# What's up with Germany, France and Belgium?



## themacko (Feb 13, 2003)

What's up with these countries not allowing NATO to protect Turkey?  It seems to me, that France (who has been invaded by none other than the Germans twice this century) would be sympathetic to Turkey's situation.  I can understand if these countries don't want to participate or even support the war on Iraq (I'm not thrilled with the idea, personally) but jeez at least allow us to PROTECT a fellow country from chemical and biological weapons.


----------



## Cat (Feb 13, 2003)

They all have stated that they do not want to take a decision regarding Turkey's request _before the weapon inspector's report_. AFAIK this is their point of view. They all have said they take their duties as NATO countries very seriously etc. but they simply don't want to get ahead of developments and provoke an attack by massing troops at the border with Iraq. I think it's a good thing, what they did. First the highest organ gets to make a decision: the UN security council. And it must be a well-informed decision, thus we wait for the final report. No need to get ahead of times. If NAVO was to take for granted that a war is coming, the whole buisness of inspections etc. would indeed have been useless.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 13, 2003)

maybe it's cos the turks are genocidal scum. they commited the first ever genocide against armenia in 1914 or 15 and they've killed a load of kurds like saddam, it's just they brown-nose america so get away with it.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Feb 13, 2003)

actually the turks (ottomans) killed, enslaved and plundered a lot of people (like the greeks) for centuries before the kurds and armenians. -- history is history though, we cannot hold the germans responsible for something hitler did, and I do not hold current day turks for what their ancestor Sulleiman did to my people, the greeks, however if they are fanatic SOBs like some turks, I have no compasion for them. Fanatisism is where I draw the line, I only wish to talk to the educated people that use their heads.


As far as FR, DE, and Belgium go... they are a bunch of people that have their undies soiled by being in bed with iraq and their oil for the last decade, if they did not oppose this and other measures the dirt would come out.


----------



## toast (Feb 13, 2003)

So much posts, so little knowledge.



> It seems to me, that France (who has been invaded by none other than the Germans twice this century) would be sympathetic to Turkey's situation.



What the hell are you insinuating ? That Turkey is likely to be invaded by Iraq ? Not only this theory is completely absurd and fictitious, it also shows a great lack of information and knowledge about how international relations work in the Middle East.



> PROTECT a fellow country from chemical and biological weapons



You should know Turkey has its weapons of its own, no need for NATO weapons.



> maybe it's cos the turks are genocidal scum. they commited the first ever genocide against armenia in 1914 or 15 and they've killed a load of kurds like saddam, it's just they brown-nose america so get away with it.


1) Turks aren't genocidal scum any more. Show respect, please. Brits have been genocidal scum too.
2) The first ever genocide was Japanese (1905), although it's not mentioned nor reckoned by your occidental education.



> As far as FR, DE, and Belgium go... they are a bunch of people that have their undies soiled by being in bed with iraq and their oil for the last decade, if they did not oppose this and other measures the dirt would come out.



European undies are soiled just the same way American ones are. Of you don't understand this, why don't you:
1) read the OPEC fundation chart ?
2) read the damn news about BP ? Do you know the US part of BP's initial budget and shares ?

Back to initial question. France, Germany and Belgium are not refusing any help to Turkey, which they are planning to accept in the European Union. What a paradox it would be if they were refusing help !
No, FR, GER and BEL are refusing to deploy armament, as "it would look too much like a preparation to war", to quote my own President M Jacques Chirac.
Plus, if you knew the history of your own country a bit more, you would knew that Turkey has bought anti-Patriot missile heads from the 70s to the US (because of the SALT treaties), and that those heads are still valid today.


----------



## Jason (Feb 14, 2003)

What's up with the United States of America?


----------



## toast (Feb 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jason _
> *What's up with the United States of America? *



Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard"
Public Press 1997 (French edition: Bayard Presse, Paris, 1997)


----------



## Pengu (Feb 14, 2003)

While we're handing out slander.


> "it would look too much like a preparation to war", to quote my own President M Jacques Chirac.


What about nuking small pacific islands? Is that a preparation for war?


----------



## ksv (Feb 15, 2003)

_Protect_ Turkey? Eh?
What about _protecting_ the civilian population, and the non-voluntary soliders of Iraq against uranium based cruise missiles and cluster bombs?


