Disarmament Was Working... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-20-2003, 11:54 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Angel, here are some of the countries who are supposedly with the US:

Denmark, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Slovenia, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Macedonia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ethiopia...

But first, read this interesting article...


A Coalition of the Willing?
From the Washington Post:

France and Germany lead European opposition to a speedy attack. But Britain, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Portugal, as well as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have firmly backed the U.S. position. On Wednesday, 10 more European governments, in the former communist east, jointly declared support for Washington. They were Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

A quick scan of opinion polls reveals that, while governments are supporting the US, the people are solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action in all but a few countries. This can be explained by diplomatic pressure which has, for now, overcome a distinct lack of popular support in the following countries:

Britain: 86% say give weapons inspectors more time, 34% think that US and Britain have made a convincing case for invasion.

Spain: 80% opposed to war, 91% against attack without UN resolution

Italy: 72% opposed to war

Portugal: 65% say there is no reason to attack now

Hungary: 82% opposed to invasion under any circumstances

Czech Republic: 67% opposed to invasion under any circumstances

Poland: 63% against sending Polish troops, 52% support US "politically"

Denmark: 79% oppose war without U.N. mandate

Australia: 56 per cent only backed UN-sanctioned action, 12% support unilateral action. 76% oppose participation in a US-led war on Iraq. Australian Senate voted 33-31 to censure Howard for committing 2,000 soldiers to US action.

The "Vilnius 10" is a group of 9 countries that are seeking membership in NATO and Croatia. In many cases, their future security depends on NATO membership. In Estonia, for example, there is a tangible fear that Russia will take over again, given a militaristic enough government and the right opportunity (the--thankfully past--popularity of the fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky was a good indication of this possibility. Zhirinovsky had a map in his office showing the borders of Russia expanded to include the former Soviet Union and Alaska). In any case, it's doubtful that these governments are supporting the US for any other reason than to get diplomatic points (or conversely, not piss away their chances of NATO membership).

Taking Estonia as an example again, we find that the government has supported war without any debate in Parliament, despite 70% of the people and major newspapers opposed to war in Iraq.

Latvia: 74% oppose taking out Hussein with military force

Romania: 38% opposed, 45% in favour

Macedonia: 10% support war on Iraq

Bulgaria: 21% support war

Estonia: 30% support war

Slovakia: 60% oppose sending Slovak soldiers

Information for Albania, Croatia, Slovenia and Lithuania was immediately available via Google news, but according to this report, Romania is the only country in the "Vilnius 10" that has a majority of the population supporting the war.

For comparison purposes:

France: 76% against war without UN support

Germany: 55% against war with UN support, 90% against war without UN support. 57% hold the opinion that "the United States is a nation of warmongers".
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 11:57 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by womanfish
Actually there are 45 countries that are supporting the U.S. / U.K. /Spain led invasion. (Funny how the only one ever criticized is the U.S.) 30 nations that are listed and 15 that are unlisted, most of those unlisted are middle-east countries afraid of Saddam gassing them, but they are obvious (ie. Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc...)

DISARMAMENT WORKING!?!?!?!!? - You are out of your mind! The only time they even started to slightly disarm - and I do mean slightly, was when there were 250,000 troops starting to surround them! Inspections weren't working - threat of force was starting to work, but of course Saddam just destroying a few missles a week to keep people like you saying that things were going great. Laughable.

Almost as laughable as France's statement of "We'll come help if they use chemical or biological weapons" even though we have been spouting off for the last 4 months that they don't have them! The funniest part is that it was from FRENCH INTELLIGENCE that we found out they Iraqi souldiers had been given chemical, and maybe biological weapons to use and the go ahead to use them from Saddam. Yet Chirac still says we can't prove that they have them? THey aren't a threat? Good lord people are ridiculous.
Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action. That was the point. To actually invade without another resolution and world backing is another story altogether.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 11:57 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel
Are you sure about Turkey? all I know is that they won't allow US troups in their country to position themselves along the Iraqi-Turkey border.
Turkey has gven the US access to its airspace.

Add Poland to the list - they are sending 200 troops.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 11:59 AM   #19
Elvis' Naughty Angel
 
Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: not here
Posts: 4,609
Local Time: 12:14 AM
thx Michael. Interesting.......

I have to say though, that I am pretty ashamed of Canada right now. It's one thing to not support the war, but at least take a stance in some way. We are just sitting on the fence. Do we? Don't we? Will we? Won't we?
I don't want to live in Switzerland.
No one respects a country who can't take a position. We lack credibility now more than we ever did.
__________________
Angel is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:00 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,186
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel
Are you sure about Turkey? all I know is that they won't allow US troups in their country to position themselves along the Iraqi-Turkey border.
What Turkey has given support for is the ability to use their airspace which wasn't a sure thing a few weeks ago. They are in closed door sessions today discussing if we would be allowed to use ground space there. You have to remember. These people are terrified of Saddam, they know better than most what he has and is capable of. I don't blame them for not going in fully. But they definitely aren't against us. I would be afraid to since countries like France and Germany have said they wouldn't help Turkey if Turkey were attacked by Iraq, even though it's there duty as members of NATO.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:05 PM   #21
Elvis' Naughty Angel
 
Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: not here
Posts: 4,609
Local Time: 12:14 AM
I find this whole thing extremely interesting at the moment, from a political perspective.
__________________
Angel is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:11 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,186
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths


Yes, disarmament was working with the thread of military action. That was the point. To actually invade without another resolution and world backing is another story altogether.
Actually Michael, you misunderstood. I said he started to disarm SLIGHTLY. A few missles a week is a complete joke. Do you know what is unacounted for? Tons of VX Nerve gas, Tons of Anthrax, hundreds of missles to deliver these agents, and now new intelligence saying he has created a VX nerve paste which he plans to cover roads and bridges with.

Do you not remember that he has used these weapons in the past to kill his own people and the people of Kuwait and threatend use in Israel and Turkey? He is a madman that would never, ever give up these weapons. They are his power. Your mistake is that you assume he is a logical person that will say, ok - I may be killed or the innocent people of my country may be harmed if I don't hand over my weapons of destruction. Ha ha ha, He LOVES for his people to be killed. He's putting women and children up as human shields, He puts anti-aircraft guns on top of schools, apartments, and mosks.

Please don't think he is reasonable or would ever disarm without force. It just would never happen.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:13 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Hey, no problem Angel. Well, I personally think Cretien has taken a stand. He has stated he doesn't support a military strike without an okay by the UN security council (another resolution), and he's said that all along. I agree with him on that. He can't outright condemn the initiative, even if he wanted to, because there is no purpose for that. Politically, he has to be careful. The war was going to happen either way, regardless of his and Canada's position. He made the necessary precautions (there won't be any young Canadians getting their heads blown off for an ititiative that he felt should have been handled differently). I think, for once, he "did good".
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:19 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 01:44 AM
The best point here is the issue of there being dozens of countires with tyrants at least as bad as saddam who, IMO, is not as big a threat as many.

it seems to me to be a selective thing. Why in the past have the US done business with dictorships or ignored tyrants and genocides and now they're choosing to dump over 100,000 soldiers and armored units and planes and everything in the weak iraq.
They could have saved a lot of money and just invaded on horseback brandishing swords.
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:24 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,186
Local Time: 04:14 AM
So Michael, you don't find it interesting that Iraqi troops are being supplied with chemical weapons, the very weapons they said they destroyed in 1991? That doesn't give you any pause for thought?
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:25 PM   #26
Elvis' Naughty Angel
 
Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: not here
Posts: 4,609
Local Time: 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Griffiths
Politically, he has to be careful.
Indeed he does. But has he? I am not convinced. Look to the south Michael. Who are our neighbours?
I think it is our duty to be supportive of the US. Just my opinion and I totally respect yours, but I am not a fan of Chretien and I think his behaviour is weak and he is thinking along the lines of re-election, and popular opinion, not along the lines of what could potentially be better for our country in the long run.
He is been in power far too long. Our electoral system is borderline dictator creating. We need fresh blood making decisions on behave of our nation.
__________________
Angel is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:34 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 01:44 AM
Now that the war has started I have no choice in my mind but to hope the americans win fast.
And, though I don't agree that any country has the right to invade another country unprovoked and change the regime I do agree that it will be a better place with saddam.
It bothers me, the whole forcing democracy on other countries...it rarely works.

okay...but I see no way in which this war could have been any bit beneficial for canada.
Going on the idea that there are dozens of countries like iraq, america must be therefore attacking iraq for their own security. Canada is not sufficiently threatened by iraq to attack them.

We'll help out the US after with humanitarian efforts. that is enough
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:46 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 4,186
Local Time: 04:14 AM
I agree Basstrap. It's hard for countries who are not in much of a threat terrorism-wise to feel an immediate threat from Iraq. If you notice, three of the four biggest supporters of the Iraq invasion have been targets of terrorism (U.S., U.K., Australia)

And with all that money your government has from your high taxes up there in Canada, I hope you come help rebuild.
__________________
womanfish is online now  
Old 03-20-2003, 12:55 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel
It's one thing to not support the war, but at least take a stance in some way.

Which is exactly why I'll be voting for the NDP in the upcoming election.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-20-2003, 01:00 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angel

Indeed he does. But has he? I am not convinced. Look to the south Michael. Who are our neighbours?
I think it is our duty to be supportive of the US. Just my opinion and I totally respect yours, but I am not a fan of Chretien and I think his behaviour is weak and he is thinking along the lines of re-election, and popular opinion, not along the lines of what could potentially be better for our country in the long run.
He is been in power far too long. Our electoral system is borderline dictator creating. We need fresh blood making decisions on behave of our nation.
Well, I think he has to balance his principles with his politics in that even if he is opposed to the Iraqi invasion (for whatever reasons, let's just say), he would still have to find the middle ground to utilize Canada's relationship with the US. I think Canada should be supportive of something only if we agree. According to recent polls, 75% of Canadians are against military action without the support of the UN. So, if you look at it that way, he's representing the public view in this case. Also, he's not doing so simply to get re-elected: he has already stated he's not running again. He's stepping down at the end of his term. Paul Martin, among others, are in the running for his replacement.

I think Cretien and Canada as a whole are here to support the US and other nations in a humanitarian respect. We will be there to help clean up damage, to help feed and clothe. I don't think we can support the way the war was carried through, but now that it has happened, we will be fully cooperative, I'm sure.
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com