EU will soon back a war

Jorgen Sigvardsson

it seems. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/17/sprj.irq.europe/index.html[^]. Something needs to be done, yadda yadda. War is a last resort, yadda yadda. It's amazing how some people can make a 90 degree turn in just a matter of days. -- Chatai. Yana ra Yakana ro futisha ta?

Chris Austin

the mind boggles How do you folks on that side of the world feel about this? Is the war *more* acceptable to the general populus if all EU member countrys are on the same page? Also, anyone who is more political savy have any idea on what this change would do to China or Russia's approach? But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams. - Yeats

Chris Losinger

it's amazing how little difference 6M people can make. let that be a lesson to the next person who recommends writing a letter to your representative as a realistic way to participate in democracy. -c

Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. --Thomas Cardinal Wolsey

Fractals

ColinDavies

I'm getting more confused. Regardz Colin J Davies

Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin

I'm guessing the concept of a 2 hour movie showing two guys eating a meal and talking struck them as 'foreign' Rob Manderson wrote:

Brit

I'm confused. Did you post the right link? Everything looks the same as always: France, Russia, China and other members of the Security Council seized on the parts of Blix's report last week that talked about Iraqi compliance and as the reason inspections are working and should continue. Latvia was one of 10 Eastern European countries that signed a letter supporting the U.S. approach toward Iraq. The only thing that seems new is: The European Union called for Iraq's "full and effective disarmament" and said U.N. weapons inspections cannot go on indefinitely without Baghdad's cooperation. The statement also says war is not inevitable and should be used only as a last resort. And that seems like a mixed message - probably crafted to appease American and desenting european views (eastern europe, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, etc), but still speaking the Franco-German message of not backing war. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Brit wrote: And that seems like a mixed message - probably crafted to appease American and desenting european views (eastern europe, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, etc), but still speaking the Franco-German message of not backing war. The signals you've gotten from all the EU member countries the last month have been "No war!". And now that they're come out together from a meeting they say "Maybe we should consider war, if yadda yadda." That may be one of two cases; media is not related to reality at all, or somewhere along the line, EU as a whole made 90 degree turn. -- Chatai. Yana ra Yakana ro futisha ta?

HENDRIK R

Sh*t ... I feared that it would end like this. It may be nice for European unity (still I don't know whether it really does ...), but not for all the people that hoped there'd still be some governments holding their anti-war position. And I think an important fact that caused the new position is that: if the US were willing to attack the Iraq, they'd even do it without support of UNO/NATO/EU/whatever institution. Especially without the agreement of any country being against war And so the European leaders hope not completely excluding a military solution helps them to get some more influence on US decisions.

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Well, I am on the same line as EU. I think a disarmament of Saddam is a must, and war should be the last option. Not the first, second, third or (n - m)th option, but the nth option. So I'm just glad this is the official stance of the EU. But I still find it amusing that before the EU sat down and talked about this, the message you got from media was that europe was against war no matter what. Chris Austin wrote: Is the war *more* acceptable to the general populus if all EU member countrys are on the same page? It's certainly easier if you're going to send soldiers. Chris Austin wrote: Also, anyone who is more political savy have any idea on what this change would do to China or Russia's approach? That would require the US to get on its knees and kiss their asses. China and Russia are runner ups for the super power title. This is just an opportunity for them to show the US that they're not the absolute power. China being against war? Pah! They're killing their own by the thousands every day. And Russia? Need I remind everybody about Afghanistan and Chechnia? It's all just a show from their side. -- Chatai. Yana ra Yakana ro futisha ta?

KaRl

This document is a mix of all the positions, some sentences seem even to be contradictory. So every one will be happy with it: The NYTimes can write "War is inevitable" when the french newpapers are writing "Force should be the last resort". The EU made it to show an illusory unity when the members should rather have confirmed the death of a political Europe.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

HENDRIK R

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: But I still find it amusing that before the EU sat down and talked about this, the message you got from media was that europe was against war no matter what. Did you get that message? Then media must be very different in all European countries. I think we have to differentiate between the European population and the governments. While former ever had and still have an anti-war attitude, the latter have been very divided. And beside their new 'agreement' they still are. But they for the first time since some weeks showed kind of unity, now heading for a more pro-war (if there's really no other choice ;) ) direction. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Chris Austin wrote: Is the war *more* acceptable to the general populus if all EU member countrys are on the same page? It's certainly easier if you're going to send soldiers. Perhaps it would be some easier to claim support for sending soldiers ... but I think in most countries (such as Germany) it'd still be nearly impossible to convince the population, especially if government propagated 'no war, none of our soldiers' for months.

KaRl

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The signals you've gotten from all the EU member countries the last month have been "No war!". I disagree. The message was "No war, for now" War should be considered, 'cause it is the main pressure UN could put on SH. The main question is when should start the war, and here there's a european rift, whatever the common declaration may say.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Jorgen Sigvardsson

Schlaubi wrote: Did you get that message? Well with the exception of UK :) But Blair is Bushs puppet for some odd reason. I find it very amusing when I know that Bush would normally call Blair a bloody labour commie. :) Schlaubi wrote: I think we have to differentiate between the European population and the governments. To some degree, yes. Parliaments consist of several parties, all of them wanting the power. If you start deviate from your voters, then the voters will just find another party. Especially in strong matters such as this. Schlaubi wrote: While former ever had and still have an anti-war attitude, the latter have been very divided. And beside their new 'agreement' they still are. But they for the first time since some weeks showed kind of unity, now heading for a more pro-war (if there's really no other choice ) direction. It'll be interesting to see who will change first - governments towards the will of the people, or vice versa. At the same time I'm a bit worried. It's this chaos Saddam wanted in the first place. We should have people down there pushing him into a corner with a big light bulb in his face - KGB style of course. If we're going to put pressure on him, we should all do it together. Everything else is just futile (including an american blitzkrieg). Schlaubi wrote: Perhaps it would be some easier to claim support for sending soldiers ... but I think in most countries (such as Germany) it'd still be nearly impossible to convince the population, especially if government propagated 'no war, none of our soldiers' for months. It all depends on what information the people get. If you start feeding them with reports of Saddam mounting nukes in the desert - preferrably with pictures - you'll see the oppinion start to sway. At the end of the day, it's the media who controls the oppinions in a country. -- Chatai. Yana ra Yakana ro futisha ta?

KaRl

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: At the end of the day, it's the media who controls the oppinions in a country. Sad but true :(

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

HENDRIK R

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: It'll be interesting to see who will change first - governments towards the will of the people, or vice versa The answer can (partly) already be answered: Government converges to the people, otherwise there'd be much more support for war under the European population. But I say converge, not change. Because I don't think that either will completely change it's opinion. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If we're going to put pressure on him, we should all do it together. Everything else is just futile I agree. The European discordance must give Saddam the impression that there're even European countries supporting his way. And that won't help us getting him to disarm his country. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If you start feeding them with reports of Saddam mounting nukes in the desert - preferrably with pictures - you'll see the oppinion start to sway. . For sure. But at the moment we don't have any convincing proofs beside some satellite pictures marked with colored circles and squares. If we've had such evidences, there'd never been the base for the current public's protest against war. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: At the end of the day, it's the media who controls the oppinions in a country. Unfortunately that's the whole truth. We can see that all over the world - media can establish the public's opinion like no other instrument. And that's worst in case media is controled and abused by government.