Europe Supports War on Iraq

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Nah, besides, the Canadian government is quite a large operation. I could be a janitor or a groundskeeper for all you know.

True, but I would not expect most janitors to have as much knowledge about current and hisorical events as you seem to possess.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Vermillion

I work for the Canadian Government.

I still can't believe they let canadian people govern themselves. Although the British once thought the Irish couldn't govern ourselves properly, and we showed them!










Hold on, we can't govern ourselves properly. Oh dear.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I still can't believe they let canadian people govern themselves. Although the British once thought the Irish couldn't govern ourselves properly, and we showed them!










Hold on, we can't govern ourselves properly. Oh dear.

Ah, but ye have the luck of the Irish on your side, so all will be right by morning

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Vermillion
The only chemical associated with water purification they cannot import is Chlorene, and they have a fairly significant domestic textile industry which makes plenty of Chlorene as a byproduct. hey are allowed to import any on of a hundered other chemicals usable for water purification.

As to medicine, I keep hearing that story: they are not allowed to import some kinds of medicine! Yet nobody can tell me exactly what kinds of medicine are banned from import.

In fact, any medical drug or treatment is specifically allowed under the sanction act, even such questionable drugs as atropene, a loophole the US is trying to close at the moment. However, very few orders for medicine are being recieved, the Iraqi government seems to have no interest in importing any. Thus hospitals are devoid of Lukemia drugs (allowed by the sanctions) IV fluids and plasma (allowed by the sanctions) and even antibiotics (allowed by the sanctions)

Sorry, once again, its the responsability of the Iraqi government to spend its resources on its people. If they chose to spend their entire budget on the military, they can hardly blame the sanctions for that.

they cant even decide what to buy with their money. its decide by the uno.
and please tell me why the uno blocks the delivery of the thing necessary for reconstruction of the electricity supply (worth $958m), the agricultural sector ($787m), replacements for the oil industry ($780m), water supply ($652m) and telecommunication ($542m) plus some more, all together worth $5.4bn
doesnt really sound like its all saddams fault, does it?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Ah, but ye have the luck of the Irish on your side, so all will be right by morning

We just go get pissed, and turn up too hungover to properly **** up the country the next morning.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
they cant even decide what to buy with their money. its decide by the uno.
and please tell me why the uno blocks the delivery of the thing necessary for reconstruction of the electricity supply (worth $958m), the agricultural sector ($787m), replacements for the oil industry ($780m), water supply ($652m) and telecommunication ($542m) plus some more, all together worth $5.4bn
doesnt really sound like its all saddams fault, does it?

yes, saddam is feeding all the homeless children with his own bread, he is looking rather thin recently

[-=Zyth=-]

I havent read half of this thread, but cant you see that isnt so much an embrase of USA but as a rejection of the french/german attempt to dominate europe. (Its always the Germans isnt it?) Those European countries who havent signed this were prolly those that dropped their pants at the first sign of a panzer division 64 years ago.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
yes, saddam is feeding all the homeless children with his own bread, he is looking rather thin recently

für dich

[Phang]

Originally posted by -=Zyth=-
I can't read and have no particular talent, but this won't stop me being a racist dickhead who manages to be EVEN MORE uninformed than every other poster on the thread put together..

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
für dich

danke

but i am not saying that the sanctions to have a negative effect on the iraqi population, i am just pointing out that saddam doesnt make it any better for them...

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
danke

but i am not saying that the sanctions to have a negative effect on the iraqi population, i am just pointing out that saddam doesnt make it any better for them...

i didnt say that, the point is that the sanctions help saddam and only hit civilians.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i didnt say that, the point is that the sanctions help saddam and only hit civilians.

help him in what way? certainly not in building up more military infrastructure.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
help him in what way? certainly not in building up more military infrastructure.

he has all power now, he gives out food etc.
before the gulf war the was a large middle class in iraq, now everyone is fully dependend on saddam
search a little (just ignore the anti-us-commie-propaganda)

[-=Zyth=-]

Originally posted by Phang

Oh? You think I am not aware of what my ACTUAL relations in those countries think about what their own government are doing? Bigotry is uninformed bias, I'm not so uninformed.

