Europe eight back Bush on Iraq
-
Hi, I live in Germany and the majority of people that I talk to clearly oppose a war against Iraq. However, this is a very difficult situation and this is clearly no black or white situation. Some of the points that I think are important are: - Saddam Hussein is clearly not a good person. He rules by terror and terror alone. Over the years Iraqi people have been kept ignorant and oppressed by the tyrant. Also, I think it is not in the interest of western countries also to help these countries become self-reliant and raise the level of education and liberty. It works well for the world oil market that the middle eastern people are kept ignorant. Sad state of affairs. - After Saddam, then what? Most of the people are concerned that US wants to wage this war just for the oil. US has the task to prove otherwise. Will the people be able to have a (maybe UN administered) election. In my opinion, there is nothing better than a good educational system to fight terroism. Sure, it will take 20 years but it is a better solution. War tends to produce more terrorists. Basically, what about stabilizing Iraq and bringing true liberty to them. Oh well, gotta get back to work. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
pankajdaga wrote: Basically, what about stabilizing Iraq and bringing true liberty to them. This will be the real test to justify this war. The West created Iraq but wanted to control it, they overthrew the Western-installed leader for one of their own, the West overthrew him for another, and so on. Only one leader has left his tenure alive in the last 100 years. It's a bloody and vicious history and it's mostly our own fault. But that doesn't make the status quo a good thing, it only means we don't want to make the same mistakes again. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Hi! >>And those countries are proud to be European! Shame on them!<< >>to support US in his fascist attack to Iraq<< Well, my country (Slovak Republic, Central Europe) also decide to support USA with regards to this. Maybe I am a stupid (or idealist) but I'm proud about this. It was good decision, in my opinion. Why I think so? Facts: Iraq regime clearly support terrorism (money dotations for families of Palestinian terrorists who died in suicide attacks, very close relations with some other terrorist organizations, ...). Iraq regime really hate USA. Iraq had in past no small amount of biological, chemical weapons, and today's nobody knows what happens with these weapons. These are undisputed facts. Aren't these? What USA is trying is to be sure that these very dangerous weapons wouldn't be used in another terrorist's attack against USA. I think that USA had right to defend our own country and our peoples, or have not? btw, if Iraq really do not have biological, chemical weapons anymore, as they claims, why they just do not show evidence that they destroy these weapons, or that these weapons aren't usable anymore? USA then wouldn't have any solid arguments. Just fact that OSN inspectors do not found anything do not means that these weapons do not exists nor mean that these weapons do not belongs to terrorist already. I just my opinion. SlavoF "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." --Confucius
US has a known history of terrorist support (see other reply) US hates Iraq US has no small amounts of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and has proven that they are willing to use them. So should the Iraq be allowed to attack the US, to make sure their weapons are not used in an attack on Iraq? Just my opinion.
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
-
Not the fed's problem, and should not be it's domain IMO. I don't know about where you live, but were I do (and in all other parts of the US that I have lived) teacher's pay comes out of local budgets funded by property tax and sometimes sales tax. Take the issue up with your county school board, state legislature and governor. they hold the purse strings, not Bush. Oh, I agree! But the Fed does make it their problem, by enforcing testing requirements, setting educational standards, etc. And when the Fed mandates states develop homeland security programs, but doesn't help pay for them, where do you think the state is going to take the money from? Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian Graus
Every line of code is a liability - Taka MuraokaMarc Clifton wrote: But the Fed does make it their problem, by enforcing testing requirements, setting educational standards, etc. Only if the state accepts Federal funding. Mike
-
Gabriel 2 wrote: There are many countries in the World which supports terrorism. For example, Iran is clearly suspected of having planned two terrorists attacks in Argentina during past years. Sure. And don't think that people aren't already gathering evidence for that one. Gabriel 2 wrote: So, if there are many Saddams in the World, what's the big deal with Iraq? Iraq is breaking more UN resolutions than anyone else. Logic would have dictated that this was the one they were going to get through the UN easily to build momentum as a warning to other nations. However, it turned out that logic had little to do with it :-D. Gabriel 2 wrote: There is one simple reason: Iraq has the second biggest oil reserves of the World And Saudi has the biggest, and it's very likely that they support terrorists. Your logic doesn't hold water. The choice of one target over another is entirely diplomatic. Very few Arab nations hold any love for Saddam and even less European nations. How many countries are truly willing to stand up to the US over someone like that? The French and Germans may be bearing their teeth across the Atlantic but when it comes to the crunch, will they stand alone against the US? I doubt it. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: Sure. And don't think that people aren't already gathering evidence for that one. I hope someone is gathering the USA sponsored terroism too evidence too. Paul Riley wrote: And Saudi has the biggest, and it's very likely that they support terrorists. Your logic doesn't hold water. ...and yours does not. Saudi is with the US and Iraq is not and with Russia progressing with its inter-continental oil pipeline plans the US will have to kill Iraqis to stop it. Paul Riley wrote: The choice of one target over another is entirely diplomatic. Please put it well, the choice of which people to kill is diplomatic? Paul Riley wrote: How many countries are truly willing to stand up to the US over someone like that? None. However, those willing to share the profit you will naturally find the British and the Australians, not forgeting the poor European countries. Paul Riley wrote: The French and Germans may be bearing their teeth across the Atlantic but when it comes to the crunch, will they stand alone against the US? I doubt it. Do they have to? they are matured enough. Best regards, Paul. Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
US has a known history of terrorist support (see other reply) US hates Iraq US has no small amounts of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and has proven that they are willing to use them. So should the Iraq be allowed to attack the US, to make sure their weapons are not used in an attack on Iraq? Just my opinion.
