Bush?

Do you like Bush

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 48.2%
  • No

    Votes: 13 23.2%
  • I wish Al Gore were in office

    Votes: 16 28.6%

  • Total voters
    56
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pygmypirahna was. Put your case forward and convince me if you think people like Saddam are interested in negotiating for peace. Because them being interested in peace is the ONLY way that America would be able to negotiate peace.
 
But Bush is not alone with Blair... There's some european countries (like Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria and Poland) and Australia backing him up.
 
Originally posted by Delance
But Bush is not alone with Blair... There's some european countries (like Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria and Poland) and Australia backing him up.

MSNBC has a list in one of their articles that details how each member of the UN Security Council feels about the whole thing. As noted above, Bulgaria and Spain (who are currently on the Security Council) both feel that war should occur with or without UN support.
Germany, currently a member of the Security Council, feels that even if UN support is granted, war should not be declared (whether this means that Germany will automatically veto any war declaration or abstain I don't know).
Syria, another member of the Security Council, claims that sanctions should be dropped. I'm guessing that they're firmly against a war. (incidentally, iirc, the Syrians also replaced the US on the Human Rights Commission, although I could be confusing the Syrians with another equally repressive nation).

There is a rather large argument going on about all of this in Europe right now. Some of those involved are claiming that its high time the EU set aside member disagreements on this issue and other international issues, and voted to produce "official" EU statements that the member nations would then be bound by.

One other thing that I've noted. Looking at the list above, you see two definite groups. The first is English speakers. I would hazard a guess that this is because the nations involved are fairly similar in temperment, and two of them (the US and Great Britain) have a long history of "doing what needs to be done".
The other nations are up and coming powers in Europe. While its true that Spain and Portugal were powerful in the past, that power dwindled (afaik) shortly after the New World was opened, and its only been in the past few decades that the Iberian peninsula has once again started to act instead of be acted upon.
Poland and Bulgaria are both former Soviet client states, and both are largely free of the internal racial strife that is afflicting many of the other former Warsaw Pact nations. They are now able to move into the international arena, and I have a suspicion that their view on Iraq, whatever it may be, is very similar to the view found on the Iberian peninsula.

And something regarding Bush, Poland, and the LA Times that I found amusing a bit back...
Shortly after he was elected President, W. Bush made a tour of Europe. Many of the news stories about this trip focused on the protesters that greeted him at each stop. While I didn't read most of the stories, I did read the one in the LA Times about his trip to Poland. Upon closer examination, I noticed a few interesting things about this story.
1.) There were only a handful (and I mean handful - at most 150, iirc)) of people present protesting Bush's presence.
2.) There was a much larger group of people present rallying in support of him.
3.) The LA Times article spent as much space describing one sign that a protester was carrying as it did talking about the entire group of Bush supporters.
Completely un-related to the Iraq issue, but the mention of Poland reminded me of it.
 
Originally posted by Lynx
Saddam was never and will never be a threat to the USA and Osama and his misguided followers are just some people. Waging war on a country because of some individuals is not terribly effective.

he won't be a threat as long as he has no WMDs. and as for Osama, they might just be some people, but they are some people who are a threat to the US. and Afghanistan sure as hell was effective, and we went to war there because of some individuals

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Okay, seriously, does anyone think either Saddam or bin Laden would be at all interested in peace?

if saddam was interested in peace, he would've complied with the UN resolutions a long time ago, and if Bin Laden was interested peace, he never would've become a terrorist.
 
Originally posted by junior

And something regarding Bush, Poland, and the LA Times that I found amusing a bit back...
Shortly after he was elected President, W. Bush made a tour of Europe. Many of the news stories about this trip focused on the protesters that greeted him at each stop. While I didn't read most of the stories, I did read the one in the LA Times about his trip to Poland. Upon closer examination, I noticed a few interesting things about this story.
1.) There were only a handful (and I mean handful - at most 150, iirc)) of people present protesting Bush's presence.
2.) There was a much larger group of people present rallying in support of him.
3.) The LA Times article spent as much space describing one sign that a protester was carrying as it did talking about the entire group of Bush supporters.
Completely un-related to the Iraq issue, but the mention of Poland reminded me of it.

US is the most liked country in Poland (50%+ of Poles think that , compared to Germany wich took 2nd place with 34% - and they are neighbours!) George W Bush is the most liked foreign politician here and Saddam is the least liked. Those protesters were mainly anarchists and/or antiglobalists - but they are everywhere;) . As to Polish (and also some other post-communist countries) view on Iraq issue - its not a matter of gaining power on international arena - we simply know what totalitarian regime is first hand - and now we think that no other nation deserves to have such a political system. Maybe some of you forget that iraqi people suffer greatly under Hussain`s rule - and number of eventual civilian cassaulties of war would be much less than the number of people killed by his regime if he stays in power.
 
Yeah. The amount of people who turn up at the anti war rallies that are held by extreme left and right wing splinter groups is sometimes embarressing. There's one next Saturday after a long time without one because of the beating their ego took at the last one. You wouldn't happen to have any numbers for Belgium, would you? I'm part Belgium, and I quite like Angel, so I would be interested to know.
 
Like I said in reply to an old post about Kilrathi eating humans, for those who remember it, if Yolanda Jilot wanted to eat me, I wouldn't particularly mind.
 
Originally posted by Aries
he won't be a threat as long as he has no WMDs. and as for Osama, they might just be some people, but they are some people who are a threat to the US. and Afghanistan sure as hell was effective, and we went to war there because of some individuals

Ah, but you see, Saddam DOES have WMDs. He's even used them on his own people, after all. He doesn't appear to have nuclear weapons yet, but he does have chemical and biological agents, and those are considered WMDs.
A few hours ago, I also read the text to Powell's address to the UN, and I'd say it looks very much to me as if Hussein is still in possession of all of his chemical and biological weapons, and is working both to expand his supplies as well as create more effective methods of delivery.
 
Originally posted by junior

A few hours ago, I also read the text to Powell's address to the UN, and I'd say it looks very much to me as if Hussein is still in possession of all of his chemical and biological weapons, and is working both to expand his supplies as well as create more effective methods of delivery.

I'd say leave more time for the UN investigators to do their job. "Powell said so" is no real clue.
 
Originally posted by Lynx
I'd say leave more time for the UN investigators to do their job. "Powell said so" is no real clue.

Have you read the text? Its pretty compelling in a few key points.

1.) The Iraqis are going to an awful lot of trouble to hide a lot of stuff from the inspectors.
2.) The Iraqi regime is intimidating its scientists from freely speaking with the inspectors.
3.) The US has definite proof of some items that Iraq is not supposed to have (one example is a test of a UAV that managed to fly for 500 miles in a circular pattern before it finally came down - such items are prohibited by the cease fire agreement).
4.) The US also has proof of the existence of items whose purpose can only be explained as part of weaponry that Iraq is not supposed to have, and has not declared.

And what was the conclusion of the initial Blix report?
The report concluded that Iraq was not cooperating with the inspectors.
And this isn't jump to attention every time the inspectors walk by cooperation. This is "How come there's no documentation regarding the huge Anthrax supplies you had before the war?" lack of cooperation.

I would be very happy if Iraq complied fully with the UN Commission. But it hasn't happened to date, and I strongly doubt it ever will happen.
And when you've laid the groundwork well in advance, its not too hard to stay one step ahead of a small group of inspectors, particularly in a society as regulated as Hussein's Iraq.
 
Yeah, but the amount of clues is still quite thin, it not even enough to start thinking of a war.
And the "The USA has definite proof for WMD's" sayer gets old too. Why don't they show them. It sure would help to persuade countries like Germany or France and people like me. It would help more than to piss of the countrys that doesn't want war (Rumsfeld:rolleyes: )
 
Originally posted by junior
Ah, but you see, Saddam DOES have WMDs. He's even used them on his own people, after all. He doesn't appear to have nuclear weapons yet, but he does have chemical and biological agents, and those are considered WMDs.


i know he has WMDs. what happened was that someone said saddam isn't a threat, and i said he won't be a threat if he doesn't have WMDs. since we already know he has them, he therefore constitutes a threat


Originally posted by Lynx
Yeah, but the amount of clues is still quite thin, it not even enough to start thinking of a war.
And the "The USA has definite proof for WMD's" sayer gets old too. Why don't they show them. It sure would help to persuade countries like Germany or France and people like me. It would help more than to piss of the countrys that doesn't want war

Really. so how much proof do you want, an Iraqi chemical weapons strike on our people in Saudi and Kuwait? they've already proved that Iraq has violated UN resolutions that promise military force if broken. that right there is reason enough to go to war. and just cause France and Germany are gutless and arn't willing to do what has to be done isn't reason enough not to go to war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top