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
he has all power now, he gives out food etc.
before the gulf war the was a large middle class in iraq, now everyone is fully dependend on saddam
search a little (just ignore the anti-us-commie-propaganda)

it is not that they were independent from saddam before the sanctions, if somebody did something that didnt please him, that person tended to disappear, not exactly freedom and independence

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
it is not that they were independent from saddam before the sanctions, if somebody did something that didnt please him, that person tended to disappear, not exactly freedom and independence

but at least they could do their own buisness, now they are fully dependen on saddam. not a good thing if you ask me

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by wu_trax
but at least they could do their own buisness, now they are fully dependen on saddam. not a good thing if you ask me

not a good thing, but it doesnt worsen the overall state too much. after all ppl might even come to the conclusion that they dont want to be dependend anymore and do something about it...

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Curufinwe
not a good thing, but it doesnt worsen the overall state too much. after all ppl might even come to the conclusion that they dont want to be dependend anymore and do something about it...

now they have 'their enemy' (and its not saddam), dont underestemate the power of a state-controlled media, that blames all problems on the us. if people have to think about what to eat, they use to ignore the fact that they dont have any freedom

[Texan]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Actually, when it was created I called it the Ministry for Reich security. Nothing the US has done scares me more than a creation of an internal security ministry complete with a new informer system. Has nobody pointed ut that the only nations in the world to have such a ministry are places like Cuba, China, the former USSR... all places where the decision was taken that security emant more than freedom.

Warfalcon would have a field day with that.



Give the Devil his due, I am so impressed with the whitewash propagande effort which has ben mounted against the concept of sanction. Perhaps I am older than others on this board, but I remember when the world BEGGED for sanctions against Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf war, when the aclaimed the success of sanctions against South Africa, when economic sanctions were the bloodless alternative.

I do not care what you have read, sanctions do not kill people. Sanctions make the state poorer, and the states refusal to spend money on its people kills people. That is the action of the state, and saying it wascaused by the sanctions is like saying a knife manufacturer is responsable for some guy stabbing his wife.

A leader has a responsability to his people, and in this case Hussein has chosen to spend on tanks and radar rather than on his own people. Blaming sanctions for that reeks of perversity. Just ask any ranking South-African official over 40.

I agree with you. I just think that the sanctions cause death because Hussein does not use the limited money he has to feed people. He uses the money to build more palaces and weapons.

I was a 25-year-old soldier at the time of the first Gulf War.

[G_frog]

Surely the obvious problem with Vermillion's example is the balance of power between Nazi Germany, and western europe with their allies, is hardly comparable with the balance between Iraq and NATO?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Vermillion
Sorry, once again, its the responsability of the Iraqi government to spend its resources on its people. If they chose to spend their entire budget on the military, they can hardly blame the sanctions for that.

I realise it's a circular argument, but spending money on your military seems quite a rational thing to do when other countries are threatening (effectively) to invade you.

[Texan]

Perhaps dividing Iraq would be the best choice. Give the Kurdish part to Turkey, the Sunni part to Iran and the Shiite part to Jordan. Problem solved. No more Iraq. Of course, then you have to decide whether Kirkuk with its oil goes to Iran or Turkey. But that could be decided by flipping a coin.

A better choice might be to take the Kurdish parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria away from them and give it to the Kurds. Nuke Baghdad. Ask the Shiites in southern Iraq what they want whether it is join Jordan, join Syria or have their own country with a new name.

[Phang]

Originally posted by Texan
Perhaps dividing Iraq would be the best choice. Give the Kurdish part to Turkey, the Sunni part to Iran and the Shiite part to Jordan. Problem solved. No more Iraq. Of course, then you have to decide whether Kirkuk with its oil goes to Iran or Turkey. But that could be decided by flipping a coin.

A better choice might be to take the Kurdish parts of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria away from them and give it to the Kurds. Nuke Baghdad. Ask the Shiites in southern Iraq what they want whether it is join Jordan, join Syria or have their own country with a new name.

a great solution, actually, but 6 words:

If only it were that simple.

Lets just hope the decision isn't in the hands of the American institution, because not only is it unlikely the peaceful option will be taken, but the local reaction wouldn't be great at the idea of the US playing Allah or somesuch.

[wu_trax]

would the us-goverment want that? giving a rich part of iraq to iran, part of the "axis of evil"?
and what would turkey think about a kurdish state?
but i agree, the borders are completly ****ed up anyway, just like all across africa

[Texan]

Originally posted by Phang
a great solution, actually, but 6 words:

If only it were that simple.

Lets just hope the decision isn't in the hands of the American institution, because not only is it unlikely the peaceful option will be taken, but the local reaction wouldn't be great at the idea of the US playing Allah or somesuch.

The world could leave the decision in the hands of the people from \o/.

