get across?" "You are across!" Nasrudin shouted back.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 05:51 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is broad international division at the moment. The US position has broad international support, just not support from some western European countries. Many other countries have come out in support of the US position. Would the US go in without the support of France, Russia, and Germany? Yes, if push comes to shove, I think the US would. The US considers this to be a vital national interest. No government is going to compromise a vital national interest. Why not "jump aboard?" Because as Colin Powell said on the weekend, the French/German proposal is designed simply to obstruct a resolution of the problem. The roblem isn't insufficient inspections. The problem is Iraqi non-compliance with the directive to disarm and show the inspectors that they have disarmed. Increasing the inspectors by a couple of hundred will not disarm Iraq, it will give Iraq further time to continue building weapons of mass destruction and to further weaken international pressure on Iraq. The US will not allow that. End of discussion.

I mention oil in a different context to the way you mention it. The US is not going in to acquire Iraqi oil. The cost to the US of an invasion would be far higher than any possible gain from oil contracts. The easiest way for the US to acquire oil would have been to push to lift the sanctions as France and Russia were pushing a year and a half ago. In contrast, it is very largely about oil for France and Russia. For them, the status quo is the most profitable course. Both have massive oil contracts with the current regime in Iraq. Of course, there is also the interest of currying favor with pacifists. I do not doubt that there is some genuiness to their position.

You suggest that the UN might try to pass resolutions to spite the US. You forget that the UN can't pass any security council resolutions without US approval. Any anti-US resolutions would simply be vetoed. The UN was deliberately designed so that no major power could use it as a stick with which to beat each other.
Simey, given your couple of quotes about the French and the Russians needing and wanting Iraqi oil, I have to note that Russia has some of the worlds largest oil rserves and isn't dependant on Iraqi oil in any way. The French very possibly, but definitely not the Russians.
weird wabbit
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 05:56 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
Simey, given your couple of quotes about the French and the Russians needing and wanting Iraqi oil, I have to note that Russia has some of the worlds largest oil rserves and isn't dependant on Iraqi oil in any way. The French very possibly, but definitely not the Russians.
AFAIK, Russia's contracts are for oil extraction in Iraq.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 06:04 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sure 8 years in the White House has familiarized Clinton with international law. Clinton is a pretty bright guy, after all. He also has a degree in international politics. But mainly, he is very experienced. He was doing this stuff when Putin was still a secret policeman, for example.
International law is a completely different subject to international politics. All politicians are not lawyers. Clinton is certainly no more more familiar with international law than scholars of international law or Kofi Annan.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Incidentally, about the Secretary General. Do you realize that the Secretary General has no authority on peace and security issues? He's the head of the Secretariat. Peace and security issues in the UN are solely a matter for the Security Council. The secretariat is not involved. When Annan makes these comments, he is speaking beyond his authority.
Actually Simey you're wrong though I'm not sure why you raise this. I said Kofi Annan knows more about international law than Clinton - that has nothing to do with what powers either of them has.

In any event, when last did you read Article 99 of the UN charter? I seem to recall that it says that the Secretary General can refer threats to international peace to the Security Council just like individual states or the General Assembly can. He is also empowered to carry out investigations into threats to international peace of his own volition. He therefore does have quite a lot of authority in the general scheme of things, on peace and security issues. Only the members of the Security Council have more power than he does on these issues. It is, therefore, not correct to say that Annan has no authority. You may want to look at Dag Hammarskjoeld's actions in Congo as an example of how much power the UN Secretary General can wield. When Annan expresses an opinion on international law or the way in which he thinks a state should act, he is NOT "speaking beyond his powers." He is well within his powers to do that assuming he even needs to rely on his power to express an opinion. There is a long history of UN Secretary General's doing precisely that.

