Bush Sees the Light (Blue Flag)

[GrimCO]

The UN is no longer what it used to be, and no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended. It reminds me of a self help group gone bad.

[Fishu]

and US surely doesn't help at making UN better..  veto veto veto.
(someone should veto my post)

[Dago]

It has happened in my country many, many times, over many, many years; and your country fostered, supplied, armed and bank rolled it

Maybe if you aren't to embarrassed to admit it, you might tell us just what your country is?

es, or at least, we were, until your country stuck it's nose in and now instead of shooting to kill we have the Good Friday agreement.

Are you in England?  Again, not bothering to mention what country you are from makes it hard to debate issues.

It never has been

I asked about future events, not past events, and I never said anything about what has happened in the past.

Sounds like your geography is wanting. Europeans are your ONLY ON THE GROUND ALLIES. Basra, remember?

There are some Austrailians that might disagree with you on this point, I guess your knowledge of current events is even more wanting than my grasp of geography.

[Seeker]

Dago,
        you know full well I'm English, we used to be squad mates.

Your point about looking forward, and not to the past is perfectly valid. However, Noraid still flourishes in North America; a terrorist supporting organisation. I still see White house staff talk about "de-stabilising" regimes.

It seems to me that the very first step in a War on Terrorism would be the public (and real!) refusual to sponsor it. That of course would demand a definition of exactly what terrorism is; a point that been studiously avoided by all concerned.

Your point about Australia has caught me off guard; I'll have to check my facts (and if nessacery apologise the the Aussies, I hate that); but what I was actually trying to illustrate was America's out of date position with regard to Europe: That it consists of France and Germany alone; and that they are contemptable; and that therefore Euro's are also contemptable. That's as crass as assuming all Americans are Texans (or New Yorkers); and it doesn't wash.

In any event; you missed the big shiny lure: Britain's way of handling the Irish terrorist problem.

For almost two hundred years Britain tried a "War on terrorism" approach to the IRA and it's predecessors: Hunting down in the lairs; killing them; "dissapearing" them; denying them and their followers due process and most importantly of all doing bugger all to address their complaints and the issues that forced them into "the struggle".

In the Eighties Britain came under increasing American pressure to lighten up; smell the coffee and actually deal with the causes as well as the effects of the "troubles"; to actually recognise the IRA as an opponant that needs negotiation; not as a scourge to be crushed under an (increasingly smaller) Imperial heel.

And you know what? It seems to have largely worked.

You'd think there was a lesson to be learnt there, wouldn't you?

[DmdMac]

Originally posted by Seeker
Dago,
        you know full well I'm English, we used to be squad mates.

Don't know why but I always thought you were Belgian or from the Netherlands.  You never speak on vox, so I can't hear your accent thus I must rely on snatches of info.  JW talks a bit on vox so he was easy to pinpoint.

It seems to me that the very first step in a War on Terrorism would be the public (and real!) refusual to sponsor it. That of course would demand a definition of exactly what terrorism is; a point that been studiously avoided by all concerned.

Perhaps it can be defined simply as directed attacks on non-combatant and civilian people for the expressed purpose of influencing opinion or decision.

Please feel free to pick this apart, as many have tried desperately to define terrorism and are always tripped up by the "freedom fighter" argument.

Your point about Australia has caught me off guard; I'll have to check my facts (and if nessacery apologise the the Aussies, I hate that); but what I was actually trying to illustrate was America's out of date position with regard to Europe: That it consists of France and Germany alone; and that they are contemptable; and that therefore Euro's are also contemptable. That's as crass as assuming all Americans are Texans (or New Yorkers); and it doesn't wash.

I know so few Europeans(is the shortened form Euro acceptable to them?) but *I* at least know there are far more countries then those two.  It seems, though, that the two are vocal enough to drown out all others.

For almost two hundred years Britain tried a "War on terrorism" approach to the IRA and it's predecessors: Hunting down in the lairs; killing them; "dissapearing" them; denying them and their followers due process and most importantly of all doing bugger all to address their complaints and the issues that forced them into "the struggle".

In the Eighties Britain came under increasing American pressure to lighten up; smell the coffee and actually deal with the causes as well as the effects of the "troubles"; to actually recognise the IRA as an opponant that needs negotiation; not as a scourge to be crushed under an (increasingly smaller) Imperial heel.

And you know what? It seems to have largely worked.

You'd think there was a lesson to be learnt there, wouldn't you?

I assume your referencing the Isrealites and Palestinians of which much of the ME is getting involved in.

I agree, without reservation, to not supplying Isreal.  They have shown themselves capable of designing and manufacturing their own weapons and tools.

However, there is the problem that if left to their own devices, the whole of the middle east is likely to come down on Isreal and wage a war, not for victory, but for annihilation.  Egypt and Syria attempted it.  

When Isreal had quelled reprisals on Hamas leaders to work toward the peace plan, another terrorist blew up another bus, loaded with more civilians, to include children, and tore all the work back up.  If Palestine had truly been interested in preserving the peace plan, they would have moved faster and worked harder to prevent such an occurance.

Does any of this have a correlation with Britain's enduring of the IRA?

Please cite with detail.

[Gixer]

I would like to know the real polls as to how popular the war in Iraq is with Americans at the moment. Is the popularity increasing or decreasing? As the news we have here, is that it's decreasing quickly along with Bush's approval rating.

As in the UK it was hugely unpoplular before it even started and now It's alot worse with the Kelly enquiry bringing up all sorts lies and miss information to the British public.

I'll be suprised if the 45mins, isn't the end of Blair as it already has to some of the heads of his government. Which is a shame as untill Iraq he was a great PM for UK.

If Blair did go, I'm sure the first thing for a new PM would be to start reducing British troop numbers in Iraq.



...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~

[Dago]

you know full well I'm English, we used to be squad mates

I wasn't sure you were the Seeker from the squad, since I havent had any comms with you for a long time and didn't know if you still played the game (as you probably know, I don't).  Even if I had recognized you as a former squaddie, I have to be honest and say I would not have remembered where you were from.  Sorry, but my memory of some details isn't the greatest sometimes.

Noraid still flourishes in North America; a terrorist supporting organisation.

While I admit I know very little about Noraid and it's functions, I do know it is not a US government organization, nor would I expect it is sponsored by the US government.  Noraid might be supporting the IRA, I don't know.  I do know that England has for an awfully long part of it's history tried to dominate other countries, imposing colonial rule and subjugating the population.  (remember the term "British Empire?)  Maybe if they had left Ireland to the Irish, Noraid wouldn't exist?  Regardless, that is another discussion for another day.

England has been one of our staunchest allies in the fight against terrorism, just as we faught in WWII along side the British, and supplied information and intelligence during your Falklands conflict.

That being said, my posts regarding "Europeans" I feel is still valid.  I do not pretend to imply that all "Europeans" are anti-American, anti-Bush, or anti-Iraq war.  But it seems alot of them who frequent this board are.  

I have lost all respect for the current French government, and I feel simililarly towards the German and Russian governments.  Facts and evidence have already come to light proving these countries were selling banned items to Iraq in violation of UN resolutions.  They made profit and would have preferred to continue these profits at whatever cost necessary.  They did not care about the thousands of innocents that Hussien slaughtered.

As I said before, I feel the US made mistakes regarding Iraq.  I did not agree that we needed to attack Iraq when we did, and I don't think they considered all the ramifications that would result.


But, what has happened happened, we must now consider what is the best way to move forward, to give the Iraqi people the best chance at a decent future and self-rule.   The countries I mentioned are now refusing to be part of this process unless they can make sure they stand to make money in the process.

It is now not about "bailing out" the US, it is about the future of Iraq.

A part of a speech Colin Powell made during a presentation to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland during January, 2003 has been quoted on this board before, and I feel it is worth repeating and considering:

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace.

When terrorists purposely attacked us, when they slaughtered over 3000 innocent people in one heinous action, they changed the rules, they changed everything.  We might make mistakes, but we will in proactive defense of our nation deal with threats and organizations that would do us harm.  We will not apologize for this, but we will remember those, like England who stand by us in our efforts to seek out and destroy terrorist organizations and their members.


Again, dont think we need help to destroy Iraq or kill terrorists, we look to others now to see who will stand by us, help us make Iraq a country with a new future.  Rebuilding a nation so devastated by an brutal and oppressive regime, then war, is a monumental task.  Countries are now being given the chance to demonstrate if they are a caring society willing to help others, or one consumed by greed.  A few are not looking good at this point.

I suggest a few of the negative posters spend less time trying to poke a stick at our country, and consider what type of country they live in.

dago

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.

Toad, I noticed your putting "action" in quotes.  You realise that without properly defining what you mean by "action", you leave defination pretty open.  I hope that's not so someone can't actually call you on a point.  

Without defining it futher, I don't think your statement has much meaning.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gixer
I would like to know the real polls as to how popular the war in Iraq is with Americans at the moment. Is the popularity increasing or decreasing? As the news we have here, is that it's decreasing quickly along with Bush's approval rating.

Yep.

You can find polling infomation regarding how Americans view the war here.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


And Bush's approval rating.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


And re-election info.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

Looks like Bush has taken a beating in the last couple of weeks.

As in the UK it was hugely unpoplular before it even started

It was unpopular in the US as well.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Toad

The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.

 East Timor

 Tronsky

[StSanta]

Dago wrote:
I have lost all respect for the current French government, and I feel simililarly towards the German and Russian governments. Facts and evidence have already come to light proving these countries were selling banned items to Iraq in violation of UN resolutions. They made profit and would have preferred to continue these profits at whatever cost necessary. They did not care about the thousands of innocents that Hussien slaughtered.

As I said before, I feel the US made mistakes regarding Iraq. I did not agree that we needed to attack Iraq when we did, and I don't think they considered all the ramifications that would result.

So have you gained a lot of respect for the Polish government and people, the Danes etc?

We're losing people in Iraq, too. And we did in Afghanistan as well.

This stupid "the French, Russians and Germans are Euros ergo all Euros suck" that is so common in the US shows only ignorance of both the geographical and political makeup of Europe. It's a diverse place.

Even though my country has actively supported the US about all the way, I still find it ironic that Bush now wants assistance with policing Iraq. He screwed the UN hard and didn't pursue all diplomatic options (probably due to a timeline for war, would be bad if the weather acted up) and now he's asking for their assistance? One must realize that France, Russia, Germany and a lot of other UN member states feel that the US gave them one up their arse - for good reason. That was what happened - the US showed that they could do it on their own, when they wanted to, regardless of objections even from rich allied nations. So there's some irony there.

The Project For A New American Century is scary reading for any non American. I'd rather fight to the death than be under American administration. And I *like* Americans and the US in general. I will *not* accept, however, being ruled from across the pond. The situation in Iraq is different though, with there being a transition from dictatorship to democracy. The 'coalition of the willing' have an exceedingly hard job, and the sooner the UN steps in officially, the sooner the operation there will gain international 'legality' so to speak, making it much easier to move on. Right now nationalists and Ba'ath loyalists have an easy time claiming the US presence is an occupation and that the US isn't intent on democracy in the future, but rather control.

I hope the UN will step in. I just bet the US is gotta make some serious apologies/fence mending before that happens which is sad but given previous behaviour perfectly predictable.

Someone mentioned that the US could invade the whole world and win. Perhaps the US could win the war. They'd not be able to win the peace though. The Romans became militarily overstretched and their imperialism grew widespread discontent. They lasted for long but it is the nature of empires to have a beginning, a middle and an end. This Project for a new American Century clearly spells out the policy of the neo-conservatives - and as it does, it also spells out the ultimate result for such a venture, should it be implemented.

[Eagler]

the US is the UN

if not please explain what the UN is without the US? what EXACTLY the UN is capable of doing on a global scale with the US military and $$$ behind it?

hmm?

now pls STFU

[Dowding]

now pls STFU

Yeah d00d! Check out my l33t debating skills and intellectual prowess!

[StSanta]

Originally posted by Eagler
the US is the UN

if not please explain what the UN is without the US? what EXACTLY the UN is capable of doing on a global scale with the US military and $$$ behind it?

hmm?

now pls STFU

Eagler, if this was literally true, why would Bush bother to ask the UN for assistance? He is, after all, president of the Un through being president of the US, since the US is the UN.



Your initial quote is reminiscient of the 'Hitler is germany and germany is Hitler' speech thingy.

And as far as Godwins law goes, I'll claim 'meme upon meme defense.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by StSanta

So have you gained a lot of respect for the Polish government and people, the Danes etc?

 He screwed the UN hard and didn't pursue all diplomatic options (probably due to a timeline for war, would be bad if the weather acted up) and now he's asking for their assistance? [/B]

I have respect for the ALL coalition forces, they have shown courage and foresight that many other countries just dont seem to have.

As far as Bush screwing the UN I am afraid that many people see it the other way. The UN (led by France) screwed the USA. They didnt show any concern for the people of Iraq but showed lots of concern for the revenue stream they were going to lose. Now they will only be involved in Iraq if they are given political and economic perks with the side benifit of crapping on America.