Just One Ally

[NewsGuy]

Just One Ally

While Iraq continues to attack American and British patrols over the UN-mandated no-fly zone, the United States moves closer to ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. In a speech before Congress, President Bush declared, "The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally." But when it is all said and done, who will "fully and finally" back the U.S. in its bid to oust the homicidal Iraqi dictator? There is but one ally who stands steadfast in its friendship and cooperation with America: the Jewish state of Israel.

Although the United States has been arduously buying the friendship of what was imagined in the State Department to be a base of Arab allies, when push comes to shove, America stands alone in its battle against Iraqi state-sponsored terrorism.

In Europe, too, the U.S. has quickly discovered that despite providing military protection to the Europeans within the framework of NATO and otherwise, the EU members are no allies of the U.S. Instead, after a few polite condolences on 9/11, America has met not only with vigorous opposition, but outright hostility from its European so-called allies, except of course, for the UK.

UK mostly OK

There is no doubt that the United Kingdom is a solid ally of the U.S. Since the Gulf War, UK pilots provided support for US air patrols in the no-fly zones. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that his country is prepared to "pay with blood" for its special relationship with the United States. However, Tony Blair's commitment does not exactly match the goals of the U.S., which is to replace the Iraqi government. Rather, Tony Blair, has only been willing to go so far as to assist the U.S. in forcing Iraq to accept UN inspectors. And even for this position, which falls very much short of American goals, Blair is still lacking support in Parliament. At the same time, massive street demonstrations indicate that, for the most part, Britons oppose backing the U.S.

Willing to take fire

But amidst the appalling display of just how alone America stands in the global arena, there is a bright light of friendship and solidarity from Israel. The Jewish state is the only one in the Middle East that publicly declares its loyalty and support for the U.S. This unity with America comes despite the fact that Israel knows full well that it will likely bear the brunt of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction when the American offensive begins. As it seems, no other civilian population will be targeted by Iraq, other than the Israeli public.

In preparation for chemical and biological attacks from Iraq, Israel has already vaccinated its rescue workers against smallpox, and other large scale preparations are underway to defend against an Iraqi attack with weapons of mass destruction. The memories of the barrage of Iraqi scud missiles launched into the heart of Israel’s population centers, are still fresh in the minds of most Israelis. Still, there is unwavering commitment by Israel to back the U.S.

United in Values

Unlike any other nation on earth, Israel is a loyal friend to the U.S., and vice versa. The U.S. has extensive business relationships with Israel, and provides some foreign aid, but the connection between the countries goes much further. There is a commonality of societal values, with a strong emphasis on fostering Western democracy. And, as of late, both the U.S. and Israel find themselves under attack from Islamic terrorists. On a basic level, both Israel and the United States are bastions of freedom which have paid a bloody price for defending their just ideals.

Although other countries are fair-weather friends of America, in the final analysis, it is only the Jewish state that is a true and steadfast ally of the U.S. It is only Israel that is willing to make huge sacrifices to fully and publicly stand beside its American partner against the evil danger of state-sponsored tyranny and weapons of mass destruction.

[takeo]

The whole world stoot by the US, Europe and France in particular, when it was sincerely targetted by terrorist groups. But when the US abused this solidarity to extend its imperial ambitions to Iraq (a country, i repeat, that NEVER attacked the uS, nor supported any terrorist group on its soil that attacked the uS, it only defended its own territorial integrity against us- and brittish terrorist strikes on iraqi soil) it crossed the limit. There is a difference between friendship (helping a friend in trouble) and slavery (comply to all wishes of your master).
THERE is no legitimation possible for a war against Iraq, now that iraq agreed to fULL weapons inspections and complied to all unsc-resolutions, on the contrary to that "special ally" of the US (mostly a pain in the ass for the us, the reason why any military assistance of israel was kindly but firmly dismissed).

[Mediocrates]

Please be patient. The bombers are moving north and east into Finland and Indonesia. They are tying to reach as many infidels, zionists, Americans and anyone else as fast as they can. Please be patient while we add you to the list. Your death is extremely important to us and we will get to yours in the order it was received.

Thank you again for your patience and support.

[Mediocrates]

The Iraqi presidential compounds are still off limits, by the way.

[takeo]

"Please be patient. The bombers are moving north and east into Finland and Indonesia. They are tying to reach as many infidels, zionists, Americans and anyone else as fast as they can. Please be patient while we add you to the list. Your death is extremely important to us and we will get to yours in the order it was received.

Thank you again for your patience and support."

this time i really didn't get it!

:confused:

iraq is not an Islamic fundamentalist country, and does not support terrorist groups, so whatever happens in Finland, Indonesia, etc is totally unimportant concerning Iraq, one would rather have to target al-quaida, which is still not defeated despite billions of us-taxpayers $.

[richcrassus]

No wonder why the palestinians didnt want a deal with israel during Ehud Baraks deal for a palestinian state.
ISraels 'conditions' were for the Gaza strip and the West Bank to be the palestinian state BUT no one in the news said that jewish settlers would continue living in the WB and Gaza strip, and also for Israel to have checkpoints and MILITARY BASES all aroud the WB. IF I WAS ARAFAT I WOULDNT ACCEPT A 'STATE' LIKE THAT EITHER.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE HERE ACCEPT A STATE OR DEAL LIKE THAT IF THEY WERE ARAFAT???
IF YO WOULD IT WOULD MEAN YOUR AN IDIOT.

[richcrassus]

Its amazing no one here has grabbed onto the news that about 100 folks have been killed on the islans of BALI "Indonesia" mostly foreign tourists at a nightclub.
It HAS to be terrorism, they Indonesia is full of muslims.
THE US is saying "AL QUIDA" has planted its ugly foot in indonesia.
Maybe bombs will be dropping on Indonesia next.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
"Please be patient. The bombers are moving north and east into Finland and Indonesia. They are tying to reach as many infidels, zionists, Americans and anyone else as fast as they can. Please be patient while we add you to the list. Your death is extremely important to us and we will get to yours in the order it was received.

Thank you again for your patience and support."

this time i really didn't get it!

:confused:

iraq is not an Islamic fundamentalist country, and does not support terrorist groups, so whatever happens in Finland, Indonesia, etc is totally unimportant concerning Iraq, one would rather have to target al-quaida, which is still not defeated despite billions of us-taxpayers $.

takeo, you have plenty of patience -- the patience of Neville Chamberlain.

One of these days you will finally get it. Let's hope it's not too late.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Please be patient. The bombers are moving north and east into Finland and Indonesia. They are tying to reach as many infidels, zionists, Americans and anyone else as fast as they can. Please be patient while we add you to the list. Your death is extremely important to us and we will get to yours in the order it was received.

Thank you again for your patience and support.


__________________
God made idiots. Now they are Islamist terrorists. -- ibrodsky

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
The whole world stoot by the US, Europe and France in particular, when it was sincerely targetted by terrorist groups.
What exactly did France do? After making some feeble, insincere mutterings following 9/11, they returned to their usual support for state sponsored terrorism in places like Lebanon, Syria and Iran and made sure to step up the burning of synagogues.


But when the US abused this solidarity to extend its imperial ambitions to Iraq (a country, i repeat, that NEVER attacked the uS, nor supported any terrorist group on its soil that attacked the uS,

The same kind of drivel that was said when Israeli destroyed Iraq's nuclear plant. Iraq try to destabilize the Mideast with weapons of mass destruction? "NEVER." :D



it only defended its own territorial integrity against us- and brittish terrorist strikes on iraqi soil) it crossed the limit.

Heh... Iraq defending against what? Against the implementation of the UN-mandated no-fly zone?



There is a difference between friendship (helping a friend in trouble) and slavery (comply to all wishes of your master).

Correct. There is no slavery involved here, other than Europe's shameful enslavement to Arab oil and money, which are far more important to Europe than any moral standards.

As for loyalty and being grateful to the US for protecting them for decades under NATO, well, I guess that's also not within Europe's moral scope either.



THERE is no legitimation possible for a war against Iraq, now that iraq agreed to fULL weapons inspections and complied to all unsc-resolutions,

Of course, even more nonsense. Iraq never agreed to comply with the UN resolution which calls for unconditional access for the inspectors.


on the contrary to that "special ally" of the US (mostly a pain in the ass for the us, the reason why any military assistance of israel was kindly but firmly dismissed).

You have zero understanding of how the US views its relationship with Israel, nor do you actually grasp the concepts of loyalty and having a moral backbone that define that relationship. Contrary to your misinformation, American military supplies are "firmly and politely" rolling into Israel by the ton daily.

[Philip]

The US is not threatened in any meaningful way by Iraq, nor is it in any real danger of becoming threatened by Iraq in the lifetime of anyone reading this. Israel, on the other hand, is threatened by Iraq. The reality of the situation is that the US is looking into undertaking something that serves Israel's interests far more directly than it serves US interests.

It's really unseemly that anyone would try to hype Israel's support of the US in this matter as being due to Israel being "a true and steadfast ally of the U.S." that is "willing to make huge sacrifices to fully and publicly stand beside its American partner against the evil danger of state-sponsored tyranny and weapons of mass destruction." Just like a jackal is a true and steadfast ally of a lion.

[Mediocrates]

Is Turkey a NATO member? Are the FSU-istans nascent partners with the west, for oil or for any other reason?

According to information published by the Federation of American Scientists (yes I know it has the word 'American' in it, it MUST be biased.....) Iraq is a few years, not many, from having the capacity to launch 1000kg warheads 1000-1500km which places Cairo, Cypress, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, The Gulf of Hormuz, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbijan, Iran in range. Some of these countries are actually allies or at least partners. And while you want to pull up the drawbridge the world doesn't work that way.

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html

[takeo]

"takeo, you have plenty of patience -- the patience of Neville Chamberlain.

One of these days you will finally get it. Let's hope it's not too late."

lol, nice comparison, it doesn't work however, you can't compare iraq to nazi-germany, Iraq doesn't represent anything, and Iraq hasn't just invaded (and kept) another country, in fact iraq just agreed to cooperate with the uN, while Hitler did no concessions whatsoever to Chamberlain. IF we should make comparisons with WWII another one is far more obvious...


"What exactly did France do? After making some feeble, insincere mutterings following 9/11, they returned to their usual support for state sponsored terrorism in places like Lebanon, Syria and Iran and made sure to step up the burning of synagogues."

To begin with, France has delivered quite some fundamentalist al-quaida suspects to the us, whereas countries such as Spain had much more reservations to do so. France also cooperated AND funded the war on terrorism in afghanistan, and France has currently troops in Afghanistan, it also shared all its information it had at its disposal with us-intelligence services. last but not least france was one of the countries in the UNSC to lobby in the SC giving the us a very strong mandate for action against the terrorist networks and their protecters/collaboraters, much more than China and Russia who were hesitating. "insincere mutterings???" I'm not sure the US would do the same if for example 11/9 was in Paris and not in NYC.
Iran, Libanon and Syria did NOT attack the US or US-targets, so our cooperation with those countries is none of your (the US) business.



"The same kind of drivel that was said when Israeli destroyed Iraq's nuclear plant. Iraq try to destabilize the Mideast with weapons of mass destruction? "NEVER." "

actually it is still not prooven that this action had any results/benefits, and it was clearly an unprovoked act of terror against an independant country, which by the way made Saddam more popular in the Arab world.




"Heh... Iraq defending against what? Against the implementation of the UN-mandated no-fly zone?"

UN-mandated? The UN never mandated to US and GB to attack Iraqi defense systems, there was no enforcement included.






"Correct. There is no slavery involved here, other than Europe's shameful enslavement to Arab oil and money, which are far more important to Europe than any moral standards. "

LOL your favorite line: "Europe's shameful enslavement to Arab oil and money" which is so ridiculous it isn't even worth arguing. Europe's gnp is something like a 20 times bigger than that of the entire Arab world, if not much more. And if we are so enslaved, why do they attack our vessels and personnel and why did we cooperate against their friends in Afghanistan? actually no single European leader OR company is so much related to the Arab oil as the us-businesses and the businesses of the Bush-family in particular with Kouweit and SA.

"As for loyalty and being grateful to the US for protecting them for decades under NATO, well, I guess that's also not within Europe's moral scope either."

Nope, because the US didn't protect us, the US took the most adventages of NATO by keeping Western Europe loyal, and it actively tried to disrupt the european policy of "sunshine policy" towards the East(except under J. Carter), it also tried to influence internal politics for example in france and italy by actively lobbying against communist participation in the government. In Italy it got very bad, where the CIA together with radical rightwing/maffia forces was involved in "gladio", which had links to the bombing of the station of Bologna. in greece, Spain and Portugal military/fascist dictatorships were supported "to stop communism", something the Greek will not easily forget.





"Of course, even more nonsense. Iraq never agreed to comply with the UN resolution which calls for unconditional access for the inspectors. "

It reached a concensus with the un-inspectors, as was prescribed by the un-resolutions, and i'm sure iraq will finally agree to weapons inspections everywhere on its territory, while the us, in that case, will surely find another excuse to bomb baghdad. Iraq has recently offered immediate unconditional American inspection of the sites that according to Bush contain WMD.




"You have zero understanding of how the US views its relationship with Israel, nor do you actually grasp the concepts of loyalty and having a moral backbone that define that relationship. Contrary to your misinformation, American military supplies are "firmly and politely" rolling into Israel by the ton daily."

No doubt, but the US will never officially admit that israel will be its ally in any war.





"According to information published by the Federation of American Scientists (yes I know it has the word 'American' in it, it MUST be biased.....) Iraq is a few years, not many, from having the capacity to launch 1000kg warheads 1000-1500km which places Cairo, Cypress, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, The Gulf of Hormuz, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbijan, Iran in range. Some of these countries are actually allies or at least partners. And while you want to pull up the drawbridge the world doesn't work that way."

well, Iraq for sure now has less capacity than 11 years ago, and 11 years ago iraq was attacked and defeated, and it DIDN'T use any WMD against the allies. And the conclusions of the FAS will have to be checked on the ground by the inspectors, nobody will believe a government-related us-institution, with such interests at stake, without any proofs. The weapons-inspectors who were in iraq and searched troughout the country for many years didn't found any new proofs of nuclear activity during the last years.
By the way the same conclusions had been made concerning Iran and North Korea, while India, Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons for sure and no longer deny it. Why single out Iraq? Maybe because it has something like 1/4th of the world reserves of oil under its soil and it would be much better for economic us-interests (NOT safety) to have a loyal puppet-dictator/feodal ruler as in Kouweit. in other words: imperialism in the original meaning!

[Mediocrates]

As I've covered before, the economics for getting ones hands on all the oil don't wash.

BTW you don't a nuclear threat to worry about the kind of missile threat I described. Chem/bio agents will suffice. In fact use that as a stronger basis since Chem/Bio agents require far less accuracy than a nuclear payload. Probably an order of magnitude less accuracy.

[takeo]

Anyone with a high knowledge of chemistry/biology can devellop biologic and even chemical WMD is his garden, even African countries such as Sudan can make/use such weapons.

"As I've covered before, the economics for getting ones hands on all the oil don't wash"

Do you deny that the oil-reserves of Iraq have any involvement in the current crisis?
if so, why does the us maintain such close relations with the Gulf feodal regimes, and why does it maintain troops in the gulf, and not in for example Africa?
a loyal regime in iraq would mean that us-companies would get the first choice in the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure, and that us-based companies would receive shares. what's more is that iraq would then no longer push for higher prices in the opec, as the regime of Saddam always did.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
Anyone with a high knowledge of chemistry/biology can devellop biologic and even chemical WMD is his garden, even African countries such as Sudan can make/use such weapons.

