New Europe Stands Up

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Spoon writes:
"I think it odd that America can parade having such countries as Poland, Hungary and Czech on their side. "

Perhaps these countries are more supportive of the US position because their freedom took so many years to achieve, they don't undervalue the freedom they now have, they understand better the threat to their freedom posed by a guy like Saddam and they appreciate the benefits the Iraqi people will obtain once Saddam is removed.

[/QUOTE]

Its no surprise that a small number of European nations who are political underdogs when it comes to world affairs, who have some of the smallest economies in Europe, who rely heavily on Nato for their defence are suddenly making gestures of support for the Bush Administrations position on Iraq. Whats important is that the countries that MATTER (China, Germany, Russia and France) have already REJECTED the US position. They also know the real motives behind the Bush doctrine..OIL!!

22

A little ditty from Bill Emmot

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/opinion/30EMMO.html

Calming Fears
By BILL EMMOTT

ONDON — Before President Bush’s State of the Union address, worry about war and suspicion of America were the prevailing views in the outside world. After his address, worry and suspicion still prevail. But there is now hope that the suspicion, at least, could soon ease.

Don’t misunderstand. I have long supported America’s effort to enforce the United Nations resolutions calling on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and have felt that only under an ever-nearing threat of war was there any chance that this might be achieved, peacefully or otherwise. Few of my fellow Europeans (and surprisingly few Britons) have felt the same.

Every time they have seen Mr. Bush speaking informally about this issue, their fears and suspicions have grown. However, every time they have seen him make a big, formal speech (as at the United Nations in September and before Congress on Tuesday) they have felt reassured.

This time, the reassurance did not come from his deliberately reassuring gestures, such as the promise to put up $15 billion to combat H.I.V. and AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean or the $1.2 billion for research into pollution-free cars. It came from his announcement that on Feb. 5 Secretary of State Colin Powell would reveal evidence of Iraq’s weapons concealment to the Security Council.

It was reassuring because it suggests that some proof exists. Admittedly, the lust for evidence represents a sort of mass self-delusion, a belief that somehow the 1990’s didn’t happen and that no weapons programs were found then. It also represents topsy-turvy thinking: that the burden of proof is on Mr. Bush, not Saddam Hussein. Still, such thinking is a reality that the White House needs to face.

Such evidence is not needed on technical, moral or legal grounds. But it is needed to secure a broad coalition, which in turn is highly desirable if the risks of war — and an unstable aftermath of war — are to be reduced. At least from this vantage point in London, the recent opposition to war heard from France and Russia looks shallow. Some credible, publicly usable evidence is all that is needed for them to be able to back a second United Nations resolution and even to offer military support.

Following President Bush’s address, therefore, an extremely favorable situation looks to be within America’s grasp — a broad coalition and a second resolution, both just at the time when the military buildup is reaching its peak. Saddam Hussein, no doubt, will have fresh delaying tactics up his sleeve, such as apparent, partial admissions or concessions about weapons programs with which he will hope to sow new divisions and confusion. The wider the coalition against him, and the shorter the time he has available, the lower will be his chances of success.

The president’s speech brought that prospect closer. Now Colin Powell must clinch it.

23

I know the proof.. some doctored satellite photos, some phony 'witnesses'..

Bush is right.. this is like a very bad sequel..

24

yes PA it's all fake, so was Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and when he invaded Kuwait and then left by lighting all the oil wells on fire also fake and what the hell 9/11 was fake too.

25

take a deep breath utd.. no need to get emotional and jumble facts.

Are we going to invade Iraq cuz of what happened 13 years ago?

Isn't the bush cabal insisting we forget what happened back in the Iran/Iraq war cuz I remember the US supplying him with the gas and subsequent to the incident continuing relations with him (Rumsfeld visits shortly thereafter). There was even an attempt to spin it and blame Iran at that time.

What has 9/11 anything to do with Iraq?? ANYTHING??

U can't eat u're cake and have it.... admit it, if it's Iraq then we already bombed a sovereign country for no reason.. who is to say tomorrow it won't be Iran, or Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan behind the same event?? what good are agencies which can't even decide whodunnit for sure and keep playing roulette with the usual suspects.

Or are you denying that Saudi ARabia was tricked into allowing the US forces. There were NO Iraqi forces advancing towards SA but doctored satellite photos were used to convince the ruler.

Or are you denying the Iraqi children incubator stories was a hoax.. even CNN admitted later it's "unverified".

Or are you denying that congress was duped by the testimony of a 'witness' who happened to be a Kuwaiti officials daughter??

WHY THE HELL ARE WE SO STUPID to buy government garbage at face value everytime??

26

PA,

“What has 9/11 anything to do with Iraq?? ANYTHING??”

Before 9/11 it was assumed that you needed a scud missle or aircraft to attack a country with WMD. After 9/11 it became apparent that terrorists are now a viable weapons delivery system.

Things did change.

and I LOVE the statement of the Italian Prime Minister:

**THE PRIME MINISTER: We will never forget that we owe our freedom – our freedom – our wealth to the United States of America. And our democracy. And we also will never forget there have been many American young lives that were lost and sacrifice themselves for us. **

**So for us, the United States is not only our friend, but they are the guarantee of our democracy and our freedom. And I already has the opportunity to say this to President Bush, every time I see the U.S. flag, I don’t see the flag only representative of a country, but I see it as a symbol of democracy and of freedom. **

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030130-10.html

27

very good Ohioguy, but the question remains. why Iraq??

Did Iraq ever threaten the US?? I know one country which has.. and surprise surprise it has the capability to deliver a 'nu-celar' payload to the US.. now THAT is a threat.. but we want 'diplomacy' there..

Did Iraq has ties to any known organization which has declared war on the US?? none that can be proven.. besides aren't all male muslims in the USA under the micrsoscope.. how do we expect anyone to slip through under such stringent controls.. or are we only harrassing innocents and admit that the homeland security is just plain useless?

But then again, there are countries who are complicit in funding, aiding or somehow abetting these groups.. Saudi Arabia is one.. why no war against them?

Is Iraq the only one to gas the kurds?? is Turkey really lovey dovey and nice to them?? But yet.. only Iraq is in the cross hair.

Is Iraq the only country pursuing WMD's in that region?/ I know of at least one whose capabilities far exceed it's size or economy.. add to that they trump Iraq in violating UN resolutions.. no peep again.

face it Ohioguy it's a lost case.. I say just go in do the job.. 'conquer' get the oil and be done with it.. all these 'excuses' are really pathetic.

P.S. saw u're edited part.. I see Bush needs a lot of kleenex to wipe off the italian drool on his ass..

28

PA,

Totalitarian Dictators are bad.

Dictators who are pursuing WMD are bad.

Dictators who would use the vast wealth of his country to pursue WMD are bad, particularly if his people are suffering.

Dictators who attack and invade their neighbors are bad.

Dictators who commit genocide on his own people are bad.

Saddam represents a unique nexus of these evils. No one other country has the ability or the will to confront this unique evil. All other solutions have been given 12 years to work.

29

PA, I don't think we are that stupid to 'buy' government dribble, much to the contrary, hence why this process has been ongoing for so long. When 9/11 happened many in the world thought the U.S. would quickly unleash their fury, but that did not happen. The U.S. could have attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran 48 hours after that event took place with the worlds support, but it did not. The U.S. investigated, asked questions, tried diplomatic means and then as a last option used their military. Once again the same protocol has been followed with regards to Iraq, this has been ongoing for months, or in truth years. Violation after violation Iraq has been let go, Blix admits that Iraq is not forthcoming about what it has done with it's weapons program and chemical agents, why not? Is Saddam trying to buy time? So while the world questions why the U.S. wants to oust Saddam they seem to forget to question why Saddam won't come clean.

30

How right you are:

So far for my unjustified Yanks bashing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/12/13_iraq.html

But I know thats a fake article and not one you can trust on!
Maybe even written by Sadam Hussain himself!

31

Ali,

The Democratic Underground.com? The most lethal thing the US sold them was trucks. The article says that Saddam was buying a billion dollars a MONTH in arms and the most they can find is $225 Million of sales of TRUCKS?

I've said this before. When some ration of proportionality is injected in this America bashing I will listen to it. When I hear you guys all lit up at the Russians as much as the US, then I will think you are beginning to get it.

Did the US provide some assistance to Iraq? Yes. We wanted to be sure that Iran was contained. If you remember we had a little run in with them regarding them holding our citizens hostage for a year.

The point to this is that many countries view the American history in a very similar way as the American people. The French and the Russians and the Germans were MAJOR (in your youth you have not learned to make this distinction) supporters of Saddam and their feigned outrage now is simply ludicrous. The fact that Bush has not blasted them for their participation is actually a tesimony to trying to keep some semblance of sanity to this debate.

32

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *

Its no surprise that a small number of European nations who are political underdogs when it comes to world affairs, who have some of the smallest economies in Europe, who rely heavily on Nato for their defence are suddenly making gestures of support for the Bush Administrations position on Iraq. Whats important is that the countries that MATTER (China, Germany, Russia and France) have already REJECTED the US position. They also know the real motives behind the Bush doctrine..OIL!!
[/QUOTE]

I think I get it now. European countries that express support for the US don't matter. Countries that might express disagreement do matter.

And I guess the cast of characters that matter must change depending upon the issue being discussed. China, France and Russia all voted in favor of imposing sanctions against Iraq. But, their votes then didn't matter because these are US Sanctions NOT UN sanctions. Regarding the most recent UN Resolutions, China, France and Russia all voted in favor of finding Saddam and Iraq in breach of prior UN Resolutions and demanding Iraqi disarmament. But their votes didn't matter then because of the "shifting goalposts" imposed upon Iraq.

When China, Russia, Germany and/or France express support for the US invasion of Iraq, I wonder if you'll think their opinions matter or don't matter. My guess is that the only opinion that you will think matters is an opinion that matches your own.

33

I would just like to add this article to the list for your consideration:
An Unnecessary War from the magazine, Foreign Policy

It is long so I’m not posting it here. It does go down the list of common arguments for and against the war in a very articulate manner. The overall message of it is that, although war may be necessary, the United States has managed it poorly from the start. It is not itself for or against war, just informative.

34

In response to myvoice's latest post:
The point is that the Eastern European countries would probably go along if the US were invading Mexico over a Taco Bell recipe. They are that desperate to rise in status and this presents them with the perfect opportunity. I do not blame them; they are fully right in doing so for that reason alone. However, in the battle for legitimacy for US policy, these countries do little.

Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Denmark are mid-levels. They are important, but their approval does not give the airtight legitimacy needed either.

France, Germany, and the UK are the important ones. This is for historic reasons - you may use that as reason to discredit it, but it is. Now when two of the three major players in Europe are opposed, this does not fare well.

Aside from them, since no other major powers are vocally for or against, the next most important (maybe more) country would be Turkey. Right now Turkey has informally said they will allow 20K troops to pass through their country, not stay for any extended period. This is giving the folks here at EUCOM ulcers as the plan must be passed through the Turkish legislative branch, which could take a while. (They had people on buses to Ramstein, ready to fly, but they were called to stand down because of this.) This also presents the possibility of refusal, which is not likely as the US is offering huge aid packages but is a possibility. Keep in mind though, Turkey is not important for legitimization, it is desired for strategic reasons but the US can execute the war without them.

etc, etc, etc...

35

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Ali,

The Democratic Underground.com? The most lethal thing the US sold them was trucks. The article says that Saddam was buying a billion dollars a MONTH in arms and the most they can find is $225 Million of sales of TRUCKS?

I've said this before. When some ration of proportionality is injected in this America bashing I will listen to it. When I hear you guys all lit up at the Russians as much as the US, then I will think you are beginning to get it.

Did the US provide some assistance to Iraq? Yes. We wanted to be sure that Iran was contained. If you remember we had a little run in with them regarding them holding our citizens hostage for a year.

The point to this is that many countries view the American history in a very similar way as the American people. The French and the Russians and the Germans were MAJOR (in your youth you have not learned to make this distinction) supporters of Saddam and their feigned outrage now is simply ludicrous. The fact that Bush has not blasted them for their participation is actually a tesimony to trying to keep some semblance of sanity to this debate.
[/QUOTE]

Ohio,
you are missing the point. It's not about the Germans the French the Russians. It's all about who dominates and takes most advantage out of these trades? The Germans? The French? Italian? The Russian?
No the US.
I provided (with facts) that not just Germans and French are those who supported Iraq and now are against this war coz of that particular reason.
The hostages were no issue. Never! The States are afraid of another Arab dominance as it happened in the 700-1200.
There is no way this world can afford another crusaide nor any religious leaders to dominate and influence us.
America is afraid of it and is doing everything to disarm the Arabs, but forgeting about the fact that not the old but the young will remember. Maybe not this war but the other.

With that Bush letter addressed to the EU countries he has created two leagues in the EU and to be honest he has done no good. He will have to face the consequences one day for what he has done. This issue might be solved in some months with a definate war over IRAQ but that virtual crack between these leauges will be remembered.

This is feedback to get to your senses. Your Government is total insane, but the ppl are far away from it. Only you guyz can help make this world a better place by strongly opposing the acts of violence and destruction overseas: Made in USA.

Im not interested in bashing. On the contrary, just want you ppl to open your eyes before its too late.