----------



## toast (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Pengu _
> *While we're handing out slander.
> 
> What about nuking small pacific islands? Is that a preparation for war?  *



Nope. It's called showing off nuk. disuasion. There you are . Obviously the Papeete nuking was awfully stupid, we do agree. But it did not threaten human lives, BTW.


----------



## Ugg (Feb 15, 2003)

Hmmmm, what a mess the world is today.  Whatever the outcome, I do believe this is the beginning of the end of the American century and it is about time  

The US wants to show that it doesn't believe all Muslims are bad, only those that disagree with its policies.   The fact that the EU voted NOT to allow Turkey entry into the EU is a large part of this equation.  The reason they voted no was due in large part to Turkey's flaming violations of human rights.  

Iraq will probably not invade Turkey, they don't have the weapons for one thing and the US is currently controlling the northern territory and has been systematically bombing northern Iraq for the last ten years.  Of course northern Iraq is where the Iraqi Kurds live.  So by insisting that Turkey will be bombed by Iraq, the US is able to force NATO into a showdown and Turkey will be able to arm the border with Iraq even more than it is now. Also Turkey has been granted by the us the permission to commit genocide against not only the Kurds in Turkey but the Iraqi Kurds who will surely show up as refugees.  A greater border threat by far is Iran.  

dubya, rummy, arschcroft and now even Colin Powell want us to believe in a fundamentalist christian world of unrelenting severity.  Where only the righteous shall rule the world and only the FCs shall be the righteous.  Obviously, I disagree.


----------



## chevy (Feb 15, 2003)

Joung (6-10) children in Switzerland have been asked what they think about a war in Iraq. Many said they were afraid. Afraid of what ? Afraid of USA attacking Europe.

It may sound strange as USA never spoke about that, but in the head of children here, they remind several economical conflicts with the USA and they don't understand why USA want to attack Iraq... therefore they are afraid that the next target of USA may be Europe. They are more afraid of the USA than of the mulsim extremists (that already committed several terrorist attacks in Europe in the 90's).


----------



## Ugg (Feb 15, 2003)

I remember a trip to Canada in the early 80s and talking to a bunch of people about how many Canadians were afraid of the US taking over Canada.  It seemed ludicrous then as it does now.  The US I think if nothing else, has learned the lessons that Europe is still paying for.  Colonies are expensive, messy things to have.  France is still paying the price in Cote d'Ivoire.  

Having said that, I think that there is no doubt that the us wants nothing more or less than the entire world to dance to its tune and will let nothing stand in its way.  The rest of the world has seemed to take a passive approach to the US desire for control these past few decades, as long as the US was the world's policeman.  Now that it is clear the the policeman is morally corrupt, we will all pay the price for such a laisser faire attitude.  

If even children from Switzerland fear the destructive force of the US then it can only be too apparent that the US has gone too far.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 15, 2003)

they could be scared because attacking Iraq will piss off a lot of muslim extremists and will increase the chance of a terrorist attack on Europe.


----------



## Cat (Feb 15, 2003)

Depending exactly on how an attck is launched, with or without UN support, the 'muslim extremists' could be a problem exclusively reserved for Bush and Blair... If america goes on a  solo tour with britain as sidekick, there are going to be also a lot of less fundamentalist people that are really pissed off...
I can understand a childs fear when warmongers are warming up their guns...


----------



## chevy (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mrfluffy _
> *they could be scared because attacking Iraq will piss off a lot of muslim extremists and will increase the chance of a terrorist attack on Europe. *



We live with terrorism from many sources (extrem right, extreme left or mulsim) since the 70's.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *...The US I think if nothing else, has learned the lessons that Europe is still paying for...*



You're right, we learned the leason.  That leason started in 1939 and involved the whole damn world, because of similar attitudes about a dictator.  We learned in the last 10yrs Iraq has no respect to abide by it's agreements, and will pose a threat to us...maybe not now, but in the future.  Bush learned what happens when his predecessors didn't have the brains, or guts, to hold Sadam to his agreement.  

We've seen this all before, sad thing is some people didn't learn a damn thing from History.



Do I want war, no.  I have 3 family members in the services.  One is a Marine who was just called to Kuwait a month ago.  Is it time to make a stand, yes...WAY OVERDUE.  And, I would go if called.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 16, 2003)

I want to make it clear that I don't like the idea of war. However, I seem to see that the rest of the world wants "peace in our time". 

If you are given a ticket for speeding/etc. and were told to go to court on a certain date, you would be held responsible for your actions. Then why should we wait 10+ years for Saddam to hold to his agreement to disarm? How many chances should the world give him to account for his known poison gasses. Also what about the 300+ Kuwait citizens who were kidnapped in the early 90's? Where does the world draw it's line in the sand with this dictator? It seems nowhere.

Plus, give me one historic example when sanctions worked.


----------



## Cat (Feb 16, 2003)

What an interesting idea! Let's make war on Saddam! It's 1991 again, the allied forces come within sight of Bagdad, the internal opposition insurges, ready to overthrow the dictator, and then ... nothing happens ... the allies drew a line, in the sand, and didn't get over it ... what a good idea: let's make a war on someone end then _not_ defeat him. Instead we pester him the following 10 years with inspections, sanctions and embargoes. Who suffers? The citizens, not the dictator. America knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, because they supplied them to him in the first place! Now the USA is going to war again. Inspectors are getting increasing results and collaboration from the regime and are definitely up to something. If the USA invade Iraq, how are they going to find all the missing weapons? Is this in fact the real goal they have? The USA say they want regime-change to stabilize the Middle-East. I cannot imagine aything more disruptive to peace in the Middle-East than a war that nobody wants. Some European leaders may seem favorable to the idea, most of the population is not. All the Middle-East countries will be asking themselves who is next, first and foremost the Saudi's and Iran. The USA intend to establish a miitary regime, because no reliable opposition leader is available, like Kharzai was in Afghanistan. Do you think they can enforce peace and democracy this way? I remember someone accusing the Romans: "They make a desert, and call it peace" Is this the American dream, insofar it concerns foreign nations?


----------



## fryke (Feb 16, 2003)

Okay, okay, okay. But how do we solve the America-Problem?

I have given it much thought, but I think a European/Russian/Japanese alliance alone is not enough. The USA have gone too far already and must be stopped immediately. What good is the UN if it can't be used to stop the USA from going to war all over the world, choosing its targets depending on where their money lies?

Something must be done about the America-Problem. To cite an old Roman: "Ceterum censeo, americam esse delendam."


----------



## Cat (Feb 16, 2003)

A European coalition cannot be formed even now, so a direct confrontation is well nigh impossible. First and foremost Europe itself should be internally strenghtened and be made capable of acting and reachting as one body. Russia could be a very good partner for this, but don't forget the Maghreb counttries too. Japan is quite difficult, as it is one of the major import/export partners of America and does not share the European culture. 

One major element of blocking America consists in stenghtening their rivals in economical - political sense. If the Middle-East could unite behind a leader, or leading country it could provide a much stronger opposition to the USA in certain matters. I also see possibilities in the military emancipation of Europe. A Pan-european army would make NATO even more irrelevant than it already is. Europe shou focus more on the development of an African Union through counselling and diplomatical aid. Much is to be gained from a solid Africa as partner. 
Since religion in Europe does not play any fundamental role anymore, it can have an emancipatin and liberating role from religious fundamentalism and dogmatism in the Islamic cultures. This would constitute a valid couterpole to Bush's pseudo religious-talk of good, evil and god.

The American propaganda machine, the unilateral news US most citizens recieve, must be closely watched and corrected. American internal opposition should be helped and supported: socialists, environmentalists, anti-globalists etc. As an answer to the amiricanization of culture, alternatives should be stressed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself.

International treatises and organizations must be given more power to control states like the USA. Alternatives to the existing structures must be sought for, e.g. a Mediterranean Local Council, wherein Europe, the Middle-East and Africa could partecipate 10 years from now, or an Eurasiatic league, EU plus Russia.

American global influence (military, cultural, economical) could be roughly reduced to 75% of what it is now within ten years and 50% within 25.

In the field of scientific research, technological innovation and industrial production the EU can outperform the US, if and only if they can unite their efforts.

"Usque tandem abutere patientia nostra, america?"


----------



## toast (Feb 16, 2003)

> they could be scared because attacking Iraq will piss off a lot of muslim extremists and will increase the chance of a terrorist attack on Europe.



Or on the US.

EDIT: Iraq is only Middle Est who never supported terrorism by state financial help, unlike Syria, Jordany, Iran, Israel/Palestine (obviously), Lebanon etc.

I'm thinking of adding a line in my signature that would quote Morgenthau: "International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power".


----------



## Cat (Feb 16, 2003)

> Iraq is only Middle Est who never supported terrorism by state financial help, unlike Syria, Jordany, Iran, Israel/Palestine (obviously), Lebanon etc.