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
peterchen wrote: Just my opinion. Thanks, it is my opinion too. peterchen wrote: US has no small amounts of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and has proven that they are willing to use them. Fact is they have history of using them. Best regards, Paul. Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Paul Watson wrote: they don't give a rats ass that the actual citizens of the country in question do not support their leaders decision. Sometimes I wish people had more "immediate control" on the decisions that their country made. Waiting for the next elections doesn't cut it. By that time most people forget what happened 3-4 years ago, and cast their votes based on more recent happenings. I wish I had a solution. :(
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: I wish I had a solution Don't we all.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
OCid wrote: In my opinion, Spain (president Aznar) is behaving like a little dog, he just does what BB (Bush/Blair) order. Can you explain what his motive would be for doing that? Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq regime clearly support terrorism USA also supports terrorism. Do you remember that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA? Don't talk about Israel, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc ... Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq regime really hate USA. I can hate people, but is that a reason to kill them? C'mon, all we know USA just wants the Iraq's petroleum. Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq had in past no small amount of biological, chemical weapons, and today's nobody knows what happens with these weapons. USA also own all of those weapons, and he actually used them (Hiroshima/Nagashaki)
OCid wrote: USA also own all of those weapons, and he actually used them (Hiroshima/Nagashaki) Don't even go there. It's not worth it.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/30/sprj.irq.european.leaders/index.html[^] And those countries are proud to be European! :-( Shame on them! In my opinion, Spain (president Aznar) is behaving like a little dog, he just does what BB (Bush/Blair) order. I’m considering about renouncing my nationality (if that were possible). At least we still have Germany and France!
"Aznar) is behaving like a little dog, he just does what BB (Bush/Blair) order" Methinks the same: Aznar "Mr. Bush, the military might of Spain is completely at your disposal in the fight against terrorism" Bush: "Good boy, Aznar, good boy. Look a stick! Go fetch the stick, go fetch the stick"
-
Paul Riley wrote: Can you explain what his motive would be for doing that? I like this fighting spirit! ;)
Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Good afternoon, Karl :) Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq regime clearly support terrorism USA also supports terrorism. Do you remember that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA? Don't talk about Israel, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc ... Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq regime really hate USA. I can hate people, but is that a reason to kill them? C'mon, all we know USA just wants the Iraq's petroleum. Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq had in past no small amount of biological, chemical weapons, and today's nobody knows what happens with these weapons. USA also own all of those weapons, and he actually used them (Hiroshima/Nagashaki)
One other thing... The US is actually destroying its chemical agents (VX nerve gas, etc.) and it has reduced its nuclear weapons count.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
US has a known history of terrorist support (see other reply) US hates Iraq US has no small amounts of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and has proven that they are willing to use them. So should the Iraq be allowed to attack the US, to make sure their weapons are not used in an attack on Iraq? Just my opinion.
