Europe has really failed miserably in the Iraq situation - 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 02-07-2003, 06:15 PM   #1
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Europe has really failed miserably in the Iraq situation

I am disgusted about the way Europe is acting re. the possible war on Iraq

a lot of Europeans (not so much forum members, but in general) are very good in pointing out that that the US - especially re. the upcoming war in Iraq - does what it wants to and doesn't want to listen to what anyone else has to say

let alone whether I agree with that or not, it is a bit of a ludicrous statement since - even now - Europe isn't able to present a uniform opinion
to who do we expect the US to listen to???
which European country except for Great Britain has even tried to talk to the US???

Tony Blair has gotten a lot of flack because of the way he has handled himself in this situation, but - whatever you might think of Blair - the US government at least listens to him
Blair is the only one who is at least able to have some sort of influence on what's going on while the rest does near to nothing


if the European Community really thinks the US is wrong then they should have said so 2 months ago
if the European Community really thinks the US is right then they should stand beside the US 100%
if the European Community really isn't able to come to a united point of view on this then we should just restrict ourselves to being a economic Union and leave it at that
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is online now  
Old 02-07-2003, 06:26 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 10:14 PM
here here.
__________________

__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-07-2003, 08:38 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 12:14 AM
I understand your critique, Salome, but have in mind that the European union is not a full political union yet. The states are just working on the European Convent.

And the work is proceeding relatively slowly, because no member state wants to "unnecessarily" give away rights. The principle of subsidiarity is part of the upcoming European constitution.

Then, there will be lots of new member states in the next years. The European community will nearly grow to the double of the size it has now.

Apart from that, England has the classical role of acting like the political bridge between Europe and the U.S. Thats why the decision might be easier for Blair, even if he is not supported by a majority of the English population.

Schroeder in Germany must think to the next elections, just like Bush does in the U.S. The majority of Europeans is against war. This is why it might be difficult to go with Blair, who wants to keep the good diplomatic connection to the U.S.

The European politicians are careful, too, because the upcoming case might serve as a decision process, an example for further cases.

Finally, think to the EADS, in compare of the five big in the U.S. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrup Grumman). This is capital, simply quarreling with other capital. Some Europeans want to "do their own thing". On the other hand, they dont have a united army yet, they are still in preparation stage. So who can decide if to send German soldiers to fight and die in a war? Only the German politicians.

And to your question, which European country has ever tried talking to the U.S.- they are talking all the time, and not only in the system of the United Nations.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 04:08 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 11:14 PM
Salome, European states have been talking to US in UN - except no one is listening.
__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 09:21 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:14 PM


The US isn't listening?

The evidence is to the contrary. The President was authorized by congress to use force if he wished on Saddam Hussein. This was passed by a BI-PARTISAN congress. The President has not used that force yet.

Through the urging of our allies (Tony Blair) and through Colin Powell, the evidence is there that the President has chosen a diplomatic route, and that he is dually preparing to use force if the Diplomatic route failed.

They went to the UN and got the vote for the curent round of inspections. The inspections are occuring and once again the evidence supports that there are again violations and deception taking place. Hanz Blix has said the Iraqi's are not cooperating.

Now, it appears we are going forward with another resolution when Russia, so far not supporting the use of force, feels that we do not need another, that use of force was implied in the last resolution.

Again....

Salome, I am not very familiar with the politics of Europe, but I agree, that not just Tony Blair, but Europe has influenced the politics of the last 6-7 months. The US has been attemtping to work to please the Europeans, and others through the UN.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 09:35 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 11:14 PM
There's a new proposition from Germany to solve this thing as we speak.


Well, the problem is it's hard for Europe to do anything because it's split over this. Some support US, and some do not. France, Russia and Germany have said war can be avoided all along, said inspectors should be given more time and that UN should handle this. Both Bush and Blair have spoken to several European leaders.

Not good enough?


Dreadsox: I know Bush got the war approval in congress - and it's good US is going through UN. BUT on the other hand, he also said another resolution is "welcome, but not necessary" and that he would act "with or without UN".
Some say resolution 1441 breech is enough to go to war, some don't. I read an interview with a law expert and he says it's open to various explanations.

I was watching "Blair on Iraq" on BBC and he said that he feels more people would support war if another resolution was passed. If this resolution was to be given a "unreasonable veto", he said he'd still consider force - under certain conditions.


__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 10:35 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2girl


I was watching "Blair on Iraq" on BBC and he said that he feels more people would support war if another resolution was passed. If this resolution was to be given a "unreasonable veto", he said he'd still consider force - under certain conditions.

I would actually welcome another resolution. I think that it would be nice to make a firm stand the way they did last fall.

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 10:47 AM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The evidence is to the contrary. The President was authorized by congress to use force if he wished on Saddam Hussein. This was passed by a BI-PARTISAN congress. The President has not used that force yet.

ummmmm bi-partisan? Is that what it's called when the Republicans are in the majority? The decision authorizing the use of force came after the November elections, right? Do you remember when it came down, because I'm not exactly sure.



And Salome - the United States will never listen to France. Or to The Netherlands or Italy. The fact is, it will always have the attitude that single European countries (with perhaps the exception of England, because we like listening to them apparently) don't "carry" the same "load" as the US does - economically and militarily, which is unfortunate, because the US is just being stubborn.

Despite the fact that the EU isn't truly a solid formation yet, could it still speak up? Please?
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 11:34 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:14 PM
The congressional authorization to use force against Iraq occured before the November elections. The Majority of Democrats supported the resolutions authorizing force against Iraq if it failed cooperate with the United Nations. Portugal, Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania all support the USA. Turkey is letting the USA stationed large numbers of troops on its border with Iraq. There is lots of support out there for the USA position.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 11:35 AM   #10
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:14 AM
I wonder how much people's views would change if the EU did give full support.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 11:43 AM   #11
The Fly
 
the olive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Above the golden arch
Posts: 282
Local Time: 10:14 PM
One of Leno's jokes last night:

"France has said it will not help the US kick Saddam out of Iraq... Well Duh! France didn't even help the US kick the Germans out of France!"
__________________
the olive is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 02:01 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly



ummmmm bi-partisan? Is that what it's called when the Republicans are in the majority? The decision authorizing the use of force came after the November elections, right? Do you remember when it came down, because I'm not exactly sure.

The use of force vote was before the election. It was in October.

Let me quote from the Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives:

This bipartisan resolution will send the strong, clear signal that America is committed to ending the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the world - through diplomacy if he will allow it, but through military action if he refuses.

http://dcaucusweb.house.gov/home/doc...wer.asp?ID=258

Peace
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 02:19 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:14 PM
To Quote Senetor Hillary Rodham Clinton:

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

And the votes in the House of Representatives were:

On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 296 - 133 (Roll no. 455). 10/10/02


And the Votes in the Senate were:
Passed Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 77 - 23. Record Vote Number: 237. 10/11/02


I am curious as to why, when something is clrearly agreed upon by a majority of both parties you would resort to political rhetoric. It was clearly Bi-Partisan. It was before the Republicans controlled two of the branches of government.

Peace

PS Apologies for getting off topic. Just felt it needed correcting.


__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 02:36 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 04:14 PM
I was seriously asking that question...I thought the vote had been taken in late November for some reason, thanks for clarifying though.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 02-08-2003, 02:37 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
I was seriously asking that question...I thought the vote had been taken in late November for some reason, thanks for clarifying though.
Come on...now a kid your age...losing memory cells already????
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox 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 05:14 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