View Full Version : Americans v Europeans, Why?
housecarl
02-13-2003, 10:53
I have noticed a lot of posts expressing animosity between Americans and Europeans not just here but also in the .com site and in following a link from a member here to another games forum. Being quite long in the tooth I come from a generation that was brought up to regard the Americans as allies and friends, and in my personal and business world have never really found anyone who has any dislike of Americans. I have worked in America, in Arizona (now that was a hot place I was starting to dream fondly of rain!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif, and found everyone friendly and helpful, although it did strike me how, to everyone there, the world ended at the Canadian and Mexican borders.
True I am British which has always been a loyal and stalwart ally of America but I worked for a time in Switzerland and Germany and never found any animosity from the people I met and worked with towards America, but that was in the 1980’s. I was just wondering if it was a new phenomenon, born of the uncertainty of the post Soviet era, or is it a deepening divide in the way the world is regarded? The crisis in NATO has turned my thoughts to these issues more acutely. I know here in Britain the current president Bush is not very well regarded, and although we like to think we are tolerant we are beginning to find the Hollywood treatment of Britain a trifle wearing, but generally this has not dampened our enthusiasm and liking for Americans.
So it is surprising to see such venom in the comments between Europeans and Americans, is it the safety of anonymity to enable people to express views they would never utter in reality to each other or am I interpreting it all too seriously and in fact its all good natured banter that sometimes gets out of hand?
the main prob, is it's not the people for the most part, it's the opposing governments that are chapping everyones behinds... they critisize us gov, us defend critisize them, becomes a viscous circle.. this thread will prob turn ugly..imo.
seen it enough times, tempers flair posts go way off topic, mods shut them down.. human nature, both sides assume their right and are unwilling to sway opinion..
i try to keep my head down, not get to involved in some threads, doesn't always work, i dragged myself down to that level a couple of times..
the iraq, thing has everyone on edge though, everyone trying to convinve the other their right, and to be honest i gonna try and stop.. no matter what we say or do here, it won't change our own governments views or attitudes.
housecarl
02-13-2003, 11:14
I agree, I just found it sad to see so much anger amongst former friends. I hoped I was wrong and that I was misinterpreting the whole thing and it was just good natured banter. If it does get ugly then it was a mistake on my part to have posted my comments.
don't let that stop you, we usually tear the hell out of each other one day, then the next were joking around, usually no one gets to upset, if so tell them and 99% of the time they'll apologize, no one wants to be mean or spiteful like i said when tempers flare, they say things they usually don't mean.. as long as you don't flame or get to personal it's not a major problem, the only other thing is try and stay on topic, that's on thing that upsets some people. just mingle with the folks and you'll have a blast. only been here about a month, and this is the friendliest board i've been to even when disagreeing with each other.
come on down to the tavern the first rounds on me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
housecarl
02-13-2003, 11:41
Thanks mine’s a pint of Theakstons Old Peculiar if they’ve got it.....
It is not easy to explain this animosity... But along the years (starting from WW2), at some point relations turned more sour. Right after WW2 till roughly vietnam americans got idolised by europeans. Everything they did was considered to be great and such. Vietnam started to change the image of the nice big brother europa had of the USA, and slowly that idolisation from pre-vietnam started to turn into dissapointment. One quickly started to disgree with its politics (even when one did not know anything bout it) but its culture remained very interested still for a while. The end of cold war as well as USA involvement in other countries affairs in lets say the last 2 decades increased this feeling of dissapointment, which in some cases are turned into sceptism, resentment or just animosity.
There are many more other factors which play a role in this but well... I don't want to drag too long about this subject
The thing is that there is an inreased feeling of Europeans dissapointment towards the States which is returned by an increased feeling of european ungratefullness from the Americans which sometimes collide and result in these seemingly mutual hatred. Usually no one gets upset as long as people can talk about this instead of the annoying and pathethic America ruxors vs America suxors bashes one can find easily on forums and chatrooms. Fortunetly I haven't seen these in MTW community as of yet.
For me personally, I like the country and its people in a general way. Some americans i dislike, and some i am glad to count as friends. Its just its politics, the way its society works generally as well as few other things i disagree with from now and then, but thats what a free democracy stands for i guess http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Longshanks
02-13-2003, 17:03
I don't think things are as bad as seem. There always seems to be alot of bickering an animosity between Americans and Brits on message boards, but I find that isn't the case in real life.
I was in London two months ago, had a great time and met some great people. Everyone was nice.(Can't say the same about Paris)I didn't expect any different. I was raised to always regard Britain as an ally, and I always thought that out of all the nations in the world, America and the UK had the best relatioship, despite occaisional differences.
With message boards I think you just get the knucklehead element from both nations stirring the pot. Some other people who are normally rational, get pulled into it and before you know it there is bad blood and flame wars.
In real life though the knuckleheads keep their mouths shout out of fear of receiving a punch to the mouth.
A.Saturnus
02-13-2003, 17:14
An important point may be that Europeans and Americans had always much different views on a lot of things, but this was negated during the Cold War because we had common enemies. Nowadays, it`s much more complicated and the Europeans see that America does a lot of things they dislike. Another point is that with the European Union, our nations want to play a greater role in the world and don`t agree so easily with the US any more. But I think this only reflects disagreement with the politics. Most people in Europe don`t dislike American people and vice versa - or so I hope.
This is common on most off-topic game boards I visit. I think the pending war has heightened the rivalry beyond it's normal place.
Like Jayrock said, we generally get along here quite well, even after spirited disagreements. Keep in mind, the average attention span on a forum is about 6 minutes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Seriously though, things are said in the heat of the moment but sanity usually returns.
Why the disagreement? I think Americans and Europeans have slightly different ranges of social values. This can be seen in govt policy and is related to each region's respective history IMO. These are disagrements on moral ground which intelligent people can handle and still respect each other. I grumble about France & Germany's current stance regarding Iraq, in fact I complain about France for all kinds of things, but if something were to happen to either of those two coutries, I would be all for supporting them. I think (hope) this is a common sentiment on both sides. Friends can disagree, after all.
btw - i rarely argue w/Brits, I luv those guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Gregoshi
02-13-2003, 22:16
In my experience on the Org forums, these types of things come and go as the world situation changes. As things heat up in the world forum, they heat up here. Eventually people get tired of the arguing and I think it is starting now. Look at the number of topics showing up in the Tavern sub-titled no politics. These times shall pass...
Hate to be controversial but i couldnt resist this one, so here goes. americans were perfectly happy to appease saddam until a little incident last september when 3000 americans were killed, when you watch the pentagon burn for 3 days out of your office window and you have friends killed in the wtc your attitude changes a bit about wanting to eliminate very real terrorist threats. dont say saddam doesnt support terrorism, he blatantly admits paying palestinians to blow themselves indiscriminantly in israel, dont think for a minute he would hesistate to strike in other ways if he thought he could get away with it. thats what this is all about. for those who say this is all about oil, i agree, guess who most of saddam's oil goes to these days, France and Germany, I wonder why they want to keep appeasing him? i dont have to tell you what happens when you keep appeasing brutal dictators. its natural and healthy that europeans and americans (or anybody else) disagree on worldly matters (or which faction is more fun to play) but it is surprising to me that France and Germany would ally themselves with somebody like Saddam in this case. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif
sorry, i obviously meant blow themselves up not blow themselves, although it does add a bit of humor to an alltogether serious post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well Britain insults America a lot, but deep down most people regard them as close allies and would probably support them if they had to, just a bit jealous. And you are all idiots. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
But the French and Germans are different, especially the French. Far more hatred and stuff like that, France trying to show it still has power and influence on the Security Council and Nato, although it will probably destroy them at this rate.
Foreign Devil
02-14-2003, 01:41
I spent a week in Germany last summer as part of an exchange program. They visited us, and we visited them. The cool part was that we stayed with German families for a week. We had a great time- we'd go out drinking every night, go see the sights, and just have an all around good time.
My point here is that the people on an individual level can get along with each other. I only ran into one or people who seemed annoyed with me, and to be fair, I did enjoy plaing the arrogant american tourist. It's the governments and its policies that cause friction.
Don't know about France, though. But the common perception here is that they don't like us at all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
i have to agree with Jazzman on this one. After 9/11 things changed. I live in Florida now but was living near D.C. when when it happened. America changed after that day. We arnt playing around anymore. If we even think you might be harboring (or working with Terriosts) we are coming to get you. Plan and simple. If the rest of the world disagree's with us or not, it doesnt matter. We will do what it takes to protect or country.
As much as it pains me to say this... Australia, Germany, France etc.... just wait. Once a major terror attack happens in your country you will be singing a different tune. Hopefully you will never have to go through something like that but its probally gonna get worse before it gets better.
Rob The Bastard
02-14-2003, 07:30
It's a common perception all over the place... Show me someone the French do like...Saddam?? ahhhh o.k...who else?... ... ... ... times up.
Of course, I would probably think kinder thoughts about the French, if their Govt. hadn't got their secret service to plant limpet mines on the Rainbow Warrior...not that I am bitter or twisted about this. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
ShadesWolf
02-14-2003, 07:39
------------------------------------------------
The following is my opinion, and my opinion only
------------------------------------------------
England and America have a very close relationship, and always have. For a start we have a fairly common back ground and we speak the same language. This makes communication a lot similar, and it is not very often that we mistake what is ment.....
The UK is undergoing a dramatic change, there is pressure for us to have closure links with mainland europe. This in my opinion is a very large mistake. Countries of Europe historically has been the UK's enemy. The idea of a single state in my opinion is a joke. We are to different a people. We should respect our differences. (and before anybody says it YES I know we had a war with the USA and they kicked us out.)
This is I believe is the underlying problem, and becuase the UK has always had a special relationship with the US it causes friction with other member EU states.
Therefore there is a power truggle for who wants to be No1. At the moment the USA is top dog, and the 'EUROPEAN UNION' wants that position. This causes a major problem for the UK......
Are we part of the EU or should we stay major friends with the USA ?
yeah. well... i think if there is one thing we all can agree on is..... Nobody likes the french http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Rob The Bastard
02-14-2003, 08:26
Quote ]If we even think you might be harboring (or working with Terriosts) we are coming to get you. Plan and simple. If the rest of the world disagree's with us or not, it doesnt matter. We will do what it takes to protect or country.[/b]
So... no proof is required...and that is the most frightening thought...not that a terrorist may target my country for supporting America during most of its wars...but that one day America may think that any country ( any country at all) may be a threat and destroy its goverment, its military, its infrastructure...causing civilian casulties and unleashing devastation such as America will never have to endure...
You set no limits on who, how, where you will attack.
As long as AMERICANS are safe , anything goes...and screw the rest of the world's people.
You are abandoning the use of diplomacy as a means of resolving disputes...instead war is your solution...will you apply this to other disputes and countries? We are uncertain.
...and you Americans wonder why people of other countries are unnerved by the rhetoric that we hear???
You are threatening every person on the face of the planet in your quest for vengance...and maybe the only way for you to feel safe is to purge the world of eveyone except Americans...the thing is that you do have the power to do this...and we are afraid...very afraid that this will come to pass...
Tell me I'm wrong...
*** No emoticons were damaged in the making of this post***
*** Please don't think that I am anti American...that is not the case...I am merely nervous ***
*** Please note that I am responding in a polite manner to the topic and quoted post, and not abusing Anyone or their Country, please respond in a similar manner***
Quote[/b] ]o... no proof is required...and that is the most frightening thought...not that a terrorist may target my country for supporting America during most of its wars...but that one day America may think that any country ( any country at all) may be a threat and destroy its goverment, its military, its infrastructure...causing civilian casulties and unleashing devastation such as America will never have to endure...
there ya go.... pick apart my post then make some long rant about how your nnneeerrrvvvoouuuusss. get a grip. The American people wouldn't stand for it if we just attacked every country without proof.
Im sorry i used the word THINK we know for a FACT that Saddam has supported Terrorists in the past and he will do whatever it takes to get back at America.
Quote[/b] ]You are abandoning the use of diplomacy as a means of resolving disputes...instead war is your solution...will you apply this to other disputes and countries? We are uncertain.
Using Diplomacy on a man who will gas his on people and starve them to death just so he can have a few missles is like trying to knock a brick wall over by banging your head against it. Stop being so dramatic.
Quote[/b] ]You are threatening every person on the face of the planet in your quest for vengance...and maybe the only way for you to feel safe is to purge the world of eveyone except Americans...the thing is that you do have the power to do this...and we are afraid...very afraid that this will come to pass...
How the hell are we threating your life by attacking Iraq???
Where are you coming up with this stuff???
Trust me.... we keep you more safe then you will ever know (or admit)
ShadesWolf
02-14-2003, 08:49
AGAIN we have double standards......
Tony Blair is trying to be against terrorism. This is a joke
Siting in the UK parliament are a number of IRA terrorist. These people because they say they have given up on the 'killing' and have been forgiven and allowed to sit as members of parliament.
We have a Muslim cleric nicknamed 'Doctor Hook' who stands up in London preaching anti American/British hate. He say it is ok to kill a non Muslim. There are also others.....
Britain will allow anybody in, and they can say anything they want against anybody, and we say we are against terrorism..............
WHAT A JOKE WE ARE 11
TheViking
02-14-2003, 10:20
Im anti-american, why? i based my opinion on the amercians i heard, met, and talked with. But i also have to say that there is exceptional cases, i do like some of you US americans.
And also, isnt it like this in US, your not guilty till proven guilty?? All i heard is that US demand that Iraq prove that they dont have WMD
shouldnt it then be US cause to prove that Iraq have WMD?
And another thing, north Korea have said that they will nuke US, the IF i forgot, so why dont US start war with them.
Quote[/b] ]And also, isnt it like this in US, your not guilty till proven guilty?? All i heard is that US demand that Iraq prove that they dont have WMD
shouldnt it then be US cause to prove that Iraq have WMD?
its not a matter of IF Iraq has WMD. We all know they have them. They have had them for decades. They keep playing hide and seek with the inspector's. Germany, France, and Russia are bitching about us going to war with Iraq because they make a TON of money every year off Iraq selling them weapons and importing Oil from them.
And China... well... If we (The USA) said the Sky was blue, China would Veto that and say its Red just to disagree with us. They dont like us and we dont like them. How the hell did a Communist country get on the security council anyway?? For that matter how did they get into the U.N.??
Quote[/b] ]Im anti-american
Well.... im Anti-you then
not Anti-Swedish
I honestly dont know the first thing about Sweden. All i know is its cold.
A.Saturnus
02-14-2003, 12:19
ahhmm... Germany gets 80% of it`s oil from England and 15% from Norway and Russia. Only 4% are coming from Arabian lands. Don`t know about France but as far as I know the main users of Arabian oil are the US and Japan. It`s a silly argument anyway to say European nations would blockade the war because of economical reasons. If the embargos stop, the oil price will fall, so only oil exporters could have an interest to stop the war. If GB would veto the war, you could assume economical reason, but with France and Germany? Nonsense
No, the reasons why we are against the war are political and moral.
America is very frightening to the world. Yes, the US have done much to protect itself and its allies in the past. But it`s just as with a very large dog. It can guard your house but what if it gets rabied? If you`re as strong as America, you better not bark at everyone including friends or everyone will think you`ll bite everyone.
troymclure
02-14-2003, 12:44
my two cents...
France and Germany do get something. They are Iraq's two biggest trading partners, they also do get oil rights and although it's only french and german companies it still affects the government. I find it odd that the two most vocal anti-war countries are the ones with the most to lose.
OTOH
America also stands to gain alot from this war, not only do they get access to the oil that france and germany are trying to protect they also get to help set a possibly friendly government right smack dab in the middle of a very non-friendly region. I'm thinking there hoping to stem the power of saudi arabia, cause that's were wahhabism comes from (Bin Laden = Wahhabist) and they can't attack it directly...
Either way i don't see a totally clean conscience on either side of the fence right now.
Of course i might just be jumping at paper tigers.
TheViking
02-14-2003, 18:03
Its easy to pull all over the edge,, or how you say it in english,, and its wrong of me to do so, but i cant help it, we should have a real discussion, so you know why i think like i do, and this opinion didnt just pop up its something i got during the 7-8 last years.
And China... well... If we (The USA) said the Sky was blue, China would Veto that and say its Red just to disagree with us. They dont like us and we dont like them. How the hell did a Communist country get on the security council anyway?? For that matter how did they get into the U.N.??
China??? I was talking about north Korea,, 2 diferent countrys
Cold in Sweden,, what do you compare it with,, and why do you think its cold here
in southern sweden it aint so cold, not even in winter thats where i live, northern sweden its cold in winter, and in summer its very warm.
Colder than Texas, I bet
Average temperature here in January is 52 degrees Fahrenheit during the day, that is about 11 Celsius.
And that is North Texas, southern Texas is about 65 degrees Fahrenheit, 18 degrees Celsius.
Colder in any part of Sweden I would guess
Quote[/b] ]China??? I was talking about north Korea,, 2 diferent countrys
The reason i brought up China is because they are on the UN security council and they are blocking us from going to war also.
Quote[/b] ]Cold in Sweden,, what do you compare it with,, and why do you think its cold here
in southern sweden it aint so cold, not even in winter thats where i live, northern sweden its cold in winter, and in summer its very warm.
Well... i live in florida, so to me its a F---ing Iceberg
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
71-hour Ahmed
02-14-2003, 18:41
The US had no credible threat post-cold war, which is why the September 11th was such a big shock. Until then the US had no threats to its native soil. Same as Pearl Harbour.
Both cases US reacted strongly.
EU thinking is more tolerant of other viewpoints and inclined to avoid conflicts where possible. Natural, if you remember that it is a group of nations with a long history of bloody wars and mistakes, and with Africa, Russia and the Middle East on the borders.
I think its the natural difference you get when you go through the events of history. Fine and OK, and its healthy to have a difference. EU vs. USA? Fine by me if it pushes both nations/powerblocks forwards (our greatest technological leaps were made by the US/USSR).
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 14 2003,03:20)]And also, isnt it like this in US, your not guilty till proven guilty?? All i heard is that US demand that Iraq prove that they dont have WMD
shouldnt it then be US cause to prove that Iraq have WMD?
*sigh* there is a list of WMD destruction that was compiled by inspectors in 1991-1998. That list started with what Iraq admitted to having.
The US is looking for 1) Iraq to state where the WMD are now OR 2) Iraq to show those weapons were destroyed.
Initially Iraq completely avoided this issue, now they're coming up with some infomration on only a small portion of the WMD.
What I don't get is why Saddam doesn't just give them up. He'd be a fool to use them (his people will suffer, but maybe he doesn't care) and will have no need for them if he's ousted. His refusal to gie them up is ominous.
Quote[/b] ]The US had no credible threat post-cold war, which is why the September 11th was such a big shock. Until then the US had no threats to its native soil. Same as Pearl Harbour.
Both cases US reacted strongly.
EU thinking is more tolerant of other viewpoints and inclined to avoid conflicts where possible. Natural, if you remember that it is a group of nations with a long history of bloody wars and mistakes, and with Africa, Russia and the Middle East on the borders.
I think its the natural difference you get when you go through the events of history. Fine and OK, and its healthy to have a difference. EU vs. USA? Fine by me if it pushes both nations/powerblocks forwards (our greatest technological leaps were made by the US/USSR).
well said Ahmed =)
But i just find it very hard to believe the EU will stay strong down the road. Its just to many dam countrys to get along for a long period of time. but who knows... stranger things have happened.
One can't help but think this.
Europe has been ravaged by extremely destructive wars for centuries... We have learned a hard lesson, and slowly that is. How many times haven't we almost destroyed everything? Plenty.
The US on the other hand have only had 1 single destructive war, the Civil War. The rest have either had no real consequense (not counting the war of liberty as it gained something more important than the destruction was worth) in terms of the lives of the Americans, and in some cases the lives got better (WWI and WWII for instance). So naturally the US does not view wars as something you should avoid to a great extent, but an easy way to get the economy going and meanwhile you get your goals accomplished. If you look at the Gulf War it can even be quite costfree... Damn, if it was me in that situation I would view war as an easy way...
Mind you the point of view you should take is that of a politician, not as a person.
Naturally, I could be wrong, but it is something I have thought for a long time (before all this came up), so I just wanted to let you guys in on it.
a close friend of mine who's just on his way to gulf to join the troop build up - he said to me that he thinks the problem with people around the world is that they just don't trust the US president..
which made me wonder if it really was that...
i wondered if it would be any different if people did trust mr bush and i realised that fairness and equality were in our countries a long time ago enshrined with not just Trust in the individual but the rule of Law... if we trust in law rather than individuals then there can be no question of double standards or unfairness ... and that is why democracies are better than dictatorships (even if they are benign)
... i'm not sure about this terrorism link, but even if there was it seems that the real issue is saddam and his cronies and not the people of iraq.. so why don't we put him on trial? why don't we send our boyz and girls on a mission of real justice and arrest him and try him for crimes against humanity?
so i say lets all sign up to the war crimes tribunal and put these people before the world and without a shadow of a doubt lock them away forever.. lets sign up to law and order and act like true democarcies
peace
Big King Sanctaphrax
02-14-2003, 20:21
To be perfectly honest, I do not understand why it is that people are insisting on emplicit proof that Iraq have WMD. Even if we cannot find proof, he might still have them. If he doesn't have them, he will soon have them. And if there is any chance of Iraq having now or in the immeadiate future having WMD, we should go in. Why does everyone fell so SORRY for Saddam anyway? He's a totalitarian dictator, and a tyrant; what is peoples'problem with him going down? Also people keep playing up this 'Diplomacy to the death' angle. However, diplomacy only works if both sides are willing to listen to each other-Saddam, in his dealings with the WI's, has shown that his is not the case. He has to be gotten rid of sooner or later- I say that we should go in now, and limit any further damage. The US seem to have adopted this attiude and I am wholeheartedly in support of America at the moment. However, I know many people of my age(14) of violently anti-American sentiment, and it seems to be predominant in the youth of the UK. Sadly if you ask them why they dislike the U.S., they cannot tell you. Neither can I. It seems to be a mixture of jealousy, and peer-pressue induced hatred. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 14 2003,00:20)]Im anti-american, why? i based my opinion on the amercians i heard, met, and talked with. But i also have to say that there is exceptional cases, i do like some of you US americans.
And also, isnt it like this in US, your not guilty till proven guilty?? All i heard is that US demand that Iraq prove that they dont have WMD
shouldnt it then be US cause to prove that Iraq have WMD?
And another thing, north Korea have said that they will nuke US, the IF i forgot, so why dont US start war with them.
according to the first gulf war resolution, it is iraq responsibility to prove they've disarmed...it's their job if they want the sanctions lifted...
although it's a crock of sh*t..
the main reason saddam is the target, and not n, korea, is that no one really knows about n korea, while almost everyone has heard of saddam. bush needs a name to save him politicaly, he can't find bin laden to deliver to the masses in the us for justice so he picks another name, a name people over here know, saddam hussein. so let's give them saddam, bush is right about some of the things he doing, he's just doing it the wrong way. i myself personaly don't want our troops over their right now, not without proof, i mean good proof, show me the smoking gun type proof, then he'll get all the support i can give him.
that said however, i'm kinda stuck, i can't outright slam dunk the man, because he's the best chance we have at developing some of our resources up here, in about 10 years.
all in all this iraq thing will either make or break him fot his political future....
Well, I doubt people feel sorry for Saddam, but feel sorry for the Iraqi people... I have felt sorry for them since the last war when Iraq was put on the map for me... The last war costed many more civilian losses than we want to know, indications of 100k have been aired along with the 100k troops (more widely accepted).
Why a war? That is a big question... It does seem diplomacy is out, I will agree with that, and we do need to get rid of Saddam to get a more secure stability (it was stable before but we can never know with Saddam still there).
The US has the most powerful intelligence agency in the world... why not use them? They know how to do it... Can you say Pinochet? Yes it is not the same, but they can adapt, that is what they do. They kept agents in the Soviet Union, a policestate, even in DDR an even worse policestate, so Iraq should not be that hard comparably.
There are plenty of politicians with the right oppinions in exile, so there is a viable new government. But only if th Iraqi people will accept them (might look down on them for running away). And the Iraqi people are very fed up with Saddam but they are highly scared of him. Should it be known he and Uday are gone then the army would collapse (they have families in need too) and possibly only the Republican Guarde would be left and whoever won the infighting between Saddams advisors. An easy picking for a small western force...
So there are two overt possibilities:
Coup, a relatively bloodless affair but the hardest with great chances of failure, also timeconsuming.
Assasination and intervention, relatively easy but would risk chaos in the void after Saddam and Uday (most likely going to be even worse and more unpredictable). Civil War almost certain with the Shiites raising arms again.
Western troops step in to quell trouble, might even get Saudi and Syrian help as they would like to have a stabile Iraq.
And no, I don't think everything has been done here... The coming war is centered around Saddam and his closest men, not on Iraq.
Housecarl:
Excellent post/question. Some ideas I had:
Americans are, for the most part, against war. Sometimes we get riled up and are capable of mass destruction, but generally most of us are too busy pursuing happiness to care what is doing.
Every now and then, though, our leaders decide that we should go stomp somebody. Sometimes this is righteous, like when we went after Hitler, other times it is purely business, like the time we took Panama from Columbia for United Fruit and coca-cola.
My hope is, to paraphrase Rodney King, we can all just get along. I think that non-USA do have a legit concern that we can simply 'take out' anybody we do not like. Just remember, we are all people, some nicer than others, and we are closely realted and need to coexist. It is governments that we should watch.
Saddam is a problem, he tortures people and wrecks the environment and is generally an assh@le, but I like EVERY IRAQI I HAVE EVER MET. Same w/ Kim Jung Il in N Korea.
Take home lesson - be nice to people, trust no government, realize that might and power have responsibility.
Anyway, thought the start of this thread was neat, now I'm just
ramblin ichi
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2003, 21:06
dont you HATE pants?
i know i do
am i right or am i right?
ICantSpellDawg
02-14-2003, 21:13
dont you HATE pants?
i know i do
am i right or am i right?
Rob The Bastard
02-14-2003, 21:36
Havoc...what part of my post refers to Iraq?
Leave Iraq out of this...I have.( BTW I support the removal of Hussien... )
As to being nervous I imagine you guys were nervous just after 9/11...before you got mad.
Everyone was nervous during the cold war when the Russians had a large army and made threatening speeches.
So when you guys say that you will take anyone out...without going through the normal diplomatic steps
Quote[/b] ]If the rest of the world disagree's with us or not, it doesnt matter.
and we take that at face value,then yes, nervous is a good way to describe what we feel.
In your military forces you see a huge defensive mechanism that will strive to keep you safe... you stand behind it or are a part of it...and it makes your attitude bullish. Everybody else is looking at the same force from the wrong side of the weapons, standing in range of the interlocking arcs of fire...and even though we might be friendly forces, accidents do happen.
Quote[/b] ]Stop being so dramatic.
Me??
Look at the rhetoric coming from you guys...the whole for or against thing.
Are France and Germany for or against the USA when they veto America?...no doubt some of you guys see this as a threat to the USA...therefore they are against you and are a legitimate target. You might say that I am twisting words and meanings...but this is taking what you have said at face value and there is little room to interpret them differently.
You guys might say that you didn't mean what it sounded like but bear in mind where we are in relation to the weapons that you are waving around.
Can you see what I am getting at???
*** No emoticons were damaged in the making of this post***
Big King Sanctaphrax
02-14-2003, 23:11
Quote[/b] ]However, the muslims see Bush's administration going to deal with Iraq (where there is oil) and not doing a thing in Israel/Palestine
Could the US interfere in Palestine and Israel? The situation in Iraq is cut-and-dried:evil dictator-Coalition Forces-new government in Iraq. Obviously putting it into action and setting up a new regime will be difficult, but the theory is simple. But the Israel-Palestine situation is completely diffeent. It has nothing to do with us-who are we to say which side is right? To interfere would be insensitive and increase anti-American feeling-any decision made would be considered wrong, no matter how well thought out, due to the trouble people have with America being the world's policeman. As for America wanting Iraq's oil, it is a horribly cynical world where a government cannot topple a totalitarian regime without being accused of wanting to steal resouces and annex countries.
Longshanks
02-14-2003, 23:19
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 14 2003,03:20)]Im anti-american, why? i based my opinion on the amercians i heard, met, and talked with. But i also have to say that there is exceptional cases, i do like some of you US americans.
And also, isnt it like this in US, your not guilty till proven guilty?? All i heard is that US demand that Iraq prove that they dont have WMD
shouldnt it then be US cause to prove that Iraq have WMD?
And another thing, north Korea have said that they will nuke US, the IF i forgot, so why dont US start war with them.
This is a ridiculous post. The American justice system is not based on the premise of guilty until proven guilty. OJ Simpson anyone? Here's a guy that had guilty practically tattooed on his forehead and he walked. Plenty of people who should be found guilty in the U.S...aren't. Americans are also judged by 12 of their peers, and they all have to agree on the verdict. That is the essence of democracy.
And as far as WMD is concerned......its not up to the weapons Inspectors, or America to prove that Iraq still has a WMD progran.
According to the conditions of the UN Resolutions imposed on Iraq, it is up to Iraq to be forthcoming with the inspectors about its WMD. The burden of proof was laid on Iraq with the UN Resolutions that all of Europe backed, including SWEDEN.
Longshanks
02-14-2003, 23:24
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ Feb. 14 2003,16:11)]
Quote[/b] ] As for America wanting Iraq's oil, it is a horribly cynical world where a government cannot topple a totalitarian regime without being accused of wanting to steal resouces and annex countries.
Speaking of oil...France benefits the most from Iraqi oil under the Oil for food program. It also was also the 2nd largest supplier of military hardware to Iraq.
Why is noone questioning France's motives as well?
Quote[/b] ]Could the US interfere in Palestine and Israel?
they could, but they won't the administration believes the suicide bomber to ber terrorists, so israel has a right to defend herself.. they've gone over board a few times, like the 1 ton bomb they dropped in the middle of a residential are, yes they hit their target, but a bomb that big in a tightly packed urban area is, bad, leave it at that...
both sides have blood on their hands, none can take a moral high ground. what they need to do, is get all the guys who are calling the shots now, and fire them. get rid of em, goodbye. bring in some fresh people on both sides, and start anew... their is to much bitterness and animosity between the leadership of the palestinians, and israel... you know step back, and let cooler heads prevail
spacecadet
02-15-2003, 00:09
Big King,
yer right there isnt any simple answers (if any) and it is a cynical world - i deleted the post as my opinion on the whole situation keeps changing the more i think about it and didnt want to leave a post which aint even clear in my own mind.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Gregoshi
02-15-2003, 00:12
Sorry to be a pest, but can we please stop the Israel/Palestine debate here? There is a jolly good one developing in the Iraq/Nuke thread, so take it there. Let's keep this one on US vs Europe issues. Thanks.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
02-15-2003, 02:18
Back to the original question...
Being European (French that is) living in the US, I can tell first hand that they are huge difference regarding some questions (death penalty, abortion, respect of Kyoto treaty, International Criminal Court...)... The US have a conception of statehood and international relationships that sounds, well, very 19th century for somebody who grew in Europe.
Building EU has changed things in the EU psyche, leading European to think than consensus building is a better way than say, WWI or WWII.
There is also, after decolonization in France, and I guess WWII for German (any German can elaborate?), the sense that we have failed to serve the very idea we say we cherish.
For France going in foreign countries for 'their own goods' and help them, end up with killing way too many people and creating resentement. Sure we were hypocritical for most of the part of the colonization process, but I also think that even with the best of intention, we would have failed and end up torturing and killing people.
My point is; empire building is dangerous for other countries but also is damaging on one's own morale rectitude.
The US have a unique opportunity to rule the world, as many countries in Europe had it before.
All Europeans nation eventually failed and had their soul tainted in the process.
Hopefully, we are learning from other mistakes. The US can opt for either, going unilateral, not caring about international treaties and use its power.
Empire USA will live by the sword and die by the sword.
The other option is to make good use of this idea we all support; the rule of law. Applied at an international level.
Americans might see it as binding. It's partly true; the rule of law is another way of saying that might makes not right. And might is on the side of the US.
Still, I think it would be more binding for the next guy with a sword (China?) and would on the long run help the US to rule the world throught the rule of international law.
I am really sad to see that the US are going the same stupid way we went, making the same bloody mistakes, and eventually they will act so strongly abroad that they will lose their morale rectitude. See Vietnam as a good first example of what may happen. Not on a military level, but on a moral level. Had the US won the Vietnam war it would still have been very damaging for the value we all support.
I am really sad and really frustrated. It's not about Irak, Saddam or whatever, it's about going on another cycle of empire building and destruction with the MILLIONS of death and suffering, not to speak about the corruption of noble ideals in the process of ruling the world.
My .02
Louis,
TheViking
02-15-2003, 03:28
The American justice system is not based on the premise of guilty until proven guilty. OJ Simpson anyone? Here's a guy that had guilty practically tattooed on his forehead and he walked. Plenty of people who should be found guilty in the U.S...aren't. Americans are also judged by 12 of their peers, and they all have to agree on the verdict. That is the essence of democracy.
According to the conditions of the UN Resolutions imposed on Iraq, it is up to Iraq to be forthcoming with the inspectors about its WMD. The burden of proof was laid on Iraq with the UN Resolutions that all of Europe backed, including SWEDEN.
I didnt know about the resolution from the gulf war. Thanks for enlighten me.
But your still not guilty till the prosecutor proven that your guilty.
Now when you brought up OJ Simpson, it just show that justice doesnt work, not only in US, probably nowhere. So why cant US start to show some justice and only get rid of Saddam, and leave the Iraqi people alone.
Maybe this sounds harsh, but i dont care for Saddam, if he dies or lives doesnt matter to me, but leave the Iraqi people alone, havnt they sufferd long enuff?
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 14 2003,17:28)]The American justice system is not based on the premise of guilty until proven guilty. OJ Simpson anyone? Here's a guy that had guilty practically tattooed on his forehead and he walked. Plenty of people who should be found guilty in the U.S...aren't. Americans are also judged by 12 of their peers, and they all have to agree on the verdict. That is the essence of democracy.
According to the conditions of the UN Resolutions imposed on Iraq, it is up to Iraq to be forthcoming with the inspectors about its WMD. The burden of proof was laid on Iraq with the UN Resolutions that all of Europe backed, including SWEDEN.
I didnt know about the resolution from the gulf war. Thanks for enlighten me.
But your still not guilty till the prosecutor proven that your guilty.
Now when you brought up OJ Simpson, it just show that justice doesnt work, not only in US, probably nowhere. So why cant US start to show some justice and only get rid of Saddam, and leave the Iraqi people alone.
Maybe this sounds harsh, but i dont care for Saddam, if he dies or lives doesnt matter to me, but leave the Iraqi people alone, havnt they sufferd long enuff?
actualy viking, when iraq signed the treaty, they admited they had all this stuff, they are responsible for providing proof that they destroyed them. in the 4 years that the inspectors were gone, they claim to have destroyed all their wmd, but no one believes them, that's what all the hooplah about inspections, and such.
bottom line they say they destroyed them, but can't provide proof they did, and given their track record over the last 12 years no one is gonna take them at their word.
TheViking
02-15-2003, 12:23
without proof there will always be an if..
lets say its 2004 feb, there was a war but the war is over now. after the war US cant find this WMD the said saddam had, what will happen then. All they can say is:: sorry we killed 100k of your soldiers and 100k of the civilians.
And can you anser me why US dont do anything about north Korea, they have wmd, nukes, and they said that they will use them too, against US, still cant remember the if/reason.
So to me its just the oil US gov, is after
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 15 2003,02:23)]without proof there will always be an if..
lets say its 2004 feb, there was a war but the war is over now. after the war US cant find this WMD the said saddam had, what will happen then. All they can say is:: sorry we killed 100k of your soldiers and 100k of the civilians.
And can you anser me why US dont do anything about north Korea, they have wmd, nukes, and they said that they will use them too, against US, still cant remember the if/reason.
So to me its just the oil US gov, is after
if there's no wmd, you can kiss dubya good bye, if he doesn't get impeached(voted out of office) then he won't win re-election.. then all that can be done, is a sorry, yes, it won't be enough, but even if no wmd, i think us will rebuild iraq, like they say, if no wmd, better believe we'll rebuild, kinda like atoning for our sins..
as to n korea, believe me there in my mind more than iraq, their missile can hit where i live, and since i live 2 miles away from the biggest military instalation in alaska, they might hit, in which case, i'll glow for about 1 millionth of a second and then no more..kinda sad. as to what they say, n korea and usa have a long realtionship, their a known to us, they love to sabre rattle, they want a treaty which makes sense, because we never signed a peace treaty with them during the korean war, we signed a cessation of hostilities, but technicaly a a state of war has existed for years..
my personal hope is, n korea is saber rattling to get their treaty and aid from us, their using their nuclear arms as a berter chip, i also think they want public assurances form the us gov, that their not next..
my personal opinion on the whole thing is it's a sh*t sandwich, and all of us have to take a bite... i don't care if saddam has wmd, i don't wanna send troops over their, he is a threat to our national interests, i'll agree to that, but i still don't wanna go over their, especially when were not wanted to.. i'm at a loss for the international community right now, i mean were damned if we do, were damned if we don't.. somedays i get sick of trying.. i mean one day the community is screaming for us to stop(iraq right now) the next day their screaming why aren't you doing more... alas
oh and your right about oil, i never doubted that, from what i read, one of the first objectives is gonna be basra, to secure all those oil wells. i don' think they want a repeat of the last time. they also said, their gonna use the oil to help rebuild iraq, and to recoup the cost of going their. don't quote me though i can't remember where i heard that... but it's also political, and prob a little payback for saddam for thumbing his nose at us, should say the gov, the iraqi's have been very careful with their words, always slamming the administration, not the people. who knows, time will tell, but i know this, i have a bad feeling in my stomach about this whole mess, and my instincts are usually right on..
i just hope it doesn't cause a long term rift with europe... they've been long term allies, and it would be a shame if that relationship was damaged.
Longshanks
02-15-2003, 13:25
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 15 2003,05:23)]And can you anser me why US dont do anything about north Korea, they have wmd, nukes, and they said that they will use them too, against US, still cant remember the if/reason.
2 reasons.....Afghanistan and Iraq
The U.S. is already busy with one conflict, and is preparing for another against Iraq...probably only 2 or 3 weeks away.
Basically the U.S. has its hands tied down, and would be stretched too thin if it also had to fight North Korea. North Korea knows this, and thats why its pushing its luck with the nuclear program. It is hoping that it can take advantage of America's situation, and get concessions out out of it.
TheViking
02-15-2003, 13:51
Quote[/b] (Longshanks @ Feb. 15 2003,12:25)]
Quote[/b] (TheViking @ Feb. 15 2003,05:23)]And can you anser me why US dont do anything about north Korea, they have wmd, nukes, and they said that they will use them too, against US, still cant remember the if/reason.
2 reasons.....Afghanistan and Iraq
The U.S. is already busy with one conflict, and is preparing for another against Iraq...probably only 2 or 3 weeks away.
Basically the U.S. has its hands tied down, and would be stretched too thin if it also had to fight North Korea. North Korea knows this, and thats why its pushing its luck with the nuclear program. It is hoping that it can take advantage of America's situation, and get concessions out out of it.
Iraq and Afganistan have nothing to hit US from where they are. And if you say terrorist; well terrorist aint a country, and US cant catch them anyway,,, Bin Ladden is still out there. And a nuke do so much more damage then a terrorist in an airplane.
Ser Clegane
02-15-2003, 14:12
Quote[/b] (Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe @ Feb. 14 2003,19:18)]There is also, after decolonization in France, and I guess WWII for German (any German can elaborate?), the sense that we have failed to serve the very idea we say we cherish.
After WWII the opinion of the vast majority of the people in Germany definitely is: no more war - never ever again, and if there is one we do not want to be part of it
This makes it very difficult for any German government to take a pro-war position under any circumstances. It was even very difficult to get a consensus for the attack against Serbia to stop the genocide in Kosovo although most people agreed that some action was necessary.
So with the election coming up Schroeder's obvios choice was to take a strong (and popular) position against an attack on Iraq.
I do not think that for Germany any economic considerations play a role in their current position.
So the very strong anti-war position of the German people is strongly based on the traumatic WWII.
However we have to keep in mind that the US-people had also had to experience a traumatic event with 9/11 so that many have a similar (and understandable) that must never ever happen again that leads towards a more pro-war position (I also think that oil is an important reason for the attack on Iraq - but this reason will hardly be relevant for most US citizens).
I think that the feeling of being 'sick of war' is something that is very much alive in pretty much all of europe.
Also, i think that many european people (certainly many dutch people, like me) see the americans building an empire. I'm not saying that the US is actively and consciously trying to, but each and every time they intervene somewhere they burden themselves with more responsibility. I fear the US is overextending itself.
Aside from that, the letter of recent US legislation allows many things that (from my point of view) seem to go directly against the foundations of the United States.
(example; the patriot act)
These things worry me, as a person.
We have the worlds one great superpower that seems to be forgetting its roots, it's purpose and the source of its greatness in the anger and pain that sept 11th caused.
I dont like having a country that we owe much to, that is more powerfull than any 5 other countries combined lose sight of its true objective; to provide a free, safe and democratic environment for its people to live in.
Combine that with nukes, threats to invade the netherlands (yes, the US HAVE threatened that exactly) and such terrible insistence on war, and you have me scared.
If an ally scares me, i'm not going to do exactly what he says. I'll take my time to think about it.
Especially if that ally is telly me with whom I should go to war..
Please note, i'm not against the united states. I will most certainly not try to stop the united states from what it is going to do. Just dont expect me to jump in and put my life on the line for a war i dont believe in. You want to do this? Fine. I wont be in the way. I will, however let you deal with it by yourself.
Since it seems i cant edit my own posts in here, i'll have to reply to my previous one.. Feel free to merge this, mods. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I read in this thread a very interesting question about trusting the US president. Indeed, i dont trust george W bush as far as i could throw him (and i'm a mealy little person, so that should say enough).
Why? Well, because he is the person who is responsible for current US policy. And that policy is very very agressive. Also, he has greatly expanded the power of the executive branch (whitehouse). That worries me in equal measure..
Indeed, if i did trust the US president, i would feel a lot safer and more secure about the current US policies.
Or, in other words; GW bush's PR in europe is the worst in recorded history.
Whew finally got through all that. Now my comments. I really dont think the US is trying to build any kind of empire. We are however trying to free some countries of dictators, and imposing a democratic leadership hopefully chosen by the people. Some of these work, others dont. But we are not trying to gain anymore states out of this. Now I do think Oil in Iraq is a factor though Im not very high on all this to really comment here, but its more to remove Saddam and his flunkies than to harm the Iraqi people in my opinion. I do agree Bush is screwing the pooch on dealing with the EU, and things may get strained for awhile, though I personally dont think any permanent damage will be done. We are not gonna invade France, or New Zealand Rob. The pressure is very high right now though about the whole terrorist networks, and we want co-operation in cleaning them out. This too is being handled badly. Our country is still rather young in comparison to European ones, which may be why we rely on war a little more, though this is not an excuse, just a thought. Im probably the easiest person ever to get along with, I can work with anyone until they give me reason to not work with them. And usually it takes more than one time. So I really have no bad feelings for any other country, even the French have a good point in my book. They believe if we are going to get into something then we should follow through with it. I believe this is a reference to the Gulf War, and it really makes a lot of sense to me.
Naagi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
02-15-2003, 18:08
Naagi,
You' re right.
I don't think that the US are trying to build an empire... 19th century (and before) provided some condition that made Empire building possible, I don' think it's possible anymore now...
Gone is the time when the Royal Navy could send a couple of boats and make a nation bow (India / China or US black boat in Japan). Even if we speak about American superpower, the field is way more even than before...
On top of that, there is an American tradition of isolationnism that will prevent Empire building European style.
But, American intervention in the world, even with the best intention in mind will still have the same corruption impact on American values.
You could have won the Vietnam war and still regret it.
Also, behaving without respect for international institutions, international treaties, which are the equivalent of the rule of law on the international level, is clearly not the best way to promote justice and democracy throught the world.
The contradiction between US behavior (going alone?) and US goal (promotion of democracy?) might eventually cause US failure. Because Americans won't like it. And the world won't like it.
Two other comments;
1/ Dubya; despite all the bullying, so far we are still in the frame of international law. A lot of tough talk, but when it came to action, this adminitration is still cautious and prone to talk to people.
Sure, not supporting ICC and Kyoto hurts, but this administration might be more respectfull of the international community than it seems.
Hence the question mark after 'going alone'.
2/ Terrorism.
The day one country changed its policy because of terrorist action, terrorist won. They gain credit and importance.
Terrorism is something to be handled by the CIA and the FBI, and an eventual helping hand from military special service and / or limited air strike.
You don't make war on terror, you win throught information and good police.
Too bad the record of CIA and FBI suck so bad.
Best regards,
Louis,
Having lived on both sides of the big watery waste, I'd just like to chime in, pardon before hand if my post looses track of itself, I'm just that way as a person, slightly nutty and unfocused.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
My biggest thing I felt during my stay in the USA is that the culture, despite that most countries named are the civilized ones, is vastly different, and the world view as a whole is vastly different. Most nations in Europe are not superpowers, and I for one can notice the difference in how people think about their own nation. Most of my american friends are very uppedy about their nation, and how the rest of the world should support it, whilst people whom live in other smaller nations are more cautious about how they portray their nation. I think alot of the conflicts we see stem from this. This is only my personal observation though, your mileage might vary.
Another thing that upsets alot of my friends, is that Americans on a general basis simply are not that well educated about Europe, whilst in Europe a worldly education is important since we have so many neighbours close in by, and its important to know their country to get along, again, my personal though.
But, it seems that people, as mentioned prior, do get along, its when we talk about the nations you get problems. But thats easy enough to understand, they are all different nations, each with their own agenda, and those agendas will always collide.
Europeans need to get over the fact that USA is a superpower and stop with alot of the international jealousy acting, USA need to learn to step on less toes with its policies and actions.
Europeans need to remember what their nations have done/not done in the past, USA need to remember that in order to police the world humanitarian issues, you need to clean up the Native situation and the racism first on your own turf.
Most systems in place in Europe, and USA work, they all work about the same in most countries when it boils down to it, are equally good to live in.
I think its right to remove such a person as Saddham from power too, but, don't put another dictator in charge somewhere else, and we really ought to go after all the other governments that are left off the hook because they atm are convinient and beneficial. Some nations in Europe also support such dictators currently, and this needs to stop. If you want to remove Saddham, you need to stop supporting the rest of the bastards, or the credibility for a war in the middle east is about zero, silch, nada, nonexistant.
Ok, getting long enough, just my .002... :P
In the end the only way we're going to last is by working together, internationally, history has pretty much shown us the lessons we need to learn, we just all need to start putting all that knowledge into practice, preferably BEFORE someone presses the big red button marked launch.
But that part of it all, always seem hard to do.. :}
Quote[/b] ]Combine that with nukes, threats to invade the netherlands (yes, the US HAVE threatened that exactly) and such terrible insistence on war, and you have me scared.
can you provide me a link, something like that i would have remebered reading, i read news every day..
and to all those who don't know how are politicians are over here, i'll provide a simle summary..
HOT AIR or my personal fav FULL OF SH*T
all us politicians talk a line of crap you wouldn't believe in the end what will come of all these threats and innuendo's, nothing absolutely nothing...they may love to talk rhetoric, but none of them are going to da anything of note, because that might cost them a re election and that's the primary rule it seems, don't get to controversial or you won't get elected.
as to all the crap you hear from the politicians, take it with a grain of salt.. been dealin with their type for 32 years now, and i still don't understand their thnking or motives, doubt i ever will..
and namarie, ill agree most people over here don't know much of europe, but that is the parents and the schools fault. i din't learn about foreign countries from school, i learned from my mom(canadian), my dad(30 years military) he traveled alot, my sister she's been to 45 countries around the world... don't get me wrong i'm arrogant, but the world does not revolve around me. that is what parents need to teach their kids back here. i myself have only been to 6 countries, so i have a lot to do yet..
ot, but someday gonna go to europe, and spend 3 or 4 mos there.. wish list since i was 15..
Just HADDA vent again
Today, I read something in the news that made me go dear lord, wish its not true. Its about USA pulling out all its military bases from Germany to sink the german economy as put eloquently by a pentagon official..
Am I the only one thinking that the wrong person in power can really use the current situation? Shesh.. get sooo frustrated over Nations political games.. sooner or later we all pay for them somehow.. =/
Whoa, which Penatagon official said the purpose is to hurt the German economy? Heres the story:
US considers reducing troops in Europe and S Korea (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030212/ap_wo_en_ge/na_gen_us_troops_3)
A trade ar is the last thing the US wants, tho some crack-brained politican might have impied this action was to hurt Germany - this is not the official position. There's always at least one US politician who will jump on any bandwagon with the hope it will bring them attention.
Let's keep things in pespective and resist the urge to exagerate - this will only cause more tension.
Quote[/b] (Namarie @ Feb. 16 2003,08:11)]Just HADDA vent again
Today, I read something in the news that made me go dear lord, wish its not true. Its about USA pulling out all its military bases from Germany to sink the german economy as put eloquently by a pentagon official..
Am I the only one thinking that the wrong person in power can really use the current situation? Shesh.. get sooo frustrated over Nations political games.. sooner or later we all pay for them somehow.. =/
relax m8, this is old news, they've been trying to decide how to restructure the military for a role in post cold war era for the last 6 years,,it'll prob be 3 or 4 years at least before any decision is made, and this crap will be forgotten by then.
and remember if you see the word rep or representaive, or sen or senator in front od their names, they are politicians, and the thing thier best at is making fertilizer(bullsh*t)
Quote[/b] (Havok @ Feb. 14 2003,00:19)]As much as it pains me to say this... Australia, Germany, France etc.... just wait. Once a major terror attack happens in your country you will be singing a different tune. Hopefully you will never have to go through something like that but its probally gonna get worse before it gets better.
So, what do you call the bombing of the nightclubs in Bali, 12th October, 2002..? That was major enough terror attack for my tastes, thank you very much.
But then again, that probably barely rated a mention in the U.S. media.
Longshanks
02-17-2003, 04:51
Quote[/b] (Elwe @ Feb. 16 2003,21:17)]So, what do you call the bombing of the nightclubs in Bali, 12th October, 2002..? That was major enough terror attack for my tastes, thank you very much.
But then again, that probably barely rated a mention in the U.S. media.
Actually you are wrong about that, it received quite a bit of media attention in the United States. On CNN it was non-stop coverage....
There was nothing but flowers outide the Australian consulate in NYC, placed there the day of the attack by Americans.
Fair enough, I retract the last sentence from my previous post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
It just seems like some people tend to ignore what doesn't happen in their own front yards.
For the record, I don't have anything against Americans individually, but the image portrayed of them (at least by their and our own media) as a whole does leave a lot to be desired.
Thankfully, a LOT of those misconceptions were dispelled by an excellent young man from Virginia who was studying with me at Uni for 6 months a couple of years ago.
The big point I think I'm trying to make is: a LOT of our beliefs are clouded in the portrayal of a people by our native Media.
Cheers.
Quote[/b] (jayrock @ Feb. 15 2003,17:10)]
Quote[/b] ]can you provide me a link, something like that i would have remebered reading, i read news every day..
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm
From your friendly neighborhood googler :P
Quote[/b] ]and to all those who don't know how are politicians are over here, i'll provide a simle summary..
HOT AIR or my personal fav FULL OF SH*T
Yup.. But they do hold the codes for the button. ANd they do command the army. And they do make policies. Basically, when it's powerfull, and making threatening comments, it scares me.. (not that i lose sleep over it, mind you :P)
jodmeister
02-17-2003, 17:20
Its all SH*T.....................
I've always said leave the politics out of Totalwar.
It's always been a friendly community and should remain so.......only if peeps keep the politics out of it.
Want to talk politics do it on another forum and certainly not in game.
(just my likkle point of view.....not intended to upset anyone....plz don't take offence)
JOD http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Jodmeister got a good idea going on.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I just vent at the TV.. :P If ppl only knew what I say in front of it.. *lol*
Gaius Julius
02-17-2003, 17:51
Quote[/b] (housecarl @ Feb. 13 2003,03:53)]although it did strike me how, to everyone there, the world ended at the Canadian and Mexican borders.
I sometimes get that impression about Americans myself, and I have relatives in the US-NY. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I find it very puzzling, and sad that there seems to be this animosity between US/Europe.
Considering how many Americans are of European decent, and who have family in Europe that they visit/correspond with.
Also everything the US/Europe have been through together,eg.:WW1,WW2.
Makes you wonder how it got to this.
I think to say there's direct animosity between Europeans and Americans is far too generalistic. Any animosity is directed at the Bush administration, not the American people. Frankly Bush, with his Christian beliefs verging dangerously on fundamentalism, is downright scary. He seems so intent simply on war with Iraq, and seems totally oblivious to the possibility that it might not be necessary.
Worse, he is determined to do so with or without UN support. Us in Europe find this extremely worrying, as it means he is essentially free to declare war with whomever he likes. Given that there has been no convincing evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Queada, this is not good. From a European perspective, Bush appears to be isolating the US and turning it into almost a rogue nation.
That said, I agree with some of Bush's policies. Certainly I don't know anyone who feels that the American people themselves aren't still allies - but Bush seems far too unstable, and that's got people seriously worried. Had it been Bill Clinton or even Al Gore calling for Saddam to be removed, I think there would be much more support.
NATO and the UN will be put through some crucial tests in the next few weeks, but I reckon they'll make it.
I too think that Bush scares people... He has quite often shown himself to be not the brightest of people, that in turn makes one wonder if other people are pulling the strings more than is really safe... Not that it is certainly like that, but the fear is there.
I have a few times now thought of a scenario that is most likely never going to happen, but nontheless it is an interesting (and downright scary) situation:
The CIA one day notices that Bin Landen and the top 5 of Al-Quada is sitting in a doubbledecker bus in Copenhagen in the rushhour. They have no chance of warning the Danish administration and the planes overhead haven't got much fuel left, so they need to deside what to do now, they know Bin Laden will wanish into the shadows again should he escape.
At times I actually come to the conclusion that the poor pilots would be ordered to attack the bus... Mostly I don't. But the simply fact that I'm doubting shows something is wrong... I was a staunch supporter of the US in Afghanistan and most other things.
The very hard line often put forth makes for a conclusion of 'rather 100 allied civilians today than 1 American tomorrow'. I would actually say 'rather 1 Dane today than 100 Americans tomorrow', not because I have greater love for Americans, but because I value the lives of allied peoples as highly as my own countrymen.
I know it is a hard statement, but that is how I at times feel, today have been one of those times. Most likely tomorrow I will look at this post and feel silly, but it doesn't change that I actually fear it is like that at times.
Here is an excellent article on the topic of why france hates the US:
I especially liked the conclusion, which i will post again for those who decide not to read the article:
Which is why, in the end, France will go along with the Bush administration on Iraq. If France vetoes a Security Council resolution, and the Bush administration goes to war anyway, France will have been proved powerless. But if it accedes to the war after demanding more evidence, it will be able to claim that it influenced American policy—whether it's true or not. Germany will likely stand on principle and oppose the war. But France would never do such a thing. As a U.N. diplomat said last week, It matters to matter for France.
Quote[/b] (Ranges @ Feb. 17 2003,07:13)]
Quote[/b] ]can you provide me a link, something like that i would have remebered reading, i read news every day..
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm
From your friendly neighborhood googler :P
Quote[/b] ]and to all those who don't know how are politicians are over here, i'll provide a simle summary..
HOT AIR or my personal fav FULL OF SH*T
Yup.. But they do hold the codes for the button. ANd they do command the army. And they do make policies. Basically, when it's powerfull, and making threatening comments, it scares me.. (not that i lose sleep over it, mind you :P)
sorry m8, that one slipped by me, i'll try and find the actual bill and see what it says...
and as to those codes, i believe the only politician who has control of our wmd, is dubya, but their is dual control, he cant do it by himself, and although it's prob no comfort, not even dubya would be stupid or crazy enough to pop a nuke of, they were built for deterence, basicaly if we go, everyone gonna go,
but i will do some research on it when i get some time, cause that one gave me goose bumps...
Sorry, the url didnt seem to post correctly. Read it here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2077874/
As far as the whole french issue goes, i think the following article could prove enlightening;
http://www.opendemocracy.net/....eId=978 (http://www.opendemocracy.net//debates/article.jsp?id=3&debateId=76&articleId=978)
Please remember that in europe, even the countries supporting the war against Iraq face a majority AGAINST it if it happens without security council approval.
So in that sense, any politician in europe who supports the war is ignoring the people who voted for him. Many leaders are not willing to do this.
(oh, with a security council resolution, there would be a LOT more support).
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
02-24-2003, 17:35
An interesting article (IMO) from The Economist. For your reading enjoyment.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1592571
Old America vs New Europe (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1592571)
Best regards,
Louis,
Quote[/b] (Jazzman @ Feb. 13 2003,17:35)] i dont have to tell you what happens when you keep appeasing brutal dictators.
Well, here in Latinamerica we can tell you what happened with the brutal dictators supported by USA during 20th century. The excuse was then la amenaza comunista (the red menace or communist threat, i don't know how it was in english) and only in my country 30000 were tortured and killed.
We could discuss in terms of strategy why Bush wants to invade (and occupate) Irak, but please don't come with the fight for freedom and war against terrorism tales. That's only slogans to american public opinion.
Why Bush wants to occupate Irak? USA economy depends on oil like no other economy in the world, like human body depends on blood, and USA wants to ensure his oil provision for a long time. And seeing from this (synthetic) point of view, his decission is less controversial (plenty of us would do the same in his place) but he (or you) will never convince us of the America's good intentions (we already suffered them).
Why France defends Saddam? because they do have oil contracts with him. A good reason as well.
Gareth_of_Orkney
02-25-2003, 19:29
I don't have a lot to say about this subject and that is because no matter where you go or who you meet there will always be people that dont get along whether they be americans/americans, British/British, americans/british, etc. Take the government and ideology out of the discourse and more probably get along than not. Personally, I think the British are more tolerant than the americans. I've talked and shared battles and conversation with some of the nicest people on-line truly nicer and seemingly more genuine than at home. I think it still comes down to how you were brought up, and how your parents percieved the world and people in general. Longer than I wanted it to be
and its just how I would like my children to carry on and if they do I will count myself a lucky individual.
Gareth
A.Saturnus
02-26-2003, 19:21
Quote[/b] ]
I've talked and shared battles and conversation with some of the nicest people
Imagine this sentence in a different forum with the same thread http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Well maybe the reason other countries dont think America considers their opinion, is that it doesnt matter. as the big fish in the pond, everyone hates us (the US govt that is) no matter what we do. We want to get involved (Afghan, Iraq) we're villified, we want to stay out (Kosovo, some places in africa) we're villified, we give tons of aid (public and private) we're meddling, we decline to do so we're heartless. Maybe if Europe (govts) took on some of the responsbility they could get this special (note sarcasm) treatment too. If we back down here and go along with France saying Saddam's a great guy, let him keep what he's clearly hiding, the first time saddam sends a bio weapon into israel or iran guess whose fault it will be?
So who gives a Sh**. The muslims despise us no matter what we do. (a bit off subject: How did the israel-palestine deal become the US's fault? i dont recall us being around when muhammed took over the holy lands, during the Crusades or even much involved when country of israel formed.)
Personally i think we should take saddam out, 12 years should have been enough time, whats 4 months gonna do? to paraphrase the Clash, Guns of Brixton, i dont want to go out with my hands on my head but rather on the trigger of a gun.
el_slapper
02-27-2003, 00:41
Well, it doesn't matter is somewhat a problem : you decide for everyone. There has been criticism in other drisis, but never real opposition. Success has not always been there, but USa have applied their plans without true opposition - because there was a basis on their acts.
This time, the opposition is real. Why? Hey, because we are still seeking for a legitimate reason to ATTACK. There are legitimate reasons to watch out, contain, inspect & disarm. But we have yet to find a reason to attack. In Afghanistan, Ben Laden was hiding - and he probably(still not proved, but probable) led massive terrorists attacks. In Kosovo, Serbs were leading attacks(even if their size was smaller than described). & so on.....
Last Saddam's offensive action dates back from 1990, and he's already been punished for that. Not enough? Maybe. But legitimate defence is long gone. So is legtimate reason to engage forces. Remember colonial times, and errors we old Europeans did : everytime we conquered a country to democratize it, it ended very bad. We have done these errors several times. We advise you not to do the same huge kind of mistakes. You have been warned.
Side note : if there is effectively war, You can count on France. We don't want it, but won't let our allies fight alone.(ahem, if socialists were in the gov, I wouldn't bet...)
US and European difference is likely to survive this conflict. I think the US is more likely to consider using force as a mean of solving international problems than Europeans because of capabilities and historical developments. Europeans have found success in peaceful integration (not quite yet) after hundreds years of fighting, which supplies us with material for this game. However, the world in general, I believe, is not as willing to sit down and negotiate through conflicts as the European did after WWII. Americans had supplied the force for the last fifty years and are used to projecting power.
As a person on the left, I find myself not in disagreement with W's foreign policies. However, what he says is terrible. It is like the reverse of Speak softly and carry a big stick. And the trading of insults between US and European leaders resembles bickering over who's dad is richer at your local prep school.
However, Jacque Chirac is also without blame. The French has carried the anti-US sentiments because they resent their loss of power in international affairs. It's just as arrogant for Chirac to lecture the new NATO nations as GW Bush telling UN to grow a backbone.
It's our misfortune that we have elected politicians with small brains, but big egos.
Red Harvest
02-27-2003, 08:29
I'm probably going to cancel my trip to Europe because of the brewing storm. France was a big part of the trip but they have me so ticked off right now, that I don't want to spend any money or time there, nor do I want to put up with their attitude. Too bad, because I was really looking forward to working on my language skills. Chirac's indignant statements against incoming EU members was particularly comical, ironic, arrogant, and self defeating all at the same time. US opinion against France has reached levels I could not have imagined, and while I have been a Francophile in the past, the spell is now broken.
George W. isn't real bright, doesn't understand much about economics, business, the environment, or international relations; but he is right about Iraq. (Too bad his father failed so miserably to complete the victory of the first war by seeking to keep the status quo and thereby satisfying the Arabs, Turkey, and Russia.) The French, German, and Russian leaders know it would be in the best interest of the world to end Saddam's rule, but it is in their best interest to be jerks about it if they can weaken the US in the process.
Bush senior fumbled by not threatening the Serbs early. Everyone with any sense knew Europe would follow its traditional pacifist course and let Serb nationalism turn into a blood bath, unless the US made some serious threats and took action if needed. Ironically, Clinton finally stopped the bloodshed, although I thought we might have to polish off some of the so-called Russian peacekeepers before it was said and done.
We are going to be cleaning up Russian messes for a long time. Afghanistan was one. Serbia was another. Chechnya is one that is effecting us now (Russians were fools to go in the first time and should have realized where it would lead. However, they didn't really have any choice about going in the 2nd time.)
Have to admire Blair's foresight on 9/11. The speech he made that day had a Winston Churchill quality about it. That speech was truly appreciated by people in the US and has greatly renewed our respect for the UK.
It would be good if the leaders of the free world could learn when to do the right thing rather than just what makes their electorate or national pocketbook happy. (Bush is definitely included among this list.) This war is not particularly popular in the US and most of us think it will cost us a fortune, but after 9/11, WE as a people do believe it is necessary and unavoidable. Perhaps, one day, a powerful EU will deal with messes like this, and we won't have to send our troops to do it. Yeah...right...and by the time that happens Hell will be a skating rink with flying pigs overhead.
Next up, what to do about those crazy friggin' North Koreans.
why MTW is great. because i was feeling real angry yesterday (see my post in this thread) so i continued with my campaign last night particularly continuing in my replay of the Reconquista and i get a smashing defeat over the almohads in Cordoba killing Prince Idris in the process. I feel better already. one comment on the remark that there is no need to attack because saddam hasnt shown agression (thats debatable) but assuming thats true, do we have to wait until he does something horrible? (oh look there goes some terrorists with bombs onto a plane, but we have to wait til they blow it up before we arrest them). But i'm feeling nicer today so i would say that my comments were directed to govts not people, i've traveled in europe many times, particularly France even speak a bit of French, and found the people to be as nice as anywhere (and the food and drink fantastic) i have no intention of changing my plans on going to italy this spring (umbria's gotta be safer from terrorists than Washington). as for argentina, obviously the US made huge mistakes in the past, i hope we've learned from them but that doesnt mean we should sit around and never do anything. Afghanistan seems to be working, though a long process, we are not propping up a dictator just trying to provide an environment where the people can decide for themselves. they've gotta be better off than with the taliban, at least 50% of them (the women) certainly are. anyway, maybe i'll take grenada tonight and feel even better, but those AUM's are tough.
A.Saturnus
02-27-2003, 18:21
When did Chirac say Saddam is a nice guy?
The reason the Europeans are against the war isn`t that we think Saddam is alright. Yes, Saddam has attacked other countries (that are quiet as totalitarian as his), he has used WMD and killed many thousands of people. Nobody doubts that. But an attack would only then be justified when we would know that he still has WMD. Maybe he has, but we have inspections there to find it out and the US-gov failed to proof the Iraq sabotages the inspections in a serious way. But as things are going I`m about to change my mind over the war. For a simple reason: when G.W. Bush says he`s going out of patience, that means nothing to me; when Hans Blix says he`s going out of patience, that means a lot.
Red Harvest
02-28-2003, 03:57
Saturnus,
No disrespect to you personally at all. I'm just glad that we both live in countries that allow us the freedom to disagree. This avenue is not open to the inhabitants of those countries over whom we seem to be having a disagreement. I remember the same sort of discussions about Iraq the first time around, and about Serbia, and about Afghanistan. I'm sure the U.S. was wrong then as well...
I cannot agree that it makes any sense to allow ruthless nutcases like Saddam to continue their weapons and arms programs when they have a history of gassing the cities of their own Kurdish population, gassing their neighbor, trying to produce nuclear weapons, trying to cause environmental catastrophe and attacking their neighbors in pure land/oil grabs. Arms inspectors were never really necessary anyway, he has remained out of compliance throughout the peace. No one is really in doubt of the man's intentions, and his failure to produce ANY hard evidence of dismantlement, coupled with over a decade of dancing around silly weapons inspections programs without teeth. I'm only sorry that France, Belgium, and Germany seem to have lost their collective common sense in this matter. Hint: when you are allied with a ruthless military dictator vs. other democracies who have liberated your soil from the same such in the past, you might want to reconsider your position. Enough, we have no interest in continually playing foolish games with this madman any while the above patiently wait for him to hit someone with a banned weapons system AGAIN. Too bad if it does cost the above a few lucrative contracts.
If someone slits a man's throat with a knife, is apprehended, convicted, and later paroled, then violates his parole at every turn and occasionally takes a swing at this parole officer, do you: a) wait for him to kill again? b) force the parole officer to produce greater and greater levels of evidence ALL without action? or c) lock him back up and throw away the key?
Military aggressors and bullies only understand one thing, FORCE. You can't appease them and you can't just live with them (unless you want to be run by them.) History is the best teacher in this regard. Those that forget history are bound to repeat it.
With some luck the Kurds will finally get their homeland this time around (although it might take another two decades to get actual full autonomy.)
By giving the Kurds a homeland you will create (or increase) a new (or an existing) issue which IMO is far worse than a powermonger down in Iraq. Im sure you know that Turkey also has a quite rebellious Kurdish Minority.
Could turn middle east further towards ex-Yugoslavia by removing hussein while not thinking of long term consequences. A dictator, no matter how vile, is IMO more preferable than the chaos of a civil war spreading across some countries.
Also by your post it seems like if you have a conflicting opinion than the states you are an very enthusiastic supporter of their 'enemy' and staunch ally? Right
*wonders when the states will start disarming*
A.Saturnus
02-28-2003, 13:48
Red Harvest, so the weapon inspections weren`t necessary from the beginning? I definitely disagree with that. If there were a way to remove Saddam and replace him with a democratic ruler, I wouldn`t wait a second to support any such action, but that`s unfortunately not the case. Before I support a war I like to know what threats are really there. And the inspectors did good work in the last years. They have found a lot of evidence that Iraq has disarmed, so when you say we know Irag has WMDs it`s just a dogma. Otherwise, proof it.
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Feb. 28 2003,03:48)]Red Harvest, so the weapon inspections weren`t necessary from the beginning? I definitely disagree with that. If there were a way to remove Saddam and replace him with a democratic ruler, I wouldn`t wait a second to support any such action, but that`s unfortunately not the case. Before I support a war I like to know what threats are really there. And the inspectors did good work in the last years. They have found a lot of evidence that Iraq has disarmed, so when you say we know Irag has WMDs it`s just a dogma. Otherwise, proof it.
the reason why they say they know he has wmd, because when the inspectors left 4 years ago, their were still a lot of biological and chemical agents unaccounted for. now 4 years later saddam says, well we destroyed them and expects us to take his word. IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILTY TO PROVE HE DISARMED not the other way around. when he signes the peace treaty that ended the gulf war, he admitted guilt and was bound to prove he rid himself of them..
the ispectors did do good work the first time around, they just got tired of having to jump through hoops to get them, and all of these former weapons inspectors are all saying the same things.. that saddam still has them, their still hiding them, etc, etc. and no offense i think they'd know more about it than the current weapons inspectors, seeing as the current ones have been on the job for 4 months and are already getting frustrated. whereas the first group went through what 5 or 6 years of this crap. saddam has had 12 years to dissarm, and prove he destroyed his wmd.. well people just got tired of waiting, and the only reason hes being coooperative right now, is becasue hes staring down the barrel of a couple hundred abrahms tanks, and about 200,000 us/uk troops, and hes their main focus. if they werent their i doubt he'd even be trying to entertain the inspectors, and thats all hes doing is entertaining them.
Wellington
02-28-2003, 23:07
Quote[/b] (jayrock @ Feb. 28 2003,14:59)]
Quote[/b] ] IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILTY TO PROVE HE DISARMED not the other way around.
Rubbish. It's impossible to prove a negative, but it's a well known ploy that legal prosecutors use constantly in courts of law.
A simple example. I ask YOU to prove you don't wear spectacles. How are you going to prove that? Think about it. There is absolutely nothing you can say, do or provide that will prove conclusively that you do NOT wear spectacles.
Had, however, I asked you to prove the positive conjecture (that you DO wear spectacles) that would be relatively easy to prove conclusively.
Consider the pro's and con's of those 2 arguments - then consider what the US is requesting of Iraq.
Requesting/instructing anyone to 'prove' a negative is pointless, illogical and meaningless.
Red Harvest
02-28-2003, 23:31
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Feb. 28 2003,16:07)]Rubbish. It's impossible to prove a negative, but it's a well known ploy that legal prosecutors use constantly in courts of law.
Incorrect logic. It IS his responsibility to prove disarmanent. To do that he need only provide documentation on the weapons programs he had, details of where they were manufactured, stores, and how they were handled. This is precisely what he has not done. He kicked out inspectors and did not cooperate despite incentives for doing so. He has made every effort to keep details under wraps. That qualifies as failing to comply and puts him in breech. One who complied would open up and give as much detail as possible to show their innocence. They would not deny access and hide things, especially things that are later found, LOL.
REMEMBER: He put himself in breech long ago by his own actions, not a cruel and evil world around him.
Gregoshi
02-28-2003, 23:54
You guys seem to be dancing around each other's points without directly addressing them. One side seems to think he has WMD and he admitted to having them while the other side seems to think he doesn't have and didn't admit to having them. Maybe I missed this in all the rhetoric being tossed about, but you all appear to be counter arguing based on whether you think Hussein does or doesn't have such weapons and your discussion points aren't connecting.
Can we definitively answer the following questions:
1) Did Hussein admit to having WMD, then or now?
2) The first time around, did the inspectors find WMD?
3) If 1 or 2 is yes, did the inspectors find the quantities they expected/suspected?
4) Does Hussein say he destroyed his WMD?
5) Back then or now, have the inspectors found evidence (rubbish, chemical residue, etc) of the weapons Hussein claims to have destroyed?
Obviously some of the latter questions are irrelevant depending upon the answer to the earlier questions. If there is disagreement in the answer to any of these questions, can you provide backup to your answer?
Red Harvest
03-01-2003, 00:16
Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ Feb. 28 2003,05:09)]By giving the Kurds a homeland you will create (or increase) a new (or an existing) issue which IMO is far worse than a powermonger down in Iraq. Im sure you know that Turkey also has a quite rebellious Kurdish Minority.
Could turn middle east further towards ex-Yugoslavia by removing hussein while not thinking of long term consequences. A dictator, no matter how vile, is IMO more preferable than the chaos of a civil war spreading across some countries.
Also by your post it seems like if you have a conflicting opinion than the states you are an very enthusiastic supporter of their 'enemy' and staunch ally? Right
*wonders when the states will start disarming*
I believe the Kurds should have a homeland. Turkish, Russian, and Iragi oppression of them is a longstanding, but separate issue. U.S. gov't has tried to passify Turks and Russians by keeping out of the volatile issue. In my opinion it has been and will remain a mistake. The U.S. failed to back the Kurds after the first Gulf War and it was a huge mistake. The Kurdish issue (can of worms) was as fundamental to the decision to leave the Iraqi intact as any concerns about Iran or Arab allies. Whether or not an independent Kurdistan is sanctioned, it will likely happen anyway over time. If you think a vile dictator bent on destruction of his neighbors is preferential to some discomfort for existing countries, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Most people foolishly believe that the carnage in ex-Yugoslavia was inevetible. Poppycock The groups that left *voted* to do so and should have been supported. This is self determination. What they needed was a strong ally to support them militarily to prevent invasion, and thereby broker a piece. The Serbs had Russia to support their aggression, for defense everyone else had...nobody. Predictably, the powerful side went on an ethnic nationalist bent to subdue the others. World response: deny arms to everyone, including those trying to defend themselves. Hard to imagine a more tragically *stupid*, yet typical response. Had there been a balance of power, the excesses committed by Serbs *and* Croats would have been far less, and civilian casualties likely 1/10th of what occurred. If you look at the history of what happened you will find that when a military equilibrium began to appear in each theater the conflict largely ended in that theater. The tensions today are a result of the massive excesses that were *allowed* yesterday. It is morally and intellectually dishonest to wash one's hands of the affair and say those people just hate one another and always have, so let them kill one another.
The states will disarm when people stop trying to crash airplanes into our tallest buildings, North Koreans stop trying to threaten everyone with nukes, China stops threatening Taiwan, etc. I can't make any case for U.S. disarmanent at this time, because of the growing number of real threats. I don't fear freely elected governments with heavy weapons (even France, LOL), but autocratic nations have demonstrated their inability to act responsibly with them.
LordMonarch
03-01-2003, 01:49
Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity, even if it takes place with the authorisation of the UN Security Council. The statement concisely argues that any Australian participation in a war on Iraq—as part of the Bush administration’s “coalition of the willing”—will make the government of Prime Minister John Howard and Australian military personnel liable for prosecution in the International Criminal Court.
Submitted as an open letter to Australian newspapers and published yesterday by the Sydney Morning Herald, the signatories include Professor Chris Sidoti of the Human Rights Council of Australia; Sir Ronald Wilson, a former High Court judge and the President of the Human Rights Commission; Simon Rice, the president of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights; the directors of several university centres for human rights law; prominent barristers; and lecturers at Australia’s most prestigious law schools.
The legal experts reject outright the justifications for war being made by the American, British and Australian governments as a violation of the UN Charter, under which there are only two grounds for the use of force in international conflicts. As they explained: “The first, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, allows force to be used in self- defence. The attack must be actual or imminent.
“The second basis is when the UN Security Council authorises the use of force as a collective response to the use or threat of force. However, the Security Council is bound by the terms of the UN Charter and can authorise the use of force only if there is evidence that there is an actual threat to the peace (in this case, by Iraq) and that this threat cannot be averted by any means short of force (such as negotiation and further weapons inspections).”
Having outlined the legal basis for war, the declaration concluded: “Members of the ‘coalition of the willing’, including Australia, have not yet presented any persuasive arguments that an invasion of Iraq can be justified at international law.” Moreover, as the authors pointed out, the doctrine of “pre-emptive strike” elaborated by the Bush administration represents a fundamental repudiation of the UN Charter.
“This doctrine contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II—the prohibition of the unilateral use of force to settle disputes.
“The weak and ambiguous evidence presented to the international community by the US Secretary of State Colin Powell to justify a pre- emptive strike underlines the danger of a doctrine of pre-emption. A principle of pre-emption would allow particular national agendas to completely destroy the system of collective security contained in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and return us to the pre-1945 era, where might equaled right.”
In fact, although the lawyers chose not to raise the issue, the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”.
The letter goes on to note that there is a “further legal dimension” that would form the basis for a war crimes indictment of those responsible for any invasion of Iraq—the likely extent of Iraqi civilian casualties: “Even if the use of force can be justified, international humanitarian law places significant limits on the means and methods of warfare.
“The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 protocols set out some of these limits: for example, the prohibitions on targeting civilian populations and civilian infrastructure and causing extensive destruction of property not justified by military objectives. Intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause ‘incidental’ loss of life or injury to civilians ‘which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’ constitutes a war crime at international law.”
The international media has already carried a number of reports of the “shock and awe” tactics that the US military intends to use to intimidate and terrorise the Iraqi military and population into submission. These include the destruction of power plants, electricity grids, sewerage treatment facilities, water reservoirs, bridges and roads. Washington has specifically warned that it has not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons.
The letter concluded: “The military objective of disarming Iraq could not justify widespread harm to the Iraqi population, over half of whom are under the age of 15. The use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive attack would seem to fall squarely within the definition of a war crime...
“Estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq suggest that up to quarter of a million people may die as a result of an attack using conventional weapons and many more will suffer homelessness, malnutrition and other serious health and environmental consequences in its aftermath. From what we know of the likely civilian devastation caused by the coalition’s war strategies, there are strong arguments that attacking Iraq may involve committing both war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
There we go, international law for you. But who need it.
btw, the Kurds have been sold for Turkish military bases. There are lots of nasty dictators around and a lot of em are supported by the US e.g Uganda,Rwanda while they attack other nations DRC. etc etc
I believe the Palestinian issue rather begins with the foundation of the state of Israel in 1947. Not infact the Crusades in which lots of Europeans killed lots of Jews and Muslims. The muslims didnt kill the jews then only after the foundation of the state of Israel.
Good night
Wellington
03-01-2003, 02:33
Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ Feb. 28 2003,16:31)]
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Feb. 28 2003,16:07)]Rubbish. It's impossible to prove a negative, but it's a well known ploy that legal prosecutors use constantly in courts of law.
Incorrect logic. It IS his responsibility to prove disarmanent. To do that he need only provide documentation on the weapons programs he had, details of where they were manufactured, stores, and how they were handled. This is precisely what he has not done. He kicked out inspectors and did not cooperate despite incentives for doing so. He has made every effort to keep details under wraps. That qualifies as failing to comply and puts him in breech. One who complied would open up and give as much detail as possible to show their innocence. They would not deny access and hide things, especially things that are later found, LOL.
REMEMBER: He put himself in breech long ago by his own actions, not a cruel and evil world around him.
Could you elaborate a little on the Incorrect Logic. part
Anyone who knows anything about science, mathematics or logic understands the following 2 base principles -
1) you can ALWAYS prove a positive
2) you can NEVER prove a negative
Let's make it simple ...
From 1), we can say -
GB: Mr Saddam Hussain. Do you have a nuclear bomb
SH: Yes I do, Mr Bush
GB: Show it to me
SH: Here it is
GB: (after examination) Yes, that is indeed a Nuclear Bomb
Hence, 1) has been proven.
From 2), we can say -
GB: Mr Saddam Hussain. Do you have a nuclear bomb
SH: No I don't, Mr Bush
GB: I don't believe you
SH: Well how can I prove it to you?
GB: You can't, because you cannot prove that you DON'T possess something
Hence 2) has been proven.
If you still can't grasp it have a search on the web for Fermat's last theorem, read about it and then consider why this theorem was unproven for 360 years. Then, rethink the 2 principles above
ICantSpellDawg
03-01-2003, 05:46
Quote[/b] ]You are threatening every person on the face of the planet in your quest for vengance...and maybe the only way for you to feel safe is to purge the world of eveyone except Americans...the thing is that you do have the power to do this...and we are afraid...very afraid that this will come to pass...
Tell me I'm wrong...
in all honesty, i cant and wont tell you that you are wrong
i vote in favor of military action - so hop on board or risk an uncertain future
im not going to lie to you - block the US and you better be prepared to fight for what you believe in
if you arnt prepared to see Auckland in flames in the next 100 years, prioritize your goals and protect your own way of life
dont give in to french propoganda that is being used just to displace US power with EU power
the ambition of creation... and destruction
Red Harvest
03-01-2003, 07:58
Quote[/b] (LordMonarch @ Feb. 28 2003,18:49)]Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a
There we go, international law for you. But who need it.
I agree, who needs it. I can easily round up 43 lawyers who will tell you the moon is made of swiss cheese and therefore it is now a Swiss Canton...and that proves what exactly? If a person rounds up 44 lawyers who say it is *not* illegal then does that make the other 43 wrong? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif Only could scan that tripe before I started laughing. They seem to forget the balance. The numbers they quote for civilian deaths are quite small if compared to a potential nuclear strike by Iraq on Israel. The retaliatory strikes alone would kill millions (perhaps billions depending on how things spread from there.) Even neglecting that, more lives will be saved in the long run by replacing the current regime than will be lost in the campaign and its aftermath.
War is by its very nature illegal no matter who sanctions it. Warfare is movement out of legal or normal political bounds and the victors decide who the war criminals were. War can be for just purposes but by its nature will always a less than civilized act. The idea of humane or civilized warfare is silly in the first place although the idea of folks mutually restricting themselves is logical. Any one who ever conducted warfare whether in defense or whatever could be accused of war crimes, so what the heck would that prove?
This war is going to happen because a *number* of nations perceive a threat to their national security and/or the security of the region. The UN can stick a feather up their butt and whistle Dixie for all we care--that is how effective they have been at handling the matter so far.
Saddam's attempts to shoot at our aircraft in violation of the peace agreement qualify as acts of war. Doesn't take a lawyer to figure that one out. So your 43 lawyer's case is thrown out with prejudice.
The US isn't going to sit around and idly wait for another 9/11 attack. We are going to keep taking the fight into the back yards of countries who want to do such things. Better to fight in their back yard than in ours. Worked great in Afghanistan and you will be hardpressed to make a case that the Afghan people have suffered because of what we did. Individuals certainly suffered, and some of them innocents despite efforts to prevent this, but the people as a whole are much better for it. You will not find ANY nation that is more sensitive to collateral damage than the U.S.--much to our own detriment at times.
Red Harvest
03-01-2003, 08:14
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Feb. 28 2003,19:33)]Could you elaborate a little on the Incorrect Logic. part
Anyone who knows anything about science, mathematics or logic understands the following 2 base principles -
1) you can ALWAYS prove a positive
2) you can NEVER prove a negative
Yeah, it's easy. He hasn't been asked to prove a negative. Your argument is invalid.
He has been asked to declare his programs and prove dismantlement. Neither is a negative proof. Both are positives. He has failed to provide substantive information on his programs, and failed to show records of destruction of known systems. These are the burdens he has been faced with. He has chosen obstruction over compliance. You propose he should continue to be rewarded for this?
Actually, if you knew a bit more about math and science you would know that in some instances you can prove a negative although the proofs tend to be much more exhaustive and elaborate.
I can prove that I don't have a giant black hole sitting under my desk, because we haven't all been sucked into it and my desk clock is not showing a significant time shift relative to the atomic clocks...but that's another matter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Have fun with the word games.
well wely, were gonna have to disagree, i understand what your saying, but from my pov, saddam needs to provide proof that he destroyed his wmd, all of them biological, chemical,nuclear. when the inspectors left baghdad before the last bombing, and weren't allowed back for four years, they wanted to know where the material they knew about was.. saddams claim is he destroyed them, they asked for proof, some kind of documentation, and all of a sudden one of the most anal beuracratic administrations forgot where all the documentation for this destruction went.. that's b.s. nothing major happens in iraq, without his ok, he'd basicaly saying we did trust us.. i wouldnt trust that man for all the gold in the world. he's done nothing but lie and manipulate since the gulf war.. but now he's being honest, sorry dont buy it.. that field where they destroyed the wmd the inspectors are looking at, sure they'll find trace elements in the soil of wmd, but their prob wont be enough there to warrant the quantity their looking for.
im sorry, i dont trust him, and everyone saying the inspectors need more time is tripe, it's been 12 years already, and its time to pay the piper. his only hope is a hail marry, thats come clean about everything.
side note i read about the missile their destroying sat.. i know hes agreed to it, but let's see if he really destroys them, he told dan rather that he didnt feel they were in violation, and wasnt gonna destroy them, and now he's seen the light, ya right, the only light he's gonna see, is a red flicker after the f-117 pass over him. that's the stealh fighter incase i got the number wrong...
sorry for the nasty tone, my wife sunk spur on me, and im venting it here i guess....lol. think im gonna go sleep with the dog in the garage.
Wellington
03-01-2003, 14:46
Quote[/b] (jayrock @ Mar. 01 2003,03:55)]well wely, were gonna have to disagree, i understand what your saying, but from my pov, saddam needs to provide proof that he destroyed his wmd, all of them biological, chemical,nuclear.
I agree 100% with all your sentiments re Saddam
My only beef is that whatever he/Iraq do in order to prove they no longer have WMD the US can always find a flaw in their argument - which strikes me as being unreasonable.
Looks like there's going to be a war regardless http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Wellington
03-01-2003, 14:57
Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ Mar. 01 2003,01:14)]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Feb. 28 2003,19:33)]Could you elaborate a little on the Incorrect Logic. part
Anyone who knows anything about science, mathematics or logic understands the following 2 base principles -
1) you can ALWAYS prove a positive
2) you can NEVER prove a negative
Yeah, it's easy. He hasn't been asked to prove a negative. Your argument is invalid.
I never said he had The original post stated IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILTY TO PROVE HE DISARMED not the other way around
My point was/is you cannot prove you do NOT have something. Note the DIS before the disarmed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]He has been asked to declare his programs and prove dismantlement. Neither is a negative proof. Both are positives.
He's being asked to prove conclusively (or rather to the satisfaction of the US/UN)that he does NOT, or no longer, have something.
Think about it.
Quote[/b] ] He has failed to provide substantive information on his programs, and failed to show records of destruction of known systems. These are the burdens he has been faced with. He has chosen obstruction over compliance.
I agree 100% - I don't like him either
Quote[/b] ]You propose he should continue to be rewarded for this?
I propose no such thing. Of course not http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]Actually, if you knew a bit more about math and science you would know that in some instances you can prove a negative although the proofs tend to be much more exhaustive and elaborate.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif And an example would be ... ?
I can only presume your refering to a situation whereby a negative axiom is proven by reversing the axiom and instead of attempting to prove a negative, you effectively disprove the positive. This is quite valid, however, you STILL hav'nt proven the negative - you've disproven the positive
Note, however, that this approach does'nt work in all cases.
Quote[/b] ]I can prove that I don't have a giant black hole sitting under my desk, because we haven't all been sucked into it and my desk clock is not showing a significant time shift relative to the atomic clocks...but that's another matter
Exactly my point above.
You have NOT proven your axiom there is NOT a giant black hole sitting under my desk.
You HAVE disproved the opposite axiom there IS a giant black hole sitting under my desk by using the logical reasoning that if there was a black hole under your desk (the positive axiom) you would be sucked into it
Basically, you hav'nt proven that there is'nt - you've disproven that there is.
Quote[/b] ]Have fun with the word games.
Word game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
It's merely logic, which generally equates to common sense if you take time to think about it.
A.Saturnus
03-01-2003, 16:00
Something about logic:
1) You can`t proof an axiom; by definition. When you can proof a term, it`s not an axiom.
2) You can proof negatives. Example:
No Greek is an alien
Socrates is a greek
-------------------
Socrates is not an alien
A disproof of the positive is a proof of the negative unless you use modal logic. When we use logic on this forum, it`s usually classic logic that includes the exclusion of the third. However, you can not proof a general empirical there`s not-sentence because of the problem of induction. Therefore, it`s impossible to proof that there isn`t a pink frog somewhere in the universe. Because Saddam only has to proof that there are no WMDs in Iraq it`s theoretically possible to proof it, but it would take much much longer than 12 years to do so. The only way to clear this, are the weapon inspectors. But they don`t say there`s the evidence everyone talks of (untill now). A month ago, Hans Blix has called Bush a lier. The former weapon inspectors didn`t support American claims either. The former chief weapon inspector (sorry forgot his name, will look it up) has written a book, wherein he accuses the US of ignoring the facts.
Red Harvest
03-01-2003, 20:39
Saturnus,
I bow to your high level logic explanations. The academic points and terms are entertaining (and no I'm not poking fun at you, I was impressed.) Never required to take a logic class myself. Never had much trouble with logic either...
Still can't understand why you continue to dance about the weapons inspections and act as if nothing has been proven. That's simply 100% wrong. We know he has them. The weapons inspectors have found the delivery systems and I've seen pictures of them. These systems were used in the past to gas Kurds and Iranians. After that it is all games. There is no reason to go to the UN. No need for inspections (need for that ended when he kicked them out years ago.) The only need at this time is to give him a royal butt kickin' and get this over with. 12 years is simply too long to fiddle while Rome burns. The concept that everyone must do everything possible to avoid war is complete baloney to be begin with. If that is what the UN is actually about, then it truly is irrelevant.
Saw the Turkey vote this morning and was pleased. Would be a huge mistake for them not to allow US troops to move through. That would force us to recognize and support the Kurdish revolt that will certainly happen in Iraq once the shooting starts. Expect Turkey will vote again and approve, but if they don't the Kurdish problem might be solved sooner than expected and Turkey *really* will dislike that solution.
Clock is ticking, we've got hundreds of thousands of troops sitting in the region. Time's up. Seasonal and lunar timing is right to reduce our losses. We aren't waiting another 12 years for the UN to diddle around and do nothing again. It is no longer their call to make, the UN failed at every opportunity.
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Mar. 01 2003,04:46)]
Quote[/b] (jayrock @ Mar. 01 2003,03:55)]well wely, were gonna have to disagree, i understand what your saying, but from my pov, saddam needs to provide proof that he destroyed his wmd, all of them biological, chemical,nuclear.
I agree 100% with all your sentiments re Saddam
My only beef is that whatever he/Iraq do in order to prove they no longer have WMD the US can always find a flaw in their argument - which strikes me as being unreasonable.
Looks like there's going to be a war regardless http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
unfortunately givin the bad blood between the us and iraq, neither side is willing to trust each other..
unfortunately i agree war is inevitable, saw on local news last night, they pulled our search and rescue squadron from the guard outa here last night, they didnt say where they were going, but the last two times they were deployed, it was for the first gulf war, and bosnia... they find downed pilots and their in the top ten in the world, they are good. they get a lot of practice pulling idiots of mountains and stuff, and the weather here is severe in winter, especially in the mountains, so my guess is their being put in postion for iraq...
i think the only way saddam could convince dubya, is to open hios borders and give the us military free reign in looking for them, that will never happen though, so i dont know.
A.Saturnus
03-03-2003, 14:32
Red Harvest, I had a logic curse at my university (a year ago) and have read some books about it (including Russell`s Principia Mathematica - try it out if you`re interested in logic). So not everything is as easy as logic. If this were all just a problem of logic, one could simply provide a formal proof and anyone who understands logic would finally agree to it. But with Iraq, it`s different unfortunately. I guess we simply disagree on the fact wether the data that say there is a major threat are convincing or not.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.