Europe eight back Bush on Iraq
-
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 * -
Jason Henderson wrote: To my knowledge, we have never used biological or chemical agents in a theater of operations That's no true. You used Napalm (a chemical agent) in Vietnam with catasthophic consequences to the civil population
Napalm is an incendiary bomb made of "gel-ified" gasoline. Maybe you are thinking of Agent Orange which was used to kill foliage in the dense jungle. I don't think it was used directly on the civilian population, but they and many of our own men were adversely affected by 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!
OCid wrote: At least we still have Germany and France! More than that.. EU Parliament Opposes U.S. Unilateral Move on Iraq
Thu January 30, 2003 09:35 AM ET BRUSSELS, Belgium (Reuters) - The European Parliament said on Thursday that Iraq's behavior toward U.N. arms inspectors did not justify military action and urged the United States to avoid any unilateral use of force. In a non-binding resolution reflecting unease in Europe at the prospect of war, EU lawmakers declared: "Breaches of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 currently identified by the inspectors with regard to weapons of mass destruction do not justify military action." -
Paul Riley wrote: I also don't believe in this War for Oil conspiracy theory being banded about. The oil in Iraq is relevant in many ways * Oil is how Iraq has the money to fund terrorism and a WMD program. * Oil is the reason Bush is more aware of Iraq than he seemingly is of the rest of the world. * Oil is almost certainly the reason France and Russia are so resistant to the talk of war. Thank you for an intelligent statement on this. The constant mantra that the US only wants Iraq's oil is very tiresome and foolishly inaccurate. If oil were the target, we would intercede militarily in Venezuela, which supplies far more of our imports, is closer, is a lot softer target, and seems to be generally ignored by Europe and Asia. A five:rose:. The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause. - Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: If oil were the target, we would intercede militarily in Venezuela, which supplies far more of our imports, is closer, is a lot softer target, and seems to be generally ignored by Europe and Asia Who said US is not assaulting Venezuela? You surely know that Venezuela is close to suffer a civil war … I can’t demonstrate it, but I’m sure US has something to do with Venezuela’s current situation.
-
the leaders of EU members Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Denmark and applicants Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Oh good. Countries that represent the most emotionally and psychologically screwed up people in the whole world, except for Israel and all the Arab countries. :mad: 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 Muraoka -
Paul Riley wrote: the innocent Iraqis that survive ..in other words, the innocent Iraqis that won't get killed by the bombing? How sweet?
Fazlul Kabir wrote: ..in other words, the innocent Iraqis that won't get killed by the bombing? How sweet? I never said it would be pretty :(, but I'm more sure that the US will keep civilian casualties to a minimum than I am that Iraq would afford us the same courtesy given the chance. Paul Pleasently caving in, I come undone - Queens of the Stone Age, No One Knows
-
Rob Graham wrote: If oil were the target, we would intercede militarily in Venezuela, which supplies far more of our imports, is closer, is a lot softer target, and seems to be generally ignored by Europe and Asia Who said US is not assaulting Venezuela? You surely know that Venezuela is close to suffer a civil war … I can’t demonstrate it, but I’m sure US has something to do with Venezuela’s current situation.
OCid wrote: I’m sure US has something to do with Venezuela’s current situation. Yes, we bailed them out the last time they nearly went bankrupt (which they never repaid), instead of letting their economy and government collapse under the weight of their incompetence. We'll probably do so again, just because we don't want the good people of Venzuela to suffer for the stupidity of their leaders. Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003