So far those people from \o/ have not come up with a valid idea. They just want that America should NOT decide. We see that the results of the UN system have not worked very well. Perhaps the \o/ians have a better idea.

[Phang]

for the record, the residents of \o/ are firmly opposed to war, they think the risks of igniting the ME are to great. However, if it does go ahead and no-one says anything, the \o/ians would recommend giving each group the option of how they want to be governed, whether by merging into another country, self-rule, staying as Iraq etc.


Meanwhile, I notice Belgium has been keeping out of the situation

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
would the us-goverment want that? giving a rich part of iraq to iran, part of the "axis of evil"?
and what would turkey think about a kurdish state?
but i agree, the borders are completly ****ed up anyway, just like all across africa

Iran is in a state of flux at the moment. Giving them Baghdad and Kirkuk is a 50/50 proposition. They will sell the oil to someone. After the oil leaves the port on a ship it can be bought by anyone who wants it.

Turkey hates the idea of a Kurdish state. The United States, Germany and France are at odds over the issue of Iraq. Why should not the United States, Germany, France and Turkey be at odds over the state of the Kurdish people?

The United Nations should take the initiative to fix the dam borders. That is what we pay them to do.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Why should not the United States, Germany, France and Turkey be at odds over the state of the Kurdish people?

i would support the idea of a kurdish state, but the us needs turkey to start a war at all, so they wont piss them off by supporting a kurdish state, that wouldnt make sence.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Phang
for the record, the residents of \o/ are firmly opposed to war, they think the risks of igniting the ME are to great. However, if it does go ahead and no-one says anything, the \o/ians would recommend giving each group the option of how they want to be governed, whether by merging into another country, self-rule, staying as Iraq etc.


Meanwhile, I notice Belgium has been keeping out of the situation

I think the \o/ians are afraid of the Arabs. That is why they do not want a war; however, their recommendation on the options for the peoples of Iraq seems good to me.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i would support the idea of a kurdish state, but the us needs turkey to start a war at all, so they wont piss them off by supporting a kurdish state, that wouldnt make sence.

I support the Kurds, but a Kurdish state is not really a viable option. It would be nice though.

I also support a Jewish state. I support a Palestinian state. Everyone seems to get pissed off about the states I support.

I think the Basques should have their own state as long as they agree to be part of the European Union.

I think Belgium should be divided. The south should go to France. The North should go to the Netherlands, the southeast German-speaking part should go to Germany and Brussels should remain an international city as the capital of the EU.

I think something should be done about Northern Ireland, but I don't know enough about the problem to make a recomendation.

I think the descendents of Native Americans should get tax free $200,000, and descendents of U.S. slaves should get tax free $200,000. That would give me enough to retire and spend all my time posting on this forum.

[Phang]

The \o/ians aren't afraid of the arabs. the \o/ians are afraid of the arabs if iraq attacks israel and israel strikes back. then the \o/ians are afraid of the arabs.

(note: in their suggestion for the future of iraq, the \o/ians would like to suggest that the UN provide protection to new nations formed in the event that disputes within the ME nations break out over the issue.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Phang
The \o/ians aren't afraid of the arabs. the \o/ians are afraid of the arabs if iraq attacks israel and israel strikes back. then the \o/ians are afraid of the arabs.

(note: in their suggestion for the future of iraq, the \o/ians would like to suggest that the UN provide protection to new nations formed in the event that disputes within the ME nations break out over the issue.

I can ssure you that the Terran Confederation will continue to support the \o/ians in their right to self defense. Even if that means sending carrier battle groups, infantry divisions and the new aircraft recently sighted over Baghdad.

The hypervote controlled by the Terran Confederation in the United Nations should protect the new nations in the Middle East.

Sincerely,
Texan
Supreme Ambassador
Terran Confederation

[Phang]

Yes. It's amazing how far from reality we've gotten, isn't it? :/


(and was that first bit you being stubborn or branching out into subtle humour?)

[Texan]

Originally posted by Phang
Yes. It's amazing how far from reality we've gotten, isn't it? :/


(and was that first bit you being stubborn or branching out into subtle humour?)

It was an attempt at humor.

I'm not feeling very stubborn today. Today, I do not care what happens. People die. Period. If I am one of them. So be it. If my mother is one of the dead, so be it.

No matter how much power we have, we do not always get to choose who lives and who dies.

[Phang]

Originally posted by Texan
It was an attempt at humor.

I'm not feeling very stubborn today. Today, I do not care what happens. People die. Period. If I am one of them. So be it. If my mother is one of the dead, so be it.