The argument that the US would be breaking international law if it acted without a UN resolution is pretty simple. The Kellog-Briand pact, various UN resolutions, the UN charter, a number of international treaties and international customary law have the effect of creating only two exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force. These are the use of force by the Security Council and the use of force in individual or collective self-defence. You can only take action in self-defence when it is an immediate and necessary response to a situation threatening your security and vital interest. It is a brave soul that would argue that Iraq presents such a threat to US security. Given the clarity of the breach, the vast majority of scholars of international law are of the opinion that US action without a Security Council resolution would indeed be illegal. I'm not sure the US cares, but it would still be illegal. I repeat my point that this would be a very dangerous precedent the US would be creating.
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 06:15 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you under the impression that relations between nations are conducted by straw poll? There is no democracy between nations. France does not ask the US for permission to act, and the US is not in a position to prevent France from acting. The same exists in reverse. The US is a sovereign nation. If the US feels that it is in the US vital national interest, the US will act. French opinion will be listened to, but if we think they are wrong, we will ignore them just as the French would surely ignore the US if France thinks the US is wrong. Sorry, but if you thought otherwise, you are living in a dream.

This isn't about the power to act derived from military might. This is about the power to act based on state sovereignty.
Well, in Europe we most often talk about disagreements and try to respect each others POV. One example is Sellafield. You can surelly google to find out what I mean. The UK doesn't completelly follow our request but they made a step in the direction. But it seems like the US are above this ideal practised in civilized countries.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 06:38 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
First, the death of state sovereignty has been greatly exaggerated. It exists. It is realty and the whole of international law is predicated upon it.

Second, this isn't going to result in any western country applying sanctions to any other. Nobody has any interest in turning a recession into a global depression for the sake of defending Saddam.

This will blow over in a couple of months at most. Calm down.
Maybe on the political level, but I doubt arabs and muslims over the world will just forget this. And another thing I've noticed is that you are giving the European left something to build on in the next election. Now, usually you would like the EU right to run the show(as do I) but in polls in Iceland and Sweden the left is getting stronger. Be prepared for a EU controlled by the left and some tension in our relations.
We didn't cause this.

BTW, I'm quite charmed by your interest in protecting the US from ourselves on terrorism. Sorry, that we disagree about what the best policy is. We'd prefer to actually tackle it. Your close your eyes and hope Saddam will go away approach has been tried, and it failed. Buying him off hasn't worked either
About this I have to mention the way Britain has handled IRA. Have they invaded Ireland recently? No. They sacrificed to handle this dispute as peacefully as possible.

Originally posted by Neomac:
You know what is funny about all this?

Saddam is going to take the French and German proposal and he's going to shove it in their face (to put it politely).

Do you really think Saddam is going to turn over his country to the U.N.?

** By the way, guys, there is no need to be rude against each others countries. We should discuss the policies on their merits. I know, I've been a bit rude before too, but we can all make an effort to clean things up.**
First I suspect that the Old Europeļæ½ proposal would have some statement like "severe consequences" in it, or something that would allow the UN to act on this matter.

On the latter I agree.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 06:42 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 5, 2004 at 12:06 AM. )
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 06:49 PM
 
Originally posted by daimoni:
Uh. They don't have to. They already occupy it.

Still.
Only a bit of it. Sorry.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 10:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
International law is a completely different subject to international politics. All politicians are not lawyers.
Actually, the two degrees aren't that different. It so happens that I am rather familiar with this because I have the same undergraduate degree from the same university as Clinton. The difference between the international law and international politics majors is minimal and both will expose you to more than just the basics. Also, Clinton is a lawyer. He has a JD from Yale, as well as an MA from Oxford. I don't know how many international law classes he took, but it is common to take a few. More importantly, though, he spent 8 years as president. Clearly, he would have had briefings on international law since he led the US into several armed conflicts.

Anyway, why is it so important to you to belittle him and his knowledge? I don't belittle Joscka Fischer or say he's ignorant just because he doesn't have a college degree. You can disagree with somebody without that, you know.

