Europe eight back Bush on Iraq - Page 2

DinoDoc · January 30, 2003, 11:48

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
they are out of europe anyway

That's a debate for another thread.

LaRusso · January 30, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

That's a debate for another thread.

not on a greek site

SlowwHand · January 30, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid

EU countries that did not sign this:

*Sweden
*Finland
*Ireland
*Germany
*France
*Netherlands
*Belgium
*Luxemburg
*Austria
*Greece

Other European countries that did not sign:

*Iceland
*Norway
*Russia
*Estonia
*Latvia
*Lithuania
*Slovakia
*Slovenia
*Switzerland
*Liechtenstein
*Romania
*Bulgaria
*Belarus
*Ukraine
*FYROM
*Bosnia
*Croatia
*Yugoslavia
*Albania
*Turkey
*Any other I forgot

Yes, Germany and France are quite alone not to sign the statement

Oh, man! What are we to do without the backing and support of countries such as Luxemberg, Switzerland, or Iceland?

Pack it up and let's go home. No chance of success now.

Inverse Icarus · January 30, 2003, 11:53

i find it ironic that it's france saying that most of europe is us-dependent.

LaRusso · January 30, 2003, 11:53

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand

Oh, man! What are we to do without the backing and support of countries such as Luxemberg, Switzerland, or Iceland?

Pack it up and let's go home. No chance of success now.

swiss could kick danish ass any time

Pekka · January 30, 2003, 11:57

THese other countries are NOT backing up Germany and France either.

Inverse Icarus · January 30, 2003, 11:58

we'll have to add france and germany to the axis of evil, after north korea and cuba and what have you.

Combat Ingrid · January 30, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh, man! What are we to do without the backing and support of countries such as Luxemberg, Switzerland, or Iceland?

Pack it up and let's go home. No chance of success now.

Do not underestimate the power of Iceland

Just wanted to show that there are actually some countries left in Europe besides those supporting US

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid

EU countries that did not sign this:

*Sweden
*Finland
*Ireland
*Germany
*France
*Netherlands
*Belgium
*Luxemburg
*Austria
*Greece

Other European countries that did not sign:

*Iceland
*Norway
*Russia
*Estonia
*Latvia
*Lithuania
*Slovakia
*Slovenia
*Switzerland
*Liechtenstein
*Romania
*Bulgaria
*Belarus
*Ukraine
*FYROM
*Bosnia
*Croatia
*Yugoslavia
*Albania
*Turkey
*Any other I forgot

Yes, Germany and France are quite alone not to sign the statement

The only coutnry that was asked to sign and refused was the Netherlands - their PM has said he didnt sign because he wants to keep working towards a common European position.

Most of the coutnries you list are not Nato members.

Albania has made a seperate statement of support for the US posiition.

Current European opponents to imminent action in NATO are France, Germany, Belgium, Lux, Sweden, Finland, Greece. Havent heard Norway or Iceland positions either way.

Dauphin · January 30, 2003, 12:01

That article and the gaining of signees is an ingenious spin operation performed by Alastair Campbell.

Pekka · January 30, 2003, 12:01

THat's great. Another reason to leave this dark and cold hell.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

They're all basketcases on the US payroll, except Blair
who wants to preserve the UK-USA "special relationship".

The knives are already out - one German pol called it the "march of the vassals" or something to that effect.

Of course the German CSU said this showed how isolated Germany has become. OTOH the Danish left has criticized Rasmussen for breaking European unity.

Face it folks this came now because the French and Germans were so obnoxiopus last week, they've angered lots of folks besides the US.

SlowwHand · January 30, 2003, 12:04

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

swiss could kick danish ass any time

Well, sure. They have those army knives.

GePap · January 30, 2003, 12:05

to most of this thread...

All European nations have independent foreign policies as of today. Italy, Spain, and Denmark are ruled by conservative governments, all of them more inclined towards the Bush world view. The Eastern Europeans want to use the US to balance against the weight of their bigger neighbors, and many of them also back a more conservative view of the ME. Blair in Britian seems to see this, much as Bush, as some crusade of Good vs. Evil.

Public opinion in all the Western European states, specially Italy and Spain, are decidedly agaisnt the war. If Elections were coming up in Spain and Italy, they would certainly not be part of this coolition.

So no, the support of these 8 states do not equal a validation of the Bush view, only that there are reasons for these 8 to go along, just as there are reasons for the other 10 EU states not to have signed up so quickly.

Combat Ingrid · January 30, 2003, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The only coutnry that was asked to sign and refused was the Netherlands - their PM has said he didnt sign because he wants to keep working towards a common European position.

Most of the coutnries you list are not Nato members.

Albania has made a seperate statement of support for the US posiition.

Current European opponents to imminent action in NATO are France, Germany, Belgium, Lux, Sweden, Finland, Greece. Havent heard Norway or Iceland positions either way.

What you say is probably true, except that Sweden (and Finland?) is not a member of NATO

Just to repeat my point: sure, most European countries want to get rid of Saddam, but many of us are not eager for more wars if it can be avoided. So far it seems like the main reason war can't be avoided is because Bush says so

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 12:08

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

not on a greek site

You mean an FOPGian site????

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid

What you say is probably true, except that Sweden (and Finland?) is not a member of NATO

Just to repeat my point: sure, most European countries want to get rid of Saddam, but many of us are not eager for more wars if it can be avoided. So far it seems like the main reason war can't be avoided is because Bush says so

My bad - they joined EU not Nato - the rapid changes in membership in both orgs have me a tad confused.

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 13:03

So do any of you think the disagreement over how to handle Iraq will lead to a more perminent distancing amoungst the members of the Atlantic Alliance?

GePap · January 30, 2003, 13:11

Over time, distancing is bound to happen anyway: the Atlantic allience has served its purpose. Without a huge threat that all allies think is real, such alliences eventually break down, an No, the buggeyman of "terrorism" isn't a concrete anought threat for this type of allience. Now, how fast this allience breaks down and whether it is a mutual divorce or somehting ugly depends on the policies post Iraq. The Iraq war will be over by the middle of this year: how the aftermath is handled probably is a bigger test. If France and Germany refuse to help in the aftermath, then you could say the allience is breaking down fast (in a few years). If the US refuses equal access to French and german interests in Iraq after the war, you could say the same. If neither of these things happen, the allience will survive this spat.

Tripledoc · January 30, 2003, 13:31

I would like to apologise to other apolytoners for the quisling attitude of the Danish government. I am truly sorry.

The reason for the toady Danish attitude is because the United states have military bases on our two remaining colonies in the North Atlantic, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, also the de facto ruler of Denmark, the Maersk oil cartel which owns the largest bank and the largest foodchain in the country is loyal to Amerivan interests only. And the owner of that company is married to an American by the way.

We dare not protest because the police have the habit of firing live ammunition into crowds. "Shoot at their legs!" as one policeman was reported as saying - when accepted doctrine is that the police should fire above peoples heads.

BeBro · January 30, 2003, 13:36

"quisling attitude" - strange expression in that context.

And we have US bases in Germany too....

LaRusso · January 30, 2003, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
I would like to apologise to other apolytoners for the quisling attitude of the Danish government. I am truly sorry.

The reason for the toady Danish attitude is because the United states have military bases on our two remaining colonies in the North Atlantic, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, also the de facto ruler of Denmark, the Maersk oil cartel which owns the largest bank and the largest foodchain in the country is loyal to Amerivan interests only. And the owner of that company is married to an American by the way.

We dare not protest because the police have the habit of firing live ammunition into crowds. "Shoot at their legs!" as one policeman was reported as saying - when accepted doctrine is that the police should fire above peoples heads.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 14:12

NATO only

"vassals"
UK. Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Czecho, Poland, Hungary

"weasels"
France, Germany, Belgium, Lux, Greece(?)

Special Case
Turkey

Uncommitted
Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada.

Left anybody out???

Beyond NATO
"Vassals "
Australia, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan (but keep it quiet!), Albania, Bulgaria

"Weasels"
Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Russia (for now), , China, Saudi Arabia (but keep it quiet!!) , Egypt

Ozz · January 30, 2003, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Oh, man! What are we to do without the backing and support of countries such as Luxemberg, Switzerland, or Iceland?

Pack it up and let's go home. No chance of success now.

More to the point , Why can't you get the backing of
Luxemberg, Switzerland, or Iceland? Seems to me it
would be the easy road for them to sign up and go with the flow.

BTW, I'm for invading Iraq only because it should have been done 10 years ago. The coalition's major miltary victory was trashed by an even greater political defeat.

The WMD argument doesn't convince me, the with us or against arguement just pisses me off, after all we have
done for the US

I do think it is for the oil.

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 14:58

It is so typical to see the French & German politicians dismissing anyone who disagrees with there views as being "vassals" of the U.S. or of being incapable of independent thought.

I contend it is the Franco-German axis which is incapable of independent thought. All to often their policy meetings go something like this:

Quote:

Chirac: So do we have a policy on (insert what ever issue you please)?

Gerhard: Well I went out drinking last night so I haven't really thought about it.

Chirac: Has anyone come up with any policy reguarding this issue?

Minister: Well sirs the Americans have come up with a position and after reading it I would have to say I agr...

Chirac & Gerhard together: Alright just go ahead and do the oppisite of what ever the Americans are.

Chirac: I know that will play well in Paris.

Gerhard: And I can use nationalism to help me squeek by in the next election.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz

More to the point , Why can't you get the backing of
Luxemberg, Switzerland, or Iceland? Seems to me it
would be the easy road for them to sign up and go with the flow.

BTW, I'm for invading Iraq only because it should have been done 10 years ago. The coalition's major miltary victory was trashed by an even greater political defeat.

The WMD argument doesn't convince me, the with us or against arguement just pisses me off, after all we have
done for the US

I do think it is for the oil.

Somehow i can understand Lux's reluctance to defy Belgium, France and Germany.
And doesnt Switz always try to stay neutral in things like this???
Iceland - dunno, - anyone have any info on iceland politics and the current situation?????

I note with satisfaction that the the oovt of PM Chretien now says they might join us even without a second UNSC resolution, and that saddam has two weeks to comply. That seems a lot closer to the Blair position than to the Chirac position.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 15:38

OK of the 4 "uncommitteds" in Nato, Canada is leaning towards us, and so is the Netherlands. Norway is currently debating the matter, and i havent heard anything about Iceland.

Oerdin · January 30, 2003, 15:44

Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, & Switzerland all have long standing neutrality policies so of course they aren't taking part. Iceland has no armed forces to speak and neither does Lux so they hardly matter to a miltary force. The CIS has been showing more and more signs of bowing to the inevitable and has been making semi-supportive statements.

So that just leaves France, Germany, Belgium, and Greece in the solidly no camp. With Norway, Holland, and Canada still undecided. I'd say things are shaping up nicely for Bush.

Tripledoc · January 30, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Iceland - dunno, - anyone have any info on iceland politics and the current situation?????

Iceland is basicly an American colony. The US airbase in Keflavik adds a quater to the Icelandic GDP.

The lifestyle of the Icelandic is very similar to that in the US everyone drives SUVs and hold two jobs.

lord of the mark · January 30, 2003, 15:52

i drive a compact and hold one job - guess im really a european, huh?