Most of Europe is starting to get it.

[charrison]

linkage

The United Nations Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those Resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result.

We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

SIGNED,

José María Aznar, Spain
José Manuel Durão Barroso, Portugal
Silvio Berlusconi, Italy
Tony Blair, United Kingdom
Václav Havel, Czech Republic
Peter Medgyessy, Hungary
Leszek Miller, Poland
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Denmark

I am sure the detracters will just declare them all puppets of the US govt.

 

[Loggerman]

I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Loggerman
I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

Well, to be honest we should have ignored world opinion 12 years ago and finished it then.

 

[Miramonti]

I don't see france and germany on that list.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Loggerman
I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

Bush is trusted by the public to a far greater degree than Clinton ever was....
Even if you disagree with him, you must admit he is at least honest as politicians go.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Loggerman
I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

Well, to be honest we should have ignored world opinion 12 years ago and finished it then.

BINGO!🙂

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole
I don't see france and germany on that list.

That is why i said most. But I am sure they will fall in line soon enough.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole
I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Yes, no one is complaining about france unilaterly taking care of some rebel problems in Africa. And they are doing this without UN approval.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

If it was about oil why are we not invading venezuala? Or saudi. Both would be much easier targets.

 

[Tominator]

France and Russia were defiant when we liberated Kosovo. No UN approval was given for this invasion.

Kosovo is still a war zone btw and I was an still am against direct US intervention there. THAT is Europe's problem! Iraq is OUR problem!

 

[Challenger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

If it was about oil why are we not invading venezuala? Or saudi. Both would be much easier targets.

AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[no0b]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Loggerman
I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

Well, to be honest we should have ignored world opinion 12 years ago and finished it then.

BINGO!🙂

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

IMHO, unilateralism != bad (not necessarily, anyway). Being a citizen of the US, I am all for the USA protecting its own interests. So yes, if insuring stability in the middle east to protect access to the world's oil supply is a goal of all this, then that's perfectly fine. Until an economically viable alternative is presented (and I am all for research in that area), oil is the cornerstone upon which modern civilization rests, so protecting the world's largest reserves of oil are critical to the survival and prosperity of civilization. If you disagree, then boohoo for you.

Secondly, the possibility does exist that Saddam would (or has already) aid and abet terrorists if their goals coincided with his. Terrorists capable of reaching the US (as Al Qaeda has been proven to be) armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, are also a threat to civilization, and I am all for removing the possibility that they can be armed with those weapons.

Thirdly, the UN is currently spineless, because it's made up of member states that are uneasy about the fact that the US is the sole remaining superpower. Those member states also have their own agendas (i.e. France and Russia, both with significant economic investment in the current Iraqi regime).

 

[Loggerman]

Why invade Venezuala/Saudi.Thier' doing what the expected of them.
Something about Bush"s beady little eyes,gives me the creeps :frown:

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

If it was about oil why are we not invading venezuala? Or saudi. Both would be much easier targets.

Hell Chavez is a commie, a commie dictator. A commie dictator of a nation that supplies more oil to the US than Iraq EVER will. If it was only about oil Venezuala would have been invaded half a year ago. This isn't about Iraqi oil at all, this is about the threat a rouge nation presents to other nations that have oil.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Loggerman
Why invade Venezuala/Saudi.Thier' doing what the expected of them.
Something about Bush"s beady little eyes,gives me the creeps :frown:

Yes, I guess that is why venezuala is currently exporting zero oil right now.

 

[Challenger]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

IMHO, unilateralism != bad (not necessarily, anyway). Being a citizen of the US, I am all for the USA protecting its own interests. So yes, if insuring stability in the middle east to protect access to the world's oil supply is a goal of all this, then that's perfectly fine. Until an economically viable alternative is presented (and I am all for research in that area), oil is the cornerstone upon which modern civilization rests, so protecting the world's largest reserves of oil are critical to the survival and prosperity of civilization. If you disagree, then boohoo for you.

Secondly, the possibility does exist that Saddam would (or has already) aid and abet terrorists if their goals coincided with his. Terrorists capable of reaching the US (as Al Qaeda has been proven to be) armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, are also a threat to civilization, and I am all for removing the possibility that they can be armed with those weapons.

Thirdly, the UN is currently spineless, because it's made up of member states that are uneasy about the fact that the US is the sole remaining superpower. Those member states also have their own agendas (i.e. France and Russia, both with significant economic investment in the current Iraqi regime).

Puts both hands together and hits them against each other repeatedly!!!


Well said 🙂

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Loggerman
Why invade Venezuala/Saudi.Thier' doing what the expected of them.
Something about Bush"s beady little eyes,gives me the creeps :frown:

Venezuala is doing what is expected of them? We expect them to have a countrywide strike of all oil workers in protest of a commie dictator? That's "inline" with US expectations? Hardly a barrel of oil has flowed out of the country in 2 months because Chavez refuses to step down, if it was only about oil the US would have stepped in a month and a half ago.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

If it was about oil why are we not invading venezuala? Or saudi. Both would be much easier targets.

Because they are already allies kissing our butts. As for the french in congo, they have people in immediate danger, we don't.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: Loggerman
I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

Bush is trusted by the public to a far greater degree than Clinton ever was....
Even if you disagree with him, you must admit he is at least honest as politicians go.

Yep, he is a model citizen helping extort California during its "energy" crisis and helping millions of people lose their life savings. Yeah, real honest.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: jjsole I don't see france and germany on that list.

That's because France and Germany only believe in multilateralism when it suits their own interests, and not those of the USA.

Someone from the US calling them unilateral is pretty funny. This isn't about dictators or whats good for the rest of the world, this is about oil and israel, i.e. unilateralism.

If it was about oil why are we not invading venezuala? Or saudi. Both would be much easier targets.

Because they are already allies kissing our butts. As for the french in congo, they have people in immediate danger, we don't.

I would disagree.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: Loggerman
I like Americian's,just don't trust Bush.He's just trying to finish what his Dad started.TMO

I'm sure most people would take 4 more years of Clinton over Bush. Hell, he can have sex with, do whoever the hell he wants as logn as the economy is good

 

[spaceman]

French Cuisine sucks.So does Nutella.

edit:
Im in a Euro-bashing mood 😀