Old Europe left out in the cold?

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Ned
paiktis, saying that 80% of the EU are against the war is like saying that 80% of the EU is in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Why do 80% of the EU favor keeping Saddam Hussein in power?

since when does reluctance for solving problems by war amount to a support of oppressive regimes. would you support a war against zimbabwe? iran? n. korea? china? does your reluctance to attack them mean that you are supporting their rulers?

duh

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Winston
Slovakia and Latvia are now backing the declaration by the European Eight.

well, brace for one more submarine (latvian) and a crack of slovakian special forces

[Ned]

Originally posted by LaRusso


since when does reluctance for solving problems by war amount to a support of oppressive regimes. would you support a war against zimbabwe? iran? n. korea? china? does your reluctance to attack them mean that you are supporting their rulers?

duh

This is a very qood question.

First, does the free world owe a duty to oppressed peoples to liberate them?

In the abstract, the answer should be yes. However, we then get into definitions of "oppression." China, in some views, oppresses its people because it denies them political and economic freedom. But they seem to be prospering because they have been given economic freedom.

But then we have Saddam and Kim Jong Il. These clearly are regimes that have to go.

But there are middle-ground regimes that are bad, but not extremely bad. I think of Castro and Saudi Arabia.

So the devil is in the details, better, in the degree of oppression. At some point, for example, when the dictatorship begins to kill thousands, I would say, it is time for a regime change.

I note that Europe supported a regime change in Yugoslavia. They are being inconsistent in not supporting one in Iraq.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Ned


This is a very qood question.

First, does the free world owe a duty to oppressed peoples to liberate them?

In the abstract, the answer should be yes. However, we then get into definitions of "oppression." China, in some views, oppresses its people because it denies them political and economic freedom. But they seem to be prospering because they have been given economic freedom.

But then we have Saddam and Kim Jong Il. These clearly are regimes that have to go.

well that means that a regime has to be 'free' or economically prosperous to avoid the ax

I note that Europe supported a regime change in Yugoslavia.

Milosevic won several elections because of international meddling in internal affairs of Yugoslavia. He finally lost because his regime was corrupt and not because anyone liked US or EU too much.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Thanks for ruining my thread, Paiktis...

Think positive : this thread has now many more posts than the other one

[Ned]

Originally posted by LaRusso


well that means that a regime has to be 'free' or economically prosperous to avoid the ax




Milosevic won several elections because of international meddling in internal affairs of Yugoslavia. He finally lost because his regime was corrupt and not because anyone liked US or EU too much.

I think people will put up with lack of freedom if they have enough bread.

What did Commodus say, "Bread and circuses?"

[Drake Tungsten]

Think positive : this thread has now many more posts than the other one

Very true...

Although I don't like having to depend on a Greek troll to achieve victory.