RE: SCREW NATO — Old Europe responds

So if the US attacks Iraq unilaterally, the European countries (well, only Germany, France and Belgium) should just let Iraq take revenge on Turkey, even though they could have helped? I think that is a disgusting POV. Delivering Patriots is not the same as bombing Baghdad. It seems you skipped over all the other points, by the way. Since when do Belgium, France and Germany decide what the common EU foreign policy should look like? By what right?

Icarus,

Greece is also a net receiver of EU money, the biggest beneficiary after Spain (4.2 Bn Euros in 2000). By your logic, Greece has no right to speak either…

RE: war in Irak and the Franco/German resistance

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 10-02-03 AT 11:39 AM (GMT)]And where’s the picture showing a young PM Chirac and Saddam, with Chirac looking especially happy after selling Iraq a nuclear reactor?

Here’s an interesting read:
[link:http://www.timmerman2000.com/news/insight_iraqwmd.htm|How Saddam Got Weapons of Mass Destruction, Saddam’s European helpers]
[link:http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-2003122152014.htm|France motivated by its own oil argument]

Interesting read, don’t you guys think?

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: SCREW NATO — Old Europe responds

They clearly don`t understand yet what common foreign policy is.

Neither to the Germans, Belgaisn and France, right? After all, who decided it was those countries that from now on would decide what a common foreign European policy is? I know The Netherlands didn’t, and neither did Spain or Italy.

All the gov`ts that support the US now, Aznar, Blair and Berlusconi, will be punished next elections.

I have a feeling more whishful thinking is involved here than any realistic understanding of the situation. The way I see it, it is Schroeder that will not make it till the end of his term, if only for the fact that his coalition is strangling the German economy. Yesterday I heard that prices for diesel and gasoline war higher than in already way too expensive Holland, let alone prices for other forms of energy.

These countries knock on our doors to beg for money, but no political will whatsoever to join a common policy.

There is no common foreign policy now, and again, I don’t see what gives France, Germany and Belgium the right to decide what a common foreign EU policy should look like.

Disappointed in the German and the Dutch gov`t, I hoped they would have backed the Franco-belgian policy. At least someone has the balls to say that NATO is not a warmachine.

I too am disappointed in the Dutch government: they should have signed the letter written by Berlusconi, Aznar et al. That is what will get Saddam on his knees, not these knee-jerk policies. And actually, if anything, America’s sabre-rattling may very well prevent war. After all, it has resulted in a return of UN inspectors, and Iraq yesterday handing over some more documents (I thought some peopple actually believed they already handed over everything?). It was not French, German and Belgian diplomatacy that did the trick, but US show of military might and the will to use it.

I really think the latest move by Belgium, France and Germany (but especially Belgium) was a bad one: in effect, they’re saying scr*w you to an ally: Turkey. After all, all that was asked by Turkey were defensive weapons, not offensive ones. But no, they’d rather have Scuds raining down on Turkey that defending it. Typically Europe: thinking short-term, and threatening stability in the long run. What we will have now is a clear split, but not just so between Europe and the US, but inside Europe, something that is very worrisome. This move could have far more severe consequences than anyone can imagine…

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: C&C Generals

Yeah, I agree. The Russians by the way always had more powerful tanks. I think ‘Tankomania’ definately applies to the Ruskies in C&C.

RE: Iraq : who’s in?

Vortex, you and I both know that sooner or later the US will attack Iraq. The UN is just a way to make all those appeasers just a little bit calmer. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that any new inspection team will encounter just as much trouble as UNSCOM has. SH isn’t looking to give up his WMDs. And I’ll have to see if Iraq will really let the new team in unconditionally.

As for Saddam’s use of WMDs: he has used plenty in the past. On his own people and on its enemies. There is no reason to believe Saddam would hesitate to use them again if he finds the situation suitable. You know, whenever I hear about the world wanting to give SH anotehr chance, I cannot help to think about that song from Southpark the Movie: I Can Change, also sung by Saddam.

I’d say, move in now, because tomorrow may be to late. Just listen to Khidhir Hamza.

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: Iraq : who’s in?

Nice that you bring up the Treatey of Munchen, Geforce, as such a kind of deal with Iraq is exactly what should be prevented. IOW, attack Iraq, today rather than tomorrow.

RE: UN security council

PLAWolf,

As said, I think the primary responsibility of the US governemnt is to look after (the interests of) it’s people. However, such a thing cannot ever be done without looking at other countries and working together with them. That is the reality as it is today. So in that sense, the US will have to live up to certain rules.

As for the UN, the UNSC has 5 permanent members, each with veto-power. Added to this are temporary members. Presidency over the UNSC rotates every 6 months. I don’t see the UN as a democracy though: the UN and it’s members and leaders are not elected by anyone, and a majority of its members are undemocratic, despotic regimes. About the US being the dictatorship of the world, well, suffice to say I disagree with you. But this is not the right thread for such a discussion (which will most likely soon become the usual US-bashing).

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: Rabie, chose history

Well, in any case, Jesus is a martyr. I wonder though if in the times of Jesus movements resembling Shas’s (and others) behaviour existed…