So what's that got to do with anything?

Do you deny that the oil-reserves of Iraq have any involvement in the current crisis?

Largely yes that is the case; there is no connection. If we wanted to simply stomp on some recalcitrant OPEC nation we could send the Marines to Venezuela 'to maintain stability in this time of crisis'.

if so, why does the us maintain such close relations with the Gulf feodal regimes, and why does it maintain troops in the gulf, and not in for example Africa?

Didn't they teach you reality or subtlety at the Komsomol? Yes we use oil. About 55% of what we use comes from outside the US. About 11% of that 55% comes from Saudi Arabia. Yes we maintain troops there. The reasons are manifold:

1 - They asked us.
2 - We run large parts of their defence infrastructure - SA has a $19 billion/year defence budget and little indigenous ability to manage it.
3 - They are unable or unwilling or uninterested in doing that job
4 - We have fewer direct economic interests in Africa because in this case there are few natural resources that require a process control management infrastructure like oil. In Africa there are minerals which are controlled by local cartels. Mining is a completely different economy. There is some oil in Angola and there is work on a 200,000 bbl refinery to the tune of $3.6billion in Lobito but so far the level of interest has not exceeded our reluctance to invest - the money is largely German. Nigeria has a great deal of oil but little need for foreigners to process it for them and little need or interest in maintaining a large and complex defence infrastructure.

a loyal regime in iraq would mean that us-companies would get the first choice in the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure, and that us-based companies would receive shares.

That is probably not true for several reasons:

1 - We the US, lack the language and culture skills
2 - Most middle eastern banking and capital investment flows through Europe, not the US or Japan.
3 - It's erroneous assumption that much of anything would have to be rebuilt or how much or when.

what's more is that iraq would then no longer push for higher prices in the opec, as the regime of Saddam always did.

The Saudis thought themselves the master of the tactical price shock but even they undertand that OPEC may only be a few years from dissolution. They simply can't control the supply and price they way they want. Everytime they try someone else ignores the new 'standard'. Usually it's Kuwait, Nigeria or Venezuela. Moverover Mexico, Brazil and China are all discovering and developing new oil oil export resources.

So American investors and oil companies - given their druthers would rather invest in and get oil from friendly countries than have to go to a war zone and invest capital anyhow - It's actually cheaper in the long run to go somewhere other than Iraq. That Iraq has reserves is irrelevant. We actually have enough oil now. The challenge is to provide for future demand and that requires capital. Capital which is hard to acquire for investment in Iraq. Insurers don't generally support that kind of investment.

[takeo]

"So what's that got to do with anything?"

it means that chemical and biological weapons remain a theoretic threat, not only in Iraq but in the whole world.



"Largely yes that is the case; there is no connection. If we wanted to simply stomp on some recalcitrant OPEC nation we could send the Marines to Venezuela 'to maintain stability in this time of crisis'."

yep, but that's too politically sensitive because chavez is an elected leader and it doesn't want to aleniate latin america, and the us still hopes that Chavez will be toppled by a military coup/defeated in next elections.




"1 - They asked us.
2 - We run large parts of their defence infrastructure - SA has a $19 billion/year defence budget and little indigenous ability to manage it.
3 - They are unable or unwilling or uninterested in doing that job"

OK, but THEY are a bunch of feodal rules who can only survive thanks to American support, the US choose to remain that regime in power, that's why they have troops in these countries. Those can as well be used to threaten Iran and Iraq and maintain us-dominance over the region. US-companies are making huge benefits in SA and kouweit, more than European companies, thanks to the regimes who are very generous towards the americans (in return for protection).

"4 - We have fewer direct economic interests in Africa because in this case there are few natural resources that require a process control management infrastructure like oil. In Africa there are minerals which are controlled by local cartels. Mining is a completely different economy. There is some oil in Angola and there is work on a 200,000 bbl refinery to the tune of $3.6billion in Lobito but so far the level of interest has not exceeded our reluctance to invest - the money is largely German. Nigeria has a great deal of oil but little need for foreigners to process it for them and little need or interest in maintaining a large and complex defence infrastructure."

YES, the oil-supplies in Nigeria are not in danger because noone is threatening Nigeria, and Nigeria is mainly dominated by Brittish companies. Nigeria belongs to the brittish sphere of influence, but the us is now trying to get a grip on equatorial guinea, where new large reserves have been found and are being exploited. The uS has already bought the dictator by a royal sum of money, and there is serious talking about installing american troops in the country, who have to save the regime from internal and external threats.




"1 - We the US, lack the language and culture skills"

BS, the us can overcome this problem as it did in the gulf-states as well, the only thing needed is translators.

"2 - Most middle eastern banking and capital investment flows through Europe, not the US or Japan."

I don't think so, i have no clue trough witch banks, but for sure the us has more stakes in egypt, gulf-states, SA and eventually the benefits flow to american accounts.



"The Saudis thought themselves the master of the tactical price shock but even they undertand that OPEC may only be a few years from dissolution. They simply can't control the supply and price they way they want. Everytime they try someone else ignores the new 'standard'. Usually it's Kuwait, Nigeria or Venezuela. Moverover Mexico, Brazil and China are all discovering and developing new oil oil export resources."

the opec still has much more than half of the world's total reserves, and some countries indeed ignore the standard, which was the immidiate cause for the first gulf-war.

"So American investors and oil companies - given their druthers would rather invest in and get oil from friendly countries than have to go to a war zone and invest capital anyhow - It's actually cheaper in the long run to go somewhere other than Iraq. That Iraq has reserves is irrelevant. We actually have enough oil now. The challenge is to provide for future demand and that requires capital. Capital which is hard to acquire for investment in Iraq. Insurers don't generally support that kind of investment."

It's not only oil benefits, firstly a new war would mean a powerfull help for America's weaponsindustry, secondly iraq can be used as a basis to bring the total middle east-reserves under us-controll (Iran in the first place), thirdly the us will certainly have enough oil at its disposal, but a main oil-producer under its controll would mean extra-benefits and shares for us-companies and a garanteed flow, as in kouweit and SA, forthly, the us will have no problem finding us-capital for investment in iraq, the possible gains are enormous and with us-troops at place the regime-survival is garanteed. Iraq doesn't have to be rebuild from scratches, still its industry needs modernisation, a very lucrative business in a country with endless reserves. Why do you think French and Russian companies are already very interested?

[NewsGuy]

Excerpts from today's meeting in Washington, DC between President Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon:

Bush: "I appreciate so very much the fact that the prime minister cares about the human condition of the Palestinians..."

Bush: "We certainly want to work with Israel, and we'll make it clear to Hezbollah, nations housing Hezbollah, whether in the context of Iraq or not, we expect there to be no attacks. This is terrorist activity, and we will fight terror wherever terror exists."

Sharon: "We never had such cooperation in everything as we have with the current administration."

[Bandalore]

I'd like to say that generally oil severely influences US decisions. For and example look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, after they came into power the US line was generally, "yes they're repressive brutal racist terror supporters, but they're the best candidates to keep peace in that country."
At that time the Taliban were being courted by Union Oil of California who sought to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. It wasn't until they realised the Taliban was unable to ensure the safetyof an American pipeline in the country that America started to become hostile to the Taliban and their brand of Islamic extremist rule. I suppose I should also add that the present Afghan President is a former employee of a Unocal subsidiary and the US Ambassador there is a Unocal employee. While getting rid of the Taliban may have been the right move, it wasn't for the right reasons.

Oh and Israel's support of America is largely because Israel is if anything more extreme than the present American government and rely on America for its massive financial assistance. I'm also wondering what Israel has done so far to support America aside from mere verbal backing and sharing intelligence with the Americans (something all European countries have done) I'd say the UK is at present the strongest ally America has. They're the ones who have been sending in troops and aircraft alongside and in support of American action. Personally I don't agree with all the actions of the British government, I'm just wondering what Israel has actually done that makes them America's only real ally?

[Mediocrates]

Do you mean regionally or generally? Generally there is a great deal of defence technology that is jointly developed. The IDF and IAF develop and share training and maintenance methods with the US. I mean as opposed to Saudi Arabia which bought a state of the art AWACS system from the US and then invited the US to operate it because they didn't have the skills base.

Otherwise Israel is a smallish investment and civilian high tech development center much of which is exported to the US and to the West. The problem for Israel is obvious. It can't be seen standing shoulder to should with the US, militarily anywhere in the mideast or involved with any muslim or vaguely muslim country.

At any rate I'm not sure they are our ONLY ally. There is India which has relationships with both the US and Israel. There is Turkey which is a NATO country. We already have troops on the ground in Kuwait and Jordan, as well as Saudi Arabia. (And Turmenistan and Uzbekistan if I'm not mistaken).

[takeo]

Not Tukmenistan, but the dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, has accepted American troops.
Turkey is an important ally regionally, but not on world-scale, the same about Israel. Only GB and, to some extend, france, Germany and japan, are important allies of the US worldwide.
India is not an ally, it has its own policy totally independant of the us, on some levels it will cooperate with the us (as China and Russia) on others not, while Europe mostly cooperates with the us, with some exceptions, as currently in Iraq.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Bandalore
Oh and Israel's support of America is largely because Israel is if anything more extreme than the present American government...

The American government is "extreme"? Which extreme actions has the U.S. government taken so far? You may want to take some time to study the American system of government before making such baseless comments.


I'm also wondering what Israel has done so far to support America aside from mere verbal backing and sharing intelligence with the Americans (something all European countries have done) European countries have not lifted a finger to back the U.S. in its preparation to strike Iraq. In fact, with the exception of the UK, they have nearly all stonewalled the U.S. And the UK itself is divided in its support of the U.S., unlike Israel which is rock-solid in its backing of the U.S.

Israel has been working with the U.S. to position weapons and missile guidance systems in Israel and off its coast, where U.S. destroyers are currently docked outside of Haifa.

Israel has already sent IDF special forces into Western Iraq to locate Saddam's Scud missile launchers. It is the only country to do so in support of the U.S. action.

Israel is also the only country in the Mideast to publicly support the U.S.

Israel is the only country in the world that is actively preparing its citizens for a possible chemical or biological strike as a result of the American attack on Iraq, including emergency handling drills, vaccination of its rescue workers, education for its citizens, distributing gas masks, preparing sealed rooms in each Israeli homes, etc.

You should also refer to the original post, which explains all this in greater detail.

[Kapiti]

The newspapers in Australia suggested in its experts analysis of the facts that Iraq is only 6 months away from developing weapons of mass destruction. It also said that Japan was only 6 weeks away and that New Zealand was also 6 months away.

Lets forget Japan because we do a lot of trade with them but I think that when we bomb Iraq we should get NZ also. This will certainly bring Australia into the "bomb the hell out of em" camp very quickly if somehow we can take out the Kiwis.

[takeo]

newsguy "European countries have not lifted a finger to back the U.S. in its preparation to strike Iraq. In fact, with the exception of the UK, they have nearly all stonewalled the U.S. And the UK itself is divided in its support of the U.S., unlike Israel which is rock-solid in its backing of the U.S.

Israel has been working with the U.S. to position weapons and missile guidance systems in Israel and off its coast, where U.S. destroyers are currently docked outside of Haifa.

Israel has already sent IDF special forces into Western Iraq to locate Saddam's Scud missile launchers. It is the only country to do so in support of the U.S. action.

Israel is also the only country in the Mideast to publicly support the U.S.

Israel is the only country in the world that is actively preparing its citizens for a possible chemical or biological strike as a result of the American attack on Iraq, including emergency handling drills, vaccination of its rescue workers, education for its citizens, distributing gas masks, preparing sealed rooms in each Israeli homes, etc.

You should also refer to the original post, which explains all this in greater detail."

as i said earlier, there is a difference between ally and slave. An ally will mostly cooperate with you and has mostly common interests, unless he really disagrees with some policy (as the us refused to cooperate on kyoto which enfuriated Europe and japan) , a slave will accept any us-made decision, whatever that is, while the us doesn't care at all about the interests of the slave. I think what you're looking for are slaves. Israel is not a slave either, Israel do not apply to the us-policy when it is against its own policy, israel didn't retreat immidiately from jenin when the us demanded, etc. israel currently does support the us-policy because it has a shared interest in this matter.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
as i said earlier, there is a difference between ally and slave. An ally will mostly cooperate with you and has mostly common interests, unless he really disagrees with some policy (as the us refused to cooperate on kyoto which enfuriated Europe and japan)... Israel is not a slave either, Israel do not apply to the us-policy when it is against its own policy, israel didn't retreat immidiately from jenin when the us demanded, etc. israel currently does support the us-policy because it has a shared interest in this matter.

All this is true. Kyoto and Iraq are just two examples that highlight the differences of interests between the U.S. and Europe.

But at some point, there is also a difference between allies and business associates, which is what Europe and the U.S. have become. There is no obligation with business associates beyond the business transaction itself, and that is what the U.S. is learning about Europe.

As for Israel, it is as you point out, not a slave to the U.S.-- it is an ally. That means that Israel will support the U.S. out of mutual interests, financial dealings and friendship that all make up a strong alliance.

The Arab countries and China , we know already that they are not friends of the U.S., but basically enemies who are not for the moment engaged in active warfare. But what's with Europe? Is the illusion that Islamic terrorism and brutal dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein will not bring to a global crisis sooner or later?

An when that crisis happens, will it not be too late, when there are nuclear weapons in the hands of Arab and Islamic madmen who entire existence is dedicated to destroying Western Civilization?

Mark my words: When the Eiffel Tower, the London Bridge and the Bundestag are vaporized by Islamic mass murderers like the World Trade Center, then Europeans will cry out for an alliance with the U.S. But so long as they think that they will be spared by the Arab terrorists if only they refuse to cooperate with the U.S. we will continue to see this type of stonewalling from the Europeans.

[Mediocrates]

You know Newsguy, I tend to think not. I can imagine a Moscow Theater scenario in downtown Berlin and the whole thing going to pot - building destroyed, hundreds killed and the result is more or less nothing. I really don't see the Europeans suddenly changing course no matter the consequences. I mean, didn't they watch Bosnian slaughter daily on TV within a long days's drive? I just don't see them jumping up and down demanding heads on pikes as a consequence of a large terrorist attack.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
You know Newsguy, I tend to think not... I really don't see the Europeans suddenly changing course no matter the consequences. I mean, didn't they watch Bosnian slaughter daily on TV within a long days's drive? I just don't see them jumping up and down demanding heads on pikes as a consequence of a large terrorist attack.

The Europeans are able to watch the Bosnian slaughter in the same way we can watch the African slaughter from our TVs here in the U.S. and do nothing about it.

But it's different when the national symbols are erased and when they are personally afraid to go out to the street. Then it's no longer people they don't really care about or relate to. It then touches the people they love most -- themselves.

I wonder what it will take, but I think that whatever that threshold is, the Islamic terrorists will exceed it sooner or later.

[takeo]

newsguy "All this is true. Kyoto and Iraq are just two examples that highlight the differences of interests between the U.S. and Europe.