So that is why the US attack them, aha!


----------



## mdnky (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Iraq is only Middle Est who never supported terrorism by state financial help, unlike Syria, Jordany, Iran, Israel/Palestine (obviously), Lebanon etc. *



It depends on your defination of terrorism.  In reality, they have sponsored terrorism but do not admit to it.

The Iraq GIS (General Intelligence Service) has been a known sponsor of WMD and terrorism.


Here's an interesting document, Iraq is around pg19.


----------



## dafuser (Feb 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Okay, okay, okay. But how do we solve the America-Problem?
> 
> I have given it much thought, but I think a European/Russian/Japanese alliance alone is not enough. The USA have gone too far already and must be stopped immediately. What good is the UN if it can't be used to stop the USA from going to war all over the world, choosing its targets depending on where their money lies?
> ...



The UN already has a problem if they think giving Saddam more time will change anything. He has done nothing for the last 10+ years to indicate his willingness to get rid of WMD. I guess you could ask the Kurds if they think Saddam has no WMD. 

When diplomacy fails ( and 10+ years should be enough to prove it has failed), what option should the UN try next? Mayby asking Saddam "Please, pretty please stop gassing your own people. Please, pretty please don't use WMD against Iran". Oh thats right, Saddam already did that. So I guess we know he has at least chemical and biological WMD. Do you want to wager he has or is working on obtaining atomic weapons?

War is a last resort, lives are lost on both sides. When diplomacy fails, war is a tool used to achieve what diplomacy cannot. There are times when options have run out and this appears to be one of those times.


----------



## toast (Feb 17, 2003)

> He has done nothing for the last 10+ years to indicate his willingness to get rid of WMD.



Neither has your own country since SALT agreements !



> War is a last resort, lives are lost on both sides. When diplomacy fails, war is a tool used to achieve what diplomacy cannot. There are times when options have run out and this appears to be one of those times.



Your total ignorance of international relations combined to your belliquous 'hawk' behavior blinds you completely on the topic. War and diplomacy *never* reach same objectives !

Diplomacy is a long-term solution which perenizes peaceful choices and introduces cooperation between two countries.
War is a short-term solution which envenimates defiant choices and introduces adversity between two countries.

To *you* it may seem war can achieve what diplomacy cannot because you're somewhere where the consequences of war may affect you only at a smaller scale.
How easy is it to say "war is a tool used to achieve what diplomacy cannot" when you know war won't take place in your own country ! Imagine Texas bombed to understand what I mean. What tool is that than bombs and gas ?

Hey American people, one of the greatest diplomats of whole history was born in your country, why don't you read what he wrote for God's sake ?

Henry Kissinger, "Diplomacy"


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *The American propaganda machine, the unilateral news US most citizens receive, must be closely watched and corrected. American internal opposition should be helped and supported: socialists, environmentalists, anti-globalists etc. As an answer to the Americanization of culture, alternatives should be stressed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself.
> *



So you seem to think every American is a brain washed evil being that needs your "expert" advice to counteract. Sorry to disappoint you but I may hold a different view than you. Like you, I don't like war. Unlike you, I don't call for the destruction of your country just because "you" have a different political view than me. 

I have some combat experience and believe me when I say your position is as dangerous to democracy as what you rail against.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Hey American people, one of the greatest diplomats of whole history was born in your country, why don't you read what he wrote for God's sake ?
> 
> Henry Kissinger, "Diplomacy" *



IMHO that is wrong. He could not hold a candle to Benjamin Franklin.


----------



## toast (Feb 17, 2003)

> IMHO that is wrong. He could not hold a candle to Benjamin Franklin.



Don't be mad at me, but, are you joking or not  ?
Above comparison makes very little sense IMHO, for those two did not live in the same time epriod, hence not in the same world.

Comparing them would be like comparing Confucius and Martin Luther King based on the fact both had a philosphy about how to live happy on Earth.

Kissinger still makes sens today because realism (as opposed to liberalism or institutionnalism for instance) in internatl relations still makes some sense. For example, you can compare Morgenthau and Nye, Kissinger and Brzezinski, Wilson and Kofi Annan at the extreme. But comparisons over bigger time periods is quite (I say quite because I know many counter-examples are around) risky.


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *Don't be mad at me, but, are you joking or not  ?
> Above comparison makes very little sense IMHO, for those two did not live in the same time period, hence not in the same world.
> 
> ...



No I was not joking. You called Kissinger the greatest and he was not. Look up something called the Nixon Administration! His diplomacy was sketchy at best. 

On the other hand, Franklin talked a King out of his money to help some back water colonists. He convinced a king to finance the war to get back an old enemy of his. It cost that king his crown and country. Now that is diplomacy. He was called "Ambassador Electric" for more than his electric experiments.


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 17, 2003)

...is TOTALLY wrong!

You know what? All these mad governments in out troubled earth should let THEIR presidents and staff kick each other inside a box ring or something... They all are crazy and NOT good or evil!

If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...

War at ANY level: Weapons-based or psychological-based is ALL wrong...

If governments of this planet think that they MUST have wars again and again THEM and THEM alone should kick each other and not put soldiers, families, et al fight THEIR wars... They all DO wrong by sending innocent people to fight THEIR wars because simply THEY lack the guts... I guess we are all suckers for voting them (or not) in the first place: You know what? If people really don't like the wars of those foolish governments when they will give the order of attacking other countries ALL SOLDIERS should NOT obey: What? They gonna kill them all? Their own soldiers? But then again I forget: Those soldiers in the first place they lack the guts: They prefer to kill other people just for money or egoism (we are the good ones and you are the bad ones --then again Iraq has its own Holy War to declare against the US et al pigs).

A rant of mine or not, I simply say that governments know that they do the wrong thing by executing wars and they simply doing so because they lack the REAL weapons: Clear and pure minds and souls... Them all are rotten inside them methinks!  

Although I don't like George Michael I think his video clip which shows Bush, Blair et al, it sums governments of this troubled planet SO damn accurate that it is SO damn scary  

The one who wins a war is the one that he doesn't have to live a war in the first place cause when you live a war (you, yourself and not someone else) you know how REALLY wrong is firsthand... VERY small scale example of war: You fight with your bare hands someone who is VERY strong, maybe stronger than you... In the end even if you beat him giving him black eyes, blood all over his face and stuff, still you have your fists and body feel too much pain AND you have to clean your clothes and soul from this mess! And who knows even if you beat your opponent you may still go to the hospital for a week or more  

As for the ones who seem to believe that when we done talking we should start acting this is plain wrong: When you THINK that you done talking, talk some more... Or you know what? Maybe DON'T talk at all! Sometimes, silence gives better results than talking...

You know what? I must follow my own above advice


----------



## Cat (Feb 17, 2003)

> So you seem to think every American is a brain washed evil being that needs your "expert" advice to counteract.



I did not say that. I read several American newspapers in the last weeks and was amazed at the narrow-mindedness and intrinsic nationalism that I saw there. It did not say Americans were evil, I even argued that good and evil are the wrong categories, but I did stress that America is going down a dark and dangeroes path if it will not admith 'truth's' other thatn its own. I did not say the US needed my advice, maybe the should heed the words of the UN or deal with the EU on a more eqal basis. I advocated pluralism, not antagonism. Noadvantage is found in simply contradicting each other, but only in comparing different opinions.



> Sorry to disappoint you but I may hold a different view than you. Like you, I don't like war.



That is fine with me!  I don't try to impose my opinion on you.



> Unlike you, I don't call for the destruction of your country just because "you" have a different political view than me.



Huh?  I did not call for distruction... The fact that America needs more perspective to overcome its nationalism and avoid becoming outright fascistic is not a call for distruction. It is an invitation to try to look at more sides than just yours, to revise your opinions instead of turning them into dogma's, to avoid holding your view absolutely true, because you lack information on alternatives. It may involve some change, but is certainly not a call for distruction!



> I have some combat experience and believe me when I say your position is as dangerous to democracy as what you rail against.



Again, read my previous post closely. I stressed the importance of respecting international treaties to stop America from becoming an arrogant bully. I did not say "all Americans are evil, so they must be brainwached and obey me". I said that American nationalist propaganda should be corrected by informing yourself on other argumets than theirs. 
American internal opposition should be helped and supported because e.g. in the CIA book of facts, you can see there is no internal pressure group whatsoever even listed... strange... while 12% of the population lives under the poverty line ...
As an answer to the Americanization of culture in Europe, alternatives should be stressed, not imposed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself, to avoid unilateralism. Listening to your voice only can innflict serious damage to your critical, rational thinking. America seems not to accept anything beyond itself as just, right and true. This is also a characteristic of totalitarian regimes... don't fall into their same errors!


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *I did not say that. I read several American newspapers in the last weeks and was amazed at the narrow-mindedness and intrinsic nationalism that I saw there. *



Please post those examples your talking about. It's not that I believe you, it's just I haven't seen them myself.




> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *It is an invitation to try to look at more sides than just yours, to revise your opinions instead of turning them into dogma's, to avoid holding your view absolutely true, because you lack information on alternatives. It may involve some change, but is certainly not a call for distruction! *



To let you know- I DO NOT WANT WAR!




> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *As an answer to the Americanization of culture in Europe, alternatives should be stressed, not imposed, valorized and distributed, also in America itself, to avoid unilateralism. Listening to your voice only can innflict serious damage to your critical, rational thinking. America seems not to accept anything beyond itself as just, right and true. This is also a characteristic of totalitarian regimes... don't fall into their same errors! *



In case you missed it, I said. I DO NOT WANT WAR! What about that response do you find wrong? 

I hate to be critical but you have made some pretty serious personal attacks against me. Calling me names because I disagree with the way you perceive all Americans is serious in my eyes. To give you a clue Bush is not all America. I feel you just hate all of America because you have brought up that all of America wants to press it's culture on the rest of the world is wrong! Also, just because you hate Bush don't hate all Americans. The only thing Americans want in the rest of this world is Democracy.


A good many of Americans will exercise their vote in the coming year. So see what happens. However, I am still proud to be American and that I have a chance to debate you on these subjects. Just remember you also live in a country with a similar freedom to partake in this debate.


----------



## fryke (Feb 17, 2003)

Satcomer: The last thing you quoted wasn't directed at you, I guess... It was an answer on how to solve the America-Problem we see outside of America. Although it doesn't yet solve it, it points out some interesting points about the problem itself...


----------



## Cat (Feb 17, 2003)

> I hate to be critical but you have made some pretty serious personal attacks against me. Calling me names because I disagree with the way you perceive all Americans is serious in my eyes. To give you a clue Bush is not all America. I feel you just hate all of America because you have brought up that all of America wants to press it's culture on the rest of the world is wrong! Also, just because you hate Bush don't hate all Americans. The only thing Americans want in the rest of this world is Democracy.



I did not call you names or made any personal attack. Why do you feel personally insulted? It was not my intention to insult anyone, but to give my opinion and the reasons I have for holding it. As I posted in another thread, I'm not at all interested in brainless mud-slinging.

I do not hate america, I resent the american attitude, because of its carelessness to what others want and think, and the conviction they have the 'Truth'. I'm happy to hear Bush is not all America, unfortuantely the current American government seems to be all-Bush. Again I do not hate Bush, I disagree with his policies and actions. Hate is too personal a feeling to be applied to 'America' at large or someone you only know from tv and newspapers. It's very nice that America wants democracy around the globe, but I disagree with the methods involved. Bombing civilians is quite baffling as way of bringing about democracy...



> In case you missed it, I said. I DO NOT WANT WAR! What about that response do you find wrong?



I agree with your response! But I would like to hear your reasons for it. As with the opposite view, if someone wants war, I can only agree or disagree fully and really on the basis of reasons given to hold it...


----------



## themacko (Feb 17, 2003)

Well this has turned into a bit of a flame-war.  I apologize if my uninformed statement/question offended anyone from Belgium (Toast), France or Germany ... well maybe not France  .

I can totally understand the anti-war movement.  I personally wouldn't like to see us go to war with Iraq.  We should have taken care of Saddam the first time back in '93.

What I was questioning, was why did those three aformentioned countries block aid to Turkey, a NATO member, when Turkey was in direct line of fire?  After reading through your posts I know understand better the situation but I still feel that those three countries are blocking NATO from doing it's job.

No biggie.  Bush is pretty determined to get rid of Saddam and I'm sure it will happen with or without the full support of NATO.  Oh well.


----------



## toast (Feb 17, 2003)

Hello themacko (BTW nice website you have),



> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *I apologize if my uninformed statement/question offended anyone from Belgium (Toast), France or Germany ... well maybe not France  .*


*

I'm French and live South-East of France, very near the Alps, about three hours from chevy's place.




			Turkey was in direct line of fire?
		
Click to expand...

What fire ? Who said Saddam was going to attack if not the US administration ?




			Bush is pretty determined to get rid of Saddam and I'm sure it will happen with or without the full support of NATO.  Oh well.
		
Click to expand...


George W. Bush cannot attack Saddam Hussein directly w/out NATO support and w/out full UNO support.

Satcomer, I've read your very valuable answer. But still, even if Kissinger's acts weren't the greatest, I can assure you his theory is some of the best I know.*


----------



## themacko (Feb 17, 2003)

From what I understand is Turkey is within range of Iraq's missiles, that's all I mean by 'direct line of fire.'  I don't think Saddam would bother with Turkey if it were not for NATO (pushed by the U.S.) sending in weapons inspectors and stuff.

And sorry Toast I thought you were from Belgium, must have been someone else.  Nevertheless, sorry for being kinda rude as it wasn't my intent.  I'm really a friendly guy.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by dafuser _
> *Please, pretty please don't use WMD against Iran". Oh thats right, Saddam already did that. So I guess we know he has at least chemical and biological WMD. Do you want to wager he has or is working on obtaining atomic weapons?*


we (britain and america) told him to attack iran, even set him up to do it.

we also sold him the chemical and biological weapons

yes he will want a nuke or 2 cos america is gonna attack iraq, he could rightly argue they're a defensive weapon.

for the record i think we should go to war, but i mean a real war no bombing, just invasion, thousands of british and america casualties and eventually removing the dictator from power and replacing him with a real democracy. maybe we'll learn that way not to fuck with other countries.


----------



## fryke (Feb 17, 2003)

Let me get that straight. You want to invade Iraq, replace the dictator with a 'real' democracy and thus learn how NOT to f*ck with other countries?

Isn't that a bit like slapping a child and saying: "See? It hurts the child. Gotta learn not to slap it."


----------



## chevy (Feb 17, 2003)

It's not by killing someone that one can teach him the value of life.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Let me get that straight. You want to invade Iraq, replace the dictator with a 'real' democracy and thus learn how NOT to f*ck with other countries?
> 
> Isn't that a bit like slapping a child and saying: "See? It hurts the child. Gotta learn not to slap it." *


I'd say putting a democracy in power is helping rather than fu**ing with them.


----------



## Ugg (Feb 17, 2003)

When is the last time the US succeeded in "democratizing" a country it interferred with.   Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........  Oops, out of time.  I can't remember any at all.


----------



## toast (Feb 18, 2003)

The very simple fact you think bombs can democratize a country, mrfluffy, reveals your complete ignorance of international relations, history, diplomacy and political theory and science.
I don't know if you can be blamed for that, but I think you should learn from the other members here who are trying to explain you that democracy doesn't come with a bomb.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ugg _
> *When is the last time the US succeeded in "democratizing" a country it interferred with.   Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........  Oops, out of time.  I can't remember any at all. *


I never said the US should do it, the UN should.



> _Originally posted by toast _
> *The very simple fact you think bombs can democratize a country, mrfluffy, reveals your complete ignorance of international relations, history, diplomacy and political theory and science.
> I don't know if you can be blamed for that, but I think you should learn from the other members here who are trying to explain you that democracy doesn't come with a bomb.
> *


my exact quote was "but i mean a real war no bombing, just invasion" *NO BOMBING
saddam is a murderous dictator, every day my government doesnt kill him is another day that he tortures and murders innocent people because of my government. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to remove him from power whatever the cost in money or [British and american] lives.
and if you look at history (I got an A) you'll see that germany (the very pacifist democracy who partially caused this thread) was set up because we liberated it from nazism (west germany anyway).

an just out of interest if saddam does completely disarm are we gonna leave him in power? cos that's just an indirect rout of killing loads of Iraqis.*


----------



## Cat (Feb 18, 2003)

Mosta casualties of the last war came from the complete distruction of Iraqi infrastructure. Lack of electricity and clean water caused ten times more victims than the attack itself. There is no such thing as a clean war.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *Mosta casualties of the last war came from the complete distruction of Iraqi infrastructure. Lack of electricity and clean water caused ten times more victims than the attack itself. There is no such thing as a clean war. *


i know, we should help the Iraqis rebuild afterwards.


----------



## toast (Feb 18, 2003)

> and if you look at history (I got an A)



I beg your pardon ? I don't understand this bit, please explain.

If this means 'I got an A level, ie best mark', then I pity the American education system.


----------



## mrfluffy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *I beg your pardon ? I don't understand this bit, please explain.*


the post WWII democracy only exists because military action was taken against hitler, if nothing had been done (like an armistice to between the UK and Nazis somewhen in '41) the nazis would still be in power. but we did something and germany is one of the biggest nations (financially) in europe.

I am saying we not only should, but have a moral obligation to, remove saddam from power and set up a democracy in Iraq.


> _Originally posted by toast _
> *If this means 'I got an A level, ie best mark', then I pity the American education system. *


I do pity the american education system, I've  been told by some americans that it's very bias (including my first history teacher who was american). I also pity yours as you dont seem to be able to understand the meaning of "location: hants, UK".


----------



## Cat (Feb 18, 2003)

Well, I don't know ... I think that the situation in Germany in the '30 and Iraq '90 is quite different. Germany up to WW I and WW II has had a completely different history than Iraq. Also the influence of religion is completely different. Many (leaders of) European countries actively opposed the (catholic) church becasue it was a rival power (at least up to 1870), while the situation in the Middle-East is different, though I don't know the details. In each case opposition is not as strong as it was in 19th - 20 th century Europe. Remember that protestantism invoked personal reading and interpretation of the bible (up to a certain extent) in contrast with catholicism which proposed their own interpretation from the pultpi to the masses. Maybe the Islam could benefit too from a sort of protestantism...  apart from Shiitic and Sunnitic movements I know of no schism in the Islam.

Anyway, historical and cultural differences are big enough to say that the metafor is no good.  Also, remember that Hitler won the elections more or less legally and with the support of most of the people... 

BTW Britain and France declared war on germany immediately on annexation of Poland in 1939, while America (who wanted originally to remain netral) declared war on Germany only at the end of 1941. So, yes, the US turned the tables on the Nazi's, but saying they would be still in power nowadays, has no substantial historical backing. The winners write history, so according to "what if's", I could have had the same response from a Nazi regarding the Americans. "We freed you from those yanks" etc.


----------



## themacko (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Cat _
> *The winners write history, so according to "what if's", I could have had the same response from a Nazi regarding the Americans. "We freed you from those yanks" etc. *


 The 'yanks' weren't trying to take over the world with the Holocaust.


----------



## chevy (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *The 'yanks' weren't trying to take over the world with the Holocaust. *



Either you did not understand the formulation of Cat or you intentionally answered outside of his proposition.


----------



## toast (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mrfluffy _
> *you dont seem to be able to understand the meaning of "location: hants, UK". *



I just didn't look at your signature before posting and thought you were American. Sorry.

I am still waiting for you to explain this bit of your post :


> and if you look at history (I got an A) you'll see that



I think this post is very telling of your personality and general opinion of yourself. I won't say more here, I am not making myself enemies.

If you want to have a serious talk about history and actuality, would you mind learning what happened between the Nazis (1933) and Gulf War (1991), please ?
It seems every time you talk of international relations to some English and/or American people, they automatically go back to nazis, to US freeing Europe from fascism etc.

Moreover:
- My BBC Konfabulator indicator is telling me: "No Rush to war, says Blair".
- NATO has just reached some agreement.
- The EU extraordinary council has just reached some agreement.

This thread was started because some very respectable member of this board needed explanations about actuality. Now the thread is talking of nazism.

Would anyone mind getting back on-topic ? Or is everyone so sure to know everything about nazism and WW2 that they prefer to stay on 55 yrs-old history ?

More funny: www.ironictimes.com

_<ironic>_
By the way, mrfluffy, thank you for explaining WW2 to the 2nd year student in politics I am. Could you explain WW1 in a future post please ?
_</ironic>_


----------



## chevy (Feb 18, 2003)

mrfluffy and Toast, I'm sure we bother if you received a A or any other honor for you broad knowledge about history... most young people that were on the road to give their opinion during the last week-end probably had no honor in history or in politics... but they had something to say and they said it.

The opinion of my neighbour is more important to me than his diploma... and of course if we can speak about the reasons that are behind this opinion, it's a plus.

My gut's feeling is that continental Europa lived a war from inside one generation ago, and have a long tradition of sharing/absorbing opinions and cultures, therefore Europeans have the tendancy to considere the war is the worst solution. This does not mean the European countries have no army and will not use it if needed.


----------



## aisikl (Feb 19, 2003)

http://downloads.warprecords.com/bushwhacked2.mov


----------



## toast (Feb 19, 2003)

> mrfluffy and Toast, I'm sure we bother if you received a A



I didn't .



> http://downloads.warprecords.com/bushwhacked2.mov



*LMAO*


----------

