Axis of Weasel!

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The war has nothing to do with al-Qaeda or Iraq. Iraq's just a convenient target.

I know that, I'm just checking everyone else does
It's just amusing to hear Blair going on about how Iraq wants to sell its WoMD to bin Laden...bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein for setting up a secular state, he'd rather see Shinra law imposed...
Still, none so blind.

[Traianvs]

Yup clear skies, absolutely correct

Now, now Che, don't be an axis of Weasel.

so chris62 is 13,5 years old?

Clear Skies, I don't know. Perhaps because Iraq is more of a push over, and could be dealt with more easily.You know, knock out the easy ones so we can concentrate on the more tougher ones.

Ugh pekka, who are the "tougher" opponents then? so you're planning on bashing the whole middle east then..?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Now, now Che, don't be an axis of Weasel.

The real Axis of the Weasel is Sicily, Naples, and parts of Greece. Why?

[Japher]

Why Iraq?

They are good stage to show the rest of the world what will come of you if we "feel" that you are harboring or abetting terrorists.

They broke an agreement, and are therefore a good stage to show the rest of the world what will come of you if we "feel" that are about to, or did, brake an agreement.

This one's a guess: Promises to Isreal in an effort to convince them to get rid of their WoMD, since they are the most likely to use them.

Oil. What better country to place the blame and let out some aggresion?

Because Canada would be too easy.

To rid the world of one more ruthless, evil, dictator.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well just in from news: EU is pretty much ripped because of what Germany and France has stated. Some want to go to war (more than just UK), some don't. Now we try to form some kind of way to have one opinion about it, and go with it. That won't happen. And we also would like this to go through the UN, so I think it will be debate with Germany and France, try to bend them and go with the program.

Ok, I just heard this on a news program as well. Strangely enough though I'm unable to find any links on the matter.

Edit: This is the best I can come up with. It is about the Rumsfeld remarks. Does anyone know what the reaction to all this is in the Eastern block?

[Jaakko]

It should also be noted that France and Germany aren't in a very good position to support the US in any case, considering how much the popular opinion is against possible war. Even Blair is risking his future gambling on Iraq.

As for Finland (just to be a counterweight to Pekka ), I strongly believe Finland should stay uninvolved on Iraq. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the US can offer that would make it worth throwing away our neutrality and take on the burdens of going on military adventures.
We should just act, as we have done, in peacekeeping capacity through the UN.
I know this is a bit inflammatory, but the people trying to get us into NATO and/or other military alliances are the same kind of folk who tried to get us positively aligned with the Soviets, instead of the "please don't hurt us" stance we had at the time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
Any particular reason why Iraq, and why not Saudi Arabia, Syria, or any other country with actual links to al-Qaeda rather than the ephemeral ones Iraq is said to have?

Bases would be my guess.

[DanS]

The reason why the French and Germans were so peeved about Rummie's "old Europe" remarks is because they hit close to home and were nefariously witty.

It was fun to watch, especially since the ambush and diplomatic battles won't matter one way or another in the end.

[Pekka]

Originally posted by Jaakko
It should also be noted that France and Germany aren't in a very good position to support the US in any case, considering how much the popular opinion is against possible war. Even Blair is risking his future gambling on Iraq.

As for Finland (just to be a counterweight to Pekka ), I strongly believe Finland should stay uninvolved on Iraq. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that the US can offer that would make it worth throwing away our neutrality and take on the burdens of going on military adventures.
We should just act, as we have done, in peacekeeping capacity through the UN.
I know this is a bit inflammatory, but the people trying to get us into NATO and/or other military alliances are the same kind of folk who tried to get us positively aligned with the Soviets, instead of the "please don't hurt us" stance we had at the time.

In this current situation I agree with you. I'm thinking of situation where we are in military alliance, but before that we shouldn't involve, sure.
It's another discussion if we should form that or not.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Also, if things aren't fair, why would many states, like Portugual and Spain, want to part of such a union?

Fishing quotas, agricultural subsidies, regional development of infrastructure in poor areas.
Spain is traditionally proud of its large fleet of fishing vessels and were given a very good deal in 82, despite that there has been overfishing for a long time now.

I think the EU should be understood as a place where the economies of Europe can compete freely. The commision then lays out rules which ensure a level playing field. Of course the market is never completely fair. But at least there is no wars over it.

Even though there is many differences between the UK and France and Germany on a lot of issues - I don't think there is much disagreement in terms of long run economic planning.

One of the best introductions to the EU is
Ever Closer Union by Desmond Dinan, published by Macmillan Press.

I was surprised by how much power the commission actually has. For instance it has the right to make unwarranted inspections at European companies to see if they follow the rules.

One of the weaknesses of the EU is that there are no common rules in how to deal with the problem of unemployment. Especially because the membercountries are weakened by the Stability Pact wich prevent them from having a budget deficit of over 3% of BNP. Thus growth might be stiffled. On the other hand it prevents inflation to a certain degree which puts a damper on the need to expand too quickly.

Bear in mind that accesion is along and complicated process where over 10.000 pages of rules have to be put into law by each member state.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Trajanus
so chris62 is 13,5 years old?

Didn't read the tread at all, did you?

Moron.

Stay on topic or get out.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DanS
The reason why the French and Germans were so peeved about Rummie's "old Europe" remarks is because they hit close to home and were nefariously witty.

I think your on the mark Dan, but that there is more.
I think they both FEAR that it is true.
Look at how close the two nations are now, and the comments about how TOGETHER they have much influence in the EU.

It was fun to watch, especially since the ambush and diplomatic battles won't matter one way or another in the end.

We all knew the outcome of all of this at start, I believe.
I firmly believe that neither nation ever had any intention of trying to stop Saddam, this thing about "containment" had another name once, "apeasement".

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Japher
Because Canada would be too easy.

Go ahead and try it, it's -30, high winds, white outs,
black ice. 2 minutes outside to Frostbite.

Even the Canadians want to retreat.

Besides the UN veto, who cares what France thinks,
throw them a bone and they'll sing the right tune.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Chris 62
So have I.

What offensive war is being contemplated?

The current situation is a continuation of the Gulf war started by Iraq, 12 years later.

It seems you have lost sigth of that, perhaps you'd like to reconsider your postion in light of that fact?

Chris 62, to be totally fair, even '91 was not about an attack on a NATO member that would trigger that alliance's obligations.

True, the French were part of the '91 coalition. But I do not recall that any of the coalition signed on to a formal agreement that could amount to a treaty.

If the French vote for war at the UN or join us in the battlefield, it will only because they choose to.

I still have hope that the French will be there in the end. They just have this problem of needing to show the world and the French people that they are not American lapdogs.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DanS
The reason why the French and Germans were so peeved about Rummie's "old Europe" remarks is because they hit close to home and were nefariously witty.

Actually it was that phrase that made me think... "wow, this guy (rumsfeld) really doesn't have a clue..."

BTW peeved wasnt the reaction I believe... more like "cool down there big fellow" and mainly a reaction to his characterization of France and Germany as "problem countries"