But at some point, there is also a difference between allies and business associates, which is what Europe and the U.S. have become. There is no obligation with business associates beyond the business transaction itself, and that is what the U.S. is learning about Europe.

As for Israel, it is as you point out, not a slave to the U.S.-- it is an ally. That means that Israel will support the U.S. out of mutual interests, financial dealings and friendship that all make up a strong alliance.

The Arab countries and China , we know already that they are not friends of the U.S., but basically enemies who are not for the moment engaged in active warfare. But what's with Europe? Is the illusion that Islamic terrorism and brutal dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein will not bring to a global crisis sooner or later?

An when that crisis happens, will it not be too late, when there are nuclear weapons in the hands of Arab and Islamic madmen who entire existence is dedicated to destroying Western Civilization?

Mark my words: When the Eiffel Tower, the London Bridge and the Bundestag are vaporized by Islamic mass murderers like the World Trade Center, then Europeans will cry out for an alliance with the U.S. But so long as they think that they will be spared by the Arab terrorists if only they refuse to cooperate with the U.S. we will continue to see this type of stonewalling from the Europeans."

I think allies and business associates is practically the same, politics is not about friendship but about shared interests. Europe and the US still share quite some interests, as does Israel with the US, while all business associates have their differences as well. Also the Arab gulf-states regimes are business associates of the us, they deliver oil and economic benefits to the us, the us garantees the regime-survival (as happened in the first Gulf-war).
China and Russia are no business associates but just trading partners, who negociate and trade but do not have any common long term alliance or interests.
Europe thinks that Saddam Houssein is not a threat for European security, on the contrary to al-quaida, which is both a threat to Europe and the US. Iraq has never threatened to attack Europe or the US, he never did so either, and is not planning to do so, unlike islamic fundamentalists. Iraq is not threat any more (I would say even less) than Pakistan, Iran, North Korea or even Libia, which has currently very good relations with Europe and has completely abandoned terrorism against western targets (as did iraq too by the way). If anyone will be blowing up the Eifel tower, it won't be Saddam, and we will conduct our own anti-terrorist policy, thanks for your help, but we'll manage it alone. Did so untill now with good results.

[Mediocrates]

Organize your thoughts, man! :confused:

[Mediocrates]

In theory that's true but in practical terms no. You need manufacturing cababilities to make enough of the stuff. For example there is a very potent chemical agent made from one of the byproducts from castor beans. But you need a large processing facility to do it. It's not like 2 cups of beans, quart of nitric acid, stir until frothy. In the latest CIA and UK briefings on Iraq there are sections on castor bean processing facilities that look like large factories.

[Mark]

Takeo,

I have tried to read through your posts and can not make heads or tails of what you are trying to convey. Business associated do not have the ability to wage war, all countries have long term interests with the United States (all of them). Both Russia and China have an Arms proliferation treaty with the U.S. - That in itself is long term. Do you not feel the U.N. is an Alliance that all three countries partake in?

France, a country that the United States freed not once but twice from the hands of German domination in the same century is viewed by many Americans including myself as a country with no loyality. A country that exists not for it's own deeds, but those of other countries.

How many people realize that Iraq did not attack Israel, Iran and Kuwait with American aircraft, tanks and small arms. The Iraqi's military arsenal is made up of Russian and French equipment.

You say that the Arab countries and China are enemies of the U.S., when in fact they are not. Do you have any factual statements to back up this nonsense.

"If anyone will be blowing up the Eifel tower, it won't be Saddam, and we will conduct our own anti-terrorist policy, thanks for your help, but we'll manage it alone. Did so untill now with good results." LOL... How can you qualify good results from being occupied by another nation?

[jcsd]

[pedant]Quick reminder: only small parts of France were occupied by the Germans during WWI [/pendant]

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by jcsd
[pedant]Quick reminder: only small parts of France were occupied by the Germans during WWI [/pendant]

Such a statement need not be quibbled with since it never seems to have taken much to bring the French to their knees. That the Germans found them so easily quelled and controlled, only freed up troops to cause trouble elsewhere.

Gee, thanks France for doing so much to oust the Germans. They've always needed help from stronger, braver allies and they've always gotten it, though the word gratitude seems to have a fast half life with those people.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Bandalore
...It wasn't until they realised the Taliban was unable to ensure the safetyof an American pipeline in the country that America started to become hostile to the Taliban and their brand of Islamic extremist rule.

For whatever reason this old thread popped up on the board again tonight and I clearly saw that the BS flying around had basically been handled by wiser minds than mine.

But everytime I looked at your spin on that statement in the middle of your post, it just annoyed the hell out of me and so I felt compelled to throw my two cents worth in.

I am more of the opinion that American belligerence towards the Taliban began to grow when it became apparent that they were becoming a rogue nation sheltering a widespread terrorist infrastructure with international ambitions. Before that it was, more or less, who cares who runs this dump?

Any oil into the bargain is just gravy, if I may mix my metaphors.

That's my view and there's no spin on it.

[GauravS]

I believe that the UN should have included an ultimatum clause into the UN resolution, either you cooperate completely or face the wrath of all.
Saddam has been allowed a free reign for way too long, he must be removed before there is a nuclear fire over Israel, US and other non-islamic countries in the world.
To those here who say that Iraq is not fundamentalist, did you hear Iraq's broadcast to the Kuwatis and Muslims yesterday, anyone who raises the bogey of religion under threat is a fundamentalist by default.

The only thing that troubles me with the current timing is that the US economy is currently in the dumps (looking up though) and Bush should wait a little while before opening up his gizmos over Iraq.

[judicial meanz]

Originally posted by takeo
The whole world stoot by the US, Europe and France in particular, when it was sincerely targetted by terrorist groups. But when the US abused this solidarity to extend its imperial ambitions to Iraq (a country, i repeat, that NEVER attacked the uS, nor supported any terrorist group on its soil that attacked the uS, it only defended its own territorial integrity against us- and brittish terrorist strikes on iraqi soil) it crossed the limit. There is a difference between friendship (helping a friend in trouble) and slavery (comply to all wishes of your master).
THERE is no legitimation possible for a war against Iraq, now that iraq agreed to fULL weapons inspections and complied to all unsc-resolutions, on the contrary to that "special ally" of the US (mostly a pain in the ass for the us, the reason why any military assistance of israel was kindly but firmly dismissed).



What a load of . I love it when ignorance parades itself as intelligence.

Forgetting that Iraq invaded Kuwait, killed thousands of Kuwaiti citizens, has known connections to Al Qaeda, and has housed terrorists like Abu Nidal ( who died of lead poisoning a few weeks ago in Baghdad) is one thing.

Then we conveniently forget that Iraq has systematically murdered thousands of its own people with poison gas and torture.

Finally we forget that Saddam even has prisons for children of political prisoners where he tortures them too.

BTW Takeo....I fought the Gulf War...so I know these facts firsthand...so dont even bother to give me a weak excuse for Saddam. If you love him so much, go enlist in the Iraqi military and I will see you again soon.

[Northlander]

The Arab countries and China , we know already that they are not friends of the U.S., but basically enemies who are not for the moment engaged in active warfare. But what's with Europe? Is the illusion that Islamic terrorism and brutal dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein will not bring to a global crisis sooner or later?

Probably. But what you fail to see is that many europeans see dictatorships like that of Saddam as a result of US politics. Sooner or later it will lead to even worse crisis that we see now, the US is just not helping preventing it.

I dont generally feel like an enemy to the US as I know a few chinese do. But im absolutely convinced that EU and US interests will collide in the future. In many ways it has already started. I also hope it will happen, since the US being the only superpower is a threat to us all. In short: you will throw us all into hell with your military operations.

Just as Takeo says its not about puppet states or slavery anymore. USA cant expect whole countries to be grateful for things happening 60 years ago. USA cant expect independent states to support everything USA does. Politics is not about brotherhood and honor, bonds and loyalty. How very american to see things that way. Personally I owe you nothing, Im sure most europeans feel that way.

A war now against Iraq is wrong, period. Thats just how it is. Thats why even many NATO allies to USA are against it.

This bashing of France must also be answered.
I really dont get it. So what if france was bailed out during WWII? What does it have to do with anything? Does it say anything about french people in general? Are you even aware it was a totally different generation living then? Wasnt Germanys military power at that time absolutely stunning? Whats your point really?
France have had other military failures but also great successes.
USA is a very young nation so dont speak to much about military history. You have had it all on a plate from the start as a nation.
Anyway, your constant whining about lack of gratitude is not very interesting. We have been into it before and it is boring. Most of you didnt fight the germans personally anyway so dont take too much credit for what your parents of grandparents did. To be honest you military havent really been put to the test since then.


BTW Takeo....I fought the Gulf War...so I know these facts firsthand...so dont even bother to give me a weak excuse for Saddam. If you love him so much, go enlist in the Iraqi military and I will see you again soon.

Im sure Takeo isnt Saddams greatest fan. And this is the usual arguement from warhungry americans. The "you are either with or against us". Just because we dont support another US war doesnt necessarely mean we support your enemies.

That you would know anything more about Iraq, judicial meanz
, just because you fought there is nonsense. I would say the opposite is true. All the depleted uranium from your own bombings have probably effected your brain.
As I said before, your generation of soldiers havent really been put to the test. But im sure you will sooner or later cause your government is really good in getting new enemies and alienating your allies.

[Mediocrates]

Probably. But what you fail to see is that many europeans see dictatorships like that of Saddam as a result of US politics. Sooner or later it will lead to even worse crisis that we see now, the US is just not helping preventing it.


The why has almost all terrorism in the past 40 years come out of Arab states and been directed at western Europe and/or Europeans living abroad?

[Northlander]

the british empire and french colonialism. Im sure you know that. Also I dont agree to the "almost all". USA and Israel have gotten its share too. For the same reasons.

My point is that USA havent learned. France have. Britain doesnt count since its a lapdog to USA anyway.
What it comes down to is that many arabs wont accept western arrogance and aggression anymore.

A very fresh example of this arrogance and aggression is USA sending in troops into Iraq without any reason whatsoever. That is per definition an arrogant act. Also its very aggressive.
Things never change, and after this war you will continue to wonder why they hate you. Why they hate us all.

[Mediocrates]

Well that may be true that Western Europe views us as arrogant. I'm not so sure that's any better than how we view them, duplicitous. We see Western Europe basically whoring out their own national interests and not so much as protecting themselves as profiteering from this dispute.

Anyway those are just perceptions so I don't really care either way. I'm sure though that that part of the world that claims to hate us would just as soon do business with us or with Western Europe. Europe can feel free to continue to whore themselves and we'll just stand pat being disliked.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander

But what you fail to see is that many europeans see dictatorships like that of Saddam as a result of US politics. Sooner or later it will lead to even worse crisis that we see now, the US is just not helping preventing it.
To suggest that the non-democratic dictatorial realities of the arab world are caused soley by the US, transcends naivete and enters the realm of ignorance. Even you must understand how ridiculous this statement is. "Flinging" opinions such as this into the discussion undermines whatever valid opinions that you do express.
Just as Takeo says its not about puppet states or slavery anymore. USA cant expect whole countries to be grateful for things happening 60 years ago.
Who cares if they're grateful, though it is pretty hardhearted of them, given the thousands of American soldiers interred on their shores having given their lives to successfully liberate those who no longer think much of that sacrifice.

It is difficult to grasp that there are those who feel such sacrifices need not be honored after a few years have passed and that the descendants of those who paid such a high price for the liberation of a country foreign to them, should behave with the same dishonor

Better to prevent insane madmen from dragging the world to a larger war from which once again, America will no doubt be expected to save it.
This bashing of France must also be answered. I really dont get it.Apparently, that is not all that you do not get.
So what if france was bailed out during WWII? What does it have to do with anything?
The "anything" that it has to do with concerns the sacrifices made by America's sons and daughters who gave their lives on French soil in a valiant and successful campaign to free France from her enemies. It is far better to stop such things before they go that far exacting a cost in blood that might have been avoided.

Rather than sitting by idly waiting for the world to fall into the same darkness that it has in the past, requiring as always the blood and treasure of others to "bail" it out, don't you think it's time for a bit of forward thinking instead of the same kind of appeasement and ineffectiveness that yielded France to her enemy twice in the last century?

We don't feel like bailing Europe out once again. It will cost less to prevent than to repair.

USA is a very young nation so dont speak to much about military history. You have had it all on a plate from the start as a nation.This is just a stunning point of view, just stunning. With two short and pathetically absurd sentences, you think to dispense with the history of accomplishment and generosity to the world that has always exemplified the ethos of the American people. You illustrate precisely the lack of discernment and gratitude that has become the signature of the French and, indeed, of many others.
Most of you didnt fight the germans personally anyway so dont take too much credit for what your parents of grandparents did. Your unabashed hatred poisons your perception. My family suffers loss due to their sacrifice on Europe's behalf and you think that should be of no concern to me? Had Europe ever sacrificed for the welfare of others, not her own, you would never let us hear the end of it.

Im sure Takeo isnt Saddams greatest fan. Perhaps not the "greatest", but obviously one of them.

All the depleted uranium from your own bombings have probably effected your brain.It would appear from your injudicious statements in this post, that something besides 'depleted uranium' is affecting your judgement.

[Northlander]

The russians did far more against nazi-germany than the americans.
It doesnt mean I supported communism or their invasion of Afghanistan. You must see that.

Basically no one gives a damn about what you did in WWII exept when it is WWII we are discussing. The subject interests me but it is nevertheless irrelevant when it comes to more recent wars or political issues.
If you continously start wars all over the world, how long do you belive that you can live on the goodwill from WWII?

BTW. No international terrorist attacked took place on European soil the last year. It will happen no doubt but its more because of our support of the US than anything else.

Also, the opinion that Saddam would not be dictator in Iraq had it not been for Britain and USA is not ridiculous. You do know he was supported by USA do you? You do know Britain supported his development of chemical weapons? And this is not 60 years ago. Its very much related to this conflict now.




This is just a stunning point of view, just stunning. With two short and pathetically absurd sentences, you think to dispense with the history of accomplishment and generosity to the world that has always exemplified the ethos of the American people. You illustrate precisely the lack of discernment and gratitude that has become the signature of the French and, indeed, of many others.

So you do care if people are grateful after all?
Basically what won WWII and also got you into this position as superpower was geographic location and industrial production. What you can take credit for is the industrial power. With decent infrastructure and a large population it is expected to see you as the worlds greatest military power.
What accomplishments do you talk about? What generosity?
For mnay people in the world you have brought nothing but grief and sorrow, not "achivements". Therefore alot of people oppose you as a nation.

[Mediocrates]

You're right. It's simply a matter of diverging interests. Strangely it is the Europeans who are obessed that those interests are diverging. Why would Europe care all that much that our interests diverge? Didn't they join together in the EU in part to have a unique identity and to free themselves of the American Yoke? My kids are like that. They want tons of freedom and when I give it to them they feel ignored.

In an unrelated point though I have to chuckle about a point a view that shouts "it doesn't matter what happened 60 years ago in Europe" and in the same breath shouts "it's vitally important to undo what happened in Israel 50 years ago".

[Alfred]

It is interesting to read these views from across the pond.

The United States is at war. One can come up with historical reasons as to why we are at war, but at the end of the day, we are at war.

The United States is at war with radical Islam. As a matter of fact, we have been at war with radical Islam since about 1979 but we chose not to fire back for the most part.

This war is actually more serious and dangerous to America than World War II. For all the nastiness of Adolph, he really wasn’t much of a short-term threat to the US. He wanted National Socialism for Europe, and today we have International Socialism for Europe. The long-term threat from Hitler to the US was his economic stranglehold on Europe and his development of weapons of mass destruction. There were some moral reasons to go to war, but as I am addressing Europeans, I will leave morality out of the conversation.

Radical Islam wants to destroy America. There are many reasons they want to destroy us, most of which are irrelevant, for at the end of the day they really want us dead. If we dumped Israel as an ally tomorrow, they would still want us dead; for we are in a clash of civilizations. The radical Islamists do not seem to believe that both Western and Islamic civilizations can co-exist.

So, back to my point. The United States is at war with radical Islam and our biggest fear is that the radical Islamists will acquire nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction, and that the United States will be the target. There are four likely sources of these nuclear/bio weapons; 1) stolen from the former USSR, 2) Pakistan, 3) North Korea, 4) Iraq and 5) Iran. We are working with Russia to close that route. We are threatening Pakistan to close that route. We will blockade North Korea to close that route and we will go to war with Iraq and Iran to close that route.

Iraq is our enemy because they have shown a propensity to attack their neighbors (back to the economic argument of WW2) and they will give nukes/bio to terrorists. To be fair, so would Iran, Libya and a couple of other nations. So, we will go to war with each of those countries if needed to prevent them from getting nukes. You need not fret too much over Iraq. There will be other countries hit during this war. I am being truthful and explaining Realpolitik to you.

You may cry that America is an aggressive superpower. You are right. We have been pussy-footing around for 30 years with the Islamists and September 11 finally woke us up. We are at war. You need to understand that fact. We are at war.

We are going to search the world over and kill every radical Islamist we can until they are either all dead or decide that it is too expensive to war with America. We are going to try to work with other nations to root out the Islamists from their countries. We are going to try to build coalitions, but at the end of the day, we are going to try to destroy the enemy. If there is a country that we think is going to aid the enemy, either through finances or weapons then that country is no friend of ours. If Sweden had developed nuclear weapons during WW2 and offered them to the Nazi’s, we would have invaded Sweden. Nothing personal of course, but when America finally goes to war, we go to war. This war is not Korea, not Viet Nam; or Grenada or a host of other wars. This war is WW3 to most Americans. You need to realize that.

I agree that it is silly to bring up WW2 and who owes what to whom. The French, the Germans and all the other countries have their own self-interest to take care of. I have no problem with that. To be blunt and truthful…we do not need them. The European militaries are out-dated and probably would slow us down more than helping us. There are some fine “special units� that we could use. And there are units such as detox and mine removal that we could use. But frankly, we can do the job by ourselves thank you.

We do need European help in rooting out the Islamics from European cities. So, thank you for your support and please send us as many terrorists that you can. In the non-military arena the Europeans can help us a lot.

If the French or Germans want to send people, money and supplies to Libya, Iraq and Iran then they should be prepared to suffer the consequences when we bomb those countries. Would France have thought America was a friend had we been supplying Nazi Germany with weapons when they were occupying France during WW2? Did France think Sweden was a friend when they were giving wool, food and other supplies to the Nazi’s while France was under occupation?

What I really think is going to happen however, is that the Islamists will go too far and bomb France, Germany and other European countries; as this is a clash of civilizations. When that happens we will see if the Europeans are completely effete or whether they still have a little spark left in them.

I think they have a little spark left in them. Maybe not the northern Europeans...but the French do.

[elke]

Alfred, what a post! Very well said! :)

[MichaelC]

I appreciate the clarity and focus of your views. It is refreshingly to the point, especially when I think of how easily I am sometimes sidetracked by considerations that you have rightly referred to as irrelevant to the issues of the day.

[judicial meanz]

USA is a very young nation so dont speak to much about military history. You have had it all on a plate from the start as a nation.
Anyway, your constant whining about lack of gratitude is not very interesting. We have been into it before and it is boring. Most of you didnt fight the germans personally anyway so dont take too much credit for what your parents of grandparents did. To be honest you military havent really been put to the test since then.

(I dont need your validation or your gratitude.)

Im sure Takeo isnt Saddams greatest fan. And this is the usual arguement from warhungry americans. The "you are either with or against us". Just because we dont support another US war doesnt necessarely mean we support your enemies.

That you would know anything more about Iraq, judicial meanz
, just because you fought there is nonsense. I would say the opposite is true. All the depleted uranium from your own bombings have probably effected your brain.
As I said before, your generation of soldiers havent really been put to the test. But im sure you will sooner or later cause your government is really good in getting new enemies and alienating your allies. [/B][/QUOTE]



I read your post and immediately realized I was dealing with a moron. I have 24 years of military service, and plenty of "war testing". I dont recall seeing Sweden among the other nations I have served with, nor do I expect to in the future.

Us "soft, had everything handed to us" Americans usually get the job of cleaning up your problems because you are so advanced and cultured you neglect to fund your militaries, and we have to fill the gap. We die, you preach Anti-American vitriol by the ton about how we alienate you by our policies, which are dictated by your inability to solve your own problems because you believe you are superior.

A good example is the Balkans. I dont see Sweden at Eagle base, keeping a world class religious war in check. I see American troops, who would much rather be home. We are not warmongers. I personally hate war. I am also a realist, and I know sometimes evil people create political systems that are oppressive and murderous. They can only be removed by force.

Your arguements lack merit, and show a definite lack of intelligence. You parade as a world class intellect, but your arrogance and anti-American hatred give you away as a "useful idiot" of the marxist/socialist movement that pervades Europe and lives on canned slogans and stupid metaphors. Arrogance is the last retreat of a dim mind, and I see it by the bushel basket eminating from your posts. Maybe you had the exposure to depleted uranuim. Or Maybe rectal-cranial inversion since birth?

And by the way, since we Americans lack proper war testing, would you explain where you became such and expert and acquired the ability to make that decision?

[Northlander]

Well, that is the usual opinion isnt it? Those ungrateful europeans that do not like us are all communists. Im not part of any marxist/leninist movement. I would be considered politically right over here or at least to the right. Traditionally those that work for and wants a strong EU here are indeed the right.

My opinions on USA happens to be very similar to those of for example Takeo whom are very much to the left if im not misstaken. That is simply because what USA have become today is so apparent for us all. Anyone that has eyes to see with can see what is happening. Right or left.
The Bush admnistration are nothing but warmonglers and the excuses are lame and pathetic.

When it comes to your wartesting, of course you have had some experience since your country doesnt do much but prepare for conflict. What I meant was that it is a difference from before.
US civilians never suffer from any war. Had they done that they would indeed not been so keen on having new ones.
Also you have waged wars on more or less underdeveloped countries since you fought Germany and Japan in WWII. And Im sure you know those battles were a bit harder than the latest gulfwar when Iraqis surrendered in thousands.
Today a young american can easily sign up and serve 10 years knowing he is not in any real danger. One or two pilots might get shot down. Decent odds I would say considering how many you have. The greatest risk you face as an american soldier is friendly fire or cynical commanders.

I dont give much for you as a "veteran". You might have served on a carrier making food as far as I know. Or at best moved in on deserted Iraqi lines in the Gulf. Its nothing cool, brave or honourable or whatever you think it is.

Alfreds post is direct and clear. That is refreshing. At least that is his opinion and he stands for it. However I do not agree.
You are not at war. And if you are at "war" it is with those that commited 9-11.
NOT Iraq. NOT N.Korea.
You havent even found the ones doing 9-11. where is Osama if it is him? The prisoners on Guantanamo might be criminals in they own way but to be honest, they didnt fought USA from the beginning but rather the N.Alliance. Some of them are ordinary Talibans and not Al-qaeda.

If the islamist target europe it is because we are not standing up to USA or as in Britains case, really trying to help you.
Before we talk about all those horrible attacks with chemical weapons or whatever on EU I want to see them. As it is now it is just rumours and scenarios probably to boost support for US military actions here.

If you attack Iraq without support from USA you are indeed our political enemy. One nation taking the liberty to attack other nations without any reasons whatsoever goes against everything that most civilised countries works for.
I hope it wont be accepted and I hope it wont be forgotten.

If Iraq is guilty of anything it was the invasion of Kuweit. That was some time ago and they have paid. Now it is nothing but pure aggresion from the US.

If you go to war I hope you lose and I really hope that you will pay the price politically, economically and in lives if that is what it takes to send your soldiers home.

It might be worth saying again. You wouldnt go through with this operation hadnt it been a war against an increadibly weaker opponent. The american taxpayers will have to pay, that is the loss you do basically. The whole Iraqi military have the same technological skill combined as one of my babybrothers.
And the same rethorical skills as well. If that.
They could quite easily if they understood western mentality really isolate USA even before this conflict takes place. But they do not.

That they should be a threat to your nation is a joke. That someone does belive that, when on the contrary you are sending in troops over their border is an even bigger joke. Stop and think for just one moment. What good will come from this war? Will you become more secure in any way? You will get a load on new enemies that is for sure.

[judicial meanz]

Originally posted by Northlander
Well, that is the usual opinion isnt it? Those ungrateful europeans that do not like us are all communists. Im not part of any marxist/leninist movement. I would be considered politically right over here or at least to the right. Traditionally those that work for and wants a strong EU here are indeed the right.

My opinions on USA happens to be very similar to those of for example Takeo whom are very much to the left if im not misstaken. That is simply because what USA have become today is so apparent for us all. Anyone that has eyes to see with can see what is happening. Right or left.
The Bush admnistration are nothing but warmonglers and the excuses are lame and pathetic.

When it comes to your wartesting, of course you have had some experience since your country doesnt do much but prepare for conflict. What I meant was that it is a difference from before.
US civilians never suffer from any war. Had they done that they would indeed not been so keen on having new ones.
Also you have waged wars on more or less underdeveloped countries since you fought Germany and Japan in WWII. And Im sure you know those battles were a bit harder than the latest gulfwar when Iraqis surrendered in thousands.
Today a young american can easily sign up and serve 10 years knowing he is not in any real danger. One or two pilots might get shot down. Decent odds I would say considering how many you have. The greatest risk you face as an american soldier is friendly fire or cynical commanders.

I dont give much for you as a "veteran". You might have served on a carrier making food as far as I know. Or at best moved in on deserted Iraqi lines in the Gulf. Its nothing cool, brave or honourable or whatever you think it is.

Alfreds post is direct and clear. That is refreshing. At least that is his opinion and he stands for it. However I do not agree.
You are not at war. And if you are at "war" it is with those that commited 9-11.
NOT Iraq. NOT N.Korea.
You havent even found the ones doing 9-11. where is Osama if it is him? The prisoners on Guantanamo might be criminals in they own way but to be honest, they didnt fought USA from the beginning but rather the N.Alliance. Some of them are ordinary Talibans and not Al-qaeda.

If the islamist target europe it is because we are not standing up to USA or as in Britains case, really trying to help you.
Before we talk about all those horrible attacks with chemical weapons or whatever on EU I want to see them. As it is now it is just rumours and scenarios probably to boost support for US military actions here.

If you attack Iraq without support from USA you are indeed our political enemy. One nation taking the liberty to attack other nations without any reasons whatsoever goes against everything that most civilised countries works for.
I hope it wont be accepted and I hope it wont be forgotten.

If Iraq is guilty of anything it was the invasion of Kuweit. That was some time ago and they have paid. Now it is nothing but pure aggresion from the US.

If you go to war I hope you lose and I really hope that you will pay the price politically, economically and in lives if that is what it takes to send your soldiers home.

It might be worth saying again. You wouldnt go through with this operation hadnt it been a war against an increadibly weaker opponent. The american taxpayers will have to pay, that is the loss you do basically. The whole Iraqi military have the same technological skill combined as one of my babybrothers.
And the same rethorical skills as well. If that.
They could quite easily if they understood western mentality really isolate USA even before this conflict takes place. But they do not.

That they should be a threat to your nation is a joke. That someone does belive that, when on the contrary you are sending in troops over their border is an even bigger joke. Stop and think for just one moment. What good will come from this war? Will you become more secure in any way? You will get a load on new enemies that is for sure.


Your problem is you hate America. Plain and Simple. Nothing less or more, and you wish all the harm you could on each of us. Your post pretty much explains it. I pity you for your all consuming hatred of people who wish you no harm.

Newsflash- America doesnt control the world. You cant blame your problems on us. Blame yourselves.

Attacking Iraq is going to happen. You may want to side with and buttress a dictatorial tyrant who has killed thousands, but I dont. Thats the difference between us. You appease murderers, and claim you are more intelligent than us stupid Americans by doing so. When it comes back to roost on you, you call us to bail you out. History proves that. What if we said no? The Chechen conflict would spread and you would have your happy butt in a sling wouldnt you? Or maybe Macedonia? Serbia?, Kosovo?

Dont think for one minute before I go over there I enjoy it. I would rather be home with my kids playing baseball. Better Idea- You fix it .

We dont appease murderers. Maybe you were too young to remember (maybe you arent) Saddam gassing the kurds with airborne VX gas simply for dissenting. Are you suggesting for one minute he is right and we are wrong? The pictures of mothers clutching dead infants had no effect on you? How about him invading Kuwait and the murdering/plundering frenzy his troops went on, bayoneting women to their doors for refusing to be raped? You justify this by saying we Americans are aggressive?

We dont care if they are stronger or weaker, we fight for our freedom. Enough said. Would you? We have fought long odds before, and we will again if we have to.

Or would you simply use your "enlightened" European mass mentality and "reason" yourself into a concentration camp, this time ran by Islamic fundamentalists? Reasoning is to determine the facts before you make a stand, not a way of life. Make no mistake about it, the Islamists want to get the "Saturday" people first, then the "Sunday" people. You are on their list too.

I had fond memories of Europe, and the people there. Now I cant believe what I see. Our " war testing" is mostly because we fight your fights because you are so busy living socialist ( or fascist or whatever) dreams you dont fund your militaries and fight your own battles. We do. And you hate us for it.

Believe me, I would rather you fight your own battles so I can go home to just raise my kids. I hate war probably more than you do.

Base point- Europeans hate America because of your impotence and self imposed irrelevance. Dont blame us, blame yourself.

[Mediocrates]

"if terrorists attack europe it will be because they don't stand up to america." was your quote north, yes?



How convenient. So what would standing up consist of, at least to the extent that you believe terrorists would be on your side? kill some americans? blow up the american embassy in London? arrest all americans in sweden? drop napalm on haifa?

so? which is it?

[elke]

Northlander, you are entitled to your opinions, as is everyone else. However, in order to form an educated opinion, and keep it current, many facts need to be learned and considered.

I am reading your posts, and I find that there is a lot of... somehow visceral hatered towards US in them. It seems that analysis of this hatered is in order, since it looks totally irrational and completely devoid of factual support.

You are sitting here, defending a man who is killing his own people by the thousands. You are defending a man who has thumbed his nose at everyone and everything, and whose idol is Joseph Stalin. You are defending a man who has built lavish palaces while his people are starving, and whose only saving grace is his abysmal stupidity. Make no mistake: the only reason he hasn't blown up the world is that he can't... yet.

As far as "most Europeans" are concerned, I see them in the streets of New York every day, and their faces are shining - not with hatered, but with admiration. Some are tourists, and others - here to live and work.

So, my advice is: quit this America-bashing, just long enough to learn and think more about it.

[Teacake]

Northlander has made some very interesting comments... warmongers? HAHAHAHAHA Considering the number of wars that have happened and still happen in Europe... are impossible to count!

Some of the last wars we fought on our soil was with the British, the French, the Spanish. Actually N... Americans LOVE peace. But if hostile forces i.e. islamic radicals and such, start things up, we are not going to take it... however, if we were a warmongering people... those islamic countries who import their terrorists would have been pulverized by now. I think Americans have been dragging their feet for far too long about this, because Americans rather not have to deal with war. Europe has never had one day in thousands of years where some sort of war wasn't being wadged. Funny guy.

[prfix]

History teaches Israel that it cannot rely on anyone else but itself - yes, Israel is the US's best ally and the US is Israel's best ally - but the bottom line is nations do what is in their own best interest - one cannot and should not depend on reed-like support.

Look at how the media in the US has treated Israel. An entire generation has grown up with a slanted, anti-Israel media.

see http://www.geocities.com/truthmasters/jointheboycott.htm

Thankfully Congress understands the value of Israel's friendship.

[takeo]

not surprisingly i fully agree with the posts of northlander, there is clearly some atlantic division here on this board (altough i know americans who resist us-imperialism as well, but unfortunately not as many as during the vietnam-war)
What i hear on this board are the usual cliché's that do not have any connection to reality.
some myths:
"Europeans hate America, they are ingratefull": that's not true, as elke indicated, many Europeans, including me, have a positive view of America as a country and its scientific and cultural accomplishments wich are above all doubt. Many Europeans, including French, are still gratefull for the us liberating France. But we are equally gratefull to the Soviets who had their share as well in defeating the germans. (perhaps northlander can't know about this as sweden was never occupied).
it doesn't mean however that we have to follow the us in every decision it makes, that's not gratitude but slavery. We have indeed diverting interests and values. We do not think you can solve the fundamental problems of the world with violence or force, unless there is absolutely no other solution (as in the case of A-quaida). when america was attacked, all Europeans showed their sympathy and helped to defeat al-quaida (which is, agreed, a danger to europe as well), so please don't say we always oppose us-interests, we don't, only when we consider us-actions unnecessary and harming European interests)


"Iraq has to be attacked because saddam is a dictator who invaded Kouweit and gassed his own people".
This is also plain BS, because this facts happened a long time ago, iraq has payed for the invasion of Kouweit (more than any other nation in the world, and is still paying). Iraq isn't any longer perceived a threat by its neighbours, so the us can't use this any longer as an argument. In fact neighbours of iraq are establishing new ties with iraq and all of them condamn a new us-aggression against iraq. Of course saddam oppresses his own people, especially the kurds, but when he gassed the Kurds iraq was an ally of the us and there wasn't much fuss made about it at that time. (as usual with all us-allies, keeping quiet about or deniing there crimes is the official policy). It would be highly hypocrit to use this same argument now to attack iraq, especially since most of Kurdistan is not longer controlled by saddam.
yes, Saddam is a dictator and there are human-rights violations. So what? there are human rights-violations in a lot of countries who anually got or still get get billions of $ and most of them are cruel dictatorships as well (Guatemala, papa doc-regime in Haiti, nepal currently, chili, marcos-regime, mobutu, saoudi arabia, morocco, pakistan, colonel-regime in Greece and Turkey, centralasian dictatorships, etc. ), some of these cruel dictatorships have even been installed by the us! most europeans are aware of this and of course they do not believe the traditional claim that the us is fighting for freedom and democracy in the world.

"iraq is a danger to the us, it's fundamentalist". Even more BS, Iraq ISN'T a fundamentalist country, which becomes very clear if you visit it. it is one of the most laic Arab countries i visited, perhaps with the exception of Tunisia and Libanon. and saddam was on the DEATHLIST of al-quaida for exterminating Iraqi fundamentalists and allies of Bin Laden and co..
about weapons of mass destruction, iraq once had them but since the mid 90's noone could ever give any proove that they still existed, even if 100's of weapons inspectors were searching all the country to find them. If there would still be any concern: there are again weapons isnpectors in the country, and they have all means at their disposal, they search trough all of iraq and have the most recent information at their disposal, even radical ones as taking in custody of iraqy scientists and examining them in a foreign country! if WMD would be the real concern of the us than they would at least wait to prepare for war untill the inspectors made their conclusions.
there are lots of other countries who are a much greater danger in this respect, for example pakistan, india and north-korea (and israel), who actually DO have nuclear weapons or most likely have them, in material breach of the non-proliferation treaty. pakistan and north-korea will most likely sell them to anyone able to pay, and since many leading pakistanese still admire their former al-quaida friends (who are most likely hiding in pakistan) it wouldn't surprise me if al-quaida will one day acquire nukes. It doesn't seem to scare the us, actually France and other european countries have offered all their help to continue fighting the real danger, al-quaida, but us doesn't seem to be really concerned anymore. Instead it wants to attack Iraq for reasons which are unclear to most Europeans.
I think the main reason is oil aND geo-political interests in the middle east, which makes this upcoming aggression a examplary case of imperialism (as the war against granada or panama for example, or the secret war against nicaragua)

Of course THIS are not our interests, which is the reason why we do not agree to the us policy. In fact france has rather good contacts with iraq and french companies are assured some part in the reconstruction of iraq, this of course bothers the us that, if saddam or one of his friends stay, us-companies will be excluded and the us will loose some of its influence and credibility in the region. This are the real stakes, please i would like some more Americans to be honest about it, as it is so obvious. i have no problem admitting that the french policy in africa is all about imperialism and not about security threats or saving human lifes. I wish you would quit the hypocrisy as well.

[elke]

Originally posted by 2coasts
I love Israelis who hate america, they owe there birth and continued survival to us.

This is inaccurate on at least two counts:

1. Israelis do not owe their birth to the US or to UN: it was the European and Arab world Jewry that birthed Israel. US and UN have been "midwives" to the process, not the "mother" - or even "father" (sick analogy, I know ;))

2. Where are you getting "Israelis who hate America"? Where have you met any? I was in Israel for 4 1/2 months, on an army base and on a Kibbutz, I have family and friends there - and I have yet to meet one - just ONE - who hates US.

[elke]

Originally posted by 2coasts
I was responding to people like Northlander, who was insulting the men of our armed services who have protected Israel time and time again. I dont know if he is actually from Isreal, but I'm sure he supports it.

2Coasts, under the poster's name, there is "location". Northlander, as you would have found out if you looked, is from Sweden. You also would have found out, if you looked into it further, that Northlander is not Jewish and somewhat anti-Zionist as well.

In addition, while the American help and support is highly appreciated by the Jewish people in general, and Israelis in particular, the American servicemen and women are yet to get involved in any of Israel's battles: this is a sore point. Unlike countries such as France and Kuwait, no American lives have been lost directly in Israel's cause.

[elke]

Originally posted by 2coasts
you know that without the promised protection from america, the attacks against israel would intensify heavely

That may be so. It's all about alliances and mutual benefits. Without Israeli intelligence information and such, much harm could come to the US as well: if the Israelis did not bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the '80s, US would now be facing nuclear Iraq as well as North Korea.

[judicial meanz]

Originally posted by elke
That may be so. It's all about alliances and mutual benefits. Without Israeli intelligence information and such, much harm could come to the US as well: if the Israelis did not bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the '80s, US would now be facing nuclear Iraq as well as North Korea.

The BIG secret is simple. The US and Israel are brothers in a lot of respects.
We both built a nation out of scratch after a brutal trial by fire.
We both stand for democracy and freedom, instead of oppression and brutality.
We both contributed to each others freedom. A Jewish financier believed in American democracy enough to finance our revolution. A lot of American Zionists believed in Israel enough to fight as MACHAD or Hagganah when Israel was founded.
Many US and Israeli families have members in each country, and a lot of social interaction happens between the two countries.

The list goes on....but the point is there. As for this American, I wholeheartedly believe in, support, and love Israel.

L'Chaim

Jim

[Rob]

I've been following the threads with 2coasts and I've come to the conclusion that he (like takeo) is here for one purpose. That is to flame Israel. No matter what responses are made nothing will ever satisfy either of them. They are not hear to discuss, rather they are here to inflame. Now there's nothing wrong with that. As long as the moderators of the board are ok with it I am too. I just wanted to post my observations on these two poster.

I hope everyone has a nice Sunday. I'm off to the movies this afternoon.

[elke]

Have fun at the movies! :)

It's not just their own minds that we may be able to clarify, but also other people who read this Forum, with or without the participation. That's one of the reasons it's so important to keep to the topic, instead of descending into the personalities.

[takeo]

there is no response to my latest post, so i assume that either you can't think of an appropriate answer or you agree with what i wrote.

[Mediocrates]

or it's boring or he doesn't care about it.

[Israelite-Tribe]

Why are we all here? Why are we all arguing? Typing on our little keyboards won't help much. Let's just sit back relax and enjoy the view of 10000000 nukes falling on islamic countries and on Europe. ... ok bleh I got nothing to say... and takeo or whatever... yes Lebanon did attack the U.S once.... Remember the Marines barracks??? 200+ dead? ...

[Rob]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
or it's boring or he doesn't care about it.

I'm just wondering. Do you know what takeo was whining about now?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
or it's boring or he doesn't care about it. Takeo should get used to people not responding to his posts. Everyone gets tired of bashing their heads against the wall at some point.

I wonder if he will think he has truly conquered all opinion when, at last, we all just give up talking to him.

[Rob]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Takeo should get used to people not responding to his posts. Everyone gets tired of bashing their heads against the wall at some point.

I wonder if he will think he has truly conquered all opinion when, at last, we all just give up talking to him.

He's already a legend in his own mind with a following of millions. I think he sees himself as Jesus of Message Boards coming to save us all.

[takeo]

:rolleyes:

I don't care what's the reason, just that I would really like to know how anyone defending the assault on iraq would react to those arguments.

[Northlander]

Of all reactions I have to comment on Elkes. Yes I know alot of europeans have faces shining with admiration when it comes to US. Tourists in particular but also others. I do not speak for all europeans. We have alot of pro-americans here as well.
I do not live my life in hatred towards americans everyday. Do not belive that. On this forum we are speaking about politics therefore the language are a bit harsh.What I cant stand about USA today is the glorification of the military and the imperialism. That it! Its nothing personal. On the other hand we as europeans are getting alot of BS here which is not relevant, from being alcoholics to being nazis so its easy to get defensive.

What I said and what Takeo also agreed to is that there is a growing number of europeans that feel a alienation towards the US. We can see that clearly in media here but also you get the feeling just by living here. People speaking on buses, at work. Friends friends discussions. By travelling. Demonstrations etc.
This war will not be seen as another fight against terrorism because of the simple fact that it is not.

USA might feel they have their reasons, fine. Just dont complain over america bashing then. As Takeo points out we are not slaves to america.

I must also comment on the liberation issue. Of course sweden was not occupied. Maybe it is like Takeo says I cant relate to the gratitude towards USA from the rest of the european countries. Fair enough. Its possible. But I really dont belive its so.
For most people below 40 WWII is something quite distant. For people below 25 it totally distant apart from "band of brothers" or similar TV. I think its fair to say that young europeans today, swedish or not, do not live their life or get their political views on USA, from WWII. Not anymore. Not even from the Vietnam war which was true especially for some leftists not long time ago.

I often hear this "you have not been in war so your opinion is not worth anything" BS. It is BS really. Since when was this a bad thing. You must have a fundamentally different view on war than I do, most of you. I can feel a certain shame over our treason towards Norway in WWII but as I said before it was not me in person.
Also in fairness name you must give credit to some of the works the neutral countries did. Are you even aware that the allies stood behind the swedish neutrality even though we sold steel to germany initially? Ask yourself why.
And last, you can ask Jews in Sweden how they feel about this country. Thousands did survive because of the simple fact that Sweden was neutral.

[elke]

Northlander, thank you for responding to my post.

Here is what, IMO, is the problem:

US is a republic, which means that the policies of its government are supported by the majority of its people. That, in its turn, means that you cannot separate the US government from America as a nation. Therefore, when you are "against American government", you are in effect, against Americans - at least, from a particular point of view.

When you use words like "imperialism", "war mongering", and "glorification of the military", it sounds very much like the stuff we used to read in the Soviet papers. They, too, used to say "we are not against Americans, we are against US government", as if the people and the government in a democracy can be separated, like they can be in the FSU or North Korea - or in Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that every country will protect its own interests, and will prioritize those interests according to its needs. In a democracy, this process involves the general population ultimately making decisions on this topic - as it should be, since it's the general population who will bear the brunt of the results of whatever action its government decides to take. While in general, the goals and interests of European countries and the US are common, the prioritization of these seems to be different at this point: Europeans, for whatever reasons, do not see global terrorism and the dangers of Iraq going nuclear, as the first priority. In my opinion, they are wrong not to take care of this problem now. In yours - US is "war mongering" and "glorifying the military". Then others chime in with "Europeans are ostryches", and my personal favorite - "Euro-trash"; and we have a regular "party".

When will we - all of us - realize that we are all on the same side, that there are actual, real enemies out there, determined to destroy us with our own inventions? Disagreements are fine, but once we start with the "propaganda terminology", it goes well beyond the "disagreement" and into realm of "war of words". Let's not allow it to deteriorate into that, since there will be hell to pay.

[Northlander]

It is true indeed that we in much are on the same side. I agree to that at least to some extent. Obviously we are both as european and american part of cultures that share alot. However on the issue which nations or people that are set to destroy us all, we stand in front of a problem.

I refuse to see USAs military operations in ME as something that is supposed to defend America or Europe for that matter. Its just not so. The question then turns into something different. If its just about USA defending its interests according to international laws it would be fine, and it would stay to that, but its not just about that anymore.

Had I been totally selfish I could as well sit back down and see you flatten Iraq. In what way does it affect me? Well, for starters I really feel for the Iraqi people. Iam not defending Saddam as you stated before however a war will seriously affect the civilians in Iraq. If you belive, as I do, that the war is unnecessary surely you must feel for their civilians. What happens after Saddam is gone? A new regime? A regime more friendly to the west? Like Saddam was when he was allied to the US?

You are making things worse and we all have to pay for it.
In what way are Iraq a threat to US? Do they have capability to strike at your country? I would also worry more over Pakistan If I were you. Iraq is not full of fanatical islamists however much you like to belive that. Cant you see that your "democratic" government which I should see as "all americans" really are acting hostile not only towards them but other nations as well.

You either act as a democratic nation part of west or you dont.
If you do you should play by the rules. They do apply to you as well. No more troops in, or attacks on souvereign nations. Take you cases to the UN as everybody else. If you prefer to do as you like you cant expect to be seen as nothing else than an arrogant imperalistic superpower that do how you like. Then you must understand people will get hostile. Its really simple. If you attack Iraq without other evidences than your government SAYING he got evidences we will oppose it. That means opposing you as a nation.

Seeing the military build up even before the inspectors finding something makes one think weather this is not already decided. That means you are about to invade another nation regardless. Surely you must see why we are opposing it.

You can come up with a load of BS about us defending Saddam etc, even personal attacks, but its all about not letting one country start wars on others without a clear and undivided support from the world community. Do you see the difference?

[danholo]

I believe that no-one is defending Saddam as the sick he is.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Rob
I'm just wondering. Do you know what takeo was whining about now?


http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=40032#post40032

[takeo]

as usual, northlander explained how most Europeans feel about this war. but nevertheless I agree with every single word you wrote.
I didn't condamn Sweden for not participating in the war, perhaps it was the best option for the Swedish people, altough indeed some Swedish cooperation with the Germans were shamefull but perhaps necessary to avoid a German attack. it has been a long time ago since and indeed WWII is history, but it's not forgotten either, not even by the young generation (surely not among the jewish community in France, or even among the French in general, who still regard the Germans with suspition).

Elke, yes, the us-president and government was elected, but you know as well as i do that elections are manipulated. The one with the biggest budget to spend usually wins the election in the us... non-republican or non-democrats do not stand a chance. and public opinion in the us is strongly influenced by the media, as anywhere else in the world. That's why i do agree with the soviets that you have to separate government and people (what the soviets didn't mention however is that the same could be said about the Soviet-union as well!)

Saddam isn't a threat to Europe nor is he a threat to the US, read my latest post and respond to it please. Saddam is not the main problem of this planet, as the us-propaganda tries to make us believe.

i personally do not believe that this is the real reason why the us wants to go to war, their are geo-political and economical reasons. As few people outside the us ever believed that the us were killing millions of vietnamese and supported military regimes all over the world to save democracy and freedom...

yes, elke you have been fed soviet-propaganda during your youth, but don't you believe us-propaganda exists as well, trying to hide or change the truth if that's in their best interest in a certain situation?

[danholo]

Saddam probably isn't a main problem on this planet but he is a major problem and a problem that is easily taken care of. I'd rather see Saddam out of power than in power. This man is a geniune sicko who has absolutely no right to life.

Anyway though, I don't support a war against Iraq but it'll be good entertainment on the news via satellite. ;)

I guess that's the main reason why Bush will attack. Put the people on war mode and root on television for the good guys in order to divert the focus from the main problem in the states, the economy.

[Mediocrates]

What makes you think there is such an enormous diversity of unknown political opinion in the US that fringe candidates aren't heard? Just because Ralph Nader isn't president doesn't mean that millions of people don't know who he is or ascribe to what he says. Just because you don't follow local politics doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very fact that national elections have been so close recently indicates precisely that there are deep and fundamental divides among people who have an interest.

And I've never heard that the reason that national voter turnout is so low is because of a perception that the outcome is manipulated. I'd have to say it has much more to do with a sense that the office itself is hobbled by deep divides at the legislative branch. So now the President sort of has a majority in Congress but little progress is being made anyway. I think that's what voters pick up on.

In the US a person votes for a president based on how that voter feesl the candidate represents their own goals. But they vote for national offices in the Congress, the House and Senate based on what they think the candidate can deliver to the folks at home. There is a big difference. We here in Carolina routinely elect Democratic govs and local politicians and routinely elect Republican Presidents and Senators (John Edwards notwithstanding).

Call it what you want but that is democracy.

[takeo]

Saddam probably isn't a main problem on this planet but he is a major problem and a problem that is easily taken care of. I'd rather see Saddam out of power than in power. This man is a geniune sicko who has absolutely no right to life.

Anyway though, I don't support a war against Iraq but it'll be good entertainment on the news via satellite.

I guess that's the main reason why Bush will attack. Put the people on war mode and root on television for the good guys in order to divert the focus from the main problem in the states, the economy.

i don't want to see him go if this can only go trough a war that'll probably kill 1000's or 100's of 1000's of people and will only have as a result another dictator, even more eager to sell his oil to his imperialist master, as the other puppet-countries in the neighbourhood.
Currently he's not a problem at all except for the part of iraqi-population that don't like him and except for us-companies, who want their share in the iraqi wealth and except for the us-government who doesn't want to loose credibility.



What makes you think there is such an enormous diversity of unknown political opinion in the US that fringe candidates aren't heard? Just because Ralph Nader isn't president doesn't mean that millions of people don't know who he is or ascribe to what he says. Just because you don't follow local politics doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The very fact that national elections have been so close recently indicates precisely that there are deep and fundamental divides among people who have an interest.

And I've never heard that the reason that national voter turnout is so low is because of a perception that the outcome is manipulated. I'd have to say it has much more to do with a sense that the office itself is hobbled by deep divides at the legislative branch. So now the President sort of has a majority in Congress but little progress is being made anyway. I think that's what voters pick up on.

In the US a person votes for a president based on how that voter feesl the candidate represents their own goals. But they vote for national offices in the Congress, the House and Senate based on what they think the candidate can deliver to the folks at home. There is a big difference. We here in Carolina routinely elect Democratic govs and local politicians and routinely elect Republican Presidents and Senators (John Edwards notwithstanding).

Call it what you want but that is democracy.

I'm not really convinced, all the candidates, both local and national, can ONLY be elected if they have the propper finances for their campaigns. Nader may be known by a lot of Americans, his campaigns were nothing compared to the big 2, he wasn't siupported by the "system", both politically and economically, the establishment, which can break or make your political carreer. do you think it's a coincident that an extremely rich oil-family delivers two presidets and several governers???
for example take this war on iraq. First it was an idea of the inner cicle, the national security council, most people opposed it, later it got promoted trough all channels, and suddenly there's unanimity and a majority of Americans support it, after a very keen-out strategical campaign.
People always get influenced and vote against their own interests, even in France, for example poor people here often vote for le Front National, which wants less social rights for... poor people. The problem is they have an excellent campaign and rich donators. in the us of course it's even less so, since there are only two parties who differ very little, altough the us is a country with enormous differences, both social, geographical and etnical. the situation in the us reminds me somehow of singapore, a dictatorship but nobody cares, as most people are wealthy and you can't change anything anyway, so why resist? they go voting for the different candidates who all represent the same system, much like it is in the us. (by the way, in most communist countries as well(in communist countries non-communists are permitted to run as well, but the system works that way they never get a lot of votes, as they can't make a campaign etc.!)
There is some difference, that is free speech, the only thing making the us truly different from an ordinary dicatorship in my opinion. but not in the media, as this is monopolised by big associations.

[Mediocrates]

dont' be daft man

you're talking about tweaking the system not whether it is fundamentally a democracy.

[Rob]

Originally posted by takeo
i don't want to see him go if this can only go trough a war that'll probably kill 1000's or 100's of 1000's of people and will only have as a result another dictator, even more eager to sell his oil to his imperialist master, as the other puppet-countries in the neighbourhood.
Currently he's not a problem at all except for the part of iraqi-population that don't like him and except for us-companies, who want their share in the iraqi wealth and except for the us-government who doesn't want to loose credibility.




I'm not really convinced, all the candidates, both local and national, can ONLY be elected if they have the propper finances for their campaigns. Nader may be known by a lot of Americans, his campaigns were nothing compared to the big 2, he wasn't siupported by the "system", both politically and economically, the establishment, which can break or make your political carreer. do you think it's a coincident that an extremely rich oil-family delivers two presidets and several governers???
for example take this war on iraq. First it was an idea of the inner cicle, the national security council, most people opposed it, later it got promoted trough all channels, and suddenly there's unanimity and a majority of Americans support it, after a very keen-out strategical campaign.
People always get influenced and vote against their own interests, even in France, for example poor people here often vote for le Front National, which wants less social rights for... poor people. The problem is they have an excellent campaign and rich donators. in the us of course it's even less so, since there are only two parties who differ very little, altough the us is a country with enormous differences, both social, geographical and etnical. the situation in the us reminds me somehow of singapore, a dictatorship but nobody cares, as most people are wealthy and you can't change anything anyway, so why resist? they go voting for the different candidates who all represent the same system, much like it is in the us. (by the way, in most communist countries as well(in communist countries non-communists are permitted to run as well, but the system works that way they never get a lot of votes, as they can't make a campaign etc.!)
There is some difference, that is free speech, the only thing making the us truly different from an ordinary dicatorship in my opinion. but not in the media, as this is monopolised by big associations.

We are not a marxist country and we don't care what your marxist opinion is of our political systeml. We've seen what happens when a country embraces your system (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea etc.)

[elke]

Elections are not manipulated. The candidates are financially supported by various competing groups, but all that does is provide funds to get the word out to the public about the particular person's platform. Once the individual citizen makes up his/her mind, s/he cannot be deterred from voting as they wish - nor can they be made to vote, if they don't wish to do so.

In addition, the public opinion is constantly monitored via polls, and because the next election is always just around the corner, these polls are constantly and carefully perused by the "powers-that-be".

These points are crucial to remember and take to heart about American - and indeed any democratic - system. Money per se will NOT guarantee victory, ever. All it does is make people aware of the issues and how the candidates stand on them.

[elke]

Originally posted by Northlander
It is true indeed that we in much are on the same side. I agree to that at least to some extent. Obviously we are both as european and american part of cultures that share alot. However on the issue which nations or people that are set to destroy us all, we stand in front of a problem.

Right, that's one of the issues - and legitimate, too. Without the "newsspeak", in a nutshell, you do not consider Saddam Hussein a danger to the West.

Now, let me ask you a question: what do you think he will do with his chem, bio, and nuclear weapons? Once he has them, what do you think his next step will be?


I refuse to see USAs military operations in ME as something that is supposed to defend America or Europe for that matter. Its just not so. The question then turns into something different. If its just about USA defending its interests according to international laws it would be fine, and it would stay to that, but its not just about that anymore.

"Refuse to see": that's one of the things that you need to reconsider. What exactly is in front of your eyes that you "refuse to see"? If you try to answer the 2 questions above logically, we may be onto something. You may remain with your current opinion, but at least you will see what the other side is saying more clearly. You will see that this is a genuine disagreement over something that cannot be predicted exactly since it involves the future actions of an obviously deranged man.


Had I been totally selfish I could as well sit back down and see you flatten Iraq. In what way does it affect me? Well, for starters I really feel for the Iraqi people. Iam not defending Saddam as you stated before however a war will seriously affect the civilians in Iraq. If you belive, as I do, that the war is unnecessary surely you must feel for their civilians. What happens after Saddam is gone? A new regime? A regime more friendly to the west? Like Saddam was when he was allied to the US?

No one is accusing you of selfishness. Your philosophy is clear to all and sundry, and quite frankly, I personally share the majority of what you believe in - as do many other people as well, on this Forum and elsewhere. We disagree on the how , not on the what - the means, not the end.

Now, I probably have a better idea of what life is like for an average Iraqi under Saddam than you do, due to personal experience in the FSU. I cannot explain just what it's like to live in fear of your safety, when it can go in a blink of an eye independent of any action(s) you may have taken. It's a thought at the back of your mind constantly, even as life goes on as usual and you go to school or work, have fun with friends, etc. etc.

So, I feel for the Iraqis not only in terms of what the war would do to them, but also in terms of what living under Saddam does to them as well. This too is one of the valid disagreements: what is worse on an average Iraqi - a short war, or long drawn-out life under Saddam.

Again, this is something that is difficult to judge, and even Iraqis themselves could not tell you with one voice what they want, even if they had an actual opportunity to do so - which they do not!


You are making things worse and we all have to pay for it. In what way are Iraq a threat to US? Do they have capability to strike at your country? I would also worry more over Pakistan If I were you. Iraq is not full of fanatical islamists however much you like to belive that. Cant you see that your "democratic" government which I should see as "all americans" really are acting hostile not only towards them but other nations as well.

In the globalized world we live in today, the American - and others' - interests include the world, not just the land mass called "US" or "Sweden". We must remember this and act accordingly. Countries are entitled to protect their interests, especially when these interests are intertwined with those of others.

You make a good point about Pakistan, which is a major problem, as well as Iraq not being full of fanatical Islamists. However, the crux of the problem is that unlike in the Democratic West, it's not the majority of Iraqis who are not the "fanatical Islamists" who would hold the power to push that button, in the event that Iraq acquires the nuclear weapons, it would be Saddam Hussein.


You either act as a democratic nation part of west or you dont.
If you do you should play by the rules. They do apply to you as well. No more troops in, or attacks on souvereign nations. Take you cases to the UN as everybody else. If you prefer to do as you like you cant expect to be seen as nothing else than an arrogant imperalistic superpower that do how you like. Then you must understand people will get hostile. Its really simple. If you attack Iraq without other evidences than your government SAYING he got evidences we will oppose it. That means opposing you as a nation.

Seeing the military build up even before the inspectors finding something makes one think weather this is not already decided. That means you are about to invade another nation regardless. Surely you must see why we are opposing it.

You can come up with a load of BS about us defending Saddam etc, even personal attacks, but its all about not letting one country start wars on others without a clear and undivided support from the world community. Do you see the difference?

When have I personally attacked you? Other than some uncalled-for stuff I said to PeaceLover a few months ago, which she has called me on and I apologized (still feel bad about it, PeaceLover, thanks for pointing it out! :)) - I don't think I have ever resorted to personal attacks since, - and don't intend to begin now!

In case of a war, as you know, the buildup of forces takes time. Due to climatic conditions, it is preferable to have the war in a certain seasonal window. As you also know, the CIA has been adamantly insisting that they have evidence of Saddam's incompliance, and that the inspectors themselves have pointed out major gaps in the disclosure Iraq has given. Therefore, it is reasonable for the US forces to be built up in the area, which can - and should - serve as an additional "push" for Saddam to come clean. The fact that they have found those empty chemical weapon shells, as well as some paperwork on nuclear arms apparently, should give pause to anti-war movement as well.

Anyway, my point is not really to change your opinion, it's simply to point out that the disagreements are legitimate and empirical, rather than philosophical. It's to point out that the "newsspeak" is unhelpful and even harmful, as it muddies the waters and makes it seem like we are all somehow on different sides. We are not! We have the same goal, which is to live peacefully and prosperously, and be the catalyst for others in this world to live in peace and prosperity. We disagree on the details of how to achieve that, nothing more nothing less. So, let's act like it!

[takeo]

Elections are not manipulated. The candidates are financially supported by various competing groups, but all that does is provide funds to get the word out to the public about the particular person's platform. Once the individual citizen makes up his/her mind, s/he cannot be deterred from voting as they wish - nor can they be made to vote, if they don't wish to do so.

people were not obliged to vote in the former soviet union as well.
get the word out: that's how elections are won or lost, isn't it?


In addition, the public opinion is constantly monitored via polls, and because the next election is always just around the corner, these polls are constantly and carefully perused by the "powers-that-be".

yes, but people's opinion is constantly being manipulated by different media. the current iraq-crisis is a fine example of this.




These points are crucial to remember and take to heart about American - and indeed any democratic - system. Money per se will NOT guarantee victory, ever. All it does is make people aware of the issues and how the candidates stand on them.

garantee, no, but NO or not enough money will garantee defeat!!! by the way: propaganda is not about how candidates stand on some issues, but about image-building and pr. not only in the us by the way...

sorry, i have no more time to respond to your answer to northlander, but just one thing... Saddam HAD WMD in the past, and never used them against any western nation, not even during the Gulf-war, not even against Israel!!!! (he had the means to do so)

[danholo]

But he is allowed to gas his own citizens. :rolleyes:

Saddam is our hero! Building BIO/CHEM-Weapons for our defense!

[takeo]

that's another misinterpretation of my words, of course he's no friend of the us, but he won't bomb you with WMD. or is the fact that he's no friend enough to bomb him? (by the way if he had any i'm sure Blix or the cia would have found out)

[Mediocrates]

"I think we should take Iraq and Iran put em all together in big country called Irate and stick all the really angry pissed off losers there."


-Dennis Leary

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
[[QUOTE]B]people were not obliged to vote in the former soviet union as well.
get the word out: that's how elections are won or lost, isn't it?

Actually, you are wrong on that one. One of my clearest memories from Russia is a rainy day in June, with everyone including my parents heading off to my school's auditorium, where elections were being held. If you didn't want trouble, you voted - and voted the way the government wanted you to vote. There were two different wood boxes, on the opposite ends of the dais, and everyone headed to one of them - including my parents (my father spitting and swearing under his breath :))


yes, but people's opinion is constantly being manipulated by different media. the current iraq-crisis is a fine example of this.

You seem to have an awfully low opinion of people. I don't - used to, but don't anymore.

I think that "various media", when it's not controlled by one source, is quite capable of getting the story out - and an average individual is quite capable of making up his/her mind regarding various subjects. I don't believe, for example, that your views are solely the product of propaganda you read, because I think that there is room for more than one take on most subjects, with or without propaganda.


garantee, no, but NO or not enough money will garantee defeat!!! by the way: propaganda is not about how candidates stand on some issues, but about image-building and pr. not only in the us by the way...

Simply because that's the way of the world: you need money to get your point across. However, the platforms of individual candidates also have a say in the fundraising as well, which means that it is part of the democratic process.


sorry, i have no more time to respond to your answer to northlander, but just one thing... Saddam HAD WMD in the past, and never used them against any western nation, not even during the Gulf-war, not even against Israel!!!! (he had the means to do so) [/B]

Well, never say never. Saddam knew darn well that using WMD on Israel would fry his country - and himself. However, with his back to the wall, who knows what he will/can do?

In addition, the main concern is not that: the main concern is blackmail - which is exactly what North Korea is doing. The other concern is that he will sell them to third parties, such as friend Osama.

As I said to Northlander - and above to you - there is room for more than one reasoned opinion. All I am saying is that the "newsspeak" is IMO very harmful, as it deteriorates the quality of discussion, which then loses its beneficial effect.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Such a statement need not be quibbled with since it never seems to have taken much to bring the French to their knees. That the Germans found them so easily quelled and controlled, only freed up troops to cause trouble elsewhere.

Gee, thanks France for doing so much to oust the Germans. They've always needed help from stronger, braver allies and they've always gotten it, though the word gratitude seems to have a fast half life with those people.

Dont forget the French troops that fought alongisde the Germans, attacking the Allied troops coming into italy.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by Northlander
the british empire and french colonialism. Im sure you know that. Also I dont agree to the "almost all". USA and Israel have gotten its share too. For the same reasons.

My point is that USA havent learned. France have. Britain doesnt count since its a lapdog to USA anyway.
What it comes down to is that many arabs wont accept western arrogance and aggression anymore.

A very fresh example of this arrogance and aggression is USA sending in troops into Iraq without any reason whatsoever. That is per definition an arrogant act. Also its very aggressive.
Things never change, and after this war you will continue to wonder why they hate you. Why they hate us all.

You mean the French capitulated to terrorism like they did in 1940?

And when mentioning colonialism and imperialism, make sure you mention how the arabs are actually the worlds' WORST conquerers and colonialists, having destroyed more cultures and civilizations than probably the rest of the world combined. Just ask the Kurds and Assyrians.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by Northlander
the british empire and french colonialism. Im sure you know that. Also I dont agree to the "almost all". USA and Israel have gotten its share too. For the same reasons.

My point is that USA havent learned. France have. Britain doesnt count since its a lapdog to USA anyway.
What it comes down to is that many arabs wont accept western arrogance and aggression anymore.

A very fresh example of this arrogance and aggression is USA sending in troops into Iraq without any reason whatsoever. That is per definition an arrogant act. Also its very aggressive.
Things never change, and after this war you will continue to wonder why they hate you. Why they hate us all.

The only lapdog i see is you, the sycophantic lackey who runs when the bully comes down your street.

The arab/muslim does not understand compromise, which is why every point on the map around the wolrd where a muslim country touches a non-muslim, there is conflict. The islamics want to conquer the world, and I, and those with open eyes and no agenda, will not accept.

[takeo]

You mean the French capitulated to terrorism like they did in 1940?

And when mentioning colonialism and imperialism, make sure you mention how the arabs are actually the worlds' WORST conquerers and colonialists, having destroyed more cultures and civilizations than probably the rest of the world combined. Just ask the Kurds and Assyrians.

France was conquered by a much stronger military power. Some french choose to collaborate, but they were hated by most French and received death penalty after the war for treason.
Both communists and Degaullists offered heavy resistance against germans and collaborators, more French lost their lives than Americans.
Yes, arabs have been colonisers as well, but this is history, while US and israeli colonisation is present!


Actually, you are wrong on that one. One of my clearest memories from Russia is a rainy day in June, with everyone including my parents heading off to my school's auditorium, where elections were being held. If you didn't want trouble, you voted - and voted the way the government wanted you to vote. There were two different wood boxes, on the opposite ends of the dais, and everyone headed to one of them - including my parents (my father spitting and swearing under his breath )

OK, what i heard from my family was people being engaged to vote by giving free sausages in the voting stations, as many didn't bother to vote.


well it depends which people, many people both in America and Europe can't or won't think for themselves and rely on the media for their opinion. Not all people go on the internet to search different sources! also media has enormous capacities to manipulate. I visited Iraq and the difference between reality and what we all hear on, for example, CNN, is very, very big.



I think that "various media", when it's not controlled by one source, is quite capable of getting the story out - and an average individual is quite capable of making up his/her mind regarding various subjects. I don't believe, for example, that your views are solely the product of propaganda you read, because I think that there is room for more than one take on most subjects, with or without propaganda.

i would say, tHEIR story, i'll repeat, the ability to manipulate news is enormous, just choosing which facts or images to show or which speaker to invite can create a totally different image.
People can not be convinced by propaganda that they live well if they're not, that's right. But about foreign news, for which people rely almost completely on the media, the influence is huge.


Simply because that's the way of the world: you need money to get your point across. However, the platforms of individual candidates also have a say in the fundraising as well, which means that it is part of the democratic process.

i don't think that's part of the democratic process, as fundraisers and donators are not the people, nor do they represent the majority. it is, according to me, undermining the democratic process.



Well, never say never. Saddam knew darn well that using WMD on Israel would fry his country - and himself. However, with his back to the wall, who knows what he will/can do?

indeed, and this hasn't changed, on the contrary. He was with his back against the wall in 1990 as well. And the only time he might use them (if he has them, i don't think so) will be an invasion of iraq, so if the us doesn't invade iraq he won't use them.


In addition, the main concern is not that: the main concern is blackmail - which is exactly what North Korea is doing. The other concern is that he will sell them to third parties, such as friend Osama.

blackmail? how do you mean? the only possible "blackmail" could be to detain aggressors, but that's not called blackmail but self-defense, as in israel's case as well.

I don't think iraq would sell them to oBL, his ideological ennemies, it would be much easier for obl to obtain WMD from his friends and hosts the pakistani.

[elke]

We didn't get a sausage! Boo-hoo! ;) It may be the difference between various cities or something, too: one of the staples of Soviet life was the inconsistency, too much depended on the individual boss, dean of the college, your neighbors, etc...

While the news can - and do - indeed get manipulated, the various media outlets put their own special "spin" on it. For example, the CNN and MSNBC, presumably, are "left-leaning"; while the FoxNews - "right-leaning". When you watch both, you do get a sense of what is going on, even without the Internet and/or newspapers - albeit, agreed, not a good in-depth understanding of what's going on.

All three outlets, however, will put on various analysts and pundits, ranging the full political spectrum: from Pat Buchanan to Ralph Nader. There have been interviews with Arafat, Nasrallah, Tariq Aziz, and others. Those who are interested can and do tune in. I think that you are greatly simplifying, when you say that people accept the views they see on TV: they do, but there are many various views presented there, so people do pick and choose which view they have.

Many political donations come from various groups. Sure, these groups have an agenda, but they do consist of individuals who share a common belief system and common goals. Due to the Freedom of Association enforced by the US Courts, everyone is free to organize and pull their resources together to affect the Democratic process. This too is part of Democracy. Democracy is no longer a show of hands - it can't be, we have too many people in the world to even consider such a system any longer.

As far as blackmail is concerned: look at what is happening with North Korea today. Yesterday, they announced that if the UN as much as begins discussions on the subject of North Korea's nuclear incompliance, they will begin ballistic missile testing. Next, they may announce that if the world does not want a nuclear war, they will have to feed North Korea 'till kingdom come! And they can do that, too. That's blackmail, not self-defense! As far as their incompliance with the various treaties they signed, there is darn little that can be done, and military force as a deterrent and tool for compliance becomes a weaker argument, when the result of it could be a nuclear holocaust. That's the situation they are trying to avoid with Iraq.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by takeo
France was conquered by a much stronger military power. Some french choose to collaborate, but they were hated by most French and received death penalty after the war for treason.
Both communists and Degaullists offered heavy resistance against germans and collaborators, more French lost their lives than Americans.
Yes, arabs have been colonisers as well, but this is history, while US and israeli colonisation is present!

Yes, arafat has been a murderer for 5 decades, BUT he is a "freedon fighter".

Yes the arabs killed hundreds of thousands and forcibly converted an equal number by threat of death, BUT that was long ago...

Yes France capitualted in 6 weeks, BUT each and every collaborator received their just due.

All of it is BS.

The arabs/muslims are attempting insurgencies all over the world, and their habits have not changed ONE IOTA (phillippines, inodnesia, ivory coast, malaysia, Sudan etc). When they mass in numbers in a country, there is violence.

And if you want to see France at its best go see The Sorrow and The Pity, which should be the Official Fil of France for the next 1000 years. Brave people those french LOL.

[takeo]

We didn't get a sausage! Boo-hoo! It may be the difference between various cities or something, too: one of the staples of Soviet life was the inconsistency, too much depended on the individual boss, dean of the college, your neighbors, etc...

Agreed...
I heard a story of voting stands in uzbekistan with glass walls...


While the news can - and do - indeed get manipulated, the various media outlets put their own special "spin" on it. For example, the CNN and MSNBC, presumably, are "left-leaning"; while the FoxNews - "right-leaning". When you watch both, you do get a sense of what is going on, even without the Internet and/or newspapers - albeit, agreed, not a good in-depth understanding of what's going on.

I think CNN and Fox (however i'm afraid i haven't seen a lot of fox-programms) both support the us-government position in critical times, altough more subtle than in the soviet-Union of course.



All three outlets, however, will put on various analysts and pundits, ranging the full political spectrum: from Pat Buchanan to Ralph Nader. There have been interviews with Arafat, Nasrallah, Tariq Aziz, and others. Those who are interested can and do tune in. I think that you are greatly simplifying, when you say that people accept the views they see on TV: they do, but there are many various views presented there, so people do pick and choose which view they have.

I do not agree. Yes, people from various groups and parties can explain their position, but there is still a lot of bias. For example during the kosovo-war on CNN: whereas nato- and albanian side got hours of propaganda abilities, the serbian side only could present their opinion a few minuts, and only the most radical Serbs had been choosen, as to sustain the image of "cruel, warmongering" Serbs, OR the Serbian opposition, the government of yugoslavia NEVER had a chance to express their opinion. Also images of Serbian casualties did only very rarely made it to CNN, as well as Albanian atrocities on Serbs. (the other way round almost constantly). The reporters of CNN just accpeted the albanian and nato-claims as truth, without asking too difficult questions that could embarras them.

in this conflict their stand is a bit more balanced, still: i didn't hear a lot of iraqi's on CNN, and the accusations of Bush that Saddam isn't cooperating and playing games are presented as truth, and no critical questions have been asked.




Many political donations come from various groups. Sure, these groups have an agenda, but they do consist of individuals who share a common belief system and common goals. Due to the Freedom of Association enforced by the US Courts, everyone is free to organize and pull their resources together to affect the Democratic process. This too is part of Democracy. Democracy is no longer a show of hands - it can't be, we have too many people in the world to even consider such a system any longer.

yes, those groups believe in certain values and have common goals, no problem, but the problem is that they affect the democratic process, as you stated. democracy isn't a show of hands, indeed, but it has turned into another show, show of pr and publicity. I think that anything affecting the democratic process except the will of the majority of the people makes it less democratic.
a more just system would be like in some European countries: every party is allowed to spend a certain amount of money, nothing more, and the ones who can't afford get subsidies. in this way ALL parties have an equal chance and people, not money or propaganda, will determine who'll be elected.




As far as blackmail is concerned: look at what is happening with North Korea today. Yesterday, they announced that if the UN as much as begins discussions on the subject of North Korea's nuclear incompliance, they will begin ballistic missile testing. Next, they may announce that if the world does not want a nuclear war, they will have to feed North Korea 'till kingdom come! And they can do that, too. That's blackmail, not self-defense! As far as their incompliance with the various treaties they signed, there is darn little that can be done, and military force as a deterrent and tool for compliance becomes a weaker argument, when the result of it could be a nuclear holocaust. That's the situation they are trying to avoid with Iraq.

I agree that, in case north korea would threaten with a nuclear war if they don't get economic aid, it would be blackmail, but if north korea would only use wMD in case of an attack on its territory (as the us, china and russia would do too) it is clearly self-defense.
I think the use of military force against another country is only legitimate in case of an invasion and war, military force can only be used as deterrence against war, not for solving other issues.
anyway, north korea will never use nuclear weapons unless they get invaded themselves, they are not suicidal. Nuclear weapons would be a strong deterrance against any us-military aggression against the North. in this sence i understand the koreans, who have to face a very strong us-military presence near their borders.
Because, face it, why hasn't the us attacked the Soviet-Union or china China during the cold war? (or vice versa!)
If Iraq would already have nuclear weapons, the whole situation would be different today, and the us would use diplomacy instead of violence to solve their problems in the middel East.

[Alfred]

Well Takeo, I am sure that the French have tried, and will try in the future, to give every despotic dictatorship nuclear weapons....as long as these states are anti-american that is.

For America is the real enemy isn't it? America defeated Communism and so must be destroyed. If world Communism is to triumph then the US must be destroyed.

Why else would you partner with Russia and China and Cuba? Germany is a new fellow traveler because it has been infected with the East German communists. And you need Germany's Army don't you?

There will be four great powers in the next century.

The power of freedom: The USA, UK, the Commonwealth, Israel, and various other countries in South America and Asia. Probably including Japan and India.

The Great Satan: Islam

The Beast: Europe, under the dictatorship of Germany, France, Russia.

China: who will probably play off the Beast against the Freedom loving countries.


I am so sick of Germany and France right now. It is not their opposition, it is their active opposition. Screw 'em, let them rot in their socialist paradise. I am glad I visited them before they started to rot.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo

I think CNN and Fox (however i'm afraid i haven't seen a lot of fox-programms) both support the us-government position in critical times, altough more subtle than in the soviet-Union of course.

Actually, not necessarily. CNN in particular does much reporting on the polls that show many Americans opposed to the war with Iraq without UN cooperation and agreement; on the anti-war demonstrations, as well as on other controversial subjects. They report what they believe is "newsworthy". Individual newsmen and women have their own take on things, which comes through in their reporting, of course; but as far as the general "position" of the news outlets is concerned, IMO there is no such thing really.


