What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx

If it comes to war (and it's certainly looking like it will), I support that effort. Whatever it takes.

As will I! But only as a last resort, and only with the backing of the UN. As I said before, if the US decides to go in alone, it will be engaging in nothing more than vigilante justice.

"Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Willem


As will I! But only as a last resort, and only with the backing of the UN. As I said before, if the US decides to go in alone, it will be engaging in nothing more than vigilante justice.

"Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

i am confident that the US will have much stronger backing after tomorrow. Not certain, but its a good bet. i agrre that the US should avoid unilateral action

[Velociryx]

I have never once advocated unilateral action.

This is, and has been from day one, a UN action.

The US, as a member of that organization, and as its founder, has the responsibility to lead by example.

It also has the responsibility of shouldering the greater portion of carrying out those responsibilities.

IF we do not act, in light of this latest defiance, then the UN will have proved itself to be nothing more than a glorified circle jerk, whose "resolutions" aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

I for one, do not wish to see that happen.

Saddam is all out of chances. Time to pay the piper.

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Sorry if that has already been adressed. I'll soon go to bed, so I stopped reading the thread at page 6.

Vel.
I know you are an intelligent person. I only want to react on your permanent attacks on the alledged "appeasement" politics of Europe.

We in Europe know better than anyone what appeasement politics led to. Our very ground was destroyed by the following all-out war. Our people, military and civilians alike were slaughtered by the same war. Our mindset and all of our recent history is rooted in this war, which we know could have been far less terrible if France and Britain took action before it was too late.

My question is simply :
Do you think it is appropriate to say : "Look at history book people ! Don't you remember how dramatic appeasement was ?"
Do you really think it is that simple ?
Do you really think our diplomats have no clue on what appeasement has brought ?

As I think you're intelligent, I guess you'll think before answering this. I'm eager to read your reflected answers.

(btw, I'm strongly convinced France and Germany do not take an appeasement approach, simply because they don't consider Iraq as a threat to appease ; the whole "Iraq is a threat to all of us " rethoric is completely alien to me in the European media)

[Velociryx]

Hiya Spiff!

Yep....you're absolutely right. If anybody oughta know the dangers of appeasement, it oughta be the folks in Europe. Dreadful, nasty business to be in, and a horrid position, politically, because it robs you of all power to do anything but *further* appeasement.

I was heartened by the support we got from Europe in this matter. Coulda been better, true....also coulda been a lot worse (and part of the reason it wasn't better than it was, I am utterly convinced, is the buffoon we have in the White House currently....I don't blame people for being a bit gunshy, given our leadership!)

Nonetheless, Germany and France seem to have appointed themselves vocal mouthpieces of the EU, and as I recall, France was one of the few countries on the planet who chose to ignore the call for Economic Sanctions against Iraq, preferring instead to deal with them, even as the situation began polarizing after 9/11.

Now, to my "cowboy" mentality, this strikes me as typically French, but it also says something else, because it's not "just" France anymore. France and Germany have been strutting around as the dynamic duo of the EU. So when France does something, it reflects upon the whole of the EU (much like if California passes some stupid law, it reflects on the whole of the USA....not that that ever happens, of course ).

Choosing to deal with Iraq in a rapidly polarizing situation is a form of appeasement. Iraq says "the mean ol' americans won't give me what I want....I'm a nice guy....really I am."

and France replies "ohhh...we know....here....we'll give you what you need...just go play nice." :: pats him on the head and sends him off::

The problem with that is that it totally undermines the purpose of the sanctions, and dramatically limits their effectiveness.

You give the bad guys what they want, they'll come back for more.

Not once in a while, but every *single* time.

Only if we present a unified front and agree NOT to cave into their demands is it workable.

France didn't do that.

-=Vel=-

[Kontiki]

Please, please stop equating anything in terms of Iraq with pre-WWII Germany. If and when Iraq becomes an industrial and miltary power capable of defeating any other existing state on its own, starts openly looking for more "living space" and views pretty much the rest of the world as a contemptual inferior race, then you can equate the two all you like. Until then, not attacking Iraq is nothing like pre-WWII appeasement.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Willem


I repeat:

Funny how when the discussion turns to the ramifications of an US invasion, that all the American posters remain silent.