In any event, when last did you read Article 99 of the UN charter?
I think it was about 3 years ago, maybe 4.

Sure, the UN Secretary General can refer matters to the Security Council. But only the Security Council in the UN can decide what to do. The exception is if the Council delegates to the Secretary General. That's what happened in the Congo case with Dag Hammarskjold. He was operating in the Congo on Security Council authority when he was killed.

There is one other exception to the exclusivity of authority under the UN Charter, and that is very minor and hasn't been used in 47 years. If the Security Council deadlocks, there can be a "Uniting for Peace" resolution in the General Assembly that can under those circumstances only make binding resolutions. But this is next to impossible to do in real life now that the UN is so much bigger and Uniting for Peace is now considered a dead letter. Almost as dead as the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

I'm aware of how hotly debated preemptory self defense is among international jurists, but it isn't relevant here. If the US has to go in without a new resolution, the justification would be the previous resolutions, including 1441. All of the Chapter VII resolutions, and particularly 1441, are subect to sufficiently broad interpretation to justify military enforcement. Failing that, there is still the ceasefire agreement that Iraq signed but which is still in effect from the end of the last Gulf War. Iraq has clearly breached it, and that breach would provide ample grounds for renewed hostilities should the UN Security Council duck its responsibilties again. So either way, the justification would be positive, not customary international law. This is unlike Kosovo, for example, which is just one of many examples of hostilities that have not been overtly authorized by the UN Security Council. The actual legal justification for Kosovo was (and I'm not making this up) instant customary law. Both Schroeder and Chirac were satisfied with that justification, weak (but creative!) though it was.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Feb 11, 2003 at 09:46 AM. )
     
ink
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2003, 10:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Well, it seems like France and Germany aren't the only ones that are against the US point of view.
Oh please; half of Americans are against the "US" point of view.
First I suspect that the Old Europeļæ½ proposal would have some statement like "severe consequences" in it, or something that would allow the UN to act on this matter.
Like the current resolution is?

Behave! Or there shall be very very extremely punative, extraordinary, severe consequences!

Vote against war again
( Last edited by ink; Feb 10, 2003 at 10:46 PM. )
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 07:23 AM
 
About Northern Ireland, here is a link to the basics of their history.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_r...land/10657.stm

As you will see occupation began in the 12th century long before IRA was founded. After the foundation of IRA is what I was talkng about.

To Simey.

You said earlier that the letter 10 European leaders shows that there is broad support in Europe for the US POV. Well, for starters the danish primeminister did not consult the danish government which reduces the number to 9 nations supporting you in Europe. Now, do you know how many countries there are in Europe? 9 is but a small number of European nations. But maybe the others are just irrelevant?

The US keeps claiming that the UN is important and that everyone should try to make the UN stronger, but at the same time you are undermining the authority of the UN. How come? Don't talk about the national interest in going in to Iraq. If you use that argument you could just as well pump up the oil, put it on a tankerplane and fly around the world dumpnig it to ignite every spark there is.

And tell me what is wrong, in your opinion not Bush&co, about this proposal?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 08:20 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
To Simey.

You said earlier that the letter 10 European leaders shows that there is broad support in Europe for the US POV. Well, for starters the danish primeminister did not consult the danish government which reduces the number to 9 nations supporting you in Europe. Now, do you know how many countries there are in Europe? 9 is but a small number of European nations. But maybe the others are just irrelevant?

The US keeps claiming that the UN is important and that everyone should try to make the UN stronger, but at the same time you are undermining the authority of the UN. How come? Don't talk about the national interest in going in to Iraq. If you use that argument you could just as well pump up the oil, put it on a tankerplane and fly around the world dumpnig it to ignite every spark there is.

