nice crossposting
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Frogger
Remember that in Germany Schroeder was forced into his position by the upcoming election. Prior to firming up his position as being against war, he would have lost...I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Comment
-
Originally posted by paiktis22
we shot eachother off more likelyI believe Saddam because his position is backed up by logic and reason...David Floyd
i'm an ignorant greek...MarkG
Comment
-
Originally posted by DinoDoc
So, "It's the economy, stupid!" doesn't really apply to German politics?12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio Regum
Comment
-
Originally posted by Azazel
remember what happened to the last thread where you've said this?
why so?
The NPT came about in 1969: I have read various books, including one completely concerned with Israel's nuclear program, that state that the US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.
well, these systems you're talking about harldy can be called international law. "status quo" would be much more appropriate.
It can be called international law: After all, a status quo can only last with the support of agreed rules of conduct. Since the international community is chaotic, "law" within it can not have the strict nature of intrastate laws, until some suprastate entity comes into being.
As I've stated before, my support of this war doesn't come from the fear that Saddam has WMD, but the betterment of the Iraqi people.
I think we're having a sircular argument here....If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
I find it fascinating that the same pundits who tell us Bush's war is not about oil, also tell us that opposition to the war is all about oil. Even more fascinating that they find people who believe them.
"their level of opposition preceded the level of opposition from the european street."
Not for France, Chirac's initial position was ambiguous. In Germany, both major parties reacted to existing voter sentiment - I can't see how they should have manipulated public sentiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SpencerH
Maroule,
So whats your opinion about why the French are so opposed to ousting Hussein?
The French are not opposed to the aims of the admin., but it's method. They don't see an immidiate threat from Iraq, they might not have as much faith as many of you have that the US wil be so adept at putting Humpty Dumpty back together, and they probably fear the consequences of the US screwing up somehow. They want to play for more time, to lay a better foundation of opinion to got to war, and of course, they want assurances that French interests will prosper.
IN short, right now they see Bush's actions as a greater threat than anything Saddam may do, cuase Saddam is in a tight little box in the back of the China Shop, while Bush & Co. is the charging Elephant out to smash that little box at the back: but what happens to all the China in between?If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Hell, it got there, didn't it?
The NPT came about in 1969: I have read various books, including one completely concerned with Israel's nuclear program, that state that the US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.
It can be called international law: After all, a status quo can only last with the support of agreed rules of conduct. Since the international community is chaotic, "law" within it can not have the strict nature of intrastate laws, until some suprastate entity comes into being.
How generous of you, to care so much for so many Arabs. Care to foot the bill?
Comment
-
but what happens to all the China in between?
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
-
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Azazel
I'd rather it wouldn't get there. [/quote}
Fine, on to 499.5!
well, If you want to play by the rules of superpowers, sure.
But those are the only rules in the international community there are. Do you support a supranational world government with the ability to enforce laws on the international scale as the state can on the internal scale?
Why should I? I have a volounteer that will do it for free. The good ol' US of A.
If all goes well, then perhaps things are for the best, if all goes badly, then Bush is gone in 2004 (a huge personal consolation prize). If things get muddled, worst possible outcome: the Chimp in Chief stays four more, and the consequences of whats about to happen get drawn out for decades.
Their embassy gets bombed?
-Arrian
Lets hope the CIA mproved its maps.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by GePap
The US was not very interested in Israel gettin nukes, and by 1969 Israel's nuclear arsenal was minimal at best. At that point Israel could get rid of its nukes, and its not like the Nixon whitehouse at that point would have told Israel not to.
The question today is whether Israel has a sufficiently high degree of confidence in the United States that it could destroy its nuclear weapons. I would say yes if we only elected presidents like Reagan or Bush. But we have in the past elected leaders like Johnson and Carter.
Also, today's Democratic presidential hopefuls seem to be taking turns on waving the white flag of appeasement. If I were an Israeli, I would keep the nukes.Last edited by Ned; January 23, 2003, 16:17.http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Comment
Comment