Are you prepared to accept the possibility of having to send US troops to prop up the Pakistani government if the fundamentalist there revolt? Are you prepared to wage war against them if they win and get their hands on nuclear weapons that are ready to fly? Are you prepared to accept a global economic upheaval if Muslims all over the Middle East riot in the streets and disrupt the oil trade? Are you prepared to send in troops to bolster regimes like Saudi Arabi in order to ensure that the supplies aren't disrupted? Are you prepared for the inevitable demands for a Kurdish homeland that will arise after Saddam is gone? Are you prepared to send in troops to Turkey when the Kurdish population ther join thier Iraqi counterparts? Have you even considered these possibilities? Wouldn't it be much more prudent to accept these possibilities only as a last resort?

Obviously, Willem, you believe this litany of adverse consequences will follow the use of force. But, if you think for a moment, the consequence are far more likely if the UN and the US backs off now and shows that they and it truely are paper tigers.

The moderates in world of Islam will be reinforced by a strong US stand. They will be undermined by a weak response.

There will be no Kurd problem. They are allies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Willem


As will I! But only as a last resort, and only with the backing of the UN. As I said before, if the US decides to go in alone, it will be engaging in nothing more than vigilante justice.

"Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

Willem, this is bull. While it is too soon to tell, it looks like the only reason the UN may not vote for war is France. So while the majority of the SC and the majority of the permanent members may want to do what is right, they may be prevented from doing so by an obstructionist permanent member.

It wasn't that long ago that Russia indicated it would veto any action against Yugoslavia over Kosovo. The US and Nato acted anyway - an action you probaly condemn even 'til this moment because it is vigilante justice as you define it.

So let me here it, Willem. Nato and the US are unilateralist viligante running dogs for its war against Yuogoslavia.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kramerman
i agrre that the US should avoid unilateral action

And so does 52% of the American public, last poll I read! So why is that such a difficult concept to grasp for some people?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I have never once advocated unilateral action.

Good, that's all I'm asking. Why is it though that I have to constantly defend that position?

PS Whether the flag waving patriots like it or not, Blix is the man of the hour. It's going to be his judgement that determines whether there's war or not.

I don't envy him one bit!

[Ned]

dp

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Only if we present a unified front and agree NOT to cave into their demands is it workable.

But that's exactly the problem, it's not a unified front, it's Bush trying to ram war down our throats, whether we like it or not.

Does the phrase "You're either for us or against us" ring a bell?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Willem


But that's exactly the problem, it's not a unified front, it's Bush trying to ram war down our throats, whether we like it or not.

Does the phrase "You're either for us or against us" ring a bell?

This quote is often misused, in my opinion. I remember Bush saying this about terrorism, and that is all. He never said this about anything else. I am one to hate absolutism, but in the context of terrorism, i make an exception. Bush was trying to get the message of Zero-tolerance, for now on, i think.

And i dont think Bush is trying to ram war down our throats, or up our ass, or through any other orafice. He is merely pursuing what he believes is in America's best interest, as is his job, and in the end, the system will reign. If hes wrong (unlikely, from what i know), there will be no war... if he is right... then yes, the war is on.

Kman

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ned
Obviously, Willem, you believe this litany of adverse consequences will follow the use of force. But, if you think for a moment, the consequence are far more likely if the UN and the US backs off now and shows that they and it truely are paper tigers.

Have you once heard me suggest that that the UN and the US back off? Hell, I was disappointed that Stormin' Norman didn't march right into Baghdad when he had the chance. I thought it was a big mistake; I guess I was right.

All I'm saying is that in this point in history, the US has no business going into Iraq on their own. As someone so eloquently phrased it, doing so will be like sticking your tool in a hornet's nest! Let's not do anything the world might regret later!

There will be no Kurd problem. They are allies.

Then you are very naive! The Kurds have been trying to have their own homeland since the British partitioned the Middle East after WWII. Removing Saddam will give them the encouragement they need to do so. And do you think they've forgotten how the US betrayed them about 10 years ago?

[molly bloom]

If Europeans are 'eurotwits' does that make Americans
(not North Americans, because evidence of sanity persists in Canada) U.S.A. SSHOLES?