And tell me what is wrong, in your opinion not Bush&co, about this proposal?
Logic, we could go around on this all day. Eight nations signing the Wall St Journal letter is significant support. A further ten signing a separate communique is additional support. This isn't a black and white thing. I don't have any problem conceding that there is a great deal of support for Schroeder's position. Why are you so horrified at the idea that Schroeder doesn't represent all Europeans? Does the idea make you that insecure?

As for undermining the UN, I think that today's lead editorial in the (generally liberal) Washington Post puts the case fairly well.

Enjoy!
     
noliv
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 08:23 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Well, for starters the danish primeminister did not consult the danish government which reduces the number to 9 nations supporting you in Europe.
Actually it is the same thing in portugal: the PM did not even consult the PRESIDENT! In Czechoslovakia the president didn't consult his governement.

In Poland 80% of the population is against war... this is democracy.
-noliv
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 10:09 AM
 
You guys should probably take a look at this as well.
The Inspections Dodge
Why are France and Germany pro-Saddam? Follow the money.

BY KHIDHIR HAMZA

Mr. Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, is the co-author of "Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda" (Scribner, 2000).

My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military industry were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to keep the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and to a degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because they maintain lucrative trade deals with Baghdad, many of which are arms-related. . .
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 10:33 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Would those Americans on the boards that think like Spliffdaddy....
Just want to point out that spliff is on my speed ignore permanently. There are people who are conservative, even militant, but hopefully only one person who thinks like spliffdaddy...

no offense to anyone intended, but just wanted to clear that up, tangentially.

I tire of people pointing to the most extreme poster and assuming that represents the whole of america or insert country of origin here. (not that troll did, but wanted to forestall that assumption before it came to full bloom).
     
Lerkfish
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 10:42 AM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Well, in Europe we most often talk about disagreements and try to respect each others POV.
oh, please.

enough of this condescending crap. If what you say were true, you'd respect the POV of americans, and that certainly isn't the case.

Not that I personally agree with the present Bush juggernaut myself, but c'mon, this "we europeans are genetically superior to americans" stuff is not an argument, isn't true, and really shows your prejudices more than your validity.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
oh, please.

enough of this condescending crap. If what you say were true, you'd respect the POV of americans, and that certainly isn't the case.

Not that I personally agree with the present Bush juggernaut myself, but c'mon, this "we europeans are genetically superior to americans" stuff is not an argument, isn't true, and really shows your prejudices more than your validity.
You caught that too eh? Heh
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 03:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Lerkfish:
oh, please.

enough of this condescending crap. If what you say were true, you'd respect the POV of americans, and that certainly isn't the case.

Not that I personally agree with the present Bush juggernaut myself, but c'mon, this "we europeans are genetically superior to americans" stuff is not an argument, isn't true, and really shows your prejudices more than your validity.
Lerkie, relax.

I just read my post again and I see that it sounded terribly, sorry.

I never said that we europeans are genetically superior to americans, I should know this as I'm studying molecular biology

But I'm going to try to explain what I meant. Here in Europe we most often try to listen to each others and try to get to some compromise. Most often that has also been the deal in EU-US relations. Not always but often. What I think what many europeans think right now is anger that the US isn't consulting us. It feels like the only option we have is to either join you or to be against you. And both is against our interest. We don't want to be dragged into this war unless we have something to say about how and when it is going to start and progress, and on the other hand we want to work with you on finding a solution. It is also new(I think) in our relations that the US doesn't even want to listen to Old Europesļæ½ proposal and just dismiss it straight away. At least I think it would be good for our relations if the US would listen, critize and come up with some kind of counter offer(I have no idea if this is the correct term).

I hope you agree with this.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 04:00 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
AFAIK, Russia's contracts are for oil extraction in Iraq.
True, I should have thought about it for a minute.
weird wabbit
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Logic, we could go around on this all day. Eight nations signing the Wall St Journal letter is significant support. A further ten signing a separate communique is additional support. This isn't a black and white thing. I don't have any problem conceding that there is a great deal of support for Schroeder's position. Why are you so horrified at the idea that Schroeder doesn't represent all Europeans? Does the idea make you that insecure?