No matter how much power we have, we do not always get to choose who lives and who dies.

oh good.

and lighten up. Be happy! Sweep it all under the carpet, that's my motto! Start the day with a smile, and you'll end the day with one!

Originally posted by Texan
You obviously trust Hussein more than do I.

He is, of course, moments (months, maybe even five years) away from building nuclear weapons. If you trust him, then you will assume he will not use them. I don't trust him.

I think he would nuke Tel Aviv, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Madrid, and Brussels if he thought he could get away with it. Probably a few more i can't think of off the top of my head. Vienna and Prague too.

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Worl...chappatte2.gif

Originally posted by Texan




The bottom line is that they do, and the only way I can see to get them to stop hating me is if the United States pulls back troops to within the borders of the United States. That is, as far as I can tell, not a viable option. Any number of bad things would happen. The biggest thing I think would happen is that a lot of Muslims would say to themselves, "I knew the Americans were weak. Now is the time to destroy them completely." That means that the United States after pulling back all its troops would have to stop letting people come into the country. No more refugees. No more tourists bla bla bla.

tht argument is so weak and lame it makes me sick.

in 1978 Israel gave back the lands it had conqered from egypt.
did anything happen?? did the egyptians think that israeli were weak for no longer occupying egyptia land??

has there been any incident were egyptians had tried to attack israel and destroy it completely because it had shown "weakness".
that argumen is so lame only idiots can fall for it.
and i can see that the US overnment has convinced you.

dont make stupid excses for having military bases in the middle east.
you have them because you want controll over an area that has lotsa oil.plain and simple!!

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
tht argument is so weak and lame it makes me sick.

in 1978 Israel gave back the lands it had conqered from egypt.
did anything happen?? did the egyptians think that israeli were weak for no longer occupying egyptia land??

has there been any incident were egyptians had tried to attack israel and destroy it completely because it had shown "weakness".
that argumen is so lame only idiots can fall for it.
and i can see that the US overnment has convinced you.

dont make stupid excses for having military bases in the middle east.
you have them because you want controll over an area that has lotsa oil.plain and simple!!

the only reason there is a better relationship between egypt and israel is that egypt is governed by a quasi dictactor who has a more prowestern stance. when seeing news from egypt i dont see very israel friendly ppl there.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
in 1978 Israel gave back the lands it had conqered from egypt.
did anything happen?? did the egyptians think that israeli were weak for no longer occupying egyptia land??

I thought the Gaza Strip was Egyptian as well?

[Texan]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
tht argument is so weak and lame it makes me sick.

in 1978 Israel gave back the lands it had conqered from egypt.
did anything happen?? did the egyptians think that israeli were weak for no longer occupying egyptia land??

has there been any incident were egyptians had tried to attack israel and destroy it completely because it had shown "weakness".
that argumen is so lame only idiots can fall for it.
and i can see that the US overnment has convinced you.

dont make stupid excses for having military bases in the middle east.
you have them because you want controll over an area that has lotsa oil.plain and simple!!

My home is owned by a Belgian man. He controls it. I do not control any bases in the Middle East. I have never been to the Middle East.

Egypt attacked Israel on more than one occasion. Do you think they did it because they believed Israel was strong?

[Texan]

Washington Times
January 31, 2003
Pg. 15

Board Of 17 Backs Ousting Saddam

By Olga Kryzhanovska, The Washington Times

With Europe deeply divided over U.S. policy in Iraq, a group of 17 prominent leaders and intellectuals has come forward to express its support for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The group, which was established as the Advisory Board to the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), includes former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, Polish editor and civil rights fighter Adam Michnik, British author Christopher Hitchens and a former president of Bulgaria, Petar Stoyanov.

"These are some of the most distinguished freedom fighters of the last two generations," said CLI Chairman Bruce Jackson, an American and Republican Party activist, in a telephone interview this week.

The group also includes Baroness Emma Nicholson, a British member of the European Parliament and an envoy of the World Health Organization who has frequently visited Iraq and the region.

"I do have knowledge that I'm very willing to share on the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein against southern Iraqis, particularly, those called the Marsh people," Mrs. Nicholson said after she participated in a heated debate on Iraq in the European Parliament on Wednesday.

"We don't seek war," Mrs. Nicholson said, "but we do place the highest value on the rule of international law, on democracy and on human rights. We want those benefits to be brought to Iraqi people as soon as possible."

Asla Aydintasbas, a columnist for the Turkish newspaper Sabah, said she joined the CLI because she had visited Iraq and witnessed the government's abuses of its own people.

