unless it has been mandated by the UN.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4472696,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4472696,00.html
Germany and France won't support an attack on Iraq
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
It doesn't matter, at most they would send some reservists to a base that we would take in Iraq, they wouldn't actually help, they have to say that in case we screw up, they can't afford to have their c*cks on the chopping block.
Oh well............and didn't France already surrender to Iraq??????
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
XMan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 12,513
- 49
- 91
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Oh well............and didn't France already surrender to Iraq??????
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
Hasn't Kofi Annan been demanding Iraq allow the inspectors to return?
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Oh well............and didn't France already surrender to Iraq??????
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
when they say mandated, they mean by the security council. And seeing as how China, Russia and France all have veto powers, it won't be mandated unless the US can come up with really good arguments for the war (fat chance)
Hmmmm now lets see when was that?????? Oh yeah..........YESTERDAY Kuwait announced that Iraq was amassing a large number of artillery and Republican Guard along it's borders..................yep, looks like this will be a tough one to pass........Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Oh well............and didn't France already surrender to Iraq??????
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
when they say mandated, they mean by the security council. And seeing as how China, Russia and France all have veto powers, it won't be mandated unless the US can come up with really good arguments for the war (fat chance)
This is long but it contains the anwer as to why Europe does not want to inflame the ME. I would add to it but it covers everything I have to say at this time. I'll be happy to discuss any points it raises. I would post a link but I grabbed it off of a AP news feed.
Italian paper says Europe "hypocritical" about Arab, Islamic extremism
Source: BBC Monitoring European - Political
Publication date: 2002-07-26
Italian newspaper Il Sole-24 Ore argues that the cause of terrorism is a failure by Arab states to "build political and economic structures that meet the needs and the expectations of their people". The paper also accuses Europe of handling Islamic extremism more "hypocritically" than the USA, anxious to do business with the Arab countries, since it continues to get a large amount of its oil from them. The following is the text of report by Italian newspaper Il Sole-24 Ore web site on 24 July:
For years we have been wondering what were the genesis, the logics, and the targets of Islamic terrorism; These questions have become even more pressing after the attacks by Al-Qa'idah in the United States, and the wave of mass assassinations by the Palestinians in Israel. There have been many responses, but most of them leave the observer dissatisfied. In general the causes that people point to are: post-colonial revenge on the part of Islamic countries, with the Arab countries at the top of the list; the effect of globalization, which involves a cultural and social clash; poverty and the [economic] gap, also attributed to the effects of globalization; the challenge posed by fundamentalist Islam to the other religions, and to the customs of the West; and in the case of Palestine, the very existence of a Jewish State, and the failure to establish an Arab state. However, these have the appearance of being external causes, which do not even take into account the possible internal causes. In other words they tend to identify the "fault of the West", basically lending credence to the notion, which had a Marxist influence, which sees on the one hand the emergence from colonialism and liberation from 'imperialism', and on the other hand the new oppressors, first and foremost the United States and Israel.
Here probably lies the misunderstanding because, rather than a response to external responsibilities, Islamic terrorism seems to be the sign of a historical and political failure: that of the Islamic countries themselves -Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others - which, as the Arab Human Development Report 2002 shows, in the last 50 years have been unable to build political and economic structures that meet the needs and the expectations of their people.
A void of freedom
Those countries have not been able to create the forms of government which we in the West call democracies, in which the freedoms which all over the world are now considered to be inalienable are predominant. Religious freedom, the freedom of association, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and freedom to take economic initiatives, and freedom for minorities and for women are absent, while economic oligarchies, political ,authoritarianism, police control, the persecution of minorities, religious intolerance, and the inability to build adequate economic structures are predominant. In those countries blessed by fate with the enormous wealth of oil, the oligarchies in power, sheltered behind forms of political organization which are often feudal, have taken ownership of almost all of the oil wealth, without using its potential to diversify the productive apparatus, and without creating a modern economy based on the redistribution of incomes, on economic advancement, on wealth, on education and cultural growth, and on the dominion of science.
Backwardness
This is the genesis of the frustration and the hostility which is widespread amongst those peoples, peoples who are oppressed, left in a state of economic backwardness and under authoritarian political regimes, which are often tyrannical and police-controlled. It is natural that the reaction should spread and that religion, especially if concealed beneath a cloak of absolute rigour, constitutes an outlet, one that is exploited by a clergy that is willing to pick up on, and transmit, signals which are designed to strike down anyone who does not fit into the Islamic religious scheme of things: people in the West and the Jews, first and foremost, in the wake of the Israeli-Palestinian affair. In most cases the West does not seem to have understood this genesis or, at least, it does not seem to be prepared to appreciate it. There is, however, a huge difference between the United States and Europe, since the Americans are more oriented than the Europeans to decline their responsibilities with regard to the Islamic countries themselves, whereas Europe appears willing to shoulder a good part of the blame as the remnant of former colonial responsibilities, and to blame other parties, in particular by attributing to Israel (and in a growing measure to Jews in general) disproportionate responsibilities in this overall picture.
Europe
Where does this distortion derive from? Europe is anxious to do business with the Arab countries, whatever their political regimes may be and the level of compromise with Islamic extremism, since it continues to get a large amount of its oil from them, which is vital for their energy supplies. The United States, albeit in the interlocking web of interests with oil-rich Arab countries, seem to have decided to deal with the problem of Islamic extremism in a more direct way, or, if you will, in a less hypocritical way: hence the Bush doctrine of possible pre-emptive attacks, the definition of the "Axis of Evil" (Iran and Iraq, as well as North Korea), the all-out war on the hydra of the seven heads, Al-Qa'idah, the support for Israel, and the critical relationship with Arafat and the Palestinian [National] Authority. It is fairly obvious why Europe tends to play down the role of many Arab and Islamic countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, and others as well) in matters to do with terrorism. There are at least three reasons: By distancing itself from the United States and from Israel, Europe hopes to acquire a status of neutrality, and thereby to gain immunity from terrorism, it aims not to compromise its business relationships, and counts on maintaining energy supplies of gas and oil unchanged and protected.
Thus the reasons are fear, money, and oil. People will say that these are the things that make the world go round, and that is true. But they are things that are nothing to be proud of. Indeed, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years Europe has duly sided with the Palestinian position. Thus the terrorism to be fought against becomes, in the interpretation of much of the media in Europe and in Italy as well, the terrorism of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, while Palestinian terrorism is ennobled to the status of a national liberation struggle, explained by desperation, and justified as a necessary choice in default of any alternatives. However, by doing so, a biased segmentation of reality is effected: Honour is accorded to the hand of the Palestinians which, also by using terrorism against civilians, casts the stone, but people ignore the fact that the body of the person who carries out the deed is that of the Arab countries which finance the Palestinian war and the Islamic terrorist war at one and the same time.
The progressives
It is no surprise that this is the stance of the Islamic fundamentalists. It is no surprise that Europe supports this stance, for the reasons mentioned above. But we are baffled by the fact that a large section of progressive public opinion has sided with these positions, identifying the Palestinians as the 'good guys' even though there are anti-democratic countries hiding behind them, and identifying the war-mongering United States, Israel, and not infrequently, those eternal 'pains in the neck', the Jews, as the 'bad guys'. It is not that everyone has to like Israel and the Jews. However, it is surprising that ever since 1967 the parties of the Left have backed such distortions in an uncritical way. How can one fail to see the often brutal reality in tyrannical countries such as Syria, Iraq, or Sudan? How can one back their no-holds-barred struggle against Israel, which, with all its flaws, is an island of democracy drowning in a sea of tyrannies? How can one ignore the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a part of the whole, and cannot be settled without taking the context into account? For a long time people have viewed Islamic terrorism with tolerance. And many 'fine souls' still continue to think that perhaps, if the Islamic terrorists do what they do, the blame lies with the United States, with capitalism, with globalization, with Israel, and with the Jews, but not with the tyrants who crush the people of the Arab countries. In this context there is an additional question which it is best not to gloss over, and which involves the UN, which ought to be an unbiased organization, one which guarantees peace and justice in the world, at the service of truth and democracy.
The UN
It has to be said that, by contrast, the credibility of the UN emerges battered and bruised from these matters. In September last year, immediately before the attack on the United Sates, Arab countries, with the consensus of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, tried to get approval of condemnation of Israel as a racist country that was guilty of 'ethnic cleansing'. It was only due to US opposition that this did not happen. But in the past the UN had already approved a motion, which was later withdrawn, which condemned Zionism as racism. How is it possible that despotic countries, in which women are stoned to death and thieves have their hands cut off, in which a church or a synagogue cannot be built, manage to get a democratic country condemned for a crime which it is not committing? The explanation lies in the fact that at the UN it is possible to secure pre-formed, tailor-made majorities of Arab and Islamic countries and developing countries which are by definition hostile to the United States and to Israel, and which are inclined to back anything that has the appearance of a national liberation struggle. These majorities succeed in getting the United States expelled from the Human Rights Commission and getting it replaced by that champion of liberty and democracy, Sudan. Kofi Annan ought to provide some explanation in this regard.
edit/ fixing the format
Italian paper says Europe "hypocritical" about Arab, Islamic extremism
Source: BBC Monitoring European - Political
Publication date: 2002-07-26
Italian newspaper Il Sole-24 Ore argues that the cause of terrorism is a failure by Arab states to "build political and economic structures that meet the needs and the expectations of their people". The paper also accuses Europe of handling Islamic extremism more "hypocritically" than the USA, anxious to do business with the Arab countries, since it continues to get a large amount of its oil from them. The following is the text of report by Italian newspaper Il Sole-24 Ore web site on 24 July:
For years we have been wondering what were the genesis, the logics, and the targets of Islamic terrorism; These questions have become even more pressing after the attacks by Al-Qa'idah in the United States, and the wave of mass assassinations by the Palestinians in Israel. There have been many responses, but most of them leave the observer dissatisfied. In general the causes that people point to are: post-colonial revenge on the part of Islamic countries, with the Arab countries at the top of the list; the effect of globalization, which involves a cultural and social clash; poverty and the [economic] gap, also attributed to the effects of globalization; the challenge posed by fundamentalist Islam to the other religions, and to the customs of the West; and in the case of Palestine, the very existence of a Jewish State, and the failure to establish an Arab state. However, these have the appearance of being external causes, which do not even take into account the possible internal causes. In other words they tend to identify the "fault of the West", basically lending credence to the notion, which had a Marxist influence, which sees on the one hand the emergence from colonialism and liberation from 'imperialism', and on the other hand the new oppressors, first and foremost the United States and Israel.
Here probably lies the misunderstanding because, rather than a response to external responsibilities, Islamic terrorism seems to be the sign of a historical and political failure: that of the Islamic countries themselves -Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others - which, as the Arab Human Development Report 2002 shows, in the last 50 years have been unable to build political and economic structures that meet the needs and the expectations of their people.
A void of freedom
Those countries have not been able to create the forms of government which we in the West call democracies, in which the freedoms which all over the world are now considered to be inalienable are predominant. Religious freedom, the freedom of association, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and freedom to take economic initiatives, and freedom for minorities and for women are absent, while economic oligarchies, political ,authoritarianism, police control, the persecution of minorities, religious intolerance, and the inability to build adequate economic structures are predominant. In those countries blessed by fate with the enormous wealth of oil, the oligarchies in power, sheltered behind forms of political organization which are often feudal, have taken ownership of almost all of the oil wealth, without using its potential to diversify the productive apparatus, and without creating a modern economy based on the redistribution of incomes, on economic advancement, on wealth, on education and cultural growth, and on the dominion of science.
Backwardness
This is the genesis of the frustration and the hostility which is widespread amongst those peoples, peoples who are oppressed, left in a state of economic backwardness and under authoritarian political regimes, which are often tyrannical and police-controlled. It is natural that the reaction should spread and that religion, especially if concealed beneath a cloak of absolute rigour, constitutes an outlet, one that is exploited by a clergy that is willing to pick up on, and transmit, signals which are designed to strike down anyone who does not fit into the Islamic religious scheme of things: people in the West and the Jews, first and foremost, in the wake of the Israeli-Palestinian affair. In most cases the West does not seem to have understood this genesis or, at least, it does not seem to be prepared to appreciate it. There is, however, a huge difference between the United States and Europe, since the Americans are more oriented than the Europeans to decline their responsibilities with regard to the Islamic countries themselves, whereas Europe appears willing to shoulder a good part of the blame as the remnant of former colonial responsibilities, and to blame other parties, in particular by attributing to Israel (and in a growing measure to Jews in general) disproportionate responsibilities in this overall picture.
Europe
Where does this distortion derive from? Europe is anxious to do business with the Arab countries, whatever their political regimes may be and the level of compromise with Islamic extremism, since it continues to get a large amount of its oil from them, which is vital for their energy supplies. The United States, albeit in the interlocking web of interests with oil-rich Arab countries, seem to have decided to deal with the problem of Islamic extremism in a more direct way, or, if you will, in a less hypocritical way: hence the Bush doctrine of possible pre-emptive attacks, the definition of the "Axis of Evil" (Iran and Iraq, as well as North Korea), the all-out war on the hydra of the seven heads, Al-Qa'idah, the support for Israel, and the critical relationship with Arafat and the Palestinian [National] Authority. It is fairly obvious why Europe tends to play down the role of many Arab and Islamic countries (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, and others as well) in matters to do with terrorism. There are at least three reasons: By distancing itself from the United States and from Israel, Europe hopes to acquire a status of neutrality, and thereby to gain immunity from terrorism, it aims not to compromise its business relationships, and counts on maintaining energy supplies of gas and oil unchanged and protected.
Thus the reasons are fear, money, and oil. People will say that these are the things that make the world go round, and that is true. But they are things that are nothing to be proud of. Indeed, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years Europe has duly sided with the Palestinian position. Thus the terrorism to be fought against becomes, in the interpretation of much of the media in Europe and in Italy as well, the terrorism of Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, while Palestinian terrorism is ennobled to the status of a national liberation struggle, explained by desperation, and justified as a necessary choice in default of any alternatives. However, by doing so, a biased segmentation of reality is effected: Honour is accorded to the hand of the Palestinians which, also by using terrorism against civilians, casts the stone, but people ignore the fact that the body of the person who carries out the deed is that of the Arab countries which finance the Palestinian war and the Islamic terrorist war at one and the same time.
The progressives
It is no surprise that this is the stance of the Islamic fundamentalists. It is no surprise that Europe supports this stance, for the reasons mentioned above. But we are baffled by the fact that a large section of progressive public opinion has sided with these positions, identifying the Palestinians as the 'good guys' even though there are anti-democratic countries hiding behind them, and identifying the war-mongering United States, Israel, and not infrequently, those eternal 'pains in the neck', the Jews, as the 'bad guys'. It is not that everyone has to like Israel and the Jews. However, it is surprising that ever since 1967 the parties of the Left have backed such distortions in an uncritical way. How can one fail to see the often brutal reality in tyrannical countries such as Syria, Iraq, or Sudan? How can one back their no-holds-barred struggle against Israel, which, with all its flaws, is an island of democracy drowning in a sea of tyrannies? How can one ignore the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a part of the whole, and cannot be settled without taking the context into account? For a long time people have viewed Islamic terrorism with tolerance. And many 'fine souls' still continue to think that perhaps, if the Islamic terrorists do what they do, the blame lies with the United States, with capitalism, with globalization, with Israel, and with the Jews, but not with the tyrants who crush the people of the Arab countries. In this context there is an additional question which it is best not to gloss over, and which involves the UN, which ought to be an unbiased organization, one which guarantees peace and justice in the world, at the service of truth and democracy.
The UN
It has to be said that, by contrast, the credibility of the UN emerges battered and bruised from these matters. In September last year, immediately before the attack on the United Sates, Arab countries, with the consensus of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, tried to get approval of condemnation of Israel as a racist country that was guilty of 'ethnic cleansing'. It was only due to US opposition that this did not happen. But in the past the UN had already approved a motion, which was later withdrawn, which condemned Zionism as racism. How is it possible that despotic countries, in which women are stoned to death and thieves have their hands cut off, in which a church or a synagogue cannot be built, manage to get a democratic country condemned for a crime which it is not committing? The explanation lies in the fact that at the UN it is possible to secure pre-formed, tailor-made majorities of Arab and Islamic countries and developing countries which are by definition hostile to the United States and to Israel, and which are inclined to back anything that has the appearance of a national liberation struggle. These majorities succeed in getting the United States expelled from the Human Rights Commission and getting it replaced by that champion of liberty and democracy, Sudan. Kofi Annan ought to provide some explanation in this regard.
edit/ fixing the format
England may not support it either, unless there is imperical evedence a need to start a war is in the best interest of its citizens and the world in general. Bush jr. is seen as a leader trying to do what his daddy couldn't. His papa left him a lousy legacy that he is trying to rectify before his re-election comes up. He is in hopes of generating support and a coallition to get a war on Iraq and unseat Saddam so voters will see him as a "leader". It's crap. As much an A-hole saddam is, bush is trying just what he said he would never do--------Nation building. And he intends to do it by assisinating an elected leader in a foreign land. If he can't assiniate him, he will try to bring a war on them. It is transparent,and dispicable.
And I hope he is successful and kicks that mofos gawdamn ass to hell and gone. :Q
And I hope he is successful and kicks that mofos gawdamn ass to hell and gone. :Q
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Hmmmm now lets see when was that?????? Oh yeah..........YESTERDAY Kuwait announced that Iraq was amassing a large number of artillery and Republican Guard along it's borders..................yep, looks like this will be a tough one to pass........Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Oh well............and didn't France already surrender to Iraq??????
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
when they say mandated, they mean by the security council. And seeing as how China, Russia and France all have veto powers, it won't be mandated unless the US can come up with really good arguments for the war (fat chance)
Well, what is the problem with waiting then? Get a plan ready, and if Iraq ever attacks, then start a war. There'll be little opposition to such a war, but striking first is just asking for trouble IMO.
Typical Tripleshot load of crap.:disgust:
And what did eight years of candy ass "containment" by the child molester do to Saddam?
Hmmm..........did I say there was a problem with waiting or that I thought we should go in now????Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Hmmmm now lets see when was that?????? Oh yeah..........YESTERDAY Kuwait announced that Iraq was amassing a large number of artillery and Republican Guard along it's borders..................yep, looks like this will be a tough one to pass........Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Oh well............and didn't France already surrender to Iraq??????
Anyway, I have an idea it will be "mandated' for whatever reason when the time comes................
when they say mandated, they mean by the security council. And seeing as how China, Russia and France all have veto powers, it won't be mandated unless the US can come up with really good arguments for the war (fat chance)
Well, what is the problem with waiting then? Get a plan ready, and if Iraq ever attacks, then start a war. There'll be little opposition to such a war, but striking first is just asking for trouble IMO.
No, what I'm saying is when the time comes..............so will the mandate and the coalition will be formed...........it's only a matter of time!I hate the new quotes.
Now that I have that out of my system.
Should we wait until Saddam unleases a weapon in New York or LA to attack him? I'll agree that I would like to see some more evidance before an attack on Iraq but if the evidance is there it would be stupid to let him get the first shot in. Technology of mass destruction has risen to such a level that you can't wait for a dictator to get the first shot in.
TS, try again, that horse wouldn't fly the first 10 times you tried it. It still doesn't fly. The UN mandate was not to get rid of Saddam. End of story.
Now that I have that out of my system.
Should we wait until Saddam unleases a weapon in New York or LA to attack him? I'll agree that I would like to see some more evidance before an attack on Iraq but if the evidance is there it would be stupid to let him get the first shot in. Technology of mass destruction has risen to such a level that you can't wait for a dictator to get the first shot in.
TS, try again, that horse wouldn't fly the first 10 times you tried it. It still doesn't fly. The UN mandate was not to get rid of Saddam. End of story.
Not surprise, France has a very large Muslim population, which is very sympathetic toward Iraq and Saddam.
Bignate603
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 13,897
- 1
- 0
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Hey it's what's best for the US. Fsck the rest of them, we are going to do it whether they like it or not. In fact we should keep going and take out Iran as well and maybe dropped a Daisy Cutter on a compund in Ramallah while we are at it. If somebody wants to take up arms against us for doing it then we should knock their dicks in the dirt too.
I don't know whether to refer to you as McArthur or Patton......................but I like either one..................
We would be complete and utter idiots if we went in there without:
1. An international coalition and/or...
2. a UN mandate.
3. Knowing/trusting whoever it is that is going to be put into power after Saddam is gone. Tell me again who that is, their names have slipped my mind.
1. An international coalition and/or...
2. a UN mandate.
3. Knowing/trusting whoever it is that is going to be put into power after Saddam is gone. Tell me again who that is, their names have slipped my mind.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter