http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1647941
This is part of what I worry about. I dont like the sound of the wind.
On the brink of war
- Thread starter pascal
- Start date
Silent_One
Newcomer
30-plus nations in U.S.-led coalition
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.int.reaction/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/18/sprj.irq.int.reaction/index.html
As a loosely related side note- France has just stated that it'll join the war in case of use of chemical or biological weapons against the US/UK forces or any other country.
So they're already preparing to buy themselves back into the global Oil business. Germany has also stated that the US can use the country for transit routes. While this sound worth nothing, it's clearly opposing their public pose. If the German government would really stand against the war and the US they could not allow it by their laws.
However, the UN has already switched to reconstruction talk.
So they're already preparing to buy themselves back into the global Oil business. Germany has also stated that the US can use the country for transit routes. While this sound worth nothing, it's clearly opposing their public pose. If the German government would really stand against the war and the US they could not allow it by their laws.
However, the UN has already switched to reconstruction talk.
Canada dont like it too. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1632848
Also see that Tony Blair is in trouble with his own party.
Also see that Tony Blair is in trouble with his own party.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
kyleb said:
Yup.
That's why I'm grateful that this adminstration did open up his ears and listened to what the world had to say. The administration simply disagrees.
I do believe, Kyle, that you are a big proponent of people agreeing to disagree, correct?
Or are you really trying to say that we should just agree with what others say, just based on the fact that others are saying it and using their own blck-mail and bullying tactics to try and persuade us?
i am a proponent of people working things out in constrictive ways, and only agreeing to disagree for periods that they cannot find it within their hearts to do otherwise. i belive that all life comes around eventually, assuming the conditions are good; this goes for the crops in the field as well as us who tend to them. also, yes i know you think it is time to get out the insecticide; but insecticide can hurt more than it can help in many situations and my experience still requires me to disagree with such action in this case.
oh and not i never support going for black-mail and bullying tactics; that is why it really troubles me to see a good friend of mine shipping of any day while stating clearly himself that he does not belive our current action is called for but insists that he will have enough money to buy an new computer when he gets back and it will surely be better than going to jail for breach of contract.
oh and not i never support going for black-mail and bullying tactics; that is why it really troubles me to see a good friend of mine shipping of any day while stating clearly himself that he does not belive our current action is called for but insists that he will have enough money to buy an new computer when he gets back and it will surely be better than going to jail for breach of contract.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
kyleb said:
So am I....though I assume you mean constructive.
So am I. The problems come in when one person dictates that someone else's "heart" should be able to hold out longer.
Agree, for the most part.
Agreed.
And my experience tells me otherwise. So maybe we can leave it at that.
Silent_One
Newcomer
con·strictive adj.
1.) To make smaller or narrower by binding or squeezing.
2.) To squeeze or compress.
3.) To restrict the scope or freedom of; cramp:
Joe DeFuria
Legend
kyleb said:oh and not i never support going for black-mail and bullying tactics; that is why it really troubles me to see a good friend of mine shipping of any day while stating clearly himself that he does not belive our current action is called for but insists that he will have enough money to buy an new computer when he gets back and it will surely be better than going to jail for breach of contract.
So now the military is black mailing its soldiers, right? You have some shallow friends, by the way. Do you have any friends that are in the military and support the war?
Every single one of my friends that are in the military, or have been in the military, haven't talked one bit about money at all. They talk about doing what's right.
lol, ya i meant constructive.
but it was the spellchecker's fault, not mine! it is evil i say!
but seriously, i could leave it at that if it wasn't a fact that i am apparent to this by way of citizenship and i greatly enjoy of making use of my liberties insured as an American. however, we have already been though how the conditions when you feel it is time to metaphorically break out the insecticide and i have explained how i disagree; so i do agree that there is no reason to drag that portion of the discussion back up between us at this point. however, please note that i edit my last post with a few more responses to you which i hope you might consider.
but it was the spellchecker's fault, not mine! it is evil i say!
but seriously, i could leave it at that if it wasn't a fact that i am apparent to this by way of citizenship and i greatly enjoy of making use of my liberties insured as an American. however, we have already been though how the conditions when you feel it is time to metaphorically break out the insecticide and i have explained how i disagree; so i do agree that there is no reason to drag that portion of the discussion back up between us at this point. however, please note that i edit my last post with a few more responses to you which i hope you might consider.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
pascal said:
The examples in the first post "threatening" to perform actions that the U.S. would prefer not to happen if we go through with the operation.
Oddly, they don't want to see force, but they have no problem with supplying us air space and land passage. But they are standing up based on principal, right?
The first thing that is wrong is, that it's more like 45 countries. 15 or so give "private" support. That concept is itself alrarming no matter how you look at it...that 15 countries support us, but are "afraid" to publically admit it?
(Edit: Secondly, all I see is 45 countries that "support". I don't see any list of countrys that "oppose" and a thrid list of countrys that say "no comment" (abstain.))
Finally, nothing is wrong at all. One set of countries feels one way, including the one, the U.S. that feels it has the most to loose by ignoring action. Another set of countries feels another way.
There is disagreement. Nothing wrong at all.
pascal said:
Blair has been in trouble with certain elements within his party ever since he was elected leader (never mind elected Prime Minister), in general the pinko lefties. I'd be surprised Blair if actually gets pushed out. A lot of his MPs disagree with him over this particular issue, but in the longer term they're worried about their own seats in Parliament which are a lot safer with Blair at the helm.
Joe DeFuria said:
IMHO those are not blackmailling but are reactions. Nobody said " I will do this if you do that".
Joe DeFuria said:
They dont want to use force now without exausting peacefull means to disarm Iraq.
[/quote]Joe DeFuria said:
Also some governments have trouble supporting US like Turkey.
IIRC Blair lost THREE ministers up to now.
I feel unconfortable with all above.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
pascal said:
No, the threatened "to do this, if you do that." Whether or not they do remains to be seen.
Neither does the U.S. Thing is, we believe all possible peaceful means HAVE been exhausted.
Why isn't this ever understood? Disagree with it if you must, but don't imply that we don't believe that any additional "peaceful" means are doomed to failure.
Point? Other governments "outwardly oppoesed" like Germany, don't seem to have trouble letting us use their bases, airspace, etc. That doesn't "comfort" you in the same way that Turkey having "trouble" gives you discomfort?
And it doesn't comfort you that public UK support for involvment has been increasing?
Joe DeFuria said:
threat requires imposition, while you might prefer they did not withdraw their current support; that is clearly a case of standing ones ground and not a threat by any definition of the word. telling a man to take up arms and fight or go to jail is a threat, even if when it is done by contract.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
So. what you're saying is, it's no imposition to us or anyone else if Russia doesn't sign the "landmark treaty with America on the reduction of nuclear arsenals."
PurplePigeon
Newcomer
On a related note to the original post, the New York Times has an article headlined "Negative Views of U.S. Are Increasing in Europe, Poll Finds" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/19/politics/19CND-POLL.html (you have to register to read it).
Still, it's interesting that:
Based on this poll, I suspect that sentiment towards the US could actually swing to the positive side if the war can be won without any significant casualties. However, if more than a few innocent citizens are killed, negative opinions towards the US could become even more entrenched.
It will also be interesting to see if any sort of WMD will be used in the war by Iraq, and once the coalition wins (I don't think there's any real doubt about winning, quite frankly), to what actual extent WMD were being developed by Iraq. One of the impediments to forming a pro-invasion opinon is that to the general public, there seems to be insufficient concrete evidence available of a sizeable and currently active chemical or nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Indeed, you have comments from UN inspectors like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917323,00.html):
So, although there have been claims of classified intelligence showing Iraq currently has WMD, that hard evidence has not been made available to the public. Fair enough, since that might compromise the invasion... But, at some point during the war, the coalition had best uncover those WMD -- otherwise, there will be a real loss of credibility. And if there are substantial civilian casualties as well, the world community will be outraged.
Still, it's interesting that:
Based on this poll, I suspect that sentiment towards the US could actually swing to the positive side if the war can be won without any significant casualties. However, if more than a few innocent citizens are killed, negative opinions towards the US could become even more entrenched.
It will also be interesting to see if any sort of WMD will be used in the war by Iraq, and once the coalition wins (I don't think there's any real doubt about winning, quite frankly), to what actual extent WMD were being developed by Iraq. One of the impediments to forming a pro-invasion opinon is that to the general public, there seems to be insufficient concrete evidence available of a sizeable and currently active chemical or nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Indeed, you have comments from UN inspectors like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917323,00.html):
So, although there have been claims of classified intelligence showing Iraq currently has WMD, that hard evidence has not been made available to the public. Fair enough, since that might compromise the invasion... But, at some point during the war, the coalition had best uncover those WMD -- otherwise, there will be a real loss of credibility. And if there are substantial civilian casualties as well, the world community will be outraged.