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
peterchen wrote: US has a known history of terrorist support (see other reply) Hindsight is 20/20. peterchen wrote: US hates Iraq Saddam, not Iraq. peterchen wrote: US has no small amounts of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and has proven that they are willing to use them. To my knowledge, we have never used biological or chemical agents in a theater of operations. Nuclear was 60 years ago and in different circumstances. Yes we are willing to use them, in self defense. The US has been destroying its stockpiles of WMDs. We will keep some nukes but only as deterants.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Paul Riley wrote: Sure. And don't think that people aren't already gathering evidence for that one. I hope someone is gathering the USA sponsored terroism too evidence too. Paul Riley wrote: And Saudi has the biggest, and it's very likely that they support terrorists. Your logic doesn't hold water. ...and yours does not. Saudi is with the US and Iraq is not and with Russia progressing with its inter-continental oil pipeline plans the US will have to kill Iraqis to stop it. Paul Riley wrote: The choice of one target over another is entirely diplomatic. Please put it well, the choice of which people to kill is diplomatic? Paul Riley wrote: How many countries are truly willing to stand up to the US over someone like that? None. However, those willing to share the profit you will naturally find the British and the Australians, not forgeting the poor European countries. Paul Riley wrote: The French and Germans may be bearing their teeth across the Atlantic but when it comes to the crunch, will they stand alone against the US? I doubt it. Do they have to? they are matured enough. Best regards, Paul. Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
Paul Selormey wrote: Please put it well, the choice of which people to kill is diplomatic? This very semantic argument gives away the fact that you would be against any war anywhere. And that's fine, I can respect that, I just don't agree with it. I wish I could, I'd love to see world peace, but I don't imagine it under the status quo. I honestly believe that the innocent Iraqis that survive (and that will almost certainly be most) will be better off without Saddam, as long as we don't repeat historic mistakes. Many of the innocent Iraqis that have run all the way to Britain to get out of this regime seem to agree with me. I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect some respect in return. Paul Selormey wrote: None. However, those willing to share the profit you will naturally find the British and the Australians, not forgeting the poor European countries You think this war will be run at a profit eventually? That sure would be nice, but I suspect not. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Paul Selormey wrote: Please put it well, the choice of which people to kill is diplomatic? This very semantic argument gives away the fact that you would be against any war anywhere. And that's fine, I can respect that, I just don't agree with it. I wish I could, I'd love to see world peace, but I don't imagine it under the status quo. I honestly believe that the innocent Iraqis that survive (and that will almost certainly be most) will be better off without Saddam, as long as we don't repeat historic mistakes. Many of the innocent Iraqis that have run all the way to Britain to get out of this regime seem to agree with me. I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect some respect in return. Paul Selormey wrote: None. However, those willing to share the profit you will naturally find the British and the Australians, not forgeting the poor European countries You think this war will be run at a profit eventually? That sure would be nice, but I suspect not. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: the innocent Iraqis that survive ..in other words, the innocent Iraqis that won't get killed by the bombing? How sweet?
-
Paul Selormey wrote: Please put it well, the choice of which people to kill is diplomatic? This very semantic argument gives away the fact that you would be against any war anywhere. And that's fine, I can respect that, I just don't agree with it. I wish I could, I'd love to see world peace, but I don't imagine it under the status quo. I honestly believe that the innocent Iraqis that survive (and that will almost certainly be most) will be better off without Saddam, as long as we don't repeat historic mistakes. Many of the innocent Iraqis that have run all the way to Britain to get out of this regime seem to agree with me. I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect some respect in return. Paul Selormey wrote: None. However, those willing to share the profit you will naturally find the British and the Australians, not forgeting the poor European countries You think this war will be run at a profit eventually? That sure would be nice, but I suspect not. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
Paul Riley wrote: I honestly believe that the innocent Iraqis that survive (and that will almost certainly be most) will be better off without Saddam, as long as we don't repeat historic mistakes. Paul Riley wrote: This very semantic argument gives away the fact that you would be against any war anywhere. And that's fine, I can respect that, I just don't agree with it. I wish I could, I'd love to see world peace, but I don't imagine it under the status quo. Naturally, I expect everyone to be against war anywhere. This is not a war but plan to murder innocent souls. Paul Riley wrote: I honestly believe that the innocent Iraqis that survive (and that will almost certainly be most) will be better off without Saddam, as long as we don't repeat historic mistakes. Lets hope some will survive the new killing machines. You should also honestly believe if my brothers and sisters are killed in a quest for worth I will not forget or forgive. Paul Riley wrote: Many of the innocent Iraqis that have run all the way to Britain to get out of this regime seem to agree with me. They are still less than a quarter of Iraqis in Iraq. Paul Riley wrote: I don't expect you to agree with me but I do expect some respect in return. Of course, I respect you for supporting plans to murder innocent souls - not everybody can do that you know? Paul Riley wrote: You think this war will be run at a profit eventually? That sure would be nice, but I suspect not. We all know what the motive is, right? Best regards, Paul. Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq regime clearly support terrorism USA also supports terrorism. Do you remember that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA? Don't talk about Israel, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc ... Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq regime really hate USA. I can hate people, but is that a reason to kill them? C'mon, all we know USA just wants the Iraq's petroleum. Slavo Furman wrote: Iraq had in past no small amount of biological, chemical weapons, and today's nobody knows what happens with these weapons. USA also own all of those weapons, and he actually used them (Hiroshima/Nagashaki)