I do not agree. Yes, people from various groups and parties can explain their position, but there is still a lot of bias. For example during the kosovo-war on CNN: whereas nato- and albanian side got hours of propaganda abilities, the serbian side only could present their opinion a few minuts, and only the most radical Serbs had been choosen, as to sustain the image of "cruel, warmongering" Serbs, OR the Serbian opposition, the government of yugoslavia NEVER had a chance to express their opinion. Also images of Serbian casualties did only very rarely made it to CNN, as well as Albanian atrocities on Serbs. (the other way round almost constantly). The reporters of CNN just accpeted the albanian and nato-claims as truth, without asking too difficult questions that could embarras them.

I don't know: I remember seeing these things on TV. I didn't have cable at the time, so I can't speak for CNN's coverage; but other American news outlets did make people aware of the atrocities on both sides.

One thing to remember, Takeo, is that newsbusiness is a business, like any other. What it means is that mostly the reporters will report on subjects they believe their audience wants to know. To me that's a more valid criticism of the American press than the idea of them being a tool of the "government propaganda". I can't think of a way to prevent this from happening though, other than the general population in adequate numbers demanding the facts, - and the reporters and their bosses realizing the true importance of their work as the keepers of Democracy, - which is what they are!


in this conflict their stand is a bit more balanced, still: i didn't hear a lot of iraqi's on CNN, and the accusations of Bush that Saddam isn't cooperating and playing games are presented as truth, and no critical questions have been asked.

It may be a language thing. I believe that the allegations that Saddam is not cooperating have been presented as just that - allegations. There have been numerous programs of editorial nature, for example, where the pundits have questioned it. It is not really up to the reporters to express their opinion: they are there to report facts as facts and allegations as allegations, - which is what they have been doing, IMO.


yes, those groups believe in certain values and have common goals, no problem, but the problem is that they affect the democratic process, as you stated. democracy isn't a show of hands, indeed, but it has turned into another show, show of pr and publicity. I think that anything affecting the democratic process except the will of the majority of the people makes it less democratic.
a more just system would be like in some European countries: every party is allowed to spend a certain amount of money, nothing more, and the ones who can't afford get subsidies. in this way ALL parties have an equal chance and people, not money or propaganda, will determine who'll be elected.

This system has "muddled along" for over 200 years now. There is a never-ending flow of immigrants from all sorts of places, including Western Europe, who come here because of the freedoms this country gives to its denizens. Whatever it is, it is working, and not just economically - although in order for it to work economically on long term basis, the political structure has to be conducive to it as well.

Don't take this as a put-down; but I don't think it's really your place to decide whether the American system of government justly reflects the wishes of American people. It is up to the American people to decide that. If the majority felt that their wishes were not adequately represented, they could change the system relatively quickly and painlessly. There are no negative ramifications to individuals who disagree with policies of the American government, on any level.


I agree that, in case north korea would threaten with a nuclear war if they don't get economic aid, it would be blackmail, but if north korea would only use wMD in case of an attack on its territory (as the us, china and russia would do too) it is clearly self-defense.
I think the use of military force against another country is only legitimate in case of an invasion and war, military force can only be used as deterrence against war, not for solving other issues.
anyway, north korea will never use nuclear weapons unless they get invaded themselves, they are not suicidal. Nuclear weapons would be a strong deterrance against any us-military aggression against the North. in this sence i understand the koreans, who have to face a very strong us-military presence near their borders.
Because, face it, why hasn't the us attacked the Soviet-Union or china China during the cold war? (or vice versa!)
If Iraq would already have nuclear weapons, the whole situation would be different today, and the us would use diplomacy instead of violence to solve their problems in the middel East.

Where are you getting the idea that US has designs on invading North Korea? Since 1950's these troops have been there, patrolling and enforcing the DMZ. I agree that North Korea, as the Soviet Union and China before them, is a paranoid regime; but it's precisely that paranoia that makes it dangerous to the region and the world at large.

As far as why US hasn't attacked USSR or China - why would they, unless they were attacked first? US had a nuclear bomb a few years before USSR, and many years before China. Yet obviously hasn't used it on them - because there was no reason for it! So, where are you getting the idea that North Korea has to "protect itself"? There is no historical evidence that there is a need for such protection. There is, however, historical and empirical evidence that resources spent on nuclear arms are better spent on feeding people.

[takeo]

Well Takeo, I am sure that the French have tried, and will try in the future, to give every despotic dictatorship nuclear weapons....as long as these states are anti-american that is.

actually in France there are laws that prevent dictatorships from receiving French governemental aid, uNLIKE the US, who has just delivered billions of weapons to countries such as colombia and Nepal, not really examplary democracies, if you read reports from Amnesty International and other observators. france has also condemned North Korea for devellopping illegal nuclear weapons, while i didn't hear yet any us-condemnation of the Israeli nuclear program.


For America is the real enemy isn't it? America defeated Communism and so must be destroyed. If world Communism is to triumph then the US must be destroyed.

France is a capitalist state and the current government is undeniably rightwing. The defeat of communism is one of their goals as well. Your retorics are so simple-minded: if you don't agree with us-policy, you must be a communist or fundamentalist, right, as noone else would dare to disagree with the country of the free on some issues?



Why else would you partner with Russia and China and Cuba? Germany is a new fellow traveler because it has been infected with the East German communists. And you need Germany's Army don't you?

germany isn't communist since a long time, Eastern germany had been annexed to the west, not vice versa(altough the communist party is still powerfull, but not represented in the government). Germany's army doesn't represent nothing, France's army is 5 times bigger; but Germany's economy on the other hand is important.


There will be four great powers in the next century.

The power of freedom: The USA, UK, the Commonwealth, Israel, and various other countries in South America and Asia. Probably including Japan and India.

various countries like Guatemala, honduras and Peru perhaps? The only latin countries who have always supported the us are the most repressive ones.



The Great Satan: Islam

Not all islamic countries are the same, again your opinions are extremely childish.



The Beast: Europe, under the dictatorship of Germany, France, Russia.

Russia has nothing in common with the rest of Europe (it isn't really Europe anyway, nor political, economical or cultural), and The real dictatorship is in America: the great hegemon decides what decisions will be taken in both Northern and southern America, it has been that way since early 20th century. Non-compliers get invaded, embargoed or destabilised.



China: who will probably play off the Beast against the Freedom loving countries.

China is actually the worst danger against us-hegemony in the world. It is the least influenced by the us and it has the greatest capacities to become the next world-power. What's more: the us has nothing to blackmail China, not even economic sanctions, as those would hurt the us-economy as much.




I am so sick of Germany and France right now. It is not their opposition, it is their active opposition. Screw 'em, let them rot in their socialist paradise. I am glad I visited them before they started to rot.

Rot? Because they don't agree with the decisions of the great Mogul Bush? Active opposition? You can put it as well that the us is actively opposing the European policy in the Middle east by insisting on war and violence, even when there's no necessity at all and iraq is cooperating satisfactory (the word of hans blix!) with the weapons inspectors.



Actually, not necessarily. CNN in particular does much reporting on the polls that show many Americans opposed to the war with Iraq without UN cooperation and agreement; on the anti-war demonstrations, as well as on other controversial subjects. They report what they believe is "newsworthy". Individual newsmen and women have their own take on things, which comes through in their reporting, of course; but as far as the general "position" of the news outlets is concerned, IMO there is no such thing really.

I don't think individual newsmen are important, they have to follow the directives given by their bosses. Yes, CNN reports on all kind of events, fortunately, but the time dedicated to one opinion or subject doesn't equal the other. for example nowadays all kind of American senators get interviewed, but only very rarily iraqi or Arab or European specialists or politicians opposing a possible war.



I don't know: I remember seeing these things on TV. I didn't have cable at the time, so I can't speak for CNN's coverage; but other American news outlets did make people aware of the atrocities on both sides.

i'm not so sure, most Americans think it was a one-sided serbian slaughter and oppression of Albanians.


One thing to remember, Takeo, is that newsbusiness is a business, like any other. What it means is that mostly the reporters will report on subjects they believe their audience wants to know. To me that's a more valid criticism of the American press than the idea of them being a tool of the "government propaganda". I can't think of a way to prevent this from happening though, other than the general population in adequate numbers demanding the facts, - and the reporters and their bosses realizing the true importance of their work as the keepers of Democracy, - which is what they are!

OK, but still i'm sure television-channels will gain more popularity if they show controlversial and representative facts, but for one reasons or another they don't. As in Europe as well, or even worse, newschannels are owned by certain groups of people, who have their own agenda.



This system has "muddled along" for over 200 years now. There is a never-ending flow of immigrants from all sorts of places, including Western Europe, who come here because of the freedoms this country gives to its denizens. Whatever it is, it is working, and not just economically - although in order for it to work economically on long term basis, the political structure has to be conducive to it as well.

Don't take this as a put-down; but I don't think it's really your place to decide whether the American system of government justly reflects the wishes of American people. It is up to the American people to decide that. If the majority felt that their wishes were not adequately represented, they could change the system relatively quickly and painlessly. There are no negative ramifications to individuals who disagree with policies of the American government, on any level.

i think the overwhelming majority of immigrants came to America for economical reasons, with the exception of some pro-American guerillas or religious groups.
it may not be my place to decide, but you(I mean Americans in general) are judging over the democratic nature of other countries as well, aren't you?
i don't think the system can be changed so easily by the majority. The system is constructed such that it continues and generates its own survival. for example: the system makes it extremely difficult for any non-republican or non-democrat to break trough.
there are negative consequences: you get banned from any important governemental job.



Where are you getting the idea that US has designs on invading North Korea? Since 1950's these troops have been there, patrolling and enforcing the DMZ. I agree that North Korea, as the Soviet Union and China before them, is a paranoid regime; but it's precisely that paranoia that makes it dangerous to the region and the world at large.

i don't think it is paranoid to think the us might attack North-Korea. The US has presented north-korea on the same level as Iraq, as part of the axis of evil, one "member" of that axis is currently treatened by a us-military invasion, WITHOUT the approval of any international body. so why couldn't North korea be the next victim? why would the us maintain such an incredible number of soldiers and weapons near the north korean border, if the southkoreans are capable to defend themselves AND if the current southkorean strongman would rather prefere the us-troops to leave the country?






As far as why US hasn't attacked USSR or China - why would they, unless they were attacked first? US had a nuclear bomb a few years before USSR, and many years before China. Yet obviously hasn't used it on them - because there was no reason for it! So, where are you getting the idea that North Korea has to "protect itself"? There is no historical evidence that there is a need for such protection. There is, however, historical and empirical evidence that resources spent on nuclear arms are better spent on feeding people.

The us could have attacked china and russia to eradicate communism in those countries, as they have done or tried to do in much less powerfull states such as Nicaragua, Granada, vietnam, etc.
The us didn't use nuclear bombs immidiately after WWII because in that time the soviets were still allies against the nazi's, the cold war only started some years after it was clear the soviets had nuclear bombs as well. The Chinese received soviet-protection untill some years after they devellopped their own nuclear weapons.

I agree that resources were better spend on the economy, which is an absolute priority in north korea since the economic collapse in the 90's. especially since china's presence will prevent any us-military assault on north-korea.

[christian]

Takeo,

Well. AS the french idiom said:

"lorsqu'on veut se débarrasser de son chien, on dit qu'il a la rage."

mon opinion personnelle est que le "cas" saddam a été créé de toute pièce par les usa. je pense même que le koweit a été encouragé àcommettre des infractions répétées pour pousser saddam àintervenir et ainsi donner un prétexte aux usa pour intervenir directement et s'implanter dans cette partie du monde.
avant la guerre du golf, saddam était anti islamiste et pro occidental

Le président d'Etats-Unis toujours a dit qu'il veut un changement de système. Le gouvernement d'Etats-Unis est déjàprouvé se qui sans prend reponse dans iraquien de gouvernement de compte, la violence est la seule conséquence.

Si l'inspecteur a trouvé l'arme de destruction de masse. Les Etats-Unis attaqueront. Si l'inspecteur ne pourrait pas trouver l'arme. Les Etats-Unis condamneront le iraquien de gouvernement comme un dictateur trompeur. Donc, les Etats-Unis attaquera quand même.



excuse my canadian' french(second rate french).... it is embarrasing. :D

[christian]

Originally posted by Alfred
Well Takeo, I am sure that the French have tried, and will try in the future, to give every despotic dictatorship nuclear weapons....as long as these states are anti-american that is.

For America is the real enemy isn't it? America defeated Communism and so must be destroyed. If world Communism is to triumph then the US must be destroyed.

Why else would you partner with Russia and China and Cuba? Germany is a new fellow traveler because it has been infected with the East German communists. And you need Germany's Army don't you?

There will be four great powers in the next century.

The power of freedom: The USA, UK, the Commonwealth, Israel, and various other countries in South America and Asia. Probably including Japan and India.

The Great Satan: Islam

The Beast: Europe, under the dictatorship of Germany, France, Russia.

China: who will probably play off the Beast against the Freedom loving countries.


I am so sick of Germany and France right now. It is not their opposition, it is their active opposition. Screw 'em, let them rot in their socialist paradise. I am glad I visited them before they started to rot.

Oh yeah! USA is a divine nation. The US government plans to use minisize nuke on Iraq in coming weeks. Which makes bush and rumsfled very righteous, because they are oil monster.

Most of right wingers think war will stimulate domestic economy in US. Unfortunately, The world economic structure is changing, after the regan period. Traditionally, the investment is withdrawl to US in war, because US provide a safe haven of investment. Unfortunately, 9-11 is disapproving that theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2696627.stm

Most likely the business investment will dwell in japan, south korea, singapore, china, and malaysia.

[takeo]

Merci pour me répondre en français. J'ai tout compris ce que tu as dit et c'est le plus important, n'est-ce pas? Le quebecois est quand-même un peu différent mais on se comprend. Les Canadiens ici ont une réputation d'être solide et sympathique, au contraire de leurs voisins...
Vous avez tout a fait raison, les Etats-Unis ont déjàlongtemps décidés qu'ils veulent attaquer l'iraq et je crains qu'ils vont le faire n'importe que disent les autres pays et le monde entier.

[christian]

Originally posted by takeo
Merci pour me répondre en français. J'ai tout compris ce que tu as dit et c'est le plus important, n'est-ce pas? Le quebecois est quand-même un peu différent mais on se comprend. Les Canadiens ici ont une réputation d'être solide et sympathique, au contraire de leurs voisins...
Vous avez tout a fait raison, les Etats-Unis ont déjàlongtemps décidés qu'ils veulent attaquer l'iraq et je crains qu'ils vont le faire n'importe que disent les autres pays et le monde entier.

Malheureusement, le Canada toujours est un pro-l'Américain. Il est bien montré que Kosvo. Le Premier Ministre de raison de Canada oppose Etats-Unis dans ce moment, parce que le Premier Ministre de Canada a fait non est concerné pour risquer son carreer quand sa carrière est par par-dessus cette année. De plus, la France et l'allemagne sont unies. Il donne la force Canadienne de négociation de gouvernement. Autrement, Etats-Unis menaceraient le premier ministre Canadien, si l'union européenne n'est pas forte.

L'Américain gouverne 80% de la structure économique de Canada. Ceci est la réalité économique et politique.

There is a saying in english, "If I go down. I will bring you down with me."