"Unfortunately, this war is not perceived [in Turkey] as a war for liberation," she said by telephone yesterday. The United States "was not very successful in countering the Iraqi propaganda machine."

Many members of the CLI support group are from Central and Eastern Europe: Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the Baltic states.

According to Mr. Jackson, these countries have been recent victims of tyranny and understand what it means. "They are quite quick to see that there is evil in the world, and that evil probably should be resisted by the alliance of democracy," he said.

Mr. Jackson said he had a chance to contact many Eastern European leaders during a NATO summit that took place in Prague in November.

The CLI was founded in November 2002 to promote the liberation of Iraq and the replacement of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Jackson, a former U.S. army intelligence officer, chaired the Foreign Policy Subcommittee of the Republican Platform Committee during the 2000 presidential campaign.

According to Mr. Jackson, the depth of support in Europe for policies articulated by President Bush is significant, and it is often underreported.

He said people from all over Europe, including France and Germany, continue to voice their support for the liberation of Iraq.

"There are more coming in, even as we speak," he said.

[Bunga]

Carl Bildt is neither prominent nor intellectual.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Texan
"Unfortunately, this war is not perceived [in Turkey] as a war for liberation," she said by telephone yesterday. The United States "was not very successful in countering the Iraqi propaganda machine."

heh.

As for Christopher Hitchens being a "freedom fighter"...

Originally posted by Chrism
I thought the Gaza Strip was Egyptian as well?

no its palestinian

Originally posted by Texan
My home is owned by a Belgian man. He controls it. I do not control any bases in the Middle East. I have never been to the Middle East.

Egypt attacked Israel on more than one occasion. Do you think they did it because they believed Israel was strong?

ok

you see , your answer is vey confusing and makes me think that you are really really dumb maybe i misunderstood you, so let me explain what i meant and then you explain what you mean.

you said that if the USA would retreat teir military bases in the middle east, it would make the arabs think they were weak and they would attack and try to destroy america(how one can even consider such a lame and stupid thing is beyond me!!)

I gave you the exampl of Israel ad Egypt. Israel pulled back from egytian land in 1978 after the peace treaty and there has not been any violence between tese 2 states since.

now please clarify what you mean because that belgian guy owning your house really didnt make any sense to me!!

[Curufinwe]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
no its palestinian

it is considered a part of Palestine, but is was under Egyptian control from 1947-1967 until it was taken by Israel

[Texan]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
ok

you see , your answer is vey confusing and makes me think that you are really really dumb maybe i misunderstood you, so let me explain what i meant and then you explain what you mean.

you said that if the USA would retreat teir military bases in the middle east, it would make the arabs think they were weak and they would attack and try to destroy america(how one can even consider such a lame and stupid thing is beyond me!!)

I gave you the exampl of Israel ad Egypt. Israel pulled back from egytian land in 1978 after the peace treaty and there has not been any violence between tese 2 states since.

now please clarify what you mean because that belgian guy owning your house really didnt make any sense to me!!

I get irritated when people say "you" when they actually mean "the United States." My point was that I do not have any military bases. If I had military bases in South Korea, for example, I would give them back to South Korea. You said I have military bases. I was pointing out that, not only do I not have bases, I do not even own my own home.

If I had military bases and a strong military, I assure you I would not invade Iraq, but because I do not have a strong military the point is moot.

Israel gave Shebaa Farms back to Lebanon. My opinion is that the Palestinians saw this as a sign of Israel's weakness and used the Sharon visit to the Holy Mount as a pretext to start the second Intifadah.

[Texan]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
no its palestinian

Gaza Strip is the area that was originally settled by the Philistines. Of course, the Palestinians are just a group of people descended from a mixture of many different races and societies including the Canaanites, Philistines, Amorites, Hittites, and Hurrians just to name a few. They were conquered by the Egyptians, the Jews, Rome, the Turks and others.

People have been fighting over that little piece of land for 5,000 years and counting. The Philistines took the land from the Canaanites 5,000 years ago, but the Canaanites probably took the land from someone else.

Who has the right to live and govern there? The people who live there have the right to govern there, just as the people of Israel have the right to govern in Israel.

Just as most (though not all) of you have the right to govern in the land where you live and were born.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by m.ar.d
no its palestinian

Prior to the Israeli annexation during the Six Days War, it was Egyptian.

[Dibdevlin]

http://www.inq7.net/brk/2003/feb/03/brkoth_3-1.htm


Guess we should be happy we don't meet wu_trax and other germans at a bar to discuss this stuff!