OCid wrote: USA also supports terrorism. Do you remember that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA? Don't talk about Israel, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc ... I wish that one day the US would just mind our own business and watch what happens to the rest of the world. If any other country would have come under attack, you know who would be the first to help? The USA. When countries are in need of medicine and supplies, who is there? The USA. When disaster strikes in forms of earthquake, flood, or volcano, who is there to help? The USA. But when the USA comes under unforseen attack, who is there to help? The USA. That's right, who came to lend support? Did we recieve any money from another loving country? No, who cares, it's only capitalist America. If the USA would just crawl into it's own hole, I would love to see the state of the world. Disease, hunger, corruption, maybe even some slavery and concentration camps? Possible genocide... But that would be OK, right? I mean it wouldn't be our country.... Let them do whatever they want. - Nitron
"Those that say a task is impossible shouldn't interrupt the ones who are doing it." - Chinese Proverb
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/30/sprj.irq.european.leaders/index.html[^] And those countries are proud to be European! :-( Shame on them! In my opinion, Spain (president Aznar) is behaving like a little dog, he just does what BB (Bush/Blair) order. I’m considering about renouncing my nationality (if that were possible). At least we still have Germany and France!
OCid wrote: And those countries are proud to be European! Shame on them! Three of them are trying to get applications to join the EU passed - having the UK government on their side will be a great advantage. The rest signed up because they rely on the USUK for military support in times of crisis. It's purely political, as ever. :((
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
-
OCid wrote: At least we still have Germany and France Yes, it is interesting that out of the possible countries that could support the US the two that didn't are the most stable and least in need of US support. The rest need all the economic help they can get. But it does not matter to the supporters because all they care about is seeing the leaders showing support, they don't give a rats ass that the actual citizens of the country in question do not support their leaders decision.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Paul Watson wrote: Yes, it is interesting that out of the possible countries that could support the US the two that didn't are the most stable and least in need of US support Hmmm, ok...for once I think you're actually wrong Paul ol' buddy :-) I don't know about France, but Germany is hardly what I'd call stable right now. Just yesterday, it was reported that unemployment has moved into the double digits. The economy is in a shambles right now. Germany can't support the US simply because it would prove that Schroeder's "succesful" "Anti-America" electoral campaign (in which he openly critisized an attack on Iraq) was little more than an American style sham. I think the best way to deal with this whole issue is for the Americans to say, OK...we'll leave the guy alone. Then wait a few years and sit back and watch the Europeans deal with Saddam by themselves when he inevitably brandishes his new toys :-) It would cost GW his re-election of course, but what the hell. ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
-
Paul Watson wrote: Yes, it is interesting that out of the possible countries that could support the US the two that didn't are the most stable and least in need of US support Hmmm, ok...for once I think you're actually wrong Paul ol' buddy :-) I don't know about France, but Germany is hardly what I'd call stable right now. Just yesterday, it was reported that unemployment has moved into the double digits. The economy is in a shambles right now. Germany can't support the US simply because it would prove that Schroeder's "succesful" "Anti-America" electoral campaign (in which he openly critisized an attack on Iraq) was little more than an American style sham. I think the best way to deal with this whole issue is for the Americans to say, OK...we'll leave the guy alone. Then wait a few years and sit back and watch the Europeans deal with Saddam by themselves when he inevitably brandishes his new toys :-) It would cost GW his re-election of course, but what the hell. ASP.NET can never fail as working with it is like fitting bras to supermodels - it's one pleasure after the next - David Wulff
Senkwe Chanda wrote: don't know about France, but Germany is hardly what I'd call stable right now. Well compared to Spain, Poland, Italy and the other arse lickers I would hardly call Germany unstable and in dire need of US support. That is more what I meant. Out of the 10 or how ever many the two that did not support are the two strongest. The rest are hopefully gathering around their benefactor.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
-
peterchen wrote: US has a known history of terrorist support (see other reply) Hindsight is 20/20. peterchen wrote: US hates Iraq Saddam, not Iraq. peterchen wrote: US has no small amounts of biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and has proven that they are willing to use them. To my knowledge, we have never used biological or chemical agents in a theater of operations. Nuclear was 60 years ago and in different circumstances. Yes we are willing to use them, in self defense. The US has been destroying its stockpiles of WMDs. We will keep some nukes but only as deterants.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *