RE: Iraq : who’s in?

Ivan, that’s not right. How can you think that the US is only after the oil. Err, haven’t you noticed that the actions they took the past 50 years had nothing to do with economical interests, but all with human rights and restoring democracy.

It seems France will support a US action in Iraq. All depends on Russia and China now. Europe already sold its voice. One bright spot, it seemed Europe finally managed to get a common foreign policy. Now, next time if they could also chose the right one, we should really mean something }>. Europe, America’s poodle.

RE: Iraq : who’s in?

Yeah, I agree the US will act unileteral if that has to happen.

But on the other hand, they accuse Russia of acting unilateral in Georgia. I mean, Russia has the right to invade Georgia if there are evidences that there are terrorists hiding in those mountains. If the United States attack Afghanistan or Iraq, they expect everyone to support them for the sake of freedom and democracy, but when Russia wants to do something similar than where’s the support. Georgia is in Russia’s own backyard but Iraq or A’stan are not somewhere in the neighbourhoud of the US.

Can anyone give me some reasonable explenations why Russia is not allowed to fight the terrorists on its own soil but the US should have the right to attack all countries which are on their axis-of evil list?

RE: Suggest me a name

I have two cats, called them error and terror, but that’s not really appropriate, is it?

RE: Iraq : who’s in?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-09-02 AT 10:42 AM (GMT)]>> Geforce, the EU has never been united on foreign policy <<

Did I say that? I said the EU has never been so divided on foreign policy, more than ever before. Normally it’s just the UK who choses to act alone and the other 14 agree very often. This time it’s a lot more complicated, Spain in, France out, Italy in, Germany out.

Anyway, Bush said he is willing to cooperate with the UN. I think that’s a step forward. It’s true, if there is evidence of Iraq having WMDs, than the UNSC should take its responsabilities. I guess it shouldn’t be too difficult to persuade France and Russia (both of them are allies), China will be a little bit more difficult, but I don’t think they will risk to use their veto.

If France is in, basically the whole EU will join the coalition, including Germany, which is more important than any other European ally because of the bases.

RE: Rabie, chose history

There is no evidence that Jesus was a non-violent protestor. Some sources claim that he was a freedom fighter from an organisation (can’t remember the name anymore) who killed Romans with knives. This is terrorism I guess. I never read the bible (I’d rather reed the Chinese phonebook), but they are people who believe Jesus was a terrorist aka freedom fighter. Terrorism is as old as mankind.

Anyway, for the Romans he was a dangerous man, because he openly expressed his disbelief in the Roman Empire. Unfortunattely the Romans did not have cruise missiles and carriers yet, otherwise they could have triggered a war against terrorism or maybe a pre emptive strike. History is easy, it always repeats itself!

RE: Rabie, chose history

I’m really not a hippy, Arthur. 🙁 Really not. If I had to chose a political party, it wouldn’t be the PvdA (certainly NOT the SP), nor the Greens, but probably VVD.

And I don’t think the show would be that great idea. Unless you add some security like in Jerry Springer who prevent me from smashing chairs on a particular person’s head. (and vice versa) :7 }>

I still think the extra courses in journalims will help, though my principal concern are my lessons history. Did you learn history perhaps? I know some guys working for Reuters and the Economist (friends of my brother), but they only select the very best. But you can always apply, and if not, there are many other jobs for somebody who learned history, like working for the office of foreign affairs, the EU, NATO or in a private company.

Rabie, chose history

You can’t understand the world today if you don’t know what has happened yesterday. I talked to some guys studying international relations. They were claiming that terrorism was a new form a warfare, discovered after WWII. So wrong, terrorism was something widely used during the French Revolution in 1789. Even the ancient Romans and Greeks had trouble with terrorists (Jesus was one, I’m deadly serious). Therefor I think you should always learn from a broader perspective. I think the civilitations of the ancient Indians, Egyptians, Chinese can tell us so much more than what we like to refer today as western civilitation. I’ll be studying American history also (easiest, not much has happened since 1776 exept the civil war}>), not that it is so interesting, but I would really want to learn how Americans look at the rest of the world, maybe one day I’ll come to understand them.

It’s particularry interesting because you can place events into history. 9/11 for example will be forgotten in 50 years (maybe not in the US but elsewhere). I always have to laugh when people say 9/11 changed the history for good. That’s just BS, looking back at the history of the past 500 years 9/11 wouldn’t even make it in the top-1000 of horrible events. The last event that changed the world for good is WWII.

RE: Quitting the Forum?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-09-02 AT 09:33 AM (GMT)]I first wanted to study international relations but then I saw my class: 600 three-huggers. Nah, nothing for me. I want to do something original, there aren’t so many who graduate from modern history. And the nice thing, you can chose your own program, for example lessons like “Europe after WWII”, “history of the US, Israel, EU, Russia” …