As for undermining the UN, I think that today's lead editorial in the (generally liberal) Washington Post puts the case fairly well.

Enjoy!
Could you tell me wich ten other European nations gave you support and tell me if it was a support for US going in on their own or their support for disarming Iraq. There is a big difference.

About the editorial.....

It starts by saying that the target of Fra&Ger and their supporters is not Iraq but the US. Well if that isn't a complete lie and sets the tone for the rest of it I don't know what is. It follows up with saying "Yesterday in Brussels, the two European governments, seconded by tiny Belgium, blocked the NATO alliance" emphasis on tiny like they are irrelevant! Then it goes on saying that they are defying the 16 others by this stand they take. Well isn't then US defying the UN security council because 11 of 15 do seem to support the proposal put forth by Fra&Ger? Then it goes on saying that they are denying US the chance to be involved in the planning, well the US has already set the tone and just ask others to either join them or not. Is the involvement just a right for the US?

I could go on but I wont bother. You are not going to change your view nor listen and even remotely give any credit to Europe for their view on this matter.

As you said before, "Discussion closed".

But for others please go on.
( Last edited by Logic; Feb 11, 2003 at 05:28 PM. )

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Lerkie, relax.

I just read my post again and I see that it sounded terribly, sorry.

I never said that we europeans are genetically superior to americans, I should know this as I'm studying molecular biology

But I'm going to try to explain what I meant. Here in Europe we most often try to listen to each others and try to get to some compromise. Most often that has also been the deal in EU-US relations. Not always but often. What I think what many europeans think right now is anger that the US isn't consulting us. It feels like the only option we have is to either join you or to be against you. And both is against our interest. We don't want to be dragged into this war unless we have something to say about how and when it is going to start and progress, and on the other hand we want to work with you on finding a solution. It is also new(I think) in our relations that the US doesn't even want to listen to Old Europesļæ½ proposal and just dismiss it straight away. At least I think it would be good for our relations if the US would listen, critize and come up with some kind of counter offer(I have no idea if this is the correct term).

I hope you agree with this.
Uhm, I don't mean to be patronising but Iceland is not exactly in the middle of Europe, nor is it in the EU. I think you have an idealising view of Europe to a certain extent. The amount of infighting amongst politicians of the same and different countries would do justice to what Newt Gingrich and Clinton used to do to one another. The reason that it generally hasn't devekolved into major conflict yet is because the EU as an institution has, in general, brought about a major improvement of trade inbetween the member countries, which is why so many in eastern Europe want in. It has also simplified laws to a certain extent and brought about a more stable Europe in general. But a picnic it isn't.

As for countries supporting the US/UK position, the BBC has an article on recent Polls in Spain showing that 91% of the people oppose the war under any circumstances. While the showing is probably not that high in any other country apart from Iraq itself, I don't think that there is a single country in the world where a majority of the population wants a war. The US population might, I'm not sure, and the percentage of that population supporting the war might go up in the US as the rhetoric heats up (everyone in every country tends to get defensive about his or her country when they feel it is threatened), but the other countries leaders supporting this campaign says more about the state of democracy in those countries than about their support for this war.
weird wabbit
     
daimoni
Occasionally Quoted
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Francisco
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 04:59 PM
 
.
( Last edited by daimoni; Jul 5, 2004 at 12:10 AM. )
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:18 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
Uhm, I don't mean to be patronising but Iceland is not exactly in the middle of Europe, nor is it in the EU. I think you have an idealising view of Europe to a certain extent. The amount of infighting amongst politicians of the same and different countries would do justice to what Newt Gingrich and Clinton used to do to one another. The reason that it generally hasn't devekolved into major conflict yet is because the EU as an institution has, in general, brought about a major improvement of trade inbetween the member countries, which is why so many in eastern Europe want in. It has also simplified laws to a certain extent and brought about a more stable Europe in general. But a picnic it isn't.
Well, I have lived half my life in Sweden and still have many friends in Sweden. Fighting amongst politicians is daily bread(as we say in Iceland), but in general European countries tend to listen and try to find some common ground. The EU has indeed helped European relations as well as incerasing the unity here in Europe. And about that Iceland isn't exactly in the middle of Europe, you know we got television, cable, satellite TV, radio and obviously the internet. Just because we are in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean we are isolated

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:22 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have the same undergraduate degree from the same university as Clinton.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Actually, the two degrees aren't that different.
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The difference between the international law and international politics majors is minimal
The problem with statements like these is that they provoke a response which just makes me guilty of the intellectual snobbery that I would be complaining about if I took you on. So I'm not going to get into a competition of comparing my credentials with you. I'll just stick to my original statement that "International law is a completely different subject to international politics," and leave it at that
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Sure, the UN Secretary General can refer matters to the Security Council. But only the Security Council in the UN can decide what to do.
So we agree then that your statement that "the Secretary General has NO authority on peace and security issues" is inaccurate! You agree with me that he does indeed have the same power as states that are not members of the Security Council and, in some cases, he actually has more powers than they do. Or are you saying that states also have no authority on peace and security issues?
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
All of the Chapter VII resolutions, and particularly 1441, are subect to sufficiently broad interpretation to justify military enforcement.
The wording of 1441 is as clear as the day is long when it comes to the consequences of a breach. I'm not going to repeat what it says. You've read it and you know that lawyers and civil servants draft and interpret those resolutions. They are drafted carefully and they mean what they say.

Aside from that, 11 of the 15 members of the Security Council have made it clear that they do not accept the interpretation that you are arguing; namely that Resolution 1441 authorises force. It would be impossible for the US to argue, in light of these two facts, that they were acting on behalf of the Security Council in invading Iraq. Which leaves the self-defence argument which is dead in the water ... don't even insult our intelligence by arguing that one.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:31 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Well, I have lived half my life in Sweden and still have many friends in Sweden. Fighting amongst politicians is daily bread(as we say in Iceland), but in general European countries tend to listen and try to find some common ground. The EU has indeed helped European relations as well as incerasing the unity here in Europe. And about that Iceland isn't exactly in the middle of Europe, you know we got television, cable, satellite TV, radio and obviously the internet. Just because we are in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean we are isolated
Sh1t, you mean you guys aren't using the longboats anymore? No more invading and pillaging of Irish monasteries for their booze, and Irish convents for their women? No more valhalla?

I'm saddened. My whole world view has suddenly fallen apart.

(JOKE, OK?)
weird wabbit
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:33 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
Sh1t, you mean you guys aren't using the longboats anymore? No more invading and pillaging of Irish monasteries for their booze, and Irish convents for their women? No more valhalla?

I'm saddened. My whole world view has suddenly fallen apart.

(JOKE, OK?)
I'm sorry

I'll do my best to bring all that back, OK?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
I'm sorry

I'll do my best to bring all that back, OK?
Give me a call when you get close to Ireland
weird wabbit
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:42 PM
 
Can you two stop kidding around. I'm trying to get worked up about this thread
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:47 PM
 
Me too, but it ain't working

If I say something against US policy I'm anti-american, ignorant, irrelevant and the list goes on.

I just tried to show that the support for the US policy isn't as huge as some here claim. Notice that Simey hasn't yet shown what 10 countries he was talking about nor answered the latter part of my question. Maybe he hasn't been here but I think that he probably won't answer it just because my opinion on this matter is irrelevant.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:49 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
The problem with statements like these is that they provoke a response which just makes me guilty of the intellectual snobbery that I would be complaining about if I took you on. So I'm not going to get into a competition of comparing my credentials with you.

Actually, we weren't talking about my credentials, we were talking about Bill Clinton's. I only mentioned mine because at the undegraduate level, they happen to be identical, which gives me some idea of what his undergrad degree covered. You mentioned that he did an international politics major, not international law. I'm just saying that knowing the institution the way I do, the difference between the two degrees is minimal. Usually about half a dozen upper division or graduate classes separate the two majors. Both of them include a hefty dose of international law, but without actually looking at the guy's transcript it is hard to know exactly how much. It obviously varies quite a bit from individual to individual.

Besides, it is irrelevant. The basic principles of the UN Charter aren't that complicated. A president of the United States would be familiar with it after 8 years in office. Formal education isn't the issue. After all, you may recall that Ernest Bevin had only a grade school education. It didn't stop him from being one of the greatest foreign secretaries of Britain.

So we agree then that your statement that "the Secretary General has NO authority on peace and security issues" is inaccurate! You agree with me that he does indeed have the same power as states that are not members of the Security Council and, in some cases, he actually has more powers than they do. Or are you saying that states also have no authority on peace and security issues?
This is getting silly. Most of the times I post here, I'm summarizing. Shades sometimes get lost. But if you want to be pedantic, then yes, the Secretary General has similar powers to a state that is not a member of the Security Council. That is, he is consulted, can be invited in, and can refer matters to the Council. He can also have powers delegated to him by the Council as I indicated was done with Hammarskjold. What he can't do is vote in the Council, or make binding statements upon member nations in the way that a member of the Security Council can. In other words, he might be involved in peace and security issues, but he has no authority over them. Clear enough?
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:49 PM
 
Context got all messed up. Sorry, withdrawn!
     
Logic  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The northernmost capital of the world
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 05:58 PM
 
Well Simey, could you please tell me about the 10 european countries that supports the US policy in this matter besides the ones mentioned earlier?

And please don't say that this isn't a court of justice, I just want to know so I can check it out by myself, OK?

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. OBL 29th oct
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:00 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Well Simey, could you please tell me about the 10 european countries that supports the US policy in this matter besides the ones mentioned earlier?

And please don't say that this isn't a court of justice, I just want to know so I can check it out by myself, OK?
Yes, you could check for yourself.

But here you are:

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. They declared:
"Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend shared values... We are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce [Resolution 1441]and the disarmament of Iraq."
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:04 PM
 
Originally posted by Logic:
Me too, but it ain't working

If I say something against US policy I'm anti-american, ignorant, irrelevant and the list goes on.

I just tried to show that the support for the US policy isn't as huge as some here claim. Notice that Simey hasn't yet shown what 10 countries he was talking about nor answered the latter part of my question. Maybe he hasn't been here but I think that he probably won't answer it just because my opinion on this matter is irrelevant.
Simey has an undergrad degree in international politics from the same university as Clinton and he has a postgrad degree too. Did you know that?

I think we're all irrelevant. I personally think this war had a start date 2 months ago when The Guardian spilled the beans. I think the reason Bush and his cronies are getting so upset is because they're between a rock and a hard place. Committed to the war and not on track for getting the political support they'd like.

I heard Icelandic people smile more than any other people on earth. Someone actually did research on that!!
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:30 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, you could check for yourself.

But here you are:

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia. They declared:
"Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend shared values... We are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce [Resolution 1441]and the disarmament of Iraq."
You could buy those countries with a handful of beads. Their "support" is nothing more than jumping through hoops to secure Western capital. They'll say whatever US loan officers tell them to say.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 06:39 PM
 
I think in Europe it goes like this:

Against: France, Andorra, Sweden, Greece Germany, Luxembourg, Russia
Neutral: Finland, Switzerland

The rest a for.
In vino veritas.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, EspaƱa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2003, 07:30 PM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
I think in Europe it goes like this:

Against: France, Andorra, Sweden, Greece Germany, Luxembourg, Russia
Neutral: Finland, Switzerland

